Banks should never be forced to give subprime loans.

[Mac1958]

Only a willfully blind fool buys the total bullshit that the CRA was to blame for the crash.

It's what they're instructed to believe, so it's what they believe. I don't even try with them any more.

What gets me, is that there is so much information out there about it. But I've been told that it's all fake news.

It's like dealing with flat earthers.

This is classic willful ignorance.
.

 

[Olde Europe]

Part XXI

The guy you have been educating had a decade to read, and to acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge about the crash, and its causes. Still, you'd have to look to flat-earthers to find a similar level of ignorance, and, just like flat-earthers, he is parading it around with pride. While I laud your efforts, what made you think he would change his habit, and cease wallowing in ignorance and stupidity?

 

[berg80]

That is what created the housing bubble, which finally burst and caused a meltdown.

That sentence is comically inaccurate. Why do Repubs have such a problem admitting to the real causes of the financial crisis? Oh.........wait...........I know...........because Repubs are largely responsible.

No, the CRA Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis
No, the CRA Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis - The Big Picture

 

[g5000]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st40Gps08KI&list=WL&index=9&t=1560s

"As time went on, banks began to run out of people to lend to. A lot of people owned houses already. Yeah, maybe they were refinancing, but there were only so many times you could do that. And of course most people with a lot of income and good credit already owned a house. So if you're looking for new customers, where did you go?

"You went to people who didn't have credit. People who didn't have a house. People, in many instances, who didn't have money."

 

[RandomPoster]

Banks make their money by lending money, charging a legal amount interest, and getting paid back. They like to lend money. However, they do not like to lend money to people who look like a bad investment on paper. It's nothing personal. We need to repeal Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act. Let the banks run their business as a business and stop forcing them to give out subprime loans. That is what created the housing bubble, which finally burst and caused a meltdown. Too many people were taking out loans they shouldn't be taking out and that should not be offered to them. This caused a bubble in housing prices, which spawned more housing market activity and caused it all to swell until it finally burst. Carter, Clinton, and even Bush were guilty. Deregulate the banks and let them worry about the bottom line instead of forcing them to follow a bad business model for socio-political reasons. We will all benefit from it. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac should be repealed as well.

What a bunch of horseshit.

CAR actually set standards for lending above subprime grade.

Loans under CAR program outperformed general market and most failures were actually in private lending.

"CAR actually set standards for lending above subprime grade."

"To begin with, the CRA defenders’ claim that CRA lending mostly wasn’t subprime is highly misleading. It would be more accurate to say that 90 percent of CRA lending wasn’t classified as subprime. CRA lenders, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—the two government-sponsored entities that bought loans from lenders, enabling them to make more loans—commonly classified CRA loans as “subprime” only if they contained such features as high fees, high rates, or low initial payments with adjustable interest rates. But approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences were nevertheless made to borrowers who made down payments of 5 percent or less or had low credit scores—characteristics that indicated high credit risk. Whether or not anyone called these loans “subprime,” in other words, the chances are good that many of them have defaulted or remain at high risk of doing so."

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic

"Loans under CAR program outperformed general market and most failures were actually in private lending."

"Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it. But there is a strong prima facie case that they constitute toxic lending—that is, lending that leads to unsustainable loans, resulting in an unacceptable level of foreclosures."

"Though the feds, again, haven’t collected figures for CRA loans’ performance as a whole, we do have statistics from a few lenders that are troubling indeed. In Cleveland, Third Federal Savings and Loan has a 35 percent delinquency rate on its CRA-mandated “Home Today” loans, versus a 2 percent delinquency rate on its non–Home Today portfolio. Chicago’s Shorebank—the nation’s first community development bank, with largely CRA-related loans on its books—has a 19 percent delinquency and nonaccrual rate for its portfolio of first-mortgage loans for single-family residences. And Bank of America said in 2008 that while its CRA loans constituted 7 percent of its owned residential-mortgage portfolio, they represented 29 percent of that portfolio’s net losses."

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic

 

[my2¢]

I've longed blamed Wall Street's use of derivatives for the crash and agree with this taken from The Balance.

Another myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act created the crisis.

