millionaires 5.4 pct surtax

[Mr.Fitnah]

God you are stupid.

Ok, then. Back up your claim. You claimed that CRA grew to 15% of mortgages. Back it up.

That is not what the statment says.

Quoting you.

In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%

Hey....funny, thats exactly what it says.

Next lie?

Sorry Yes it does say that I stand corrected, I cannot prove or disprove this information If you have contrary facts please post them,

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

God you are stupid.

Ok, then. Back up your claim. You claimed that CRA grew to 15% of mortgages. Back it up.

That is not what the statment says.
I have not been able to determine the values of all 1996.1997 mortgages
or the value of the 1996/1997 CRA loans

And yet you posted claims about them. Why?

In respones to this , The CRA had been invigorated by Clinton'd efforts

They weren't pressured by anyone. The CRA was to prevent redlining.

The CRA was enacted in 1977. You think it took 30 years to have any effect?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You seemed to be under the impression the CRA had been lying fallow for 30 years, when in fact it bad practices had been expanded and become wild spend inn the industry.

 

[Nik]

That is not what the statment says.

Quoting you.

In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%

Hey....funny, thats exactly what it says.

Next lie?

Sorry Yes it does say that I stand corrected, I cannot prove or disprove this information If you have contrary facts please post them,

Thank you. Jesus, it only took what...3 pages?

 

[Nik]

That is not what the statment says.
I have not been able to determine the values of all 1996.1997 mortgages
or the value of the 1996/1997 CRA loans

And yet you posted claims about them. Why?

In respones to this , The CRA had been invigorated by Clinton'd efforts

They weren't pressured by anyone. The CRA was to prevent redlining.

The CRA was enacted in 1977. You think it took 30 years to have any effect?

And you know that how, exactly?

As I pointed out, the 15% link was a lie.

 

[Nik]

You seemed to be under the impression the CRA had been lying fallow for 30 years, when in fact it bad practices had been expanded and become wild spend inn the industry.

The CRA just said you couldn't not lend to minorities and underserved populations. It never advocated subprime loans or saying that banks had to make risky loans. Just that they couldn't refuse to loan to an entire community because of their skin color.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Quoting you.



Hey....funny, thats exactly what it says.

Next lie?

Sorry Yes it does say that I stand corrected, I cannot prove or disprove this information If you have contrary facts please post them,

Thank you. Jesus, it only took what...3 pages?

No ,that exchange was 3 post 117, 118, 119.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

And yet you posted claims about them. Why?

In respones to this , The CRA had been invigorated by Clinton'd efforts

They weren't pressured by anyone. The CRA was to prevent redlining.

The CRA was enacted in 1977. You think it took 30 years to have any effect?

And you know that how, exactly?

As I pointed out, the 15% link was a lie.

The post was for the limited purpose to inform you of the newly invigorated clinton policy , Which I assumed was common knowledge.
you have not proven the 15 % is a lie. You have had ample opportunity to prove it was and you have not.
What you have proven is you read things that are not there, jump to conclusions , get hysterical and use foul language.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You seemed to be under the impression the CRA had been lying fallow for 30 years, when in fact it bad practices had been expanded and become wild spend inn the industry.

The CRA just said you couldn't not lend to minorities and underserved populations. It never advocated subprime loans or saying that banks had to make risky loans. Just that they couldn't refuse to loan to an entire community because of their skin color.

Enter Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Acorn. applying political pressure to give CRA teeth,
http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/media/pdfs/20090707HousingCrisisReport.pdf

 

[Nik]

In respones to this , The CRA had been invigorated by Clinton'd efforts

And you know that how, exactly?

As I pointed out, the 15% link was a lie.

The post was for the limited purpose to inform you of the newly invigorated clinton policy , Which I assumed was common knowledge.
you have not proven the 15 % is a lie. You have had ample opportunity to prove it was and you have not.
What you have proven is you read things that are not there, jump to conclusions , get hysterical and use foul language.

See, the blog that made the claim had some evidence for it. Except the evidence they used was for subprime mortgages. Makes it a lie. But then I wouldn't expect you to see that.

 

[editec]

CRA didn't cause the mortgage meltdown.

Changing the qualifying formulas to lend money to paupers certainly did.

Two entirely different policies, really.

 

[midcan5]

All the small business owners I know are complaining about sales not these other more political issues.

"This has led to an economy hugely warped in favour of a small slice of very rich Americans. The wealthiest one percent of households now control a third of the national wealth. The wealthiest 10 percent control two-thirds of it. This is a society that is splitting down the middle and it has taken place against a backdrop of economic growth.

