Did 'the party formerly known as Democrats' cause the subprime meltdown?

[Hanover Fist]

Banks were forced to make those risky loans or face pretty steep fines because of the CRA act. It became even worse after the Clinton Administration made changes to the act in 1995, which allowed those loans to be sold as securities. It also lowered the amount of capital they were required to hold to back their investments to 2.5%, which allowed them to become massively over leveraged and we know where that got them today. Home prices had followed inflation forever before the CRA act became law, within two years of it being passed home prices became unhinged from inflation and the housing market became a bubble.


Interesting side note. The house I grew up in in LA my folks bought in 1972 for $42,00. They sold it in 1981 for 130,000. I looked it up on Zillow today and it was estimated to be worth $1.243 million.
http://www.zillow.com/homes/map/871-south-5th-avenue-90005_rb/

[vasili denisov]

Banks were forced to make those risky loans or face pretty steep fines because of the CRA act. It became even worse after the Clinton Administration made changes to the act in 1995, which allowed those loans to be sold as securities. It also lowered the amount of capital they were required to hold to back their investments to 2.5%, which allowed them to become massively over leveraged and we know where that got them today. Home prices had followed inflation forever before the CRA act became law, within two years of it being passed home prices became unhinged from inflation and the housing market became a bubble.
The CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) has nothing to do with the current crisis. It was enacted in the late seventies; it somehow was in existence for twenty-five years without issue or crisis, with subprime loans only showing up in the past ten years. The cause and effect here is nonexistent.

Here are several other details that otherwise refute a connection: in 2004, the administration pulled many smaller banks from under CRA supervision, which resulted in fewer CRA loans, though subprime loans continued to rise; half of sub-prime loans came from banks unaffected by CRA; institutions regulated by CRA was ultimately far less likely to make risky loans than those, especially independent mortgage companies, falling outside the regulations. Most of the details can be found here (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_c risis), which is more partisan than I like, but the facts cited are essentially sound.

[Hanover Fist]

The CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) has nothing to do with the current crisis. It was enacted in the late seventies; it somehow was in existence for twenty-five years without issue or crisis, with subprime loans only showing up in the past ten years. The cause and effect here is nonexistent.

Here are several other details that otherwise refute a connection: in 2004, the administration pulled many smaller banks from under CRA supervision, which resulted in fewer CRA loans, though subprime loans continued to rise; half of sub-prime loans came from banks unaffected by CRA; institutions regulated by CRA was ultimately far less likely to make risky loans than those, especially independent mortgage companies, falling outside the regulations. Most of the details can be found here (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_c risis), which is more partisan than I like, but the facts cited are essentially sound.

Of course the Subprime loans showed up in the last 10 years, duh, thats when Clinton passed the amendment to it.
You obviously don't have a grasp of facts. The easiest way to see how damaging the CRA was, is too look at home value increases compared to inflation. Before CRA passed they followed inflation almost exactly, after it passed they became unhinged and skyrocketed thus creating a bubble.
Because many more people suddenly qualified for home ownership than previously it became a simple supply and demand issue.
While that in itself didn't cause the collapse, it certainly created the bubble.
The amendment to the CRA by Clinton is what enabled the sheer size of the collapse. By lowering the capital required to back loans to almost nothing and by allowing those loans to now be sold as securities to everyone else. Not too mention that regulated banks could now be fined for not making subprime loans and it was like a building tidal wave.
Of course you had banks that were not covered by the CRA, but when you see all these huge banks making enormous profits by operating in this manner you want to jump on board. With the main exceptions being Wells Fargo and Bank of America.

Too say that the CRA didn't cause this collapse shows me that you have no grasp on the topic and your opinion is irrelevant. It created the bubble and the conditions for failure, how you can see anything else is beyond me.

A response to the article by Gordon that you cited:
http://mises.org/story/2963

[kid_vidrio]

We're kinda way off Palin.
Want me to move these posts to continue the CRA discussion?
I gotta add - you can't hang increase in home value on CRA. I bought and sold more than one property in the 90's, and the price was not remotely dictated by competition related to CRA. Ninja PLEASE.

[freegood]

Sub-prime isn't the exact cause the credit crunch. It's 40+ trillion dollars worth of derivatives that are in danger of unraveling because of defaulting loans and mortgages. Derivatives that had no business being made in the first place.

[Claydon]

I believe the decisions of the socialist left did contribute quite a bit to this overall problem. However, as I have stated many times before I know that both sides of the aisle are to blame.


http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c145/idexx/toon092508.gif

[freegood]

Fanny and Freddie would not have collapsed on a housing downturn alone. They went out of their charter to take on Credit Default Swaps in the hunt for the insane profits financial banks were reaping. AIG fell victim to the same thing. None of AIG's core assets were in danger of failing.

The "deleveraging" of these derivatives is going to bring down a world of hurt before it becomes an orderly process. Anyone who thought it would be okay to print money outside the power of Central Banks is a damn fool or a lying greedy fuck who didn't care about the general interest.

[Claydon]

Fanny and Freddie would not have collapsed on a housing downturn alone. They went out of their charter to take on Credit Default Swaps in the hunt for the insane profits financial banks were reaping. AIG fell victim to the same thing. None of AIG's core assets were in danger of failing.

The "deleveraging" of these derivatives is going to bring down a world of hurt before it becomes an orderly process. Anyone who thought it would be okay to print money outside the power of Central Banks is a damn fool or a lying greedy fuck who didn't care about the general interest.


Good thing that Barney Frank and his buddies in Congress opposed any investigations/reform of freddie/fannie a few years ago.

[Hanover Fist]

Sub-prime isn't the exact cause the credit crunch. It's 40+ trillion dollars worth of derivatives that are in danger of unraveling because of defaulting loans and mortgages. Derivatives that had no business being made in the first place.