But, the law did not require banks to make subprime loans. It didn't ask them to lower their lending standards. They did that to create additional profitable derivatives.

The Causes of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis​

 

[RandomPoster]

Part VI

It's going to get really complicated from here. This is usually where the hacks' eyes glaze over. But stick with me. I will keep it as simple as possible.

All right.

First, I will touch on the CRA. The Community Reinvestment Act. This was a law passed during the Carter Administration which required banks to make a certain percentage of their loans to minorities. That's because banks had, up to that time, practiced something called "redlining".

Redlining is the practice of not making loans to negroes who want to live where you don't want them to live. The banks would literally draw red lines on maps where white people did not want any negroes moving in. The banks coordinated to keep negroes in a tight geographical area.

They really screwed the pooch, and so the federal government stepped in with all kinds of equal opportunity laws, one of which was the CRA.

Somehow, the bigots have gotten it into their pointy heads that this 1970s law somehow suddenly caused a subprime bubble 30 years later!

When I am done, you will understand how they got this completely backwards, upside down, and just plain wrong.

But for now you need to know that not one single broker-dealer was subject to the CRA. The CRA had no jurisdiction over the broker-dealers.

I am not kidding. Not Lehman, not Bear Stearns, not Merrill, not Goldman, not any of them.

So much for the CRA...


But before we dig deeper into that, I have to explain what a CDO is, and what the Commodities Futures Modernization Act (FDMA) is.

"The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it."

That "1970s law" accounted for over 6 trillion dollars in loans. If they were good loans, no government interference would be required to coerce banks into giving the loans. Banks like to lend money, simply in a responsible manner.

 

[g5000]

Part VI

It's going to get really complicated from here. This is usually where the hacks' eyes glaze over. But stick with me. I will keep it as simple as possible.

All right.

First, I will touch on the CRA. The Community Reinvestment Act. This was a law passed during the Carter Administration which required banks to make a certain percentage of their loans to minorities. That's because banks had, up to that time, practiced something called "redlining".

Redlining is the practice of not making loans to negroes who want to live where you don't want them to live. The banks would literally draw red lines on maps where white people did not want any negroes moving in. The banks coordinated to keep negroes in a tight geographical area.

They really screwed the pooch, and so the federal government stepped in with all kinds of equal opportunity laws, one of which was the CRA.

Somehow, the bigots have gotten it into their pointy heads that this 1970s law somehow suddenly caused a subprime bubble 30 years later!

When I am done, you will understand how they got this completely backwards, upside down, and just plain wrong.

But for now you need to know that not one single broker-dealer was subject to the CRA. The CRA had no jurisdiction over the broker-dealers.

I am not kidding. Not Lehman, not Bear Stearns, not Merrill, not Goldman, not any of them.

So much for the CRA...


But before we dig deeper into that, I have to explain what a CDO is, and what the Commodities Futures Modernization Act (FDMA) is.

"The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it."

That "1970s law" accounted for over 6 trillion dollars in loans. If they were good loans, no government interference would be required to coerce banks into giving the loans. Banks like to lend money, simply in a responsible manner.

As I told you at the top, and very carefully explained in my posts, the CRA had fuck-all to do with the crash.

If you wish to keep drinking the Kook-Aid and persist in your stupidity, that's on you.

NONE of the broker-dealers were under the jurisdiction of the CRA. Nor were the many hundreds of banks around the world which collapsed. Do you think the negroes of Iceland brought down Landsbanki?

Did you notice all the houses in white middle class towns which went into foreclosure? Did you think all those millions of houses were owned by darkies, moron?



Did a 1977 Law Create the 2008 Financial Crisis?

The CRA Did Not Cause the Subprime Financial Crisis
The Federal Reserve Board found there wasn’t a connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage crisis. Its research showed that 60 percent of subprime loans went to higher-income borrowers outside of the CRA areas. Furthermore, 20 percent of the subprime loans that did go to ghetto areas were originated by lenders that weren't trying to conform to the CRA. In other words, only 6 percent of subprime loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, the Fed found that mortgage delinquency was everywhere, not just in low-income areas.


