Bush and the housing bubble

[bigrebnc1775]

It wasn't the Democrats fault either, at least no more so than the Republicans.

People should stop looking through political prisms to explain events. There are many reasons why bad things happen that have nothing to do with that other evil political party.

Yes it was the democrats fault. Look to Freddy and Fanny. When those two giats had to be shored up all hell broke loss. Oh did I mention Freedy and Fanny were democrat pet projects. Why havn't those two been sent before congress since most everybody else has.

Really?

Please explain to me how Fannie and Freddie caused the housing bubbles in Ireland, the UK, Canada, Spain, France, Portugal, South Africa, Singapore, China, etc., almost all of which had bigger housing bubbles than America.

I've yet to hear anyone who has made your claim explain this.

I'll wait patiently. Thanks.

Have you ever heard of multinational investors? You didn't think that just Amercans bought stock or those bad debt loans in Freddy and Fanny?

 

[kyzr]

Those little "countries" didn't have bubbles, they had pimples. There was no bubble like the US bubble which led to the financial system collapse...
read up on the housing bubble
Real estate bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then read up on the financial collapse
Subprime crisis impact timeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see where the pimples are blamed for the crisis?!

 

[Londoner]

The US Government entered the mortgage business in 1938 with Fannie Mae. It was tightly regulated, and the result was the slow expansion of middle class home ownership. In fact, the housing market was one of the most stable elements of the postwar economy.

Again: Fannie Mae was run successfully for a 1/2 century.

Freddie Mac entered the secondary market (buying/pooling/securitizing) in the 70s.

The Community Reinvestment Act was created in 1977.

These progressive institutions were managed effectively for decades. Housing bubbles were prevented with very effective rate management and lending regulations. Mass foreclosures simply didn't happen.

The economy absorbed and thrived under these longstanding liberal "institutions".

Then came George Bush. The nation was rebounding from a severe tech bubble followed by 9/11. Interest rates were lowered to fire up the economy -- but nothing was working. Bush had a choice. He could let the nation endure a necessary recession (which would have been the responsible thing to do, even though it would have cost him a 2nd term). Or, he could turn the most solid investment in American history -- home ownership -- into an ATM or ponzi scheme. He could incentivize the use of one's home as an ATM. Bush chose the most unscrupulous path imaginable. He got rid of the "fine print" and the regulations. He declared "Wild West" lending. He stimulated the economy, and he got his second term.

You need to watch this whole clip very carefully. Listen to Bush's words.

Go to 4:23. It's called proof. It's called a smoking gun.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8]YouTube - ‪Home Ownership and President Bush‬‎[/ame]

People hate it when Obama and the Dems blames Bush. Well, it's time for Republicans to take ownership of something that happened on their watch.

Attention Republicans: if you want liberals to take ownership of what happens on their watch, you need to take ownership of something that happens on your watch (at least once).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The US Government entered the mortgage business in 1938 with Fannie Mae. It was tightly regulated, and the result was the slow expansion of middle class home ownership. In fact, the housing market was one of the most stable elements of the postwar economy.

Again: Fannie Mae was run successfully for a 1/2 century.

Freddie Mac entered the secondary market (buying/pooling/securitizing) in the 70s.

The Community Reinvestment Act was created in 1977.

These progressive institutions were managed effectively for decades. Housing bubbles were prevented with very effective rate management and lending regulations. Mass foreclosures simply didn't happen.

The economy absorbed and thrived under these longstanding liberal "institutions".

Then came George Bush. The nation was rebounding from a severe tech bubble followed by 9/11. Interest rates were lowered to fire up the economy -- but nothing was working. Bush had a choice. He could let the nation endure a necessary recession (which would have been the responsible thing to do, even though it would have cost him a 2nd term). Or, he could turn the most solid investment in American history -- home ownership -- into an ATM or ponzi scheme. He could incentivize the use of one's home as an ATM.

Bush chose the most unscrupulous path imaginable. He misused liberal policies, and New Deal institutions, in order to create a fraudulent prosperity bubble. He got rid of the "fine print" and the regulations. He declared "Wild West" minority lending.

