700 Billion Buy out plan defeated.....
- Thread starter Darthrazz
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
- Status
I'm surprised to see people swallowing this canard. Few conservative talking heads are bringing up the CRA for good reason - it makes them look silly! If the CRA was the problem then this mess would have happened 30 years ago.
Bannister
Super Freak
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2005
- Messages
- 12,753
- Reaction score
- 0
It's amazing how much damage one president can do. It's been almost 30 years since Carter was president the the US is still feeling the effects of his Community Reinvestment Act. Nice going Jimmy......
woodsy
Super Freak
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,871
- Reaction score
- 0
The only thing funnier is that some people actually think he was a good president....scary but true. 
One for the CRA brigade:
https://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html
https://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html
drbrad1975
Super Freak
This is the most biased and uninformed article that I have read on the matter. It certainly doesn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This link is much more thoroughly and well researched...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Government_Policies
It's a more balanced view of what is going on, and it's not even complete. I found this part particularly interesting..
A September 30, 1999 New York Times article stated, "... the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans... The action... will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough... Fannie Mae... has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people... borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough... Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk... the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble... prompting a government rescue... the move is intended in part to increase the number of... home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings..."[89]
That was written in 1999, and it's pretty prophetic as to what happened.
Wikipedia?!
Anyone who has done even the barest hint of research will see the vast majority of subprime loans in play were made by firms that are not subject to the CRA! The fact this blame tactic came from Ann Coulter says everything that needs to be said, really.
drbrad1975
Super Freak
Wikipedia?!
Anyone who has done even the barest hint of research will see the vast majority of subprime loans in play were made by firms that are not subject to the CRA! The fact this blame tactic came from Ann Coulter says everything that needs to be said, really.
Did you even bother reading the article or looking at it's references. I was merely pointing out that your article is so poorly researched with no real facts to back it up. And yes, CRA did have it's hand in this debacle.
https://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html
devilof76
Super Freak
People have been talking about the CRA's role in this for a while now. Even before Bear Stearns went.
You're evading if you think that the CRA is not fundamental. When Clinton repealed Glass-Steagal, CRA enforcement was radically stepped up, to the point that banks could not merge unless they were providing adequate numbers of high-risk loans. Clinton ensured that CRA had an influence above and beyond the simple mortgages that were under it's oversight. But, you have to look at this entire picture, and not just the discrete little boxes you have it organized into so that the causal chain remains obscured.
The FM's had $5 trillion in liabilities. Were all of those CRA loans? Does it matter? No one is disputing that more than CRA loans were involved. All anyone is saying is that it opened the door to legitimizing high-risk lending. With the Fed adjusting rates to hide the disaster that was looming, it gained that much more credibility.
You're evading if you think that the CRA is not fundamental. When Clinton repealed Glass-Steagal, CRA enforcement was radically stepped up, to the point that banks could not merge unless they were providing adequate numbers of high-risk loans. Clinton ensured that CRA had an influence above and beyond the simple mortgages that were under it's oversight. But, you have to look at this entire picture, and not just the discrete little boxes you have it organized into so that the causal chain remains obscured.
The FM's had $5 trillion in liabilities. Were all of those CRA loans? Does it matter? No one is disputing that more than CRA loans were involved. All anyone is saying is that it opened the door to legitimizing high-risk lending. With the Fed adjusting rates to hide the disaster that was looming, it gained that much more credibility.
The vast majority of subprime loans came from firms that are not bound by the CRA. Clinging to an act passed three decades ago for blame is beyond pathetic.
EVILFACE
Insufferable S.O.B.
I still don't understand how Little Bush was voted in for 8 friggin years!!
Nuka Cola Kidd
Super Freak
My question is why does it look like Barney Frank just wiped a dirty sanchez of his lip... haha
did anyone the o'riley factor??....funny stuff he wants no blame for anything its sooo funny..whatdda douche.
did anyone the o'riley factor??....funny stuff he wants no blame for anything its sooo funny..whatdda douche.
devilof76
Super Freak
As pathetic as repeatedly regurgitating the same misinterpretation of what we're saying?
It wasn't the CRA itself. Like everything Carter did, it was hollow. The Gramm-Leach-Bailey Act, which repealed Glass-Steagal, encouraged the practice of high-risk lending by threatening banks ratings if they did not comply. Such lending was also encouraged by the implicit guarantee inherent in the Fed's willingness to manipulate interest rates, as well as the promise of government bailouts in the event that banks overextended themselves.
It was not one element of the mixed economic system that caused the problem, but the whole of it. The essential cause was government interference gutting underwriting standards, making it possible for predators to make huge profits in the short term, with little concern for what effects their actions would have in the long term.
In an unregulated market, the only guarantee for stability is for banks to maintain a rational lending policy. CRA was an affront to that. As soon as that affront became a cudgel dictating how banks would operate, what makes you think that the effect could be contained? Every vulture in the world would want in on that. And they did. From community action groups to hit-and-run businessmen. Government opened the door, and they walked through. Imagine that...
It's not a misinterpretation. The CRA is a red herring.
A nice aphorism for those living in a fantasy but out here in the real world it doesn't work that way. If you seriously think anyone in Wall Street cares more about stability than making a quick buck then I've got a bank to sell you...
LChinoz
Super Freak
P A S S E D
devilof76
Super Freak
And if you knew anything about the history of free banking, and not just the muckraker history, you'd know that the get-quick-rich financiers of the era vanished into obscurity and the ones that rose to the top were the ones who did employ stable policies. Do you think J.P.Morgan became the core of the industry because he was tried to get rich quick? Of course, the progressive liberals of the time couldn't tell the difference between a man like Morgan and the type of businessmen that dominates now. Which was why they destroyed him through anti-trust persecution, and paved the way for the types of politicians and economic hacks who turned the prosperity of the 1920's into a ten year depression.
Speaking of legislation passed by idiots who don't know the cause of economic depression...
Thanks for agreeing with me.
devilof76
Super Freak
Right. Businessmen who dominate because of mixed economic policies. Businessmen who would fail under laissez-faire.
- Status
Similar threads
