Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Fraudulent lending? You mean when people who know they cant afford a mortgage take one out anyway?
If someone writes a mortgage knowing the borrower isn't qualified, whose fault is that?
There is no mystery where the Occupy Wall Street movement came from: It is an offspring of the same false narrative about the causes of the financial crisis that exculpated the government and brought us the Dodd-Frank Act. According to this story, the financial crisis and ensuing deep recession was caused by a reckless private sector driven by greed and insufficiently regulated. It is no wonder that people who hear this tale repeated endlessly in the media turn on Wall Street to express their frustration with the current conditions in the economy.
Their anger should be directed at those who developed and supported the federal government's housing policies that were responsible for the financial crisis.
The Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York appear unfocused and disorganized. WSJ's Hilke Schellmann takes a peek into the inner workings of the organization and how it is trying to manage communal living in a public space.
Beginning in 1992, the government required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct a substantial portion of their mortgage financing to borrowers who were at or below the median income in their communities. The original legislative quota was 30%. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development was given authority to adjust it, and through the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations HUD raised the quota to 50% by 2000 and 55% by 2007.
It is certainly possible to find prime borrowers among people with incomes below the median. But when more than half of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie were required to buy were required to have that characteristic, these two government-sponsored enterprises had to significantly reduce their underwriting standards.
Fannie and Freddie were not the only government-backed or government-controlled organizations that were enlisted in this process. The Federal Housing Administration was competing with Fannie and Freddie for the same mortgages. And thanks to rules adopted in 1995 under the Community Reinvestment Act, regulated banks as well as savings and loan associations had to make a certain number of loans to borrowers who were at or below 80% of the median income in the areas they served.
Fraudulent lending? You mean when people who know they cant afford a mortgage take one out anyway?
If someone writes a mortgage knowing the borrower isn't qualified, whose fault is that?
Great question & here's an article to what happened:
There is no mystery where the Occupy Wall Street movement came from: It is an offspring of the same false narrative about the causes of the financial crisis that exculpated the government and brought us the Dodd-Frank Act. According to this story, the financial crisis and ensuing deep recession was caused by a reckless private sector driven by greed and insufficiently regulated. It is no wonder that people who hear this tale repeated endlessly in the media turn on Wall Street to express their frustration with the current conditions in the economy.
Their anger should be directed at those who developed and supported the federal government's housing policies that were responsible for the financial crisis.
The Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York appear unfocused and disorganized. WSJ's Hilke Schellmann takes a peek into the inner workings of the organization and how it is trying to manage communal living in a public space.
Beginning in 1992, the government required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct a substantial portion of their mortgage financing to borrowers who were at or below the median income in their communities. The original legislative quota was 30%. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development was given authority to adjust it, and through the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations HUD raised the quota to 50% by 2000 and 55% by 2007.
It is certainly possible to find prime borrowers among people with incomes below the median. But when more than half of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie were required to buy were required to have that characteristic, these two government-sponsored enterprises had to significantly reduce their underwriting standards.
Fannie and Freddie were not the only government-backed or government-controlled organizations that were enlisted in this process. The Federal Housing Administration was competing with Fannie and Freddie for the same mortgages. And thanks to rules adopted in 1995 under the Community Reinvestment Act, regulated banks as well as savings and loan associations had to make a certain number of loans to borrowers who were at or below 80% of the median income in the areas they served.
So the Federal Government was pressuring banks to lower to people (based on the area they lived in) regardless if they could afford the home or not.
Peter Wallison: Wall Street's Gullible Occupiers - WSJ.com
Fraudulent lending? You mean when people who know they cant afford a mortgage take one out anyway?
Or when someones job is moved to China and they can't pay the mortgage.
2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008
Duh.If someone writes a mortgage knowing the borrower isn't qualified, whose fault is that?
Great question & here's an article to what happened:
There is no mystery where the Occupy Wall Street movement came from: It is an offspring of the same false narrative about the causes of the financial crisis that exculpated the government and brought us the Dodd-Frank Act. According to this story, the financial crisis and ensuing deep recession was caused by a reckless private sector driven by greed and insufficiently regulated. It is no wonder that people who hear this tale repeated endlessly in the media turn on Wall Street to express their frustration with the current conditions in the economy.
Their anger should be directed at those who developed and supported the federal government's housing policies that were responsible for the financial crisis.
The Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York appear unfocused and disorganized. WSJ's Hilke Schellmann takes a peek into the inner workings of the organization and how it is trying to manage communal living in a public space.
Beginning in 1992, the government required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct a substantial portion of their mortgage financing to borrowers who were at or below the median income in their communities. The original legislative quota was 30%. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development was given authority to adjust it, and through the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations HUD raised the quota to 50% by 2000 and 55% by 2007.
It is certainly possible to find prime borrowers among people with incomes below the median. But when more than half of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie were required to buy were required to have that characteristic, these two government-sponsored enterprises had to significantly reduce their underwriting standards.
Fannie and Freddie were not the only government-backed or government-controlled organizations that were enlisted in this process. The Federal Housing Administration was competing with Fannie and Freddie for the same mortgages. And thanks to rules adopted in 1995 under the Community Reinvestment Act, regulated banks as well as savings and loan associations had to make a certain number of loans to borrowers who were at or below 80% of the median income in the areas they served.
