ACORN/Obama forced toxic mortgages GUARANTEED BY U.S. Govt...!

[healthmyths]

Evidently most people don't know that Obama/Acorn in 1995 forced banks to make loans to people who would NEVER pay them back.
So when the FDIC looked at these toxic loans knowing they would never be paid back, the mortgage holders sold them to Fannie/Freddie.

As a result Fannie/Freddie investments that were guaranteed..
Oct. 23,2008 (Bloomberg) --
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have an ``effective'' federal guarantee, not the
"full faith and credit'' of the U.S. government, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart said after the hearing. That does give them effectively a guarantee of the U.S. government.''
Lockhart's Fannie, Freddie Guarantee Remarks Stir Up Confusion - Bloomberg

as a result.. investor/banks LOOKED to the U.S. to pay.. i.e. TARP!

All because the Democrats using Community Reinvestment Act to force banks to make bad loans the FDIC would have closed the banks if they didn't resell to Fannie and if these democrats hadn't thwarted ..

Warned by Bush Administration warned about Fannie/Freddie once in ’01, once in ’02, six times in ’03, three times in ’04, once in ’05, five times in ’07, and 17 times in ’08. Congress didn’t listen especially Democrats LAUGH!!!!

"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. .
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac --
are not facing any kind of financial crisis...
(New York Times, 9/11/03.

AND NOW today...
"Spooked by US political wrangling, major investors including the National Pension Service of Korea and the Kuwait Investment Authority have sold out of their holdings of the debt of the US Treasury-backed housing agencies since the 2008 global financial crisis.
Officials from central banks, including the Bank of Japan,
say they will be far more cautious in future.

Fannie and Freddie debt fuels anxiety - FT.com

 

[Sallow]

CRA had very little to do with the financial meltdown.

 

[Full-Auto]

CRA had very little to do with the financial meltdown.

It just opened the door with no foyer.

 

[WillowTree]

Oh yes it did.

 

[WillowTree]

They forced and coerced the banks to loan money, folks didn't and couldn't pay back the money we decided the banks were evil because the morons didn't know what they were signing. Now the banks are sitting on their money and not loaning it and you morons are calling them evil again... did I mention moron?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one could force banks to make loans to unqualified buyers via CRA, in fact, the act itself states that explicitly.

Of course you'd have to actually read the CRA to know that.

 

[WillowTree]

No one could force banks to make loans to unqualified buyers via CRA, in fact, the act itself states that explicitly.

Of course you'd have to actually read the CRA to know that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one could force banks to make loans to unqualified buyers via CRA, in fact, the act itself states that explicitly.

Of course you'd have to actually read the CRA to know that.

1. Have you ever read the Community Reinvestment Act?

2. Have you ever heard one banker testify that his bank was forced to make loans to unqualified buyers?

I'm going to guess 'no' and 'no'.

How'd I do?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Evidently most people don't know that Obama/Acorn in 1995 forced banks to make loans to people who would NEVER pay them back.
So when the FDIC looked at these toxic loans knowing they would never be paid back, the mortgage holders sold them to Fannie/Freddie.

Yeah.....that's what happened......

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcJ4sjgtIR0]American Casino - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=064C5UrRfP4]Phill Gramm Ruined The Economy - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtqoLoiTBtM]Phil Gramm is a corporate scumbag (Part 1) - YouTube[/ame]

January 13, 2008​

"The recession-deniers were muzzled by a horrendous last two weeks of December, and the gloom-and-doomers are now out in force. Their key arguments:

* Plummeting housing will now drag down the rest of the economy.

*The "bad debt" problem is not just "sub-prime" folks who should never have have taken out mortgages in the first place. It includes credit card debt, "high quality" mortgages, car loans, and other leverage that have recently become a consumer way of life.

*Pressure on consumers is leading to a reduction in consumer spending (70% of economy), which, in turn, will lead to a reduction in spending by companies that sell stuff to consumers.

*The question now is not "will there be a recession?" but "how bad will it get?"