You need to watch this whole clip very carefully. Listen to Bush's words.

Go to 4:23. It's called proof. It's called a smoking gun.

YouTube - ‪Home Ownership and President Bush‬‎

People hate it when Obama and the Dems blames Bush. Well, it's time for Republicans to take ownership of something that happened on their watch.

Attention Republicans: if you want liberals to take ownership of what happens on their watch, you need to take ownership of something that happens on your watch (at least once).

Your video nows here is mine
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related]YouTube - ‪Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown‬‎[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYz1rbB5V1s&feature=related[/ame]

 

[kyzr]

The US Government entered the mortgage business in 1938 with Fannie Mae. It was tightly regulated, and the result was the slow expansion of middle class home ownership. In fact, the housing market was one of the most stable elements of the postwar economy.

Again: Fannie Mae was run successfully for a 1/2 century.

Freddie Mac entered the secondary market (buying/pooling/securitizing) in the 70s.

The Community Reinvestment Act was created in 1977.

These progressive institutions were managed effectively for decades. Housing bubbles were prevented with very effective rate management and lending regulations. Mass foreclosures simply didn't happen.

The economy absorbed and thrived under these longstanding liberal "institutions".

Then came George Bush. The nation was rebounding from a severe tech bubble followed by 9/11. Interest rates were lowered to fire up the economy -- but nothing was working. Bush had a choice. He could let the nation endure a necessary recession (which would have been the responsible thing to do, even though it would have cost him a 2nd term). Or, he could turn the most solid investment in American history -- home ownership -- into an ATM or ponzi scheme. He could incentivize the use of one's home as an ATM. Bush chose the most unscrupulous path imaginable. He got rid of the "fine print" and the regulations. He declared "Wild West" minority lending. He stimulated the economy, and he got his second term.

You need to watch this whole clip very carefully. Listen to Bush's words.
Go to 4:23. It's called proof. It's called a smoking gun

People hate it when Obama and the Dems blames Bush. Well, it's time for Republicans to take ownership of something that happened on their watch.

Attention Republicans: if you want liberals to take ownership of what happens on their watch, you need to take ownership of something that happens on your watch (at least once).

What happened on Bush's watch was that the dems blocked all attempts at regulating the dems' cash-cows. I don't see any "smoking gun", only a mis-guided president being too liberal instead of a rock-solid conservative. You can either afford a house or you can't. If you want one, buy one you can afford and fix it up...assuming your job wasn't outsourced by the politicians to get campaign contributions.

 

[Toro]

Yes it was the democrats fault. Look to Freddy and Fanny. When those two giats had to be shored up all hell broke loss. Oh did I mention Freedy and Fanny were democrat pet projects. Why havn't those two been sent before congress since most everybody else has.

Really?

Please explain to me how Fannie and Freddie caused the housing bubbles in Ireland, the UK, Canada, Spain, France, Portugal, South Africa, Singapore, China, etc., almost all of which had bigger housing bubbles than America.

I've yet to hear anyone who has made your claim explain this.

I'll wait patiently. Thanks.

Have you ever heard of multinational investors? You didn't think that just Amercans bought stock or those bad debt loans in Freddy and Fanny?

I am a multinational investor.

Please tell me how foreigners buying GSE debt increases the price of homes in Malaga and Dublin. Thanks.

 

[Cuyo]

Yes it was the democrats fault. Look to Freddy and Fanny. When those two giats had to be shored up all hell broke loss. Oh did I mention Freedy and Fanny were democrat pet projects. Why havn't those two been sent before congress since most everybody else has.

Really?

Please explain to me how Fannie and Freddie caused the housing bubbles in Ireland, the UK, Canada, Spain, France, Portugal, South Africa, Singapore, China, etc., almost all of which had bigger housing bubbles than America.

I've yet to hear anyone who has made your claim explain this.

I'll wait patiently. Thanks.

Have you ever heard of multinational investors? You didn't think that just Amercans bought stock or those bad debt loans in Freddy and Fanny?

Swing and a miss...

