Welcome to the Obama economy

[Sallow]

.

There are obviously people who want to absolve Bush of any responsibility regarding the global meltdown, and I suppose that's understandable given the long and clear history of dishonesty that is partisan politics. My guy did nothing wrong, it's all your guy's fault.

Funny thing is, this behavior illustrates an abject ignorance these folks have of the nature of the meltdown.

Obama didn't cause this, nor did Bush. Surprise! It was decades in the making and it could easily take that long for its affects to disappear.

One of the many problems with partisan politics is that it oversimplifies everything it touches. I'm sure that makes things nice and simple of the incurious, the simplistic and the intellectually lazy, but dishonesty advances or improves nothing.

But, by all means, let's continue with the silliness.


.

The point is, Obama is the one who's name is now on white house stationary.
We can debate all day long the root causes, but that doesn't change the location of where the buck stops.

So then, I assume you blame President George W Bush for the attacks of 9/11, correct?

.

Opps.

 

[Sallow]

.

There are obviously people who want to absolve Bush of any responsibility regarding the global meltdown, and I suppose that's understandable given the long and clear history of dishonesty that is partisan politics. My guy did nothing wrong, it's all your guy's fault.

Funny thing is, this behavior illustrates an abject ignorance these folks have of the nature of the meltdown.

Obama didn't cause this, nor did Bush. Surprise! It was decades in the making and it could easily take that long for its affects to disappear.

One of the many problems with partisan politics is that it oversimplifies everything it touches. I'm sure that makes things nice and simple of the incurious, the simplistic and the intellectually lazy, but dishonesty advances or improves nothing.

But, by all means, let's continue with the silliness.


.

The point is, Obama is the one who's name is now on white house stationary.
We can debate all day long the root causes, but that doesn't change the location of where the buck stops.

That's fine.

What has congress done since 2010 to help the president?

 

[Mac1958]

The point is, Obama is the one who's name is now on white house stationary.
We can debate all day long the root causes, but that doesn't change the location of where the buck stops.

So then, I assume you blame President George W Bush for the attacks of 9/11, correct?

.

Opps.

Hey, I have absolutely no doubt that Zxereus blames Bush for the attacks of 9/11.

Bush's name was on the stationery.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

And it's aaaaallll Obama's fault. Yep. He crashed the economy in 2008 all by his lonesome. His policies for the last 30 yrs have caused the middle class to shrink and put more money into the pockets of top earners.

And strangely we never saw stories like this in 2006, 2007, even 2008. Amazing what 3 years of economic decline will do.
No. Obama owns this economy. He had a filibuster proof Democratic Congress and they passed pretty much whatever he wanted. This is the result.
Vote out the Democratic weasels.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

There are obviously people who want to absolve Bush of any responsibility regarding the global meltdown, and I suppose that's understandable given the long and clear history of dishonesty that is partisan politics. My guy did nothing wrong, it's all your guy's fault.

Funny thing is, this behavior illustrates an abject ignorance these folks have of the nature of the meltdown.

Obama didn't cause this, nor did Bush. Surprise! It was decades in the making and it could easily take that long for its affects to disappear.

One of the many problems with partisan politics is that it oversimplifies everything it touches. I'm sure that makes things nice and simple of the incurious, the simplistic and the intellectually lazy, but dishonesty advances or improves nothing.

But, by all means, let's continue with the silliness.


.

The economic crash in 2008 is old history now. People were not on foodstamps in 08 they way they are now. People were not unemployed for year in 08 they way they are now. No, this is the result of terrible economic policies over the last 3years, not some 30 year in the making nonsense.

 

[Zxereus]

.

There are obviously people who want to absolve Bush of any responsibility regarding the global meltdown, and I suppose that's understandable given the long and clear history of dishonesty that is partisan politics. My guy did nothing wrong, it's all your guy's fault.

Funny thing is, this behavior illustrates an abject ignorance these folks have of the nature of the meltdown.

Obama didn't cause this, nor did Bush. Surprise! It was decades in the making and it could easily take that long for its affects to disappear.