*The most optimistic forecasts in a NYT gloom-and-doom round-up are for three crappy quarters, regardless of what the Fed does. Less optimistic forecasts suggest that we are, well, screwed.

After blowing the last downturn, we've been worried this one since last summer (see below). We also suspect that, given the importance of housing to the economy and debt to consumer spending, the recession will be deeper and more prolonged than people think."​

"U.S. Economy Screwed"

You Jr. Teabaggers need to get a few-more years (under your belt), before you start tackling the big subjects.​

 

[WillowTree]

No one could force banks to make loans to unqualified buyers via CRA, in fact, the act itself states that explicitly.

Of course you'd have to actually read the CRA to know that.

1. Have you ever read the Community Reinvestment Act?

2. Have you ever heard one banker testify that his bank was forced to make loans to unqualified buyers?

I'm going to guess 'no' and 'no'.

How'd I do?

 

[GHook93]

CRA had very little to do with the financial meltdown.

If you really believe that then you are either very dum or a liar!

The two biggest pieces of legislation that led to the mortgage and credit meltdown, were the Carter Errors Community Reinvestment Act that Clinton brought back to life and the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, not to mention Clinton Adm giving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the power to create and artifical secondary market!

 

[GHook93]

No one could force banks to make loans to unqualified buyers via CRA, in fact, the act itself states that explicitly.

Of course you'd have to actually read the CRA to know that.

If the banks didn't provide a certain percentage of their portfolio to lower ethanol borrowers, then they would get certain tax breaks, who be hit with penalties and would be at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage to other banks. In effect they hand to lend to lower income individual, but that is very difficult and they tossed out the matrix.

Lenders are still not off the hook. They made the loans and deserves a good chunk of the blame. However the CRA forced their hand.

 

[WillowTree]

CRA had very little to do with the financial meltdown.

If you really believe that then you are either very dum or a liar!

The two biggest pieces of legislation that led to the mortgage and credit meltdown, were the Carter Errors Community Reinvestment Act that Clinton brought back to life and the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, not to mention Clinton Adm giving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the power to create and artifical secondary market!

A Poisonous Cocktail


10.05.09,









Liberals pooh-pooh the idea that a 30-year-old law could have contributed to the current subprime crisis and credit crunch. But what they ignore is the massive expansion of CRA-commitments forced on banks in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis.







According to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, in the first 20 years of the act, up to 1997, commitments totaled approximately $200 billion. But from 1997 to 2007, commitments exploded to more than $4.2 trillion










Now comes Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, and 50 other co-sponsors (all Democrats) of H.R. 1479 the "Community Reinvestment Modernization Act of 2009," who want to expand the CRA to include not just banks but also credit unions, insurance companies and mortgage lenders. Congressman Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has supported the idea in the past. The SEIU and ACORN, along with a host of other activist groups, are also behind the effort.






Obama's battle against banks has a long history. In 1994, freshly out of Harvard Law School, he joined two other attorneys in filing a lawsuit against Citibank, the giant mortgage lender. In Selma S. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, the plaintiffs claimed that although they had ostensibly been denied home loans "because of delinquent credit obligations and adverse credit," the real culprit was institutional racism. The suit alleged that Citibank had violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and, for good measure, the 13th Constitutional Amendment, which abolished slavery. The bank denied the charge, but after four years of legal wrangling and mounting legal bills, elected to settle. According to court documents, the three plaintiffs received a total of $60,000. Their lawyers received $950,000.

greedy damn bastards those lawyers izzzz izn't they?









A Poisonous Cocktail - Forbes.com

 

[Mr. Shaman]

CRA had very little to do with the financial meltdown.

If you really believe that then you are either very dum or a liar!

The two biggest pieces of legislation that led to the mortgage and credit meltdown......

Don't forget to give the meltdown-mechanics their proper-due!!!!!!!

The CREDIT-RATING HU$TLE!!!!

 

[healthmyths]

you wrote" No one could force banks to make loans to unqualified buyers via CRA, in fact, the act itself states that explicitly."