As much as you like to focus your little monocle on those damn evil Fannie and Freddy (which were private at the time BTW), what really took place was speculation run amok, amid an understanding by investors that either A> The old adage that "Real Estate always appreciates or B> They would be able to dump it all and get the fuck out of dodge before the big squeeze.

You can't blame the government for this one, except to say that the government should have prevented it (With evil Socialist Marxist inhibitions on the free market's right to pillage and plunder without fear of consequence). The responsibility here lays directly on the private sector.

 

[The Rabbi]

It wasn't the Democrats fault either, at least no more so than the Republicans.

People should stop looking through political prisms to explain events. There are many reasons why bad things happen that have nothing to do with that other evil political party.

Yes it was the democrats fault. Look to Freddy and Fanny. When those two giats had to be shored up all hell broke loss. Oh did I mention Freedy and Fanny were democrat pet projects. Why havn't those two been sent before congress since most everybody else has.

Really?

Please explain to me how Fannie and Freddie caused the housing bubbles in Ireland, the UK, Canada, Spain, France, Portugal, South Africa, Singapore, China, etc., almost all of which had bigger housing bubbles than America.

I've yet to hear anyone who has made your claim explain this.

I'll wait patiently. Thanks.

Irrelevant and a red herring.
You look at phenomena in the U.S. to explain the U.S. And in any case the bubble in the U.S. was much greater than those countries.

 

[Toro]

Irrelevant and a red herring.
You look at phenomena in the U.S. to explain the U.S. And in any case the bubble in the U.S. was much greater than those countries.

Yeah, maybe if its 1910 you only look at the United States. But this is a globally integrated market. Anyone who knows a thing about modern finance realizes this.

Home prices in the US actually lagged much of the rest of the world. Countries that had higher increases in housing prices or as high or higher valuations during the decade include Australia, China, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, France, Canada, and South Africa. America is in the middle of the pack compared to the rest of the developed world.

House prices: Safe as houses | The Economist

 

[oreo]

There is some speculation that Bush fueled the housing bubble in order to cover up what his policies were doing to the economy . . . in order to gain a second term.

We know the Democrats have always pushed for minority housing, but their policies have been in place for ages without much instability.

Did Bush go too far for political reasons?

President - Research the news about President - from HighBeam Research


The smoking gun
YouTube - ‪Home Ownership and President Bush‬‎

Good Grief Londoner--how NEW are you on this board? Do you know any political American history what-so-ever--or are you just brain DEAD?

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

Everyone on this board--by now--knows that all was DEREGULATED during the CLINTON administration.

Fannie/Freddie started under the Carter administration during the 70's to aid lower income people to obtain LOWER income housing. As government ALWAYS expands it went from that to guaranteeing $500k custom homes.

Basically--under the Clinton administration era--our government thought it would be a great idea to co-sign our names to 50% of the mortages in this country using Fannie/Freddie (and without our knowledge or consent). They also adhered to using sub-prime mortgages--and in the above 1999 link--you will see that Clinton administration banking officials were pressuring banks to loan out more money to people who we consider today--to NOT be qualified for any loan. Back then they didn't need colateral, no down payment, less than a desirable credit rating, and even at times no proof of income. Wall Street bought these mortgage backed securities up as fast as they could and started trading them in the black hole called the derivities market--also strongly supported by Clinton's treasury secretary--Robert Rubin--and then Fed Chairman Allan Greenspan. The government built a house of cards that collapsed leaving the American taxpayer holding the bag.

All warnings were ignored--including from those in the Bush Administration. While both partiers were involved--this one is mainly shouldered on DEMOCRATS. In fact, the largest donations from Freddie/Fannie went to DEMOCRAT politicians and democrat congressional and senate banking boards..--FACT.

 

[oreo]

Really?

Please explain to me how Fannie and Freddie caused the housing bubbles in Ireland, the UK, Canada, Spain, France, Portugal, South Africa, Singapore, China, etc., almost all of which had bigger housing bubbles than America.

I've yet to hear anyone who has made your claim explain this.

I'll wait patiently. Thanks.

Have you ever heard of multinational investors? You didn't think that just Amercans bought stock or those bad debt loans in Freddy and Fanny?

