It's Clinton's fault. Not Bush's

[Wild Cobra]

New Study Finds CRA 'Clearly' Did Lead To Risky Lending (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/122012-637924-faults-community-reinvestment-act-cra-mortgage-defaults.htm?p=full)

http://www.investors.com/image/A1BigCRA_121221.png.cms

[boutons_deux]

no link? let me guess?

AEI? Heritage? Cato? US C of C? Business Roundtable? American Mortgage Bankers Association?

revisionist lies from the corrupt, criminal, fraudulent, thieving financial sector and its shills like Yoni, WC, etc.

[Winehole23]

obviously, countercyclical Fed policy, lax bank oversight and a sustained political push behind the "ownership society" couldn't have had anything to with the disclosed trend.

the stronger gambit is to pin it all on Clinton owing to the Commodities Modernization Act, but animosity toward undeserving minorities and the greedy poor isn't so easily folded into that.

[boutons_deux]

The govt simply can't force lenders, esp non-regulated, private lenders (a HUGE sector of the mortgage-flipping, fee-pocketing bubble), to do ANYTHING (like really participate helping borrowers in the lenders' bubble aftermath), esp to sell mortgages they don't want to sell.

Greenspan/Fed could have deflated/prevented the bubble early by raising interest rates, but Greenspan is famous for his incompetence in the housing bubble, allowing banks a huge spread.

Racist WC blaming the housing bubble on poor, black/brown victims of the financial sector criminals.

[ChumpDumper]

lol ACORN

[Wild Cobra]

no link? let me guess?

AEI? Heritage? Cato? US C of C? Business Roundtable? American Mortgage Bankers Association?

revisionist lies from the corrupt, criminal, fraudulent, thieving financial sector and its shills like Yoni, WC, etc.

The first line is the link Shazbot.

[boutons_deux]

no link? let me guess?

AEI? Heritage? Cato? US C of C? Business Roundtable? American Mortgage Bankers Association?

revisionist lies from the corrupt, criminal, fraudulent, thieving financial sector and its shills like Yoni, WC, etc.

VRWC/1%/bankers/brokers Investors.com? :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Yeah...its a shame its not moonbat.org.

[ChumpDumper]

Citing Sperry is getting close tbh.

[LnGrrrR]

So I guess we're ignoring the fact that the line shot up from 2 trillion around 2001/2 to 6 trillion in 2008?

[boutons_deux]

Yeah...its a shame its not moonbat.org.

TB :lol with another eloquent, devastating, forum-dominating retort.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

TB :lol with another eloquent, devastating, forum-dominating retort.

I think a question you need to ask yourself here is whether anyone here finds your sources valid. Everyone knows that WC is a biased moron that will twist whatever appearance to fit his political ideals. Your need to come in here an point it out is ironic as you do the same thing: post obnoxiously biased material.

You both seem more interested in proselytizing over having an intelligent exchange. Neither seem to give a shit about the predisposition of your audience. It reminds me of Pentecostals trying to 'save' people.

[ElNono]

I think a question you need to ask yourself here is whether anyone here finds your sources valid. Everyone knows that WC is a biased moron that will twist whatever appearance to fit his political ideals. Your need to come in here an point it out is ironic as you do the same thing: post obnoxiously biased material.

You both seem more interested in proselytizing over having an intelligent exchange. Neither seem to give a shit about the predisposition of your audience. It reminds me of Pentecostals trying to 'save' people.

LOL

LOL

Fuzzytroll... what's your intent?

LOL


/WC

[TeyshaBlue]

Ive been bottling Vitamin I and selling it on the black surgeon market. I make a killing everytime Capt. RSS posts a link.:lol

[Latarian Milton]

every president since reagan ought to take responsibility for the current hardship us has been struggling with imo. shit has been going the wrong way for 20 years at least. the presence of soviet union gave us the incentive to compete against corruption and poor efficiency, but such incentive was gone as the soviet union collapsed.

obama is gonna make it look like it was all the fault of his predecessor n he's such a pro playing with the blame card. bush ain't a good president and i ain't a fan of him but he's not that bad as the obamanians wanna make you think tbh

[boutons_deux]

Taibbi the Destroyer of Financial Assholes and Scumbags, strikes again


Glenn Hubbard, Leading Academic and Mitt Romney Advisor, Took $1200 an Hour to Be Countrywide's Expert Witness

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/glenn-hubbard-leading-academic-and-mitt-romney-advisor-took-1200-an-hour-to-be-countrywides-expert-witness-20121220#ixzz2G1DZ2snq

CRA? Really? CRA? :lol

[Nbadan]

Banks that didn't meet Clinton's tough new numerical lending targets were denied merger plans, among other penalties. CRA shakedown groups like Acorn held hostage the merger plans of banks like Citibank and Washington Mutual until they pledged more loans to credit-poor minorities (see chart).