The derivatives weren't a problem until the change was made to the CRA in 1995 by President Clinton. The derivative market came about as the need to generate more cash to loan to meet the obligations of issuing so many more mortgages.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae could not generate the cash to issue/back all the mortgages required by the new changes to the CRA by normal means. Since 1980,the volume of government-sponsored mortgage-backed securities has risen from $200 billion to over $4 trillion. In addition, private mortgage insurers and mortgage pools (which include nonconforming loans) account for approximately $2 trillion.
So basically Federal law changes almost mandated a derivative market. It was the only way the institutions could get the money to comply with the law.

[Claydon]

The derivatives weren't a problem until the change was made to the CRA in 1995 by President Clinton. The derivative market came about as the need to generate more cash to loan to meet the obligations of issuing so many more mortgages.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae could not generate the cash to issue/back all the mortgages required by the new changes to the CRA by normal means. Since 1980,the volume of government-sponsored mortgage-backed securities has risen from $200 billion to over $4 trillion. In addition, private mortgage insurers and mortgage pools (which include nonconforming loans) account for approximately $2 trillion.
So basically Federal law changes almost mandated a derivative market. It was the only way the institutions could get the money to comply with the law.

Good thing the feds are going to jump in head first to regulate this market!

[freegood]

MBS pale in comparison to the sidebets made in the form of Credit Default Swaps.

CDS has no mandate, no legislation, and no regulation. They can exist as incorporated entities (Structured Investment Vehicles) which one bank winks to the other and pays for it on 80% margin.

4 trillion in souring MBS is bad, but it is not 700 billion bailout bad. Either Americans are being mislead or they just plain don't understand (to be honest, I don't understand it completely myself).

Maybe they don't want to understand because it would make them realize how greedy Wall Street was and how powerless most people were to stop it.

[Hanover Fist]

This article from Pepperdine University Business School explains the whole mortgage market that includes breakdowns for the primary, secondary and derivatives market.
http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/blog/index.php/2008/05/05/29/

[freegood]

It seems like that professor would agree that Greenspan's rate cuts were a bigger cause for the mortgage boom than anything the CRA did.

Bill Gross estimated it to be a $43 trillion market.

[Mustard]

There are so many responsible parties that had a hand in causing this mess it woud be unfair to target one group.

But for the sake of argument, I agree wholeheartedly that Clinton had a hand in this. It would be foolish to suggest otherwise.

[kid_vidrio]

It seems like that professor would agree that Greenspan's rate cuts were a bigger cause for the mortgage boom than anything the CRA did.

Bill Gross estimated it to be a $43 trillion market.
I heard it estimated at 70 trillion on Friday.
Either way, 43 trillion or 70 trillion, there are very few people on teh earth who can imagine the magnitude of that number, given it's for a 'product' that doesn't actually exist.

[taters]

No. Deregulation, Reagonomics and the Bush Economics trickle down policies and tax cuts did.

"Prey on the consumer, then blame them for their losses and then get them to pay for yours."

[vasili denisov]

Too say that the CRA didn't cause this collapse shows me that you have no grasp on the topic and your opinion is irrelevant. It created the bubble and the conditions for failure, how you can see anything else is beyond me.
I'll just address this first; my simple disagreement with your assertion, though mine had greater factual citation, makes me uninformed on this issue. I believe that such a strong reaction doesn't come out of an excess of confidence in the original assertion, but a lack of it.
Of course the Subprime loans showed up in the last 10 years, duh, thats when Clinton passed the amendment to it.
You obviously don't have a grasp of facts. The easiest way to see how damaging the CRA was, is too look at home value increases compared to inflation. Before CRA passed they followed inflation almost exactly, after it passed they became unhinged and skyrocketed thus creating a bubble.
Because many more people suddenly qualified for home ownership than previously it became a simple supply and demand issue.
While that in itself didn't cause the collapse, it certainly created the bubble.
You're taking several separate events - that Clinton amended the CRA and that home values increased. You're then arguing that there must be a connection between these (though you cite nothing as a basis for this). The simplest counterargument is that the majority of loans, at least two thirds, made were not made by those which were regulated by the CRA ([url=http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/Bernanke20070330a.htm#fn11]footnote is here, main text has the statement by Bernanke). Your linked article also fails to deal with this fact.

The burden on you is to show how this fraction of loans caused the current meltdown. You haven't done so.

[Claydon]

No. Deregulation, Reagonomics and the Bush Economics trickle down policies and tax cuts did.

"Prey on the consumer, then blame them for their losses and then get them to pay for yours."

I am surprised you didn't say we are trying to blame the black man.

I do blame the consumers, I do blame the bankers, and I do blame the congress. You mean to tell me that the fuck sticks that defaulted on their $585,000 (my neighbors as of 1.5 years ago) have NO cuplbility? They signed off on a contract that clearly stated they would owe over half a million dollars and he was an auto mechanic making what....30k a year if that? So they bear NO responsibility? Negro please..... They are just as guilty as the lender who allowed such an offer to go through, just as guilty as the bank who wrapped it up into other such securities, just as guilty as the ratings agency that stamped it AAA, and just as guilty as the Wall St. schmucks that sold and resold that piece of shit. Everyone is in on the game, and all are guilty.

[taters]

I am surprised you didn't say we are trying to blame the black man.

?? Huh?

I do blame the consumers, I do blame the bankers, and I do blame the congress. You mean to tell me that the fuck sticks that defaulted on their $585,000 (my neighbors as of 1.5 years ago) have NO cuplbility?

First please never refer to me as 'negro' again. Second, you have to understand in the reagan/bush unregulated market, corporations were set free to do whatever they want.