If the CRA did contribute to the financial crisis, it was small. An MIT study found that banks increased their risky lending by about 5 percent in the quarters leading up to the CRA inspections. These loans defaulted 15 percent more frequently. This was more likely to happen in the “greenlined” areas. They were committed more by large banks. Most important, the study found that the effects were strongest during the time when private securitization was booming.

 

[Rambunctious]

Texas will flip by 2028 and then they will have lock on power. They will elect cretins such as AOC.

Texas is cleaning their voter rolls at a record pace and removing illegal aliens before they have a chance to illegally vote...both will help slow down the flip in Texas.....

 

[BluesLegend]

Texas will flip by 2028 and then they will have lock on power. They will elect cretins such as AOC.

This assumes Hispanics will support Democrats, won't happen. Hispanics will not allow Dem's to herd them onto Dem party plantations.

 

[RandomPoster]

Part VI

It's going to get really complicated from here. This is usually where the hacks' eyes glaze over. But stick with me. I will keep it as simple as possible.

All right.

First, I will touch on the CRA. The Community Reinvestment Act. This was a law passed during the Carter Administration which required banks to make a certain percentage of their loans to minorities. That's because banks had, up to that time, practiced something called "redlining".

Redlining is the practice of not making loans to negroes who want to live where you don't want them to live. The banks would literally draw red lines on maps where white people did not want any negroes moving in. The banks coordinated to keep negroes in a tight geographical area.

They really screwed the pooch, and so the federal government stepped in with all kinds of equal opportunity laws, one of which was the CRA.

Somehow, the bigots have gotten it into their pointy heads that this 1970s law somehow suddenly caused a subprime bubble 30 years later!

When I am done, you will understand how they got this completely backwards, upside down, and just plain wrong.

But for now you need to know that not one single broker-dealer was subject to the CRA. The CRA had no jurisdiction over the broker-dealers.

I am not kidding. Not Lehman, not Bear Stearns, not Merrill, not Goldman, not any of them.

So much for the CRA...


But before we dig deeper into that, I have to explain what a CDO is, and what the Commodities Futures Modernization Act (FDMA) is.

"The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it."

That "1970s law" accounted for over 6 trillion dollars in loans. If they were good loans, no government interference would be required to coerce banks into giving the loans. Banks like to lend money, simply in a responsible manner.

As I told you at the top, and very carefully explained in my posts, the CRA had fuck-all to do with the crash.

If you wish to keep drinking the Kook-Aid and persist in your stupidity, that's on you.

NONE of the broker-dealers were under the jurisdiction of the CRA. Nor were the many hundreds of banks around the world which collapsed. Do you think the negroes of Iceland brought down Landsbanki?

Did you notice all the houses in white middle class towns which went into foreclosure? Did you think all those millions of houses were owned by darkies, moron?



Did a 1977 Law Create the 2008 Financial Crisis?

The CRA Did Not Cause the Subprime Financial Crisis
The Federal Reserve Board found there wasn’t a connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage crisis. Its research showed that 60 percent of subprime loans went to higher-income borrowers outside of the CRA areas. Furthermore, 20 percent of the subprime loans that did go to ghetto areas were originated by lenders that weren't trying to conform to the CRA. In other words, only 6 percent of subprime loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, the Fed found that mortgage delinquency was everywhere, not just in low-income areas.


If the CRA did contribute to the financial crisis, it was small. An MIT study found that banks increased their risky lending by about 5 percent in the quarters leading up to the CRA inspections. These loans defaulted 15 percent more frequently. This was more likely to happen in the “greenlined” areas. They were committed more by large banks. Most important, the study found that the effects were strongest during the time when private securitization was booming.

"You said: "Somehow, the bigots have gotten it into their pointy heads that this 1970s law somehow suddenly caused a subprime bubble 30 years later! "

However, as I pointed out:

"Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it."

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic

That "1970s law" accounted for over 6 trillion dollars in loans. Again, if they were good loans, no government interference would be required to coerce banks into giving the loans. Banks like to lend money, simply in a responsible manner. We need to get the government out of it. As expected, it was the government that caused all of the problems. Banks that give out bad loans will screw themselves in a free market and go out of business. The government should not dictate their lending practices, nor should the government give them guarantees or bail them out when they get screwed by giving out bad loans, whether it is a CRA loan or any type of loan the bank should not be giving out.