So the Federal Government was pressuring banks to lower to people (based on the area they lived in) regardless if they could afford the home or not.
Peter Wallison: Wall Street's Gullible Occupiers - WSJ.com
A myth.
Not one bank has ever come forward to claim that they were forced, illegally, against their will to engage in unsound banking practices by making loans to unqualified borrowers.
Wonderful 'Conservative' compassion.
Duh.Great question & here's an article to what happened:
So the Federal Government was pressuring banks to lower to people (based on the area they lived in) regardless if they could afford the home or not.
Peter Wallison: Wall Street's Gullible Occupiers - WSJ.com
A myth.
Not one bank has ever come forward to claim that they were forced, illegally, against their will to engage in unsound banking practices by making loans to unqualified borrowers.
Of course the force wasn't illegal. That's the fucking point.
whoooooooooosh
yes... .let's help the economy by tossing people out of their houses.
kinda like cutting off a leg to get rid of arthritis, imo.
Actual foreclosures are staged exactly for that reason.Wonderful 'Conservative' compassion.
Your misguided sense of compassion is prolonging the agony. It will hurt if we allow the housing bubble to collapse and get it over with, but what we are doing now is going to hurt more because more people will end up in foreclosure in the long run if we do not get the economy moving again.
Duh.A myth.
Not one bank has ever come forward to claim that they were forced, illegally, against their will to engage in unsound banking practices by making loans to unqualified borrowers.
Of course the force wasn't illegal. That's the fucking point.
whoooooooooosh
one mo' time....
CRA did not force banks to abandon their credit worthiness requirements. they abandoned their credit-worthiness requirements because they figured the property was worth so much they'd make a profit on it if they had to foreclose. they also figured that when the ARM's kicked in, they'd make enough money to cover any losses....
which is exactly what happened. it's not the banks that are suffering from their irresponsible ending practices. or are corporations exempt from having to act responsibly?
all CRA did was not allow them to redline neighborhoods.
i really wish people would stop misstating this as if it were some type of mantra.
CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.
Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.
In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.
Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.
Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.
Minorities' Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites' - Los Angeles TimesBut for all that progress, the black and Latino homeownership rates, at about 46%, still significantly trail the white rate, which is nearing 73%. Much of that difference represents structural social disparities--in education levels, wealth and the percentage of single-parent families--that will only change slowly. Still, Apgar says, HUD's analysis suggests there are enough qualified buyers to move the minority homeownership rate into the mid-50% range.
The market itself will probably produce some of that progress. For many builders and lenders, serving minority buyers is now less a social obligation than a business opportunity. Because blacks and Latinos, as groups, are younger than whites, many experts believe they will continue to lead the housing market for years.
But with discrimination in the banking system not yet eradicated, maintaining the momentum of the 1990s will also require a continuing nudge from Washington. One key is to defend the Community Reinvestment Act, which the Senate shortsightedly voted to retrench recently. Clinton has threatened a veto if the House concurs.
Fraudulent lending? You mean when people who know they cant afford a mortgage take one out anyway?
Wonderful 'Conservative' compassion.
So you think people should be allowed to steal from others by keeping houses they refuse to pay for?
Duh.Great question & here's an article to what happened:
So the Federal Government was pressuring banks to lower to people (based on the area they lived in) regardless if they could afford the home or not.
Peter Wallison: Wall Street's Gullible Occupiers - WSJ.com
A myth.
Not one bank has ever come forward to claim that they were forced, illegally, against their will to engage in unsound banking practices by making loans to unqualified borrowers.
Of course the force wasn't illegal. That's the fucking point.
whoooooooooosh
Romney Campaigns Against Foreclosure Relief In Nevada (VIDEO)
Click on link to watch video:
http://www.lvrj.com/multimedia/player/embed/425x239/132028338.swf
"Dont try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom," Romney said when asked what he would do to jump-start the floundering housing market.
"Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up and let it turn around and come back up," he continued. "The Obama administration has slow walked the foreclosure process ... that has long existed and as a result we still have a foreclosure overhang."
--------------------------
Does he even mention fraudulent lending or foreclosure practices? Of course not. This is part of what he considers "capitalism".
Would you like a list of economists who think propping up the housing bubble is only making things worse, or would things like facts make your head explode?
Romney Campaigns Against Foreclosure Relief In Nevada (VIDEO)
Click on link to watch video:
http://www.lvrj.com/multimedia/player/embed/425x239/132028338.swf
"Dont try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom," Romney said when asked what he would do to jump-start the floundering housing market.
"Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up and let it turn around and come back up," he continued. "The Obama administration has slow walked the foreclosure process ... that has long existed and as a result we still have a foreclosure overhang."
--------------------------
Does he even mention fraudulent lending or foreclosure practices? Of course not. This is part of what he considers "capitalism".
Fraudulent lending? You mean when people who know they cant afford a mortgage take one out anyway?
Or when someones job is moved to China and they can't pay the mortgage.
2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008
Fraudulent lending? You mean when people who know they cant afford a mortgage take one out anyway?
Or when someones job is moved to China and they can't pay the mortgage.
2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008
Outsourcing sucks, but what has obama done to stop that?
Or when someones job is moved to China and they can't pay the mortgage.
2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008
Outsourcing sucks, but what has obama done to stop that?
The real question is:
What have Republicans done to HELP Obama stop that?