The primary goal of a corporation is not to keep the economy going, not to workw ithin the interests of the nation, it is to make money for its shareholders. Keeping people in debt is a form of long term making money. They did not give out such loans beause they were 'good people', they did because they knew they could keep people in debt indefinitely, thereby keeping a steady stream of income. Their mouths got too big for their stomachs, and now they (we) are paying the price for it, literally.

All could have been avoided if regulations were in place to keep their practices in check. Thank the Deceased Emperor Reagan and the his usurpers, King Bush and Lord Cheney for that.

[Claydon]

?? Huh?


First please never refer to me as 'negro' again. Second, you have to understand in the reagan/bush unregulated market, corporations were set free to do whatever they want.

The primary goal of a corporation is not to keep the economy going, not to workw ithin the interests of the nation, it is to make money for its shareholders. Keeping people in debt is a form of long term making money. They did not give out such loans beause they were 'good people', they did because they knew they could keep people in debt indefinitely, thereby keeping a steady stream of income. Their mouths got too big for their stomachs, and now they (we) are paying the price for it, literally.

All could have been avoided if regulations were in place to keep their practices in check. Thank the Deceased Emperor Reagan and the his usurpers, King Bush and Lord Cheney for that.

First of all, I will call you king negro faggot if I desire, second stop reading chomsky. Of course these companies were out to do what is in their best interests, it falls upon you the consumer to say "hey, 30,000 < 585,000....perhaps I cannot afford such a thing". Look, I know for you and your followers simple mathmatics like 1+1 is difficult. As I have posted many many times I had real estate agents with their broker buddies cold calling me at my door wanting to get me into a 550,000+ subprime. I just laughed in their faces and closed the door.

[taters]

First of all, I will call you king negro faggot if I desire, second stop reading chomsky. Of course these companies were out to do what is in their best interests, it falls upon you the consumer to say "hey, 30,000 < 585,000....perhaps I cannot afford such a thing". Look, I know for you and your followers simple mathmatics like 1+1 is difficult. As I have posted many many times I had real estate agents with their broker buddies cold calling me at my door wanting to get me into a 550,000+ subprime. I just laughed in their faces and closed the door.

You need to read more chomsky.

It falls upon the consumer, ONLY WITHIN REASON. You dont go to the doctor with the expectation that you will talk them through your own surgery, you dont go to a lawyer with the expectation that you will tell them what to say to the judge verbatim. If you do, your in for a world of shit....it does happen though. The average consumer is not an economist, and the mere fact that predation is allowed within the market is a problem.

You cant blame the consumer because they dont know better, because you cannot make people 'know better'. If you could, 99% of the other problems in the country wouldnt exist. Believe you me, its rare I go a day without asking myself what kind of dumbfuck does _____ or how did ______ idiot manage to be smart enough to chew his food before he swallowed it and survived to make everyone elses day that much harder. But you cant change them all, or even most of them. Wasnt it Franco that said that said its easier to kill people than change their minds?

[Genius]

Wow. I sure am glad you guys are there to come to our rescue. Non one else in the country can fully grasp this mess, so it sure is a good thing political GMF completely understands all of the intricacies, ins and outs and layers of our financial collapse. I'll go ahead and let Washington know that you guys are going to take care of everything.

[Mustard]

Everybody is an expert

[heelsguy]

Wow. I sure am glad you guys are there to come to our rescue. Non one else in the country can fully grasp this mess, so it sure is a good thing political GMF completely understands all of the intricacies, ins and outs and layers of our financial collapse. I'll go ahead and let Washington know that you guys are going to take care of everything.
tater is an expert on everything except the difference between "you're" and "your"

[taters]

Wow. I sure am glad you guys are there to come to our rescue. Non one else in the country can fully grasp this mess, so it sure is a good thing political GMF completely understands all of the intricacies, ins and outs and layers of our financial collapse. I'll go ahead and let Washington know that you guys are going to take care of everything.


GMF Party 2016! Yes we Can!

We need to set up a committee.

[Claydon]

You need to read more chomsky.

It falls upon the consumer, ONLY WITHIN REASON. You dont go to the doctor with the expectation that you will talk them through your own surgery, you dont go to a lawyer with the expectation that you will tell them what to say to the judge verbatim. If you do, your in for a world of shit....it does happen though. The average consumer is not an economist, and the mere fact that predation is allowed within the market is a problem.

You cant blame the consumer because they dont know better, because you cannot make people 'know better'. If you could, 99% of the other problems in the country wouldnt exist. Believe you me, its rare I go a day without asking myself what kind of dumbfuck does _____ or how did ______ idiot manage to be smart enough to chew his food before he swallowed it and survived to make everyone elses day that much harder. But you cant change them all, or even most of them. Wasnt it Franco that said that said its easier to kill people than change their minds?

Wow, your vagina is massive. So you mean to tell me that someone who makes 30k a year does not understand that by signing mortgage documents will be on the hook for 1/2 a million dollars. Your analogy is poor, any fucking dipshit can understand that 500,000 is ALOT OF FUCKING CHANGE. So yah, they signed the papers so fuck you pay me. Now, if you are talking about some lenders that pulled fast ones and are in breech of contract, now that is something completely different. The assholes that use to be my neighbors signed their paperwork and chocked. The 7 other dipshits in my neighborhood that went into foreclosure that signed off on half a million dollars, and the 1 fag who signed off on $625,000 and basically defaulted within 4 months of close of escrow are ALL guilty.

[kid_vidrio]

The assholes that use to be my neighbors signed their paperwork and chocked. The 7 other dipshits in my neighborhood that went into foreclosure that signed off on half a million dollars, and the 1 fag who signed off on $625,000 and basically defaulted within 4 months of close of escrow are ALL guilty.
And the guilty did so due to the CRA and a liberal plot to destroy education in the country?