 

[Mac1958]

That is what created the housing bubble, which finally burst and caused a meltdown.

That sentence is comically inaccurate. Why do Repubs have such a problem admitting to the real causes of the financial crisis? Oh.........wait...........I know...........because Repubs are largely responsible.

No, the CRA Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis
No, the CRA Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis - The Big Picture

They don't want to know.

I've tried. I've given them a great deal of detail. They literally don't know what I'm talking about, nor are they curious enough to educate themselves.

They're happy to just believe the stories they're told.
.

 

[RandomPoster]

Part VI

It's going to get really complicated from here. This is usually where the hacks' eyes glaze over. But stick with me. I will keep it as simple as possible.

All right.

First, I will touch on the CRA. The Community Reinvestment Act. This was a law passed during the Carter Administration which required banks to make a certain percentage of their loans to minorities. That's because banks had, up to that time, practiced something called "redlining".

Redlining is the practice of not making loans to negroes who want to live where you don't want them to live. The banks would literally draw red lines on maps where white people did not want any negroes moving in. The banks coordinated to keep negroes in a tight geographical area.

They really screwed the pooch, and so the federal government stepped in with all kinds of equal opportunity laws, one of which was the CRA.

Somehow, the bigots have gotten it into their pointy heads that this 1970s law somehow suddenly caused a subprime bubble 30 years later!

When I am done, you will understand how they got this completely backwards, upside down, and just plain wrong.

But for now you need to know that not one single broker-dealer was subject to the CRA. The CRA had no jurisdiction over the broker-dealers.

I am not kidding. Not Lehman, not Bear Stearns, not Merrill, not Goldman, not any of them.

So much for the CRA...


But before we dig deeper into that, I have to explain what a CDO is, and what the Commodities Futures Modernization Act (FDMA) is.

"The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it."

That "1970s law" accounted for over 6 trillion dollars in loans. If they were good loans, no government interference would be required to coerce banks into giving the loans. Banks like to lend money, simply in a responsible manner.

As I told you at the top, and very carefully explained in my posts, the CRA had fuck-all to do with the crash.

If you wish to keep drinking the Kook-Aid and persist in your stupidity, that's on you.

NONE of the broker-dealers were under the jurisdiction of the CRA. Nor were the many hundreds of banks around the world which collapsed. Do you think the negroes of Iceland brought down Landsbanki?

Did you notice all the houses in white middle class towns which went into foreclosure? Did you think all those millions of houses were owned by darkies, moron?



Did a 1977 Law Create the 2008 Financial Crisis?

The CRA Did Not Cause the Subprime Financial Crisis
The Federal Reserve Board found there wasn’t a connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage crisis. Its research showed that 60 percent of subprime loans went to higher-income borrowers outside of the CRA areas. Furthermore, 20 percent of the subprime loans that did go to ghetto areas were originated by lenders that weren't trying to conform to the CRA. In other words, only 6 percent of subprime loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, the Fed found that mortgage delinquency was everywhere, not just in low-income areas.


If the CRA did contribute to the financial crisis, it was small. An MIT study found that banks increased their risky lending by about 5 percent in the quarters leading up to the CRA inspections. These loans defaulted 15 percent more frequently. This was more likely to happen in the “greenlined” areas. They were committed more by large banks. Most important, the study found that the effects were strongest during the time when private securitization was booming.

"Did you notice all the houses in white middle class towns which went into foreclosure?"

Oh, I saw that too. Our government incentivized banks to give out ridiculous loans to irresponsible buyers across the entire country, even to some people I personally know. Some of them defaulted on their ridiculous loans. When the bank told me how much they were willing to lend me, I was shocked and would never have taken out a loan like that. I personally decided to stockpile money until I could pay cash for my house, even if it meant buying a smaller house.

 

[Mac1958]

Okay Trumpsters, just out of morbid curiosity, I'll toss these out there again.

I think I know how they'll be "answered" -- I've posted these before -- but just for fun:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to sell shit mortgages to the banks, at NO RISK, to be put in those CMO's, often by the very next day?
   
3. How did the CRA force the ratings agencies to slap AAA (TREASURY-level) ratings on those shit securities, making them highly attractive to buy?
4. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to write no-doc loans with insane balloons, knowing they'd be sold off in 12 hours to a shit CMO at NO risk?
   
5. How did the CRA force the banks to threaten the ratings agencies with lost business if they didn't give them AAA ratings on shit securities?
   
6. How did the CRA force Alan Greenspan to REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force the banks to drop their standards to the ground when they needed more shit CMO's and CDO's to SELL OFF for huge fees?
8. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole thing was collapsing?
9. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson a cool $2 BILLION?
10. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO regulations on reserves to back them up?

10 clear, specific questions. Let's see how many of these are answered.
.

 

[RandomPoster]

That is what created the housing bubble, which finally burst and caused a meltdown.

That sentence is comically inaccurate. Why do Repubs have such a problem admitting to the real causes of the financial crisis? Oh.........wait...........I know...........because Repubs are largely responsible.

No, the CRA Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis
No, the CRA Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis - The Big Picture

They don't want to know.

I've tried. I've given them a great deal of detail. They literally don't know what I'm talking about, nor are they curious enough to educate themselves.

They're happy to just believe the stories they're told.
.

The CRA is one aspect of the massive level of government involvement overall that caused the housing bubble. In the case of minority communities, the banks weren't redlining because they hate black people. They were redlining because they are blind to any color other than green, which is what they should be.

The government was encouraging people and financial institutions to engage in reckless practices in all communities across the country. They should not have coerced banks, given the banks guarantees, nor bailed them out.

 

[Olde Europe]

Okay Trumpsters, just out of morbid curiosity, I'll toss these out there again.

I think I know how they'll be "answered" -- I've posted these before -- but just for fun:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to sell shit mortgages to the banks, at NO RISK, to be put in those CMO's, often by the very next day?
   
3. How did the CRA force the ratings agencies to slap AAA (TREASURY-level) ratings on those shit securities, making them highly attractive to buy?
4. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to write no-doc loans with insane balloons, knowing they'd be sold off in 12 hours to a shit CMO at NO risk?
   
5. How did the CRA force the banks to threaten the ratings agencies with lost business if they didn't give them AAA ratings on shit securities?
   
6. How did the CRA force Alan Greenspan to REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force the banks to drop their standards to the ground when they needed more shit CMO's and CDO's to SELL OFF for huge fees?
8. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole thing was collapsing?
9. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson a cool $2 BILLION?
10. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO regulations on reserves to back them up?

10 clear, specific questions. Let's see how many of these are answered.
.

These are all very good and very valid questions. To answer them, some knowledge on the crisis is required, hence you won't get an answer from them. And that's while the answer to each is the same: "It did not." Add an eleventh:

11. How did the CRA force the Bush administration to put a halt to State Attorneys General's efforts to crack down on predatory lending?

 

[g5000]

 

[RandomPoster]

Okay Trumpsters, just out of morbid curiosity, I'll toss these out there again.

I think I know how they'll be "answered" -- I've posted these before -- but just for fun:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to sell shit mortgages to the banks, at NO RISK, to be put in those CMO's, often by the very next day?
   
3. How did the CRA force the ratings agencies to slap AAA (TREASURY-level) ratings on those shit securities, making them highly attractive to buy?
4. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to write no-doc loans with insane balloons, knowing they'd be sold off in 12 hours to a shit CMO at NO risk?
   
5. How did the CRA force the banks to threaten the ratings agencies with lost business if they didn't give them AAA ratings on shit securities?
   
6. How did the CRA force Alan Greenspan to REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force the banks to drop their standards to the ground when they needed more shit CMO's and CDO's to SELL OFF for huge fees?
8. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole thing was collapsing?
9. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson a cool $2 BILLION?
10. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO regulations on reserves to back them up?

10 clear, specific questions. Let's see how many of these are answered.
.