Swing and a miss...

As much as you like to focus your little monocle on those damn evil Fannie and Freddy (which were private at the time BTW), what really took place was speculation run amok, amid an understanding by investors that either A> The old adage that "Real Estate always appreciates or B> They would be able to dump it all and get the fuck out of dodge before the big squeeze.

You can't blame the government for this one, except to say that the government should have prevented it (With evil Socialist Marxist inhibitions on the free market's right to pillage and plunder without fear of consequence). The responsibility here lays directly on the private sector.

Ground Zero of this current economic collapse is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. They deregulated banks--and under Clinton's treasury secretary--Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan they also fully supported the derivities market and defended it against all warnings. In fact, both have already "apologized" for their mistakes in congressional hearings over this economic/banking collapse.

Read it and weap:

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.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

You might also want to read what is the Glass/Steagall act of 1933 (banking) that was in place until the 1990's (deregulated) that was a significant component to the foundation of our banking collapse. Our government should have NEVER done away with this one. Again--done away with in the 1990's aka the Clinton Administration.

 

[Londoner]

Agreed 100%, Oreo, on Clinton and deregulation.

Clinton completed the Reagan Revolution, of which deregulation was the central pillar. Robert Rubin is a Milton Friedman loving free marketeer. Clinton lowered capital gains taxes more the Reagan, made larger cuts to Welfare than Reagan, reduced the federal workforce more than Reagan, and delivered the only balanced budget in the last 50 years. He was more of a fiscal Reaganite than Reagan, which is why he was such a threat to Movement Conservatism, i.e., he was trying to replace the Republicans as the party of business; he was trying to destroy the funding advantage that started when Reagan moved the party completely over to Big Business. People say that Gingrich was responsible for everything, but Clinton was a right leaning free market centrist long before the Gingrich Revolution. [FYI: there used to be fiscally conservative Southern Democrats and Liberal northeastern Republicans. And let's not forget about socially conservative Democrats like Jimmy Carter who was far to the Right of Reagan on many social issues. It's funny: Reagan never set foot in a church until he discovered the electoral advantages of the moral majority]

Here is a good book for studying Clinton's allegiance to Reaganomics:
Clintonomics: how Bill Clinton ... - Google Books

There have been two political eras in America.

1) FDR 's managed capitalism (which is based on a regulated private sector). This lasted from the 40s to the 70s, during which America saw its greatest economic growth. It was a time when middle class familes could send their children to college and America lead the world in manufacturing, education, and technology.

2) Reagan's free market capitalism (which is based on giving business more control over it's regulatory environment). This lasted from the late 70s to today -- a time of bubbles and scandals and an over-reliance on credit and manufacturing job loss: S&L, Enron, Tech&Housing bubble, Wall Street meltdown. Reagan's wild west capitalism -- which achieved bipartisan consensus -- has lead to disaster.

But one essential point reamins: during each era (FDR & Reagan), both parties essentially reached a consensus about government's role in the economy. This explains why Eisenhower & Nixon, through their allegiance to the New Deal and regulated capitalism, were to the Left of Carter & Clinton, who were, by comparison, major proponents of deregulation. FDR and Reagan literally created 40 year shadows. Clinton executed Reaganomics in the exact same way Nixon executed the New Deal and FDR's regulatory vision.

But yes, we agree.

Deregulation in financial markets (which allows the investment side of banking to gamble with your savings) was a disaster. FDR's financial regulations delivered stable financial markets for nearly 1/2 a century, until Reagan started tinkering (S&Ls). Listen, the Reagan Revolution didn't want any pesky government regulators combing over Enron's balance sheet. Enron, we were told, can be trusted to be honest about their losses just as AIG can be trusted with their derivatives. No need to have the SEC checking to see if they can cover their bets. Reagan got us to trust business like never before. Take note of how populism changed from FDR to Reagan. In the 40s, populism was directed against the cigar smoking fat cat business man. After Reagan, populism was directed against government. Business was to be trusted. Regulation was unnecessary. Game over.

You are lying in the bed Reagan made for you. Rubin and Clinton were pawns in a movement which still owns your country.