Between 1980 and 2004 America's GDP went up by almost two-thirds. But instead of making everyone better off, it has made only a part of the country wealthier, as another part slips ever more into the black hole of the working poor. There are now 37 million Americans living in poverty, and at 12.7 percent of the population, it is the highest percentage in the developed world.

Yet the tax burden on America's rich is falling, not growing. The top 0.01 percent of households has seen their tax bite fall by a full 25 percentage points since 1980. That was when 'trickle down' economics began, arguing that the rich spending more would benefit everyone as a whole. But America's poor have simply been getting poorer: clearly that theory has not worked in reality."

Wake up: the American Dream is over | World news | The Observer

 

[editec]

"This has led to an economy hugely warped in favour of a small slice of very rich Americans. The wealthiest one percent of households now control a third of the national wealth. The wealthiest 10 percent control two-thirds of it. This is a society that is splitting down the middle and it has taken place against a backdrop of economic growth.

Sorta like this, ya mean?

juxtaposed to this?

​

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

And you know that how, exactly?

As I pointed out, the 15% link was a lie.

The post was for the limited purpose to inform you of the newly invigorated clinton policy , Which I assumed was common knowledge.
you have not proven the 15 % is a lie. You have had ample opportunity to prove it was and you have not.
What you have proven is you read things that are not there, jump to conclusions , get hysterical and use foul language.

See, the blog that made the claim had some evidence for it. Except the evidence they used was for subprime mortgages. Makes it a lie. But then I wouldn't expect you to see that.

Sorry , the problem is you read into things that are not there , jump to conclusions , get hysterical and use foul language .
You are just not very good at the internets.

 

[MaggieMae]

So then you admit that your source lies when it equates CRA loans with subprime loans?

No I missed that..Feel free to repost it.

You posted this:

In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%. Fannie’s and Freddie’s combined portfolios went from about $200 billion to over $1 trillion during Clinton’s term in office – a five fold increase.

The site that you posted it from had that hyperlinked. The hyperlink went to this graph.

Thats not a graph of CRA mortgages, as the link claims. Its a link of subprime mortgages.

Republican spin is OH so fact based, eh?

And it matches the records of 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, which would be the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

 

[MaggieMae]

How many years did it take for the car companies to collapse? It is cumulative through the years. That should not be that hard to understand.

Evidence for this assertion?

By the way, the CRA just made banks loan to minorities and underserved communities. Do you think minorities are more likely to default than whites? If so, why?

The evidence for this assertion is the number of home loans that are in foreclosure...that was easy. Don't ask for a link, just drive through neighborhoods throughout the country.

I think those who are not qualified for the loan amount in a contract, default on loans. Has nothing to do with race but thanks for trying.The government trying "to help", created more of a mess. The CRA created the environment where community activists tied up bank lobbies, threatened lawsuits and denied branch expansion, until the banks gave in.

When I first heard of interest only loans about 6 or 8 years ago, for the purchase of a house , I knew problems would occur. When you have people (of all races) getting into 2, 3, 4 hundred thousand dollar houses, paying only the interest, it doesn't take an economist to predict a collapse. It serves no one well, to do this. I know the CRA was not the only problem or fault in this but it definitely had a big role.

So you think foreclosures are only happening in low-income neighborhoods? Think again. And the DATE of this article is March 2007:

Mortgage crisis hits million-dollar homes | U.S. | Reuters

 

[MaggieMae]

You seemed to be under the impression the CRA had been lying fallow for 30 years, when in fact it bad practices had been expanded and become wild spend inn the industry.

If CRA is guilty of anything, it is fueling the housing boom, but the Bush administration's 2004 minority homeownership policy encouraged even less strict terms for first-time home buyers. The PROBLEM is not with the intent of either of those endeavors. The PROBLEM was a total under-leveraging by the major financial institutions whose daily operations became exclusively in credit default swaps.

There's an excellent explanation here:

Credit default swaps: all you need to know - MoneyWeek

Credit default swaps: where did problems start?
With the US housing boom. As the Fed slashed interest rates and record numbers of Americans piled into property, house prices soared and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) became the 'must-have' investment. Subprime mortgages were pooled, sliced and diced into bonds that were bought by just about every financial firm in town, and by banks around the world, too. Credit default swaps were taken out to protect many of these MBS against default. "These structures were such a great deal, everyone and their dog decided to jump in, which led to massive growth in the market," says Rohan Douglas, ex-head of Salomon Brothers and Citigroup's global credit swaps research unit in the 1990s. Firms such as the giant US insurer AIG started issuing CDS by the bucket load – $440bn, to be exact. When US house prices nose-dived and MBS values crashed, AIG had to find $14bn to cover its exposure. As the stockmarket sussed out that the insurer couldn't to do this, its shares collapsed, dragging down the Dow and fuelling a panic that the CDS market was about to fail. So AIG had to be rescued by the US taxpayer.