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/122012-637924-faults-community-reinvestment-act-cra-mortgage-defaults.htm#ixzz2G2eQ9GCh

Boo hoo...so banks couldn't merge unless they made more risky loans...cry me a river......but it was Clinton's fault...idiots...

[Wild Cobra]

So I guess we're ignoring the fact that the line shot up from 2 trillion around 2001/2 to 6 trillion in 2008?
Look deeper.

The rule change for 1997 had a $0.8T increase for that one year. The economy was booming just before Y2K. After the Tech bubble burst, that rate of increase after 2000 was $0.6T/year.

So...

I don't see your point!!!

[Jacob1983]

ACORN is so 2008.

[Winehole23]

there is no ACORN, anymore . . .

[LnGrrrR]

Look deeper.

The rule change for 1997 had a $0.8T increase for that one year. The economy was booming just before Y2K. After the Tech bubble burst, that rate of increase after 2000 was $0.6T/year.

So...

I don't see your point!!!

Mainly that if Republicans didn't agree with the program, they could have introduced, and likely passed, legislature to discontinue it. Also, if Clinton didn't know the tech bubble was going to burst, it's also likely that the program would have increased marginally instead of exploding upwards.

[Agloco]

Ive been bottling Vitamin I and selling it on the black surgeon market. I make a killing everytime Capt. RSS posts a link.:lol

:lol

[Agloco]

Oh and it's highly unlikely that Clinton or Bushs names appear as the leinholder on any housing contracts.

[Wild Cobra]

Mainly that if Republicans didn't agree with the program, they could have introduced, and likely passed, legislature to discontinue it. Also, if Clinton didn't know the tech bubble was going to burst, it's also likely that the program would have increased marginally instead of exploding upwards.
Have you seen a bubble yet that didn't burst?

[LnGrrrR]

Have you seen a bubble yet that didn't burst?

Yes, but predicting when the bubble WILL burst is slightly tougher. Also, if Bush and co knew when it was going to burst, you'd think they could have warned about this sort of legislation and killed it. *shrug*

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, but predicting when the bubble WILL burst is slightly tougher. Also, if Bush and co knew when it was going to burst, you'd think they could have warned about this sort of legislation and killed it. *shrug*
I'm talking about the tech bubble. It burst before bush took office. The housing bubble was unpredictable, but Y2K was a major driver of the tech bubble.

[boutons_deux]

"housing bubble was unpredictable"

no, it wasn't. The Fed refused to see it and the Fed "owns" the economics profession.

Several people saw the housing bubble expand, and predicted when it popped, the results would be disastrous.

[Wild Cobra]

Unpredictable as for when it would burst. Not unpredictable that it would burst.

[boutons_deux]

Nearly the entire economics profession, from the Fed/Treasury on down, even admitted a housing/credit bubble existed.

[Wild Cobra]

Nearly the entire economics profession, from the Fed/Treasury on down, even admitted a housing/credit bubble existed.
They were called on it. It was those like Barney frank who denied there was a problem.

[boutons_deux]

"They were called on it"

by whom?

[Wild Cobra]

"They were called on it"

by whom?


I'm not going to look up 9 year old history to show you wrong. Everyone knows you as a clown anyway.

[Winehole23]

so, you were talking out of your ass?

you had no idea whom you meant when you said "they were called on it?"

you have to look it up? :lol

[Wild Cobra]

so, you were talking out of your ass?

you had no idea whom you meant when you said "they were called on it?"

you have to look it up? :lol
I remember seeing video, and even here people have posted it. Republicans saying that there would be a housing financial with current law for 2003, and Barney Frank and others disputing it.

Has everyone forgotten?

[boutons_deux]

I'm not going to look up 9 year old history to show you wrong. Everyone knows you as a clown anyway.

who called out the economist/Fed/Treasury as missing the housing/credit bubble when house prices were skyrocketing way above the long-term price trend?

[Wild Cobra]

You guys are total idiots. Make me waste my time, finding something you should already know.