One of the many problems with partisan politics is that it oversimplifies everything it touches. I'm sure that makes things nice and simple of the incurious, the simplistic and the intellectually lazy, but dishonesty advances or improves nothing.

But, by all means, let's continue with the silliness.


.

The point is, Obama is the one who's name is now on white house stationary.
We can debate all day long the root causes, but that doesn't change the location of where the buck stops.

So then, I assume you blame President George W Bush for the attacks of 9/11, correct?

.

If you'll go back and look, I am not blaming anyone. I am saying that whoever is in charge "GET'S" the blame or credit. That's how it has always worked.

 

[Nova78]

Welcome to Obama world....:

 

[Zxereus]

So then, I assume you blame President George W Bush for the attacks of 9/11, correct?

.

Opps.

Hey, I have absolutely no doubt that Zxereus blames Bush for the attacks of 9/11.

Bush's name was on the stationery.

.

And you obviously give Obama the credit for killing Osama.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch, so he is the one who had to deal with the fallout.

 

[Jackson]

This year, We can HOPE there is A CHANGE!

 

[Mac1958]

The point is, Obama is the one who's name is now on white house stationary.
We can debate all day long the root causes, but that doesn't change the location of where the buck stops.

So then, I assume you blame President George W Bush for the attacks of 9/11, correct?

.

If you'll go back and look, I am not blaming anyone. I am saying that whoever is in charge "GET'S" the blame or credit. That's how it has always worked.

So you were just making an objective, non-partisan point, with no inference or editorializing whatsoever. I see.

I suppose that would be a little easier to believe if (a) your avatar didn't say "Done" with a fork stuck in Obama's logo, and (b) said in the thread "well, we've had I believe 43 straight months of unemployment over 8%. He obviously isn't up for the job. It's time for change."

I think that any reasonable person would therefore conclude that you ARE making a point, as naive or dishonest as it is, that Obama's policies are to blame for the current economic situation.

Can't you at least be honest about that?

.

 

[PratchettFan]

And it's aaaaallll Obama's fault. Yep. He crashed the economy in 2008 all by his lonesome. His policies for the last 30 yrs have caused the middle class to shrink and put more money into the pockets of top earners.

The buck always stops with the current POTUS.
Obama is in the White House, it's his economy.
He even said himself if he couldn't get it fixed in one term, he would be replaced. Now of course he could easily be re-elected, but he wouldn't have made such a statement if he wasn't agreeing that he should be able to fix the economy.
Well, we've had I believe 43 straight months of unemployment over 8%. He obviously isn't up for the job.
It's time for change.

Your right. He wanted the top seat and with that comes all the responsibility. OTOH, I'm looking at the economy over the last four years and it has improved. My house, while still not worth what it was in 2007, is worth more than it was in 2009. While unemployment has not gotten below 8%, it was at 10%. GM and the various banks did not fail, a distinct possibility, and that was due to a continuation of Bush policies. I think if McCain had won, we would be pretty much where we are now.

All in all, I would say he did about the best job I could expect to be done. Considering the president is not a dictator and really has very limited capacity to control our economy.

If people think Romney would do a better job, they should vote for him. To be honest, I don't think it will make much of a difference either way.

 

[healthmyths]

And it's aaaaallll Obama's fault. Yep. He crashed the economy in 2008 all by his lonesome. His policies for the last 30 yrs have caused the middle class to shrink and put more money into the pockets of top earners.

Well indirectly it was his fault we had a collapse of the home financing industry..

You obviously never heard of this:

1991 court case forced CitiBank to make unqualified loans with Obama representing ACORN in the ...

, to recap, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA 1977) gave an opening for subprime lending. The CRA encouraged banks to lend money to high risk borrowers with the noble notion that it would enable more Americans to be homeowners. Unfortunately, it was undefined for a very long time and that gave community organizing groups such as ACORN to push the boundaries of the law and engage in coercive methods of forcing banks to loan to high risk borrowers. They would threaten to block mergers and expansions of banks unless the banks would dole out these risky loans. In addition, numerous suits were brought against banks alleging that the banks engaged in discriminatory lending phasing out African Americans from loans in an attempt to bully banks into doling out high risk loans.

One such suit was Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Federal Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). This case is most notable for one of the members of counsel representing Selma Buycks-Roberson, Calvin R. Roberson and Rene Brooks. That attorney was a young lawyer named BARACK H. OBAMA.

According to the record, the plaintiffs, all African-Americans sued Citibank for seeking redress for alleged racial discrimination with regard to loan applications.
Ms. Buycks Roberson had applied for a loan to refinance her existing mortgage but was denied because her income did not support the amount of credit requested.
Obama and friends presented evidence noting that Citibank denied refinancing “to only 19% of upper-income applicants living in areas with less than 10% minority population,” while Citibank denied loans to 49& of ALL applicants living in areas of 80-100% minority population. BHO and friends also asserted that 780 minority applications were denied by Citibank in between 1992 and 1993.
Citibank asserted that their underwriting procedure was race-neutral, however the court certified the class regardless.
As a result of the court’s analysis, the court certified a class of “all African-Americans who filed applications for home loans to Citibank on or after July 6, 1992, and whose applications were rejected because they were African-American and/or the racial composition of the neighborhood in which their properties were located were African-American. v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit."

So YES if Obama hadn't been part of this lawsuit, many loans that were FORCED on to the banks to make would not have been.

Plus ever hear of the FDIC? Well they don't like loans made to poor credit risks.
So what would you do if you were faced as the person in charge to obey the laws!

Sell the loans.

And that's where Fannie/Freddie comes in.. again.. Obama???


6) Congress warned about Fannie/Freddie in 2003 and laughed saying no problem!

when Bush administration tried over 17 times in six years to correct FAnnie/Freddie.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic
consequences of failure to reform GSEs ... The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

When warned about Fannie Mae in (House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA)
"these two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac --
are not facing any kind of financial crisis....The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (New York Times, 9/11/03)

And then Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position."

But hey since when have the FACTS stood in the way of biased opinions by people like you?

 

[Freewill]

And it's aaaaallll Obama's fault. Yep. He crashed the economy in 2008 all by his lonesome. His policies for the last 30 yrs have caused the middle class to shrink and put more money into the pockets of top earners.

The buck always stops with the current POTUS.
Obama is in the White House, it's his economy.
He even said himself if he couldn't get it fixed in one term, he would be replaced. Now of course he could easily be re-elected, but he wouldn't have made such a statement if he wasn't agreeing that he should be able to fix the economy.
Well, we've had I believe 43 straight months of unemployment over 8%. He obviously isn't up for the job.
It's time for change.

Your right. He wanted the top seat and with that comes all the responsibility. OTOH, I'm looking at the economy over the last four years and it has improved. My house, while still not worth what it was in 2007, is worth more than it was in 2009. While unemployment has not gotten below 8%, it was at 10%. GM and the various banks did not fail, a distinct possibility, and that was due to a continuation of Bush policies. I think if McCain had won, we would be pretty much where we are now.

All in all, I would say he did about the best job I could expect to be done. Considering the president is not a dictator and really has very limited capacity to control our economy.

If people think Romney would do a better job, they should vote for him. To be honest, I don't think it will make much of a difference either way.

Does the 4 trillion in debt placed on your grandchildren give you one second of pause?

Did the election of a democrat congress in 2006 with the resulting economic crash make you think?

What I get out of your post is that you are happy that the big boy banks on Wallstreet were saved using your grandchildren's money.

 

[Sallow]

And it's aaaaallll Obama's fault. Yep. He crashed the economy in 2008 all by his lonesome. His policies for the last 30 yrs have caused the middle class to shrink and put more money into the pockets of top earners.

Well indirectly it was his fault we had a collapse of the home financing industry..

You obviously never heard of this:

1991 court case forced CitiBank to make unqualified loans with Obama representing ACORN in the ...

, to recap, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA 1977) gave an opening for subprime lending. The CRA encouraged banks to lend money to high risk borrowers with the noble notion that it would enable more Americans to be homeowners. Unfortunately, it was undefined for a very long time and that gave community organizing groups such as ACORN to push the boundaries of the law and engage in coercive methods of forcing banks to loan to high risk borrowers. They would threaten to block mergers and expansions of banks unless the banks would dole out these risky loans. In addition, numerous suits were brought against banks alleging that the banks engaged in discriminatory lending phasing out African Americans from loans in an attempt to bully banks into doling out high risk loans.

One such suit was Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Federal Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). This case is most notable for one of the members of counsel representing Selma Buycks-Roberson, Calvin R. Roberson and Rene Brooks. That attorney was a young lawyer named BARACK H. OBAMA.

According to the record, the plaintiffs, all African-Americans sued Citibank for seeking redress for alleged racial discrimination with regard to loan applications.
Ms. Buycks Roberson had applied for a loan to refinance her existing mortgage but was denied because her income did not support the amount of credit requested.
Obama and friends presented evidence noting that Citibank denied refinancing “to only 19% of upper-income applicants living in areas with less than 10% minority population,” while Citibank denied loans to 49& of ALL applicants living in areas of 80-100% minority population. BHO and friends also asserted that 780 minority applications were denied by Citibank in between 1992 and 1993.
Citibank asserted that their underwriting procedure was race-neutral, however the court certified the class regardless.
As a result of the court’s analysis, the court certified a class of “all African-Americans who filed applications for home loans to Citibank on or after July 6, 1992, and whose applications were rejected because they were African-American and/or the racial composition of the neighborhood in which their properties were located were African-American. v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit."

So YES if Obama hadn't been part of this lawsuit, many loans that were FORCED on to the banks to make would not have been.

Plus ever hear of the FDIC? Well they don't like loans made to poor credit risks.
So what would you do if you were faced as the person in charge to obey the laws!

Sell the loans.

And that's where Fannie/Freddie comes in.. again.. Obama???


6) Congress warned about Fannie/Freddie in 2003 and laughed saying no problem!

when Bush administration tried over 17 times in six years to correct FAnnie/Freddie.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic
consequences of failure to reform GSEs ... The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

When warned about Fannie Mae in (House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA)
"these two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac --
are not facing any kind of financial crisis....The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (New York Times, 9/11/03)

And then Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position."

But hey since when have the FACTS stood in the way of biased opinions by people like you?

Bullshit.

Absolute bullshit.

The CRA never required that loans be made to unqualifed borrowers. The ONLY thing the CRA did was to eliminate Red Lining.

That..led to an economic revitalization of many improvished neighborhoods. It was wildly successful.

 

[Mac1958]

Opps.

Hey, I have absolutely no doubt that Zxereus blames Bush for the attacks of 9/11.

Bush's name was on the stationery.

.

And you obviously give Obama the credit for killing Osama.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch, so he is the one who had to deal with the fallout.

Hmm, not quite the same as blaming him, as you are Obama. Disappointing.

.

 

[Freewill]

.

There are obviously people who want to absolve Bush of any responsibility regarding the global meltdown, and I suppose that's understandable given the long and clear history of dishonesty that is partisan politics. My guy did nothing wrong, it's all your guy's fault.

Funny thing is, this behavior illustrates an abject ignorance these folks have of the nature of the meltdown.

Obama didn't cause this, nor did Bush. Surprise! It was decades in the making and it could easily take that long for its affects to disappear.

One of the many problems with partisan politics is that it oversimplifies everything it touches. I'm sure that makes things nice and simple of the incurious, the simplistic and the intellectually lazy, but dishonesty advances or improves nothing.

But, by all means, let's continue with the silliness.


.

Enlighten us into the cause, no platitudes please.

 

[Freewill]

And it's aaaaallll Obama's fault. Yep. He crashed the economy in 2008 all by his lonesome. His policies for the last 30 yrs have caused the middle class to shrink and put more money into the pockets of top earners.

Well indirectly it was his fault we had a collapse of the home financing industry..

You obviously never heard of this:

1991 court case forced CitiBank to make unqualified loans with Obama representing ACORN in the ...

, to recap, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA 1977) gave an opening for subprime lending. The CRA encouraged banks to lend money to high risk borrowers with the noble notion that it would enable more Americans to be homeowners. Unfortunately, it was undefined for a very long time and that gave community organizing groups such as ACORN to push the boundaries of the law and engage in coercive methods of forcing banks to loan to high risk borrowers. They would threaten to block mergers and expansions of banks unless the banks would dole out these risky loans. In addition, numerous suits were brought against banks alleging that the banks engaged in discriminatory lending phasing out African Americans from loans in an attempt to bully banks into doling out high risk loans.

One such suit was Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Federal Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). This case is most notable for one of the members of counsel representing Selma Buycks-Roberson, Calvin R. Roberson and Rene Brooks. That attorney was a young lawyer named BARACK H. OBAMA.

According to the record, the plaintiffs, all African-Americans sued Citibank for seeking redress for alleged racial discrimination with regard to loan applications.
Ms. Buycks Roberson had applied for a loan to refinance her existing mortgage but was denied because her income did not support the amount of credit requested.
Obama and friends presented evidence noting that Citibank denied refinancing “to only 19% of upper-income applicants living in areas with less than 10% minority population,” while Citibank denied loans to 49& of ALL applicants living in areas of 80-100% minority population. BHO and friends also asserted that 780 minority applications were denied by Citibank in between 1992 and 1993.
Citibank asserted that their underwriting procedure was race-neutral, however the court certified the class regardless.
As a result of the court’s analysis, the court certified a class of “all African-Americans who filed applications for home loans to Citibank on or after July 6, 1992, and whose applications were rejected because they were African-American and/or the racial composition of the neighborhood in which their properties were located were African-American. v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit."

So YES if Obama hadn't been part of this lawsuit, many loans that were FORCED on to the banks to make would not have been.

Plus ever hear of the FDIC? Well they don't like loans made to poor credit risks.
So what would you do if you were faced as the person in charge to obey the laws!

Sell the loans.

And that's where Fannie/Freddie comes in.. again.. Obama???


6) Congress warned about Fannie/Freddie in 2003 and laughed saying no problem!

when Bush administration tried over 17 times in six years to correct FAnnie/Freddie.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic
consequences of failure to reform GSEs ... The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

When warned about Fannie Mae in (House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA)
"these two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac --
are not facing any kind of financial crisis....The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (New York Times, 9/11/03)

And then Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position."

But hey since when have the FACTS stood in the way of biased opinions by people like you?

Bullshit.

Absolute bullshit.

The CRA never required that loans be made to unqualifed borrowers. The ONLY thing the CRA did was to eliminate Red Lining.

That..led to an economic revitalization of many improvished neighborhoods. It was wildly successful.

What neighborhood?

 

[Mac1958]

.

There are obviously people who want to absolve Bush of any responsibility regarding the global meltdown, and I suppose that's understandable given the long and clear history of dishonesty that is partisan politics. My guy did nothing wrong, it's all your guy's fault.

Funny thing is, this behavior illustrates an abject ignorance these folks have of the nature of the meltdown.

Obama didn't cause this, nor did Bush. Surprise! It was decades in the making and it could easily take that long for its affects to disappear.

One of the many problems with partisan politics is that it oversimplifies everything it touches. I'm sure that makes things nice and simple of the incurious, the simplistic and the intellectually lazy, but dishonesty advances or improves nothing.

But, by all means, let's continue with the silliness.


.

The economic crash in 2008 is old history now. People were not on foodstamps in 08 they way they are now. People were not unemployed for year in 08 they way they are now. No, this is the result of terrible economic policies over the last 3years, not some 30 year in the making nonsense.

I'm going to assume that you're more intelligent and informed than this, and that you're just playing partisan politics, i.e., being dishonest.

No way a reasonably intelligent person actually believes this.

.

 

[PratchettFan]

The buck always stops with the current POTUS.
Obama is in the White House, it's his economy.
He even said himself if he couldn't get it fixed in one term, he would be replaced. Now of course he could easily be re-elected, but he wouldn't have made such a statement if he wasn't agreeing that he should be able to fix the economy.
Well, we've had I believe 43 straight months of unemployment over 8%. He obviously isn't up for the job.
It's time for change.

Your right. He wanted the top seat and with that comes all the responsibility. OTOH, I'm looking at the economy over the last four years and it has improved. My house, while still not worth what it was in 2007, is worth more than it was in 2009. While unemployment has not gotten below 8%, it was at 10%. GM and the various banks did not fail, a distinct possibility, and that was due to a continuation of Bush policies. I think if McCain had won, we would be pretty much where we are now.

All in all, I would say he did about the best job I could expect to be done. Considering the president is not a dictator and really has very limited capacity to control our economy.

If people think Romney would do a better job, they should vote for him. To be honest, I don't think it will make much of a difference either way.

Does the 4 trillion in debt placed on your grandchildren give you one second of pause?

Did the election of a democrat congress in 2006 with the resulting economic crash make you think?

What I get out of your post is that you are happy that the big boy banks on Wallstreet were saved using your grandchildren's money.

No. Not even one second of pause. If your roof falls in, you don't get if fixed for free. If you think McCain would have done it much differently, you are mistaken. And I do remind you the bail outs which cost all of that money came from the Bush Administration and John McCain voted in favor of them - as did the majority of the republicans. Obama just agreed with their necessity and administered what was already in place.

As to 2006, what happened to it being the fault of whoever was the president?

 

[Sallow]

Well indirectly it was his fault we had a collapse of the home financing industry..

You obviously never heard of this:

1991 court case forced CitiBank to make unqualified loans with Obama representing ACORN in the ...

, to recap, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA 1977) gave an opening for subprime lending. The CRA encouraged banks to lend money to high risk borrowers with the noble notion that it would enable more Americans to be homeowners. Unfortunately, it was undefined for a very long time and that gave community organizing groups such as ACORN to push the boundaries of the law and engage in coercive methods of forcing banks to loan to high risk borrowers. They would threaten to block mergers and expansions of banks unless the banks would dole out these risky loans. In addition, numerous suits were brought against banks alleging that the banks engaged in discriminatory lending phasing out African Americans from loans in an attempt to bully banks into doling out high risk loans.

One such suit was Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Federal Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). This case is most notable for one of the members of counsel representing Selma Buycks-Roberson, Calvin R. Roberson and Rene Brooks. That attorney was a young lawyer named BARACK H. OBAMA.

According to the record, the plaintiffs, all African-Americans sued Citibank for seeking redress for alleged racial discrimination with regard to loan applications.
Ms. Buycks Roberson had applied for a loan to refinance her existing mortgage but was denied because her income did not support the amount of credit requested.
Obama and friends presented evidence noting that Citibank denied refinancing “to only 19% of upper-income applicants living in areas with less than 10% minority population,” while Citibank denied loans to 49& of ALL applicants living in areas of 80-100% minority population. BHO and friends also asserted that 780 minority applications were denied by Citibank in between 1992 and 1993.
Citibank asserted that their underwriting procedure was race-neutral, however the court certified the class regardless.
As a result of the court’s analysis, the court certified a class of “all African-Americans who filed applications for home loans to Citibank on or after July 6, 1992, and whose applications were rejected because they were African-American and/or the racial composition of the neighborhood in which their properties were located were African-American. v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit."

So YES if Obama hadn't been part of this lawsuit, many loans that were FORCED on to the banks to make would not have been.

Plus ever hear of the FDIC? Well they don't like loans made to poor credit risks.
So what would you do if you were faced as the person in charge to obey the laws!

Sell the loans.

And that's where Fannie/Freddie comes in.. again.. Obama???


6) Congress warned about Fannie/Freddie in 2003 and laughed saying no problem!

when Bush administration tried over 17 times in six years to correct FAnnie/Freddie.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic
consequences of failure to reform GSEs ... The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

When warned about Fannie Mae in (House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA)
"these two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac --
are not facing any kind of financial crisis....The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (New York Times, 9/11/03)

And then Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position."

But hey since when have the FACTS stood in the way of biased opinions by people like you?

Bullshit.

Absolute bullshit.

The CRA never required that loans be made to unqualifed borrowers. The ONLY thing the CRA did was to eliminate Red Lining.

That..led to an economic revitalization of many improvished neighborhoods. It was wildly successful.

What neighborhood?

In NYC?

Most of Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island..