 

[MaggieMae]

You seemed to be under the impression the CRA had been lying fallow for 30 years, when in fact it bad practices had been expanded and become wild spend inn the industry.

The CRA just said you couldn't not lend to minorities and underserved populations. It never advocated subprime loans or saying that banks had to make risky loans. Just that they couldn't refuse to loan to an entire community because of their skin color.

Enter Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Acorn. applying political pressure to give CRA teeth,
http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/media/pdfs/20090707HousingCrisisReport.pdf

Enter the best and only FoxNews talking point.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You seemed to be under the impression the CRA had been lying fallow for 30 years, when in fact it bad practices had been expanded and become wild spend inn the industry.

If CRA is guilty of anything, it is fueling the housing boom, but the Bush administration's 2004 minority homeownership policy encouraged even less strict terms for first-time home buyers. The PROBLEM is not with the intent of either of those endeavors. The PROBLEM was a total under-leveraging by the major financial institutions whose daily operations became exclusively in credit default swaps.
[/I]

1995
A Freddie Mac spokeswoman later acknowledged that the Clinton HUD’s decision on
subprime loans “forced us to go into that market to serve the targeted populations that
HUD wanted us to serve.” Clinton’s HUD Assistant Secretary William C. Apgar, Jr. has
since called the decision a “mistake,” while his former advisor Allen Fishbein called the
loans that the GSEs started buying to meet their affordable housing goals “contrary to
good lending practices,” and examples of “dangerous lending.”21 President Clinton
himself acknowledged his role in efforts to loosen mortgage lending standards when he
admitted that “there was possible danger in his administration’s policy of pressuring
Fannie Mae…to lower its credit standards for lower- and middle-income families seeking
homes.”22 These accumulated government affordable housing policies, including the
Clinton Strategy, trapped millions of Americans in mortgages they could not afford.

http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/media/pdfs/20090707HousingCrisisReport.pdf

After that, Kattie bar the door . the stampede begins

lower Lending Standards SPREAD AND cause the Housing
Bubble
Risky mortgage lending, particularly loans with very low down payments, contributed
directly to the rise of a housing bubble. Had this risky lending been contained within the
low-income segment of the market targeted by politicians advocating more “innovation”
in “affordable lending,” the damage to the wider economy might have been minimal.
However, these “innovations” in “flexible” loans products spread beyond just affordable
lending into the entire U.S. mortgage market. The lure of reduced underwriting standards

11
held true not just for borrowers of modest income but for those at all income levels.
Although the erosion of mortgage underwriting standards began in Washington with
initiatives like the CRA as a way to reduce “barriers to homeownership,” this trend
inevitably spread to the wider mortgage market.

One observer noted:
Bank regulators, who were in charge of enforcing CRA standards, could hardly
disapprove of similar loans made to better qualified borrowers. This is exactly
what occurred.23

Borrowers – regardless of income level – took advantage of the erosion of underwriting
standards that started with government affordable housing policy. As one study
observed,“[o]ver the past decade, most, if not all, the products offered to subprime
borrowers have also been offered to prime borrowers.”24 For example, Alt-A and
adjustable-rate mortgages became incredibly popular with borrowers – who were
generally not low-income – engaging in housing speculation. As home prices continued
their dizzying rise, many people decided to cash in by buying a house with an adjustablerate
mortgage featuring a low introductory teaser rate set to increase after a few years.
These borrowers, confident in the oft-cited assertion that U.S. home values had never
before fallen in the aggregate, planned to sell or refinance their investment before the
mortgage rate adjusted upward, pocketing the difference between the initial purchase
price and the subsequent appreciation in value. However, buyers failed to grasp the
effect of a government policy that had quietly eroded the prudential limits on mortgage
leverage, creating a dangerous speculative bubble.
As the size of down payments for mortgages fell, so too did borrowers’ equity stake in
the homes they purchased. This had two important effects. First, it eliminated the
borrower’s “skin in the game,” increasing the likelihood that he or she would walk away
from the mortgage if times got tough. It also increased the borrower’s leverage (debt) as
measured by the Loan-to-Value ratio.25 This leverage allows borrowers to purchase more
expensive houses than they would otherwise be able to afford at a given level of income.

 

[jillian]

hmmmm--We live in an economy where the idea is to earn money but if you do really well at it you have to give it back ??? Makes sense to me--not.

Yeah, instead lets make the people who don't make any give it back

If the ones not making any weren't trying to live like they are making big money, we wouldn't be in this mess.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... cause deregulation and the banks' ponzi schemes had nothing to do with the crash...