[taters]

Wow, your vagina is massive. So you mean to tell me that someone who makes 30k a year does not understand that by signing mortgage documents will be on the hook for 1/2 a million dollars..


Stop coming on to me, I am not not a woman, nor am I homosexual. I dont care if you make 12k a year, there is a duty by the banks. Placing the blame on the consumer is giving the banks a free pass from responsibility.

While your personal opinion is ok (for you to have), obviously from the state of the economy, public policy cannot work that way. But, keep delegating responsibility. Its always someone elses fault. See where that gets you.

[freegood]

They went out of their charter to take on Credit Default Swaps in the hunt for the insane profits financial banks were reaping. AIG fell victim to the same thing. None of AIG's core assets were in danger of failing.


NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/business/28melt.html?_r=1&em=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all) has an article that digs further on the mess that happened at AIG.

[Claydon]

Stop coming on to me, I am not not a woman, nor am I homosexual. I dont care if you make 12k a year, there is a duty by the banks. Placing the blame on the consumer is giving the banks a free pass from responsibility.

While your personal opinion is ok (for you to have), obviously from the state of the economy, public policy cannot work that way. But, keep delegating responsibility. Its always someone elses fault. See where that gets you.

Actually fuck wad, I clearly stated that the blame was on the banks, government and the consumer. Man up, grow a fucking pube and realize that you are a spineless fucking dipshits who most likely blames the dog after you raped your sister.

[taters]

Actually fuck wad, I clearly stated that the blame was on the banks, government and the consumer. Man up, grow a fucking pube and realize that you are a spineless fucking dipshits who most likely blames the dog after you raped your sister.

Your grammar = My spelling.

[Claydon]

Your grammar = My spelling.

i won't deny this, i NEVER check my grammar or spelling on gmf.

[redsox39]

Stop coming on to me, I am not not a woman, nor am I homosexual. I dont care if you make 12k a year, there is a duty by the banks. Placing the blame on the consumer is giving the banks a free pass from responsibility.

While your personal opinion is ok (for you to have), obviously from the state of the economy, public policy cannot work that way. But, keep delegating responsibility. Its always someone elses fault. See where that gets you.


And with you it is ALWAYS someone elses fault, because personal responsibility is like a foreign Language to you. The banks tried to tell me I could afford a $270,000 house. We went for $200,000 and have to budget our ass off. No idiots in this house, but no Yale graduates either. If you are too fucking stupid to figure out that your morgage is more than your income...I feel no pity for you, but maybe your kids. And to Say Bush is the bad guy on this one really proves your ignornace on this. 17 times in 2008 alone he tried to have FM&FM reformed. He was shot down twice by congress in the last few years when he tried to pass a Bill reforming the companies. When a federal investigation show us that they were cooking the books back in 2004, the Democrats stood up against the report, the investigation, and cried foul.

Here is the video, thank you Hanover...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

(Like I said, no Yale graduates here...I don't know if I am too stupid to post the video, or if it has to do with my prior banning, or both)

[Rover]

But a $500,000 house is nicer than a $200,000 house. Don't you want to live in a nice neighborhood with good schools? You're really doing your family a disservice. C'mon, no money down. Interest only for a few years. You can totally afford this loan.

[Yelram]

Tater in the 90s - "Its not fair that these banks arent lending money to poor people, we need equality, we need to force these banks to lend to individuals , and if they dont, we will fine the big evil companies"

Tater 2008 - "How dare these evil companies lend to someone without being absolutely sure they know what money is, and how to make it, and spend it, and how many nickels are in a dollar."

[redsox39]

But a $500,000 house is nicer than a $200,000 house. Don't you want to live in a nice neighborhood with good schools? You're really doing your family a disservice. C'mon, no money down. Interest only for a few years. You can totally afford this loan.

Well, now that you put it that way...can you get all my friends loans too?

[Claydon]

Well, now that you put it that way...can you get all my friends loans too?

hey, i make $6.50/hr and am on welfare and a minority, I should get a $650,000 loan today!

[taters]

Tater in the 90s - "Its not fair that these banks arent lending money MINORITIES, we need equality, we need to force these banks to lend to minorities, and if they dont, we will fine the big evil companies"

Tater 2008 - "How dare these evil companies lend to someone without being absolutely sure they know what money is, and how to make it, and spend it, and how many nickels are in a dollar."


You almost had it, I just had to do a bit of correcting.

On a seperate note, in the 90's economics were hardly my forte. I was skipping school and getting high too often.

Also on that note, who the fuck is this 'redsox' fan dipshit who keeps neging me and making stupid assed comments on my pos/neg post. He must be assuming from this new handles post count that I am, as he is, just some noob, as well as assuming that negs have an effect on me.

If you see this 'redsox', ask Syn or any of the mods about my history with banning/neging/jailing in the 4 +/- years Ive been on this forum, as well as whether itll effect me.

[redsox39]

You almost had it, I just had to do a bit of correcting.

On a seperate note, in the 90's economics were hardly my forte. I was skipping school and getting high too often.

Also on that note, who the fuck is this 'redsox' fan dipshit who keeps neging me and making stupid assed comments on my pos/neg post. He must be assuming from this new handles post count that I am, as he is, just some noob, as well as assuming that negs have an effect on me.

If you see this 'redsox', ask Syn or any of the mods about my history with banning/neging/jailing in the 4 +/- years Ive been on this forum, as well as whether itll effect me.

If it don't effect you let me have my happy time then, aren't you all about the common man?

To the even the most Noobish eyes, It must effect you if you spent 2 paragraphs whining about it...