 

[The Rabbi]

Irrelevant and a red herring.
You look at phenomena in the U.S. to explain the U.S. And in any case the bubble in the U.S. was much greater than those countries.

Yeah, maybe if its 1910 you only look at the United States. But this is a globally integrated market. Anyone who knows a thing about modern finance realizes this.

Home prices in the US actually lagged much of the rest of the world. Countries that had higher increases in housing prices or as high or higher valuations during the decade include Australia, China, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, France, Canada, and South Africa. America is in the middle of the pack compared to the rest of the developed world.

House prices: Safe as houses | The Economist

Unless you want to posit that large numbers of foreigners were responsible for buying houses it is still irrelevant.
Large numbers of foreigners did buy Fannie/Freddie paper, fueling demand for that paper and by extension mortgage loans. Fan/Fred thus were enablers in this, maintaining low standards to keep the paper flowing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Really?

Please explain to me how Fannie and Freddie caused the housing bubbles in Ireland, the UK, Canada, Spain, France, Portugal, South Africa, Singapore, China, etc., almost all of which had bigger housing bubbles than America.

I've yet to hear anyone who has made your claim explain this.

I'll wait patiently. Thanks.

Have you ever heard of multinational investors? You didn't think that just Amercans bought stock or those bad debt loans in Freddy and Fanny?

I am a multinational investor.

Please tell me how foreigners buying GSE debt increases the price of homes in Malaga and Dublin. Thanks.

Have you heard of how the bad debts were bundled and repackaged and sold as viable loans? Yes Foreign investors bought a lot of these bad loans

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Really?

Please explain to me how Fannie and Freddie caused the housing bubbles in Ireland, the UK, Canada, Spain, France, Portugal, South Africa, Singapore, China, etc., almost all of which had bigger housing bubbles than America.

I've yet to hear anyone who has made your claim explain this.

I'll wait patiently. Thanks.

Have you ever heard of multinational investors? You didn't think that just Amercans bought stock or those bad debt loans in Freddy and Fanny?

Swing and a miss...

As much as you like to focus your little monocle on those damn evil Fannie and Freddy (which were private at the time BTW), what really took place was speculation run amok, amid an understanding by investors that either A> The old adage that "Real Estate always appreciates or B> They would be able to dump it all and get the fuck out of dodge before the big squeeze.

You can't blame the government for this one, except to say that the government should have prevented it (With evil Socialist Marxist inhibitions on the free market's right to pillage and plunder without fear of consequence). The responsibility here lays directly on the private sector.

Wishful thinking, but if the republicans had anything to do with Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae you can bet your ass that you would be blaming the government..

 

[bucs90]

The US Government entered the mortgage business in 1938 with Fannie Mae. It was tightly regulated, and the result was the slow expansion of middle class home ownership. In fact, the housing market was one of the most stable elements of the postwar economy.

Again: Fannie Mae was run successfully for a 1/2 century.

Freddie Mac entered the secondary market (buying/pooling/securitizing) in the 70s.

The Community Reinvestment Act was created in 1977.

These progressive institutions were managed effectively for decades. Housing bubbles were prevented with very effective rate management and lending regulations. Mass foreclosures simply didn't happen.

The economy absorbed and thrived under these longstanding liberal "institutions".

Then came George Bush. The nation was rebounding from a severe tech bubble followed by 9/11. Interest rates were lowered to fire up the economy -- but nothing was working. Bush had a choice. He could let the nation endure a necessary recession (which would have been the responsible thing to do, even though it would have cost him a 2nd term). Or, he could turn the most solid investment in American history -- home ownership -- into an ATM or ponzi scheme. He could incentivize the use of one's home as an ATM. Bush chose the most unscrupulous path imaginable. He got rid of the "fine print" and the regulations. He declared "Wild West" minority lending. He stimulated the economy, and he got his second term.

You need to watch this whole clip very carefully. Listen to Bush's words.
Go to 4:23. It's called proof. It's called a smoking gun

People hate it when Obama and the Dems blames Bush. Well, it's time for Republicans to take ownership of something that happened on their watch.

