Reply With Quote
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.
No Facts? Not to Worry. Just Make 'Em Up!
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 ins utions 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 ins utions." Which means commercial banks and thrift organizations.
Not included were investment banks, mortgage brokers, 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 bankingsupervisors 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 ins utions and that private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
Nor does the timing correspond. Subprime lending offered high-cost loans 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/willia..._b_137143.html
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