LPSDnGMzIdo

[boutons_deux]

You guys are total idiots. Make me waste my time, finding something you should already know.

LPSDnGMzIdo

Barney Frank caused the housing bubble, right. He originated how many toxic mortgages to undocumented, unqualified borrowers? You right wingers keep LYING that the govt caused the housing bubble to protect the financial sector that REALLY caused the housing bubble and got away with defrauding millions with MERS and other fraudulent practices, and still do.

[Wild Cobra]

Barney Frank caused the housing bubble, right. He originated how many toxic mortgages to undocumented, unqualified borrowers? You right wingers keep LYING that the govt caused the housing bubble to protect the financial sector that REALLY caused the housing bubble and got away with defrauding millions with MERS and other fraudulent practices, and still do.
That's not what I said now, is it ShazBot? He and other demonrats kept meaningful reform from occurring. They are squarely to blame.

[LnGrrrR]

Fair enough WC. But then I'd say that the fault wasn't Clintons, but Democrats in Congress.

[boutons_deux]

Spitzer and 18 other state AGs went to the Feds during the bubble to get predatory lending stopped. dubya shut them down.

(Then dubya had the FBI take down Sheriff-of-Wall-St Spitzer for kicking Greenberg out of AIG)

[Wild Cobra]

Fair enough WC. But then I'd say that the fault wasn't Clintons, but Democrats in Congress.
But, you'll blame Bush instead of congress when it suits you, right...

Why didn't Clinton do something about it?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's not what I said now, is it ShazBot? He and other demonrats kept meaningful reform from occurring. They are squarely to blame.

Not to get in the way of your typical GOP masturbation but Phil Gramm and Bill Clinton tagteamed to change the law. The Financial Services Modernization Act was from a GOP congress and signed with vigor by Clinton. The whole bullshit during that time period was the 'spirit of bipartisanship' and we end up with deregulated banks defaulting.

[LnGrrrR]

But, you'll blame Bush instead of congress when it suits you, right...

Why didn't Clinton do something about it?

Well, you blamed Clinton. I just pointed out it really escalated under Bush's tenure. Also, Clinton likely didn't do anything because it didn't escalate greatly while he was President. Also, it would have been up to Congress to change it in the first place.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, you blamed Clinton. I just pointed out it really escalated under Bush's tenure. Also, Clinton likely didn't do anything because it didn't escalate greatly while he was President. Also, it would have been up to Congress to change it in the first place.
Clinton signed it into law. Bush tried to have congress fix it. The presidency is not a dictatorship. The republicans said it would be trouble, the demonrats scoffed, and look at who was right...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WTF are you talking about?

What was the significant political event in 1994? Oh that's right, the GOP took control of the house for the first time in 40 years. It's only known as the Republican Revolution.

And boys and girls, what branch of government controls the treasury and housing departments? Oh that right the POTUS.

IOW, you do not blame the president for a bill being passed. Just like you don't exonerate the president when the enforcement of said changes goes to shit 5 years later.

Bush was head of the bureaucracy when the treasury and housing departments were making the directives and shit went sour. If you can point me to the part of the 1995 amendment that said 'give poor people shitty loans' then that is fine. Else, it just shows a firm misunderstanding of how laws are legislated and how they are executed.

That was a pretty shitty era. That was when the banking industry once again asserted political dominance that they had lost 60 years before. Special interest has always been an issue but it was that time with Clinton, Gingrich and Gramm just tag teaming the federal government with that bullshit.

We need to do better than that this era. We don't want to go down in history like that.

[Wild Cobra]

I love it when I get you to argue my points about who has the power to do what in the government.

Thing is, the republicans took the majority in the 1994 elections. not 1994. That is still demonrat legislation. What I am doing, is faulting the sitting president for not vetoing it. Even if it was 1995 and done by republicans. Clinton did not veto it. Surely he had advisers telling him of the impact it would have.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am sure you just love me demonstrating how you do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

What's the date on your chart?

Who was in control of Congress that year?

Nevermind that this is just another example of the WC strategy to oversimplify so that even a caveman can do it. LOOK BLAME CLINTON!!!

You can point to 20 years of shitty treasury secretaries, either party or the banking lobby that is the real driver of financial policy overhaul that went on over that time. I agree that Clinton is just as much a douche as the rest of them but your GOP rah rah doesn't help.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And demonrat? really?

repug, demonrat, what difference right?