Then again, whining is how you guys get things done...remember what momma always said "the sqeeky wheel gets the grease". Then she hit the crack pipe again.

[Yelram]

You almost had it, I just had to do a bit of correcting.

On a seperate note, in the 90's economics were hardly my forte. I was skipping school and getting high too often.

Also on that note, who the fuck is this 'redsox' fan dipshit who keeps neging me and making stupid assed comments on my pos/neg post. He must be assuming from this new handles post count that I am, as he is, just some noob, as well as assuming that negs have an effect on me.

If you see this 'redsox', ask Syn or any of the mods about my history with banning/neging/jailing in the 4 +/- years Ive been on this forum, as well as whether itll effect me.

So they werent lending to black doctors that make a couple mill a year? I'm sure Oprah had no problem getting a house loan. That minorities crap is a load of bullshit, and you fucking know it. If someone cant afford a loan, it doesnt matter what the color of their skin is, THEY CANT AFFORD IT. You shouldnt say, "you cant afford this, ooooh wait, I didnt notice your black skin and afro there, come on back and sign the papers".

[The Batman]

So they werent lending to black doctors that make a couple mill a year? I'm sure Oprah had no problem getting a house loan. That minorities crap is a load of bullshit, and you fucking know it. If someone cant afford a loan, it doesnt matter what the color of their skin is, THEY CANT AFFORD IT. You shouldnt say, "you cant afford this, ooooh wait, I didnt notice your black skin and afro there, come on back and sign the papers".

There are black doctors?

[Pharon]

Only on television.

[Hanover Fist]

There are black doctors?

There are only like 5 black families in my city. All 5 of them are doctors at the local hospital. I'm not talking like light skinned brothers either, these guys are darker than the Ace of Spades. The one guy delivered every one of my kids too. Got his degree from the University of Nigeria of something, his name is Alfred Bediako
http://www.hchc.com/physician_directory_details.cfm?rowID=11
http://i35.tinypic.com/205fmm0.jpg

[Yelram]

There are only like 5 black families in my city. All 5 of them are doctors at the local hospital. I'm not talking like light skinned brothers either, these guys are darker than the Ace of Spades. The one guy delivered every one of my kids too. Got his degree from the University of Nigeria of something, his name is Alfred Bediako
http://www.hchc.com/physician_directory_details.cfm?rowID=11
http://i35.tinypic.com/205fmm0.jpg
Wait, wait, wait, that guys an African, thats totally different.

[taters]

So they werent lending to black doctors that make a couple mill a year? I'm sure Oprah had no problem getting a house loan. That minorities crap is a load of bullshit, and you fucking know it. If someone cant afford a loan, it doesnt matter what the color of their skin is, THEY CANT AFFORD IT. You shouldnt say, "you cant afford this, ooooh wait, I didnt notice your black skin and afro there, come on back and sign the papers".

As a matter of fact, no they werent.

High income african americans in neighborhoods that are not all white, with cheaper home value are more likely to be restricted to subprime mortgages than low income whites in the same or even all white neighborhoods. http://www.huduser.org/publications/fairhsg/unequal.html (Id have to find the specific pages in the book, and I dont have it with me, only old notes).

Further, banks like citibank even went as far as charging additional fees when lending for home mortgages to minorities. There was a case about it that accepted the fact that it was done, but rejected the plaintiffs claim that they did it specifically to her about 10 years ago. Latimore v Citibank.

[Rover]

Wait, wait, wait, that guys an African, thats totally different.Someone should tell him he's black and would qualify for a multitude of social programs that would help him succeed. Doesn't he know he doesn't have to do it alone.

[heelsguy]

i was just flipping thru the channels a minute ago and stopped when I saw Lurch er...john kerry...appearing on bill o'reilly. bill actually let j.k. have the last word. good interview. pity keith olbermann refuses to have differing opinions come on his show. or maybe no one wants to come on a show seen by so few people?

[Deadhead Derek]

But a $500,000 house is nicer than a $200,000 house. Don't you want to live in a nice neighborhood with good schools? You're really doing your family a disservice. C'mon, no money down. Interest only for a few years. You can totally afford this loan.it's the new 35 yr fixed... trust me, everyone is doing it...

[taters]

i was just flipping thru the channels a minute ago and stopped when I saw Lurch er...john kerry...appearing on bill o'reilly. bill actually let j.k. have the last word. good interview. pity keith olbermann refuses to have differing opinions come on his show. or maybe no one wants to come on a show seen by so few people?

Depends on the night. Example-
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/10/olbermanns-ratings-top-oreillys/

As well, Fox news viewers tend to be among the least informed (or intelligent) viewers. So yea, you are probably right in more people watch O Reilly. There are more stupid people watching TV at any given time than there are intelligent people (usually on the net or reading).

http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions

[heelsguy]

Depends on the night. Example-
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/10/olbermanns-ratings-top-oreillys/

As well, Fox news viewers tend to be among the least informed (or intelligent) viewers. So yea, you are probably right in more people watch O Reilly. There are more stupid people watching TV at any given time than there are intelligent people (usually on the net or reading).

http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions

there had to be some special guest on that night, or o'reilly was on vacation. I am just saying more people would watch countdown if they had actual discussions that were not strictly "yep, you're right, keith!" I mean o'reilly has those too but he also brings on the opposition

[redsox39]

Weird...because based on income AND education...Fox news is Number 1.

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2008/05/brit-hume-v-rea.html

Maybe when you say "mis-informed" you mean "doesn't toe the democratic party line and think exactly like I do".

That was a brutal partisan artical.

I heard NAMBLA also thinks you are misinformed about children WANTING to have sex with adults. They did a poll and found that 99% of the US was misinformed of the topic of child sex.