Attention Republicans: if you want liberals to take ownership of what happens on their watch, you need to take ownership of something that happens on your watch (at least once).

What happened on Bush's watch was that the dems blocked all attempts at regulating the dems' cash-cows. I don't see any "smoking gun", only a mis-guided president being too liberal instead of a rock-solid conservative. You can either afford a house or you can't. If you want one, buy one you can afford and fix it up...assuming your job wasn't outsourced by the politicians to get campaign contributions.

9-11 and the wars changed everything. Had 9-11 not occurred, and the wars not been started, what would the headline stories have been? From 2000-2005, nothing really major would've happened until Katrina. Bush would've had 5 years to focus solely on the impending housing crisis and probably fixed it. But thats not how history played out. 9-11 did happen. The wars did happen. The housing problem took a backseat, and the collapse happened.

But liberals cannot accept that progressive ideals and a progressive housing scheme of pushing homes for people who can't afford them are the root of this economic collapse.

Now, news that an "August suprise" is coming in which Fannie and Freddie will simply forgive the debts of millions of people who are underwater in their mortgage. Great. Basically a government just handing out homes to anyone willing to sign on the dotted line, then saying "Oh well, you can't pay for it, forget about the bill, home is yours, enjoy."

Damn. Why didn't I act all poor and oppressed and get me a house that I never intended to pay for? Wealth redistribution at it's finest.

 

[bucs90]

Really?

Please explain to me how Fannie and Freddie caused the housing bubbles in Ireland, the UK, Canada, Spain, France, Portugal, South Africa, Singapore, China, etc., almost all of which had bigger housing bubbles than America.

I've yet to hear anyone who has made your claim explain this.

I'll wait patiently. Thanks.

Have you ever heard of multinational investors? You didn't think that just Amercans bought stock or those bad debt loans in Freddy and Fanny?

Swing and a miss...

As much as you like to focus your little monocle on those damn evil Fannie and Freddy (which were private at the time BTW), what really took place was speculation run amok, amid an understanding by investors that either A> The old adage that "Real Estate always appreciates or B> They would be able to dump it all and get the fuck out of dodge before the big squeeze.

You can't blame the government for this one, except to say that the government should have prevented it (With evil Socialist Marxist inhibitions on the free market's right to pillage and plunder without fear of consequence). The responsibility here lays directly on the private sector.

You're saying Fannie and Freddie weren't run by the government? If so, this debate pretty much can't go any further.

 

[editec]

Can anybody here tell us exactly how much money the FEDS forced private banks to lend?


And what mechanism forced banks to lend this money to totally unqualified buyers?

Please be specific and back your claims with some REAL numbers and with some real laws that FORCE banks to lend money to UNQUALIFIED lenders.

I've been waiting patiently for somebody to support the claim that the government forced banks to lend money for some time.

The claim is made all the time yet it is never supported by any facts.

 

[Toro]

Have you ever heard of multinational investors? You didn't think that just Amercans bought stock or those bad debt loans in Freddy and Fanny?

I am a multinational investor.

Please tell me how foreigners buying GSE debt increases the price of homes in Malaga and Dublin. Thanks.

Have you heard of how the bad debts were bundled and repackaged and sold as viable loans? Yes Foreign investors bought a lot of these bad loans

You don't understand.

There was a GLOBAL housing bubble. It is still going on in some places. How did Fannie and Freddie facilitate the flows of excess capital into housing markets of OTHER countries? How did Freddie and Fannie loans cause home prices to rise in Vancouver and Sydney?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Can anybody here tell us exactly how much money the FEDS forced private banks to lend?


And what mechanism forced banks to lend this money to totally unqualified buyers?

Please be specific and back your claims with some REAL numbers and with some real laws that FORCE banks to lend money to UNQUALIFIED lenders.

I've been waiting patiently for somebody to support the claim that the government forced banks to lend money for some time.

The claim is made all the time yet it is never supported by any facts.

For people with less time on their hands, here's a quick guide to the main points raised by the CRA defenders and the arguments that refute them. If I’ve left out any salient points, please let me know and I’ll add them to the list.

Let's begin:



Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending