Uh oh...somebody made BO mad

[Oddball]

Bullshit.

The CRA fingerprints are all over this mess and you know it.

Thanks for confirming my statement. The only way you can reasonable claim that the CRA caused the crisis is if you believe that minorities are a bad credit risk.

Now you are being blatantly dishonest, and a closet bigot to boot.

Not all crappy high risk neighborhoods, where undercollateralized mortgages were primarily written, are populated by minorities. Moreover, nobody --but nobody-- has a right to bank financing for anything.

 

[Polk]

Bullshit.

The CRA fingerprints are all over this mess and you know it.

Thanks for confirming my statement. The only way you can reasonable claim that the CRA caused the crisis is if you believe that minorities are a bad credit risk.

New flash Polk: Low-income people ARE a bad credit risk on a $200,000 house EVERY time. It is called debt to income and banks use it everyday to determine loans in the real world. Creating an artifical environment didn't make it workable. Note the results we all saw a year ago October.

So all minorities are low-income? That's what the CRA addressed. It doesn't force banks to give loans to bad credit risks.

 

[Polk]

Bullshit.

The CRA fingerprints are all over this mess and you know it.

Thanks for confirming my statement. The only way you can reasonable claim that the CRA caused the crisis is if you believe that minorities are a bad credit risk.

Now you are being blatantly dishonest, and a closet bigot to boot.

Not all crappy high risk neighborhoods, where undercollateralized mortgages were primarily written, are populated by minorities. Moreover, nobody --but nobody-- has a right to bank financing for anything.

I'm not being a closet bigot. You're being an open one. You're trying to claim that laws to protect minorities against discrimination in lending are the cause of the crisis.

 

[Polk]

For starters, if the CRA caused the crisis, why were institutions not subject to the CRA more likely to issue subprime loans?

 

[potter 58]

wow Sal. 200k, boy do I know a lot of red necks that wounl'nt Qualify,most people in this country do'nt own a 200 k house , what do you think a$$wipe

 

[potter 58]

maybe you look down your nose at 200 k , right a$$wipe

 

[Polk]

wow Sal. 200k, boy do I know a lot of red necks that wounl'nt Qualify,most people in this country do'nt own a 200 k house , what do you think a$$wipe

Actually, 200,000 is pretty average in most of the nation. Even after the recent declines, the national median is around 175,000.

 

[SFC Ollie]

wow Sal. 200k, boy do I know a lot of red necks that wounl'nt Qualify,most people in this country do'nt own a 200 k house , what do you think a$$wipe

I guess you haven't been house hunting for a long time. 200K is nothing for a house today, or at least it was nothing 4 years ago, when I left the business.

 

[saveliberty]

Thanks for confirming my statement. The only way you can reasonable claim that the CRA caused the crisis is if you believe that minorities are a bad credit risk.

New flash Polk: Low-income people ARE a bad credit risk on a $200,000 house EVERY time. It is called debt to income and banks use it everyday to determine loans in the real world. Creating an artifical environment didn't make it workable. Note the results we all saw a year ago October.

So all minorities are low-income? That's what the CRA addressed. It doesn't force banks to give loans to bad credit risks.

You used the word minorities. The CRA is about low income people. I didn't make the assuption they were one in the same. You did.

It did force banks to make these loans to a degree. I seem to remember Mr. Franks applting a lot of pressure to big banks that didn't participate as much as he thought they should. That aside, no they weren't forced and either were the home buyers. Yet a system was set up that was ripe for fraud and coruption. Surprise! Look what we got.

 

[saveliberty]

maybe you look down your nose at 200 k , right a$$wipe

At current market values I am sure mine is less than half of that now.

 

[Polk]

New flash Polk: Low-income people ARE a bad credit risk on a $200,000 house EVERY time. It is called debt to income and banks use it everyday to determine loans in the real world. Creating an artifical environment didn't make it workable. Note the results we all saw a year ago October.

So all minorities are low-income? That's what the CRA addressed. It doesn't force banks to give loans to bad credit risks.

You used the word minorities. The CRA is about low income people. I didn't make the assuption they were one in the same. You did.

Look at the practices it outlawed. While the bill assists low-income people in general, the practices it outlawed were used most of all to deny loans to credit-worthy minorities.

It did force banks to make these loans to a degree. I seem to remember Mr. Franks applting a lot of pressure to big banks that didn't participate as much as he thought they should. That aside, no they weren't forced and either were the home buyers. Yet a system was set up that was ripe for fraud and coruption. Surprise! Look what we got.

It didn't force the banks to make bad loans. You can claim it did until you're blue in the face, but that won't make it so.

 

[potter 58]

hey Sarg, you are right, but didn't you hear , there is a slump, but that all dependesd where you were born and raised and still live

 

[Polk]

If the CRA caused the crisis, someone should tell the Fed:

I would like to dispel the notion that these problems were caused in any way by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) lending. The CRA is designed to promote lending in low- to moderate-income areas; it is not designed to encourage high-risk lending or poor underwriting. Our analysis of the data finds no evidence, in fact, that CRA lending is in any way responsible for the current crisis…. In fact, the analysis found that only 6 percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. This very small share makes it hard to imagine how CRA could have caused, or even contributed in a meaningful way, to the current crisis. Further support for this conclusion comes from our finding that serious delinquency rates for subprime loans are high in all neighborhood-income categories, not only those in lower-income areas, as might be thought if the CRA were a contributing force to the subprime crisis.

FRB: Speech--Duke, Stabilizing the Housing Market: Focus on Communities --February 16, 2009

 

[Polk]

If the CRA caused the crisis, someone should tell the banks themselves:

Bob Davis, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association, which lobbies Congress to streamline community reinvestment rules, said “it just isn’t credible” to blame the law CRA for the crisis.

“Institutions that are subject to CRA – that is, banks and savings associations – were largely not involved in subprime lending,” Davis said. “The bulk of the loans came through a channel that was not subject to CRA.”

Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law | loans, subprime, banks - Business - The Orange County Register

 

[SFC Ollie]

hey Sarg, you are right, but didn't you hear , there is a slump, but that all dependesd where you were born and raised and still live

Yes there was a slump, but improvements to a property can overcome the slump. I was the General Manager for a Home Improvement company when we bought the house. I could get a lot of "Improvements" fairly cheap. And this 109 year old house needed a lot of improvement.

 

[Polk]

hey Sarg, you are right, but didn't you hear , there is a slump, but that all dependesd where you were born and raised and still live

Yes there was a slump, but improvements to a property can overcome the slump. I was the General Manager for a Home Improvement company when we bought the house. I could get a lot of "Improvements" fairly cheap. And this 109 year old house needed a lot of improvement.

Values are still depressed from the heights, but your numbers aren't that far off.

 

[saveliberty]

hey Sarg, you are right, but didn't you hear , there is a slump, but that all dependesd where you were born and raised and still live

Yes there was a slump, but improvements to a property can overcome the slump. I was the General Manager for a Home Improvement company when we bought the house. I could get a lot of "Improvements" fairly cheap. And this 109 year old house needed a lot of improvement.

Values are still depressed from the heights, but your numbers aren't that far off.

What you improve helps too, right Polk? Mine's 94 years old. Want to race marbles across the hardwood floors? Not really fair, local knowledge and all.

 

[potter 58]

wow sarg , Ill give it to ya, 109 year old house, maybe, historic ? or a good area

 

[SFC Ollie]

wow sarg , Ill give it to ya, 109 year old house, maybe, historic ? or a good area

The village is great, Just don't go to most parts of the city we are a few miles outside of.

 

[potter 58]

lol