"Mis-informed" might be the worst polling idea since...well I can't think of one.

[URFloorMatt]

Not to insult the original poster, but blaming the current economic crisis on the CRA is just a veiled attempt at blaming black people/Democrats for an economic meltdown that occurred almost entirely on the watch of a Republican Congress and under the watch of a Republican president. The correlation is nonexistent, and the argument is patently absurd.

Weird...because based on income AND education...Fox news is Number 1.

It's also the oldest and has a substantial viewership over 70. So add suffering from dementia and Alzheimer's to the list of unique viewing characteristics.

[Claydon]

Not to insult the original poster, but blaming the current economic crisis on the CRA is just a veiled attempt at blaming black people/Democrats for an economic meltdown that occurred almost entirely on the watch of a Republican Congress and under the watch of a Republican president. The correlation is nonexistent, and the argument is patently absurd.

.

Oh really, even though in 2004 republicans were calling for an audit and reform/regulation of freddie mac under the leadership of obama's chief economic advisor. And barney frank, that fag from boston that is the poster child for trying to save america at this moment said in 04, that these institutions were sound and NO reform was needed. This message was echoed by many members of the democratic party. In 01 the bush administration called for a reform of the freddie mac, and in 03 as well. So you can officially go fuck yourself.

[kid_vidrio]

Oh really, even though in 2004 republicans were calling for an audit and reform/regulation of freddie mac under the leadership of obama's chief economic advisor. And barney frank, that fag from boston that is the poster child for trying to save america at this moment said in 04, that these institutions were sound and NO reform was needed. This message was echoed by many members of the democratic party. In 01 the bush administration called for a reform of the freddie mac, and in 03 as well. So you can officially go fuck yourself.

Statistics and claims....blah blah blah.
The truth will eventually come out, and many people will be guilty of being proactively wrong or inactively right.
But the biggest baffoons, imho, will be those who bought either package wholesale.
The White House says the economic surge that began five and a half years ago on President Bush's watch is more robust than the much-touted expansion during the Clinton administration.
http://www.examiner.com/a-663267~White_House_says_economic_surge_robust.html

[freegood]

Oh really, even though in 2004 republicans were calling for an audit and reform/regulation of freddie mac under the leadership of obama's chief economic advisor.

I'm sick of McCain's paid lies....
Obama's Fannie Mae 'Connection' (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html)

"Obama has no background in economics. Who advises him? The Post says it's Franklin Raines, for "advice on mortgage and housing policy." Shocking. Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed "extensive financial fraud." Raines made millions. Fannie Mae collapsed. Taxpayers? Stuck with the bill."
--McCain video release, September 18, 2008. An already nasty presidential election campaign is getting nastier. The meltdown on Wall Street has touched off frantic attempts by both the McCain and Obama camps to secure political advantage and indulge in guilt by association. Over the past 24 hours, both campaigns have issued video press releases (let's not call them ads until they actually air somewhere) attempting to show that the other side's "advisers" are somehow responsible for the crisis. The latest McCain attack is particularly dubious.


The Facts

The McCain video attempts to link Obama to Franklin Raines, the former CEO of the bankrupt mortgage giant, Fannie Mae, who also happens to be African American. It then shows a photograph of an elderly white woman taxpayer who has supposedly been "stuck with the bill" as a result of the "extensive financial fraud" at Fannie Mae.
The Obama campaign last night issued a statement by Raines insisting, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters." Obama spokesman Bill Burton went a little further, telling me in an e-mail that the campaign had "neither sought nor received" advice from Raines "on any matter."
So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post business reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a profile (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071502827.html)of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared on July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."
Since this has now become a campaign issue, I asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of the quote. She explained that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked "if he was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said 'oh, general housing, economy issues.' ('Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,' I asked, and he said 'no.')"
By Raines's own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and they had some general discussions about economic issues. I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls and will let you know if I receive a reply.
The Pinocchio Test

The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Franklin Raines as a close adviser to Obama on "housing and mortgage policy." If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself -- and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/factchecker/pinocchio.gifhttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/factchecker/pinocchio.gif

[taters]

Weird...because based on income AND education...Fox news is Number 1.

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2008/05/brit-hume-v-rea.html

Maybe when you say "mis-informed" you mean "doesn't toe the democratic party line and think exactly like I do".

That was a brutal partisan artical.

I heard NAMBLA also thinks you are misinformed about children WANTING to have sex with adults. They did a poll and found that 99% of the US was misinformed of the topic of child sex.

"Mis-informed" might be the worst polling idea since...well I can't think of one.

You do realize you just quoted a blog site for your reference, which itself quoted another blog site? You may as well have posted a wikipedia article.

[URFloorMatt]

Oh really, even though in 2004 republicans were calling for an audit and reform/regulation of freddie mac under the leadership of obama's chief economic advisor. And barney frank, that fag from boston that is the poster child for trying to save america at this moment said in 04, that these institutions were sound and NO reform was needed. This message was echoed by many members of the democratic party. In 01 the bush administration called for a reform of the freddie mac, and in 03 as well. So you can officially go fuck yourself.You can continue being an idiot, but excuse me while I remain firmly grounded to reality. The fact that you're obsessed with Frannie and Freddie as the root of all evil shows how incredibly little you've even paid attention to what is actually going on here.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/cra.html
The idea that CRA is the cause of the financial crisis simply does not pass the laugh test. First and foremost, CRA was enacted in 1977 to reverse so called “redlining” in the 1960s and 1970s—long before subprime mortgages at the heart of the current crisis were ever made—at a time when commercial banks would not extend credit to entire neighborhoods, usually minority neighborhoods. The Community Reinvestment Act imposes a duty on banks that operate under CRA to lend to borrowers in the census tracts in which it takes deposits, including poor neighborhoods.

Second, when CRA was passed in 1977, it was designed to cover only depository institutions—commercial banks and savings-and-loans institutions, or thrifts—that made the lion’s share of home mortgages back then. As subprime lending exploded in this decade, CRA lost its relevance because it doesn’t cover the more loosely regulated non-bank mortgage companies, which increasingly took the mortgage market away from banks and thrifts.

Non-bank mortgage companies, which aren’t covered by CRA, originated an estimated 50 percent of subprime loans in 2005, for example, according to testimony from Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Michael Barr. It is these institutions that mostly started to collapse at the beginning of the crisis. Another 30 percent of loans were made by subsidiaries of banks or thrifts, which are allowed—at their option—to use loans made by these subsidiaries to count toward their CRA rating.

As the New America Foundation’s Ellen Seidman rightly points out, bank regulators were raising red flags on bad subprime lending since before 2000, and warned that bad loans made by the banks they regulated were not acceptable. Lenders not subject to CRA did not get similar warnings. And, as Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Robert Gordon writes, lenders themselves haven’t blamed CRA. As he says, laws didn’t make them lend—the profit motive did.

Moreover, the Bush administration could have taken steps in this decade to further regulate subprime mortgage practices. It wasn’t until July 14 of this year that the Federal Reserve finally cracked down on "unfair, abusive or deceptive home mortgage lending practices” and restricted “certain other mortgage practices," power given to it under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994. The Fed finally prohibited practices that they had ignored for years, such as so-called “stated-income loans,” in which the lender makes a loan without verifying a borrower’s ability to repay from income and assets, or charging exorbitant prepayment fees.

Studies done by respected institutions—not just CRA’s cheerleaders—show that CRA works at what it was intended to do: overcoming market failures in low-income communities. Case in point: CRA-regulated lenders operating in their so-called assessment areas (census tracts where they maintain deposit-taking operations) have shares of conventional, prime home purchase loans that exceed the equivalent shares for out-of-area lenders or non-covered organizations, said a study by Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies in 2002. And as late as 2005, when Bush-appointed bank regulators were trying to water down CRA, an evaluation by the Brookings Institution concluded that by fostering competition among banks in serving low-income areas, CRA generates larger volumes of lending from diverse sources and adds liquidity to the market, decreasing the risk of each bank’s loan.

Finger-pointing conservatives ought to realize that their attempt to find the boogeyman in bank regulation simply can’t be proven by the facts. They need to accept the fact that their cries for less government persuaded regulators they appointed to their posts to turn the other way as lending abuses piled up in the subprime mortgage market.

Bash the source for not being a drowning-in-insanity Republican shit-machine in 3... 2... 1...

[Hanover Fist]

You can continue being an idiot, but excuse me while I remain firmly grounded to reality. The fact that you're obsessed with Frannie and Freddie as the root of all evil shows how incredibly little you've even paid attention to what is actually going on here.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/cra.html


Bash the source for not being a drowning-in-insanity Republican shit-machine in 3... 2... 1...

So you cite a far left research associate writing for a far left organization to bolster your nonsensical far left claims. Yeah, I'm not really buying that. I'm probably going to listen to actual economists more so than some partisan shlub that doesn't even have a degree in economics. Who is trying to pass the same bullshit lines as Democrats in Congress in 2004 about how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren't burning down as we all are standing around their charred timbers.

http://www.mises.org/story/2963

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm?&page=1

[kid_vidrio]

C'mon Han. You can't actually believe that a broker was sitting there looking at someone who had no income verification thinking 'I gotta give this guy a loan or I'll be charged with discrimination!'
Based on that logic, there is at least a hint that FnF crashed due to minority lending. What are the statistics on who is getting foreclosed?
As the article you berate says, laws didn’t make them lend—the profit motive did. I just don't think you can find enough credible evidence to support your theory in the face of that reality. Every third nitwit I knew was in 'real estate investing' and shuffling numbers at will to get a next house. That was greed buddy, not liberals, conservatives, Clinton or CRA.
The expectation that a continued upward trend in market value would substantiate risky loans is pretty much the same thing that busted 'Champagne' Charlie Keating, McCain's old buddy once the Fed's looked into it. Too bad they didn't learn their lesson back then.

[Willam]

An interesting clip to watch (sorry, to dumb to figure out how to post the clip here).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

[halfabubbleoff]

I just love how everyone is trying to point the finger of blame at one group, entity or policy as the cause of this whole fiasco.

We are all reasonably intelligent folks here. None of us is naive enough to think that you can put all this on the shoulder of one person or group. If it was that easy, it would be just as easy to fix. This is the result of many factors coming together. We all know that, but partisanship is much more fun.

Blame the Clinton/Dem. policy change on "discriminatory lending," along with the deregulation push by Conservatives, the stupidity of the populace, and good ol' fashioned Capitalist Greed. They are all responsible for this mess. Heck, blame the media as well. They were the ones repeating how great the economy was and that house prices would never fall again. Blame the builder for building larger, more expensive homes in areas that really could not afford them. Blame the retailers for pushing out more and more expensive luxury items. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Does that get you anywhere? No
Does it do anything to fix the current situation? Not really
Does it add to the difficulties faced by the general public because everyone is so busy trying to push the blame on their enemies for their own gain?
You bet your bippy.

[URFloorMatt]

So you cite a far left research associate writing for a far left organization to bolster your nonsensical far left claims. Yeah, I'm not really buying that. I'm probably going to listen to actual economists more so than some partisan shlub that doesn't even have a degree in economics. Who is trying to pass the same bullshit lines as Democrats in Congress in 2004 about how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren't burning down as we all are standing around their charred timbers.

http://www.mises.org/story/2963

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm?&page=1I wasn't relying on the argument so much as the facts. Unless you are prepared to refute these claims:

University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations.

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt.You can take your conservative discontent and shove it up your ass.

[Pharon]

This powerpoint explains everything (fucking classic stuff):

The Subprime Primer (http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&skipauth=true&pli=1)

[kid_vidrio]

yeah, that's the one I have. funny as shell, and painfully accurate.

[Claydon]

This powerpoint explains everything (fucking classic stuff):

The Subprime Primer (http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&skipauth=true&pli=1)

Someone should use this as a presentation for the banking committees of the house and senate. Wait....maybe it is too complex in its presentation.

[Claydon]

Soooo, I really cannot stand bill o reilly.

But he held the fire to that fuck stick barney frank

rz-d6WPTXa8&

[willydong]

bill o'reilly is a trailer park morton downey jr.

[Claydon]

bill o'reilly is a trailer park morton downey jr.

well, you didn't say he was wrong

[Pharon]

Soooo, I really cannot stand bill o reilly.

But he held the fire to that fuck stick barney frank

rz-d6WPTXa8&
Welcome to 8 hours ago (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?p=153747#post153747).

[Pollo]

Soooo, I really cannot stand bill o reilly.

But he held the fire to that fuck stick barney frank

rz-d6WPTXa8&

I've never seen Bill this outraged ... heck I know he went ballistic on Phil Donahue on whether the War in Iraq was right or wrong, but he took it to a new level with this interview.

[Claydon]

Welcome to 8 hours ago (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?p=153747#post153747).

fuck...sorry bout that.

[freegood]

I've never seen Bill this outraged ... heck I know he went ballistic on Phil Donahue on whether the War in Iraq was right or wrong, but he took it to a new level with this interview.

Word is that he and Geraldo have matching bite marks on their penises from all the hot and sweaty fighting.

OReilly can rage on like a switch. It's his breadmaker.

[Willam]

From the New York Times

September 30, 1999 Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.


Here's a link to the entire article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&scp=5&sq=october%201999%20fannie%20mae&st=cse

[vasili denisov]

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

The majority of risky loans Fannie Mae took on were between 2005 and 2008, when they took on three times such loans as they had in all the years before combined. They did so not due to deregulation, but because of competition with commercial firms which were buying such loans and in effect making Fannie irrelevant.

Shortly after he became chief executive [of Fannie Mae], Mr. Mudd traveled to the California offices of Angelo R. Mozilo (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/angelo_r_mozilo/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the head of Countrywide Financial, then the nation’s largest mortgage lender. Fannie had a longstanding and lucrative relationship with Countrywide, which sold more loans to Fannie than anyone else.

...

Mr. Mozilo, who did not return telephone calls seeking comment, told Mr. Mudd that Countrywide had other options. For example, Wall Street had recently jumped into the market for risky mortgages. Firms like Bear Stearns (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/bear_stearns_companies/index.html?inline=nyt-org), Lehman Brothers (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/lehman_brothers_holdings_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and Goldman Sachs (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/goldman_sachs_group_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org) had started bundling home loans and selling them to investors — bypassing Fannie and dealing with Countrywide directly.


“You’re becoming irrelevant,” Mr. Mozilo told Mr. Mudd, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting who requested anonymity because the talks were confidential. In the previous year, Fannie had already lost 56 percent of its loan-reselling business to Wall Street and other competitors.
Democrats did urge Fannie and Freddie to buy up lots of bad loan paper last year, but they did so for the same reasons they supported the bail-out, that this lousy paper was burdening banks and clogging the lending of the financial system. The administration backed this move as well.

What may have deeply hurt Fannie and Freddie, and could give pause about Paulson's ability to handle the current situation is the following.

But earlier this year, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/henry_m_jr_paulson/index.html?inline=nyt-per) grew concerned about Fannie’s and Freddie’s stability. He sent a deputy, Robert K. Steel, a former colleague from his time at Goldman Sachs, to speak with Mr. Mudd and his counterpart at Freddie.


Mr. Steel’s orders, according to several people, were to get commitments from the companies to raise more money as a cushion against all the new loans. But when he met with the firms, Mr. Steel made few demands and seemed unfamiliar with Fannie’s and Freddie’s operations, according to someone who attended the discussions.


Rather than getting firm commitments, Mr. Steel struck handshake deals without deadlines.


That misstep would become obvious over the coming months. Although Fannie raised $7.4 billion, Freddie never raised any additional money.
All quotes are from this piece. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html?pagewanted=3&sq=fannie%20freddie%20mudd&st=cse&scp=2)

[taters]

You know your at GMF politics and News Forums when you open a recent board page and its filled with quote wars. Oh, I remember the days...

If I werent so lazy (and busy...and often drunk), I would be at it with you guys.

[Claydon]

You know your at GMF politics and News Forums when you open a recent board page and its filled with quote wars. Oh, I remember the days...

If I werent so lazy (and busy...and often drunk), I would be at it with you guys.

I am sure there is an angry black man that is being held down that you could help.

[kareyn01]

So much for all the mouth-breathers shouting "IT WAS ACORN!" and "IT WAS THE DEMOCRATS AND FREDDIE MAC!" (Don't get me wrong, I'm not absolving the Democrats in Congress for protecting their special interests. I'm just pointing out that this article pretty much disproves the Republican talking-point that it was some sinister combination of poor people, ACORN, Obama, Freddie Mac, and Osama bin Laden that led directly to the financial meltdown.)

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail....
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
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.
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

[freegood]

Acorn just sent out a press release on how McCain was cupping their balls as late as '06.

How soon we forget....