The CRA directs federal banking regulatory agencies, including the Federal Reserve, to use their supervisory authority to encourage banking institutions to help meet the credit needs of all segments of their local communities.

The CRA may directly affect nonbank subsidiaries or affiliates of banking institutions. Banking institutions can elect to have their subsidiary or affiliate lending activity counted in CRA performance evaluations. If the banking institution elects to include affiliate activity, it cannot be done selectively. For example, the institution cannot "cherry pick" loans that would be favorably considered under the law while ignoring loans to middle- or higher-income borrowers.

we find that in 2005 and 2006, independent nonbank institutions—institutions not covered by the CRA—accounted for about half of all subprime originations. (See Table 1.)

NOTE: THAT MEANS the other HALF or 50% were covered by CRA!!!



Conclusion:
First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA.
NOTE: "SMALL portion"??
The
Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.


NOTE: Key word "substantive"...
A) The majority of loans are NOT part of the mortgage crisis!
But it took less then 10% of bad loans to because of the multiplier effect create the
problems.
B) Again... tell me where BAD loans to banks would NOT be targets of FDIC?

 

[bripat9643]

CRA had very little to do with the financial meltdown.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one could force banks to make loans to unqualified buyers via CRA, in fact, the act itself states that explicitly.

Of course you'd have to actually read the CRA to know that.

If the banks didn't provide a certain percentage of their portfolio to lower ethanol borrowers, then they would get certain tax breaks, who be hit with penalties and would be at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage to other banks. In effect they hand to lend to lower income individual, but that is very difficult and they tossed out the matrix.

Lenders are still not off the hook. They made the loans and deserves a good chunk of the blame. However the CRA forced their hand.

Like I said, no banks were forced to make loans to unqualified buyers.

 

[bripat9643]

No one could force banks to make loans to unqualified buyers via CRA, in fact, the act itself states that explicitly.

Of course you'd have to actually read the CRA to know that.

Yes they could, and did.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's time to stop the scapegoating: According to a study by the Federal Reserve, 94% of high-cost loans originated during the housing boom had nothing to do with Community Reinvestment Act goals. Lending to poor didn't spur crisis -Fed's Kroszner

The Comptroller of the Currency. John C. Dugan, agrees: "CRA [the Community Reinvestment Act] is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace. Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA. A recent study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas."**

CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

 

[Londoner]

The CRA was tightly regulated for decades.

Then Bush was handed a recession (prompted by tech bubble bursting) and 9/11. Add the Iraq War, which lead to a sharp rise in gas prices, and you have a massive fiscal problem.

So what did Bush do? He put pre-existing housing programs on steroids. Listen to this video carefully. Bush radically reformed downpayment restrictions on minorities and force Fannie/Freddie to pump billions into the minority mortgage industry. (Watch the video below)

Don't take my word for it. Listen to Bush's words. It's more than a smoking gun, it makes this thread seem ridiculous. Movement Conservatism's ability to invent and twist facts would make Lenin proud.

Watch the video. Listen to what Bush says he is going to do about minority housing. He not only put CRA on steroids for the purpose of saving a dead economy, but he expanded this project well past Fannie/Freddie. He created a bubble that burst and destroyed the global economy. His mistake didn't just swallow Obama, it's going to swallow a generation of Americans.

Watch the video. Bush is not only clear about his partnership with Fannie/Freddie, but he is clear about his Ownership Society and spreading the American Dream to the poor. This is just what Thatcher tried to do. She wanted to pry the poor from Labor and Welfarism by turning them into property owners with skin in the game.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8]Home Ownership and President Bush - YouTube[/ame]

The mortgages themselves were only a small portion of the problem. People need to study how Wall Street created a trillion dollar derivative ponzi scheme out of them. Fannie/Freddie are bit players compared to Bear, Lehman, Goldman, and AIG. GOP voters are being lied to. They are stuck in a hermetically sealed media bubble. Ask them if they know about AIG's or Goldman's relationship to the mortgage game . . . and you will get a blank stare. They've been told to focus only on Fannie/Freddie . . . which makes Bush look even more culpable. Watch the video.