[LnGrrrR]

I love it when I get you to argue my points about who has the power to do what in the government.

Thing is, the republicans took the majority in the 1994 elections. not 1994. That is still demonrat legislation. What I am doing, is faulting the sitting president for not vetoing it. Even if it was 1995 and done by republicans. Clinton did not veto it. Surely he had advisers telling him of the impact it would have.

So you're saying that his advisors knew what the impact would be? They were able to predict when the spike would occur? If so, how come the Republicans writing this bill didn't know about it?

[Wild Cobra]

So you're saying that his advisors knew what the impact would be?

Yes, if they had any knowledge of the jobs they filled.


They were able to predict when the spike would occur?

No. Now when, but that it would.


If so, how come the Republicans writing this bill didn't know about it?

I forget the exact time. I thought this was drafted in 1994. Republican or democrat doesn't matter much. They are both writing legislation to keep them in power. Those supporting the bill were wrong in doing so, and the president who signed it was too.

How many times have implied one way or another that politicians keep buying our votes (in general) with our own money? They don't give a flying fuck about us, past us being the means to grab more power.

[boutons_deux]

No Facts? Not to Worry. Just Make 'Em Up! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-fisher/no-facts-not-to-worry-jus_b_137143.html)


Then, in 1977, when Jimmy Carter was President of the U.S., Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The Act required federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they were lending and investing in their communities.

Initially, some local and regional banks opposed the measure. To these, it represented unnecessary government interference in the private sector and mired them in what they saw as a sea of additional paperwork.

But over the years, these banks have largely become adjusted to the requirements of the CRA. Today, most regard it as normal "cost of doing business."

The key words here are "federally regulated and insured financial institutions." Which means commercial banks and thrift organizations.

Not included were investment banks, mortgage brokers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-fisher/no-facts-not-to-worry-jus_b_137143.html#), and the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans that we now know were so toxic.

The reason is that these private non-bank lenders were regulated by 50 different state banking (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-fisher/no-facts-not-to-worry-jus_b_137143.html#)supervisors instead of the federal government - which effectively meant they were not regulated at all.

And those who champion the CRA point out that the default rate on CRA mortgages is far below the national average and many times lower than the sub-prime mortgages written by unsupervised lenders.

Federal housing data shows it was the unregulated private sector -- not the government or government-backed companies - that was responsible for the explosion of subprime lending at the core of the crisis. According to the Federal Reserve Board, more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private unregulated lending institutions and that private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-fisher/no-facts-not-to-worry-jus_b_137143.html#) to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

Nor does the timing correspond. Subprime lending offered high-cost loans (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-fisher/no-facts-not-to-worry-jus_b_137143.html#) to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

But Fannie and Freddie aren't lenders, to minorities or anyone else. They purchase loans from private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families, represent a small proportion of overall lending. Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding 48 percent of the subprime loans to holding about 24 percent. Among the reasons is that Fannie and Freddie were supervised by far more robust standards than most of the unregulated players in the private sector.

Most of these unregulated players have now gone bankrupt or are in serious legal trouble.

During the same three-year period, these same unregulated private investment banks dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. According to McClatchy News Service, in 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-fisher/no-facts-not-to-worry-jus_b_137143.html

[LnGrrrR]

How many times have implied one way or another that politicians keep buying our votes (in general) with our own money? They don't give a flying fuck about us, past us being the means to grab more power.

If it was a Republican Congress, that would seem to undercut the main thrust of your OP. And your constant use of "demoncrat" and "demorat" don't really place you as an impartial, I-don't-like-any-politicians commentator.

[Wild Cobra]

If it was a Republican Congress, that would seem to undercut the main thrust of your OP. And your constant use of "demoncrat" and "demorat" don't really place you as an impartial, I-don't-like-any-politicians commentator.
I have explained that before. You don't remember?

Lesser of two evils...

I really dislike the republicans, but I hate the democrats.

[LnGrrrR]

I have explained that before. You don't remember?

Lesser of two evils...

I really dislike the republicans, but I hate the democrats.

So in the case of the OP, is it still Clinton's fault? Is every President responsible for every bill they sign? If so, I believe there might be some pieces of legislature that were signed by Bush that you wouldn't agree with.

[Wild Cobra]

So in the case of the OP, is it still Clinton's fault? Is every President responsible for every bill they sign? If so, I believe there might be some pieces of legislature that were signed by Bush that you wouldn't agree with.
There is plenty of it.