Since the CMOs and CDOs as well as other questionable things were happening in all communities across the country, that means the Community Reinvestment Act is a good thing? As far as "predatory lending" is concerned, there is no such thing. The bank does not force you to take out a loan. Don't take out loans you can't pay back. Get the government out of it and stop encouraging reckless behavior in financial institutions and in consumers. Americans are racking up too much debt because we are irresponsible, which is why we are 23 trillion dollars in debt.

 

[Mac1958]

Okay Trumpsters, just out of morbid curiosity, I'll toss these out there again.

I think I know how they'll be "answered" -- I've posted these before -- but just for fun:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to sell shit mortgages to the banks, at NO RISK, to be put in those CMO's, often by the very next day?
   
3. How did the CRA force the ratings agencies to slap AAA (TREASURY-level) ratings on those shit securities, making them highly attractive to buy?
4. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to write no-doc loans with insane balloons, knowing they'd be sold off in 12 hours to a shit CMO at NO risk?
   
5. How did the CRA force the banks to threaten the ratings agencies with lost business if they didn't give them AAA ratings on shit securities?
   
6. How did the CRA force Alan Greenspan to REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force the banks to drop their standards to the ground when they needed more shit CMO's and CDO's to SELL OFF for huge fees?
8. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole thing was collapsing?
9. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson a cool $2 BILLION?
10. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO regulations on reserves to back them up?

10 clear, specific questions. Let's see how many of these are answered.
.

Since the CMOs and CDOs as well as other questionable things were happening in all communities across the country, that means the Community Reinvestment Act is a good thing As far as "predatory lending" is concerned, there is no such thing. The bank does not force you to take out a loan. Don't take out loans you can't pay back. Get the government out of it and stop encouraging reckless behavior in financial institutions and in consumers. Americans are racking up too much debt because we are irresponsible, which is why we are 23 trillion dollars in debt.

You're completely ignoring the fact that mortgage companies were able to drop standards into the toilet because they were able to completely transfer the risk off their books, no to mention the fact that no regulations stopped them. Not to mention the ridiculous actions addressed in the other questions I asked.

Those 10 issues are at the heart of the Meltdown, not the CRA.
.

 

[RandomPoster]

Okay Trumpsters, just out of morbid curiosity, I'll toss these out there again.

I think I know how they'll be "answered" -- I've posted these before -- but just for fun:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to sell shit mortgages to the banks, at NO RISK, to be put in those CMO's, often by the very next day?
   
3. How did the CRA force the ratings agencies to slap AAA (TREASURY-level) ratings on those shit securities, making them highly attractive to buy?
4. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to write no-doc loans with insane balloons, knowing they'd be sold off in 12 hours to a shit CMO at NO risk?
   
5. How did the CRA force the banks to threaten the ratings agencies with lost business if they didn't give them AAA ratings on shit securities?
   
6. How did the CRA force Alan Greenspan to REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force the banks to drop their standards to the ground when they needed more shit CMO's and CDO's to SELL OFF for huge fees?
8. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole thing was collapsing?
9. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson a cool $2 BILLION?
10. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO regulations on reserves to back them up?

10 clear, specific questions. Let's see how many of these are answered.
.

Since the CMOs and CDOs as well as other questionable things were happening in all communities across the country, that means the Community Reinvestment Act is a good thing As far as "predatory lending" is concerned, there is no such thing. The bank does not force you to take out a loan. Don't take out loans you can't pay back. Get the government out of it and stop encouraging reckless behavior in financial institutions and in consumers. Americans are racking up too much debt because we are irresponsible, which is why we are 23 trillion dollars in debt.

You're completely ignoring the fact that mortgage companies were able to drop standards into the toilet because they were able to completely transfer the risk off their books, no to mention the fact that no regulations stopped them. Not to mention the ridiculous actions addressed in the other questions I asked.

Those 10 issues are at the heart of the Meltdown, not the CRA.
.

I am not ignoring it. I am saying that the government should not have been offering guarantees or bailouts in the first place and they should not have been coercing banks into giving questionable loans. Get the government out of it. That includes, except is not limited to, the CRA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and any government backed regulators. Let irresponsible lenders fail and lenders will stop being irresponsible.