Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

Thanks for the link.

Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?

Thanks for nothing.

 

[dblack]

You are veritably fanatical about freedom.

Guilty as charged.

 

[dblack]

I wonder if the advocates of a state controlled economy believe we can really have freedom without the freedom to earn and trade as we see fit?

You are veritably fanatical about freedom. Fanaticism never leads to the truth. It shrouds you in a private language that only makes sense to you and other insiders.

So can you explain to an outsider how does free trade = freedom? Freedom is not achieved merely through being able to trade x for y freely. That just means free trade. Freedom is a variety of conditions, which includes free trade, but is not itself fully encompassed by free trade. There are other areas besides trade one must consider before determining the freedom.

In logic this would be written, "free trade is a necessary condition for freedom but is not a sufficient condition for freedom."

Do you think free trade is a sufficient condition for freedom meaning the only condition needed to call someone free?

You have a certifiably fucked up and contradictory conception of freedom, gnarly. If I'm not hurting anyone government has no business bullying me. And if you think government should bully others for your benefit or convenience, then I think you should go **** yourself.

 

[gnarlylove]

I wonder if the advocates of a state controlled economy believe we can really have freedom without the freedom to earn and trade as we see fit?

You are veritably fanatical about freedom. Fanaticism never leads to the truth. It shrouds you in a private language that only makes sense to you and other insiders.

So can you explain to an outsider how does free trade = freedom? Freedom is not achieved merely through being able to trade x for y freely. That just means free trade. Freedom is a variety of conditions, which includes free trade, but is not itself fully encompassed by free trade. There are other areas besides trade one must consider before determining the freedom.

In logic this would be written, "free trade is a necessary condition for freedom but is not a sufficient condition for freedom."

Do you think free trade is a sufficient condition for freedom meaning the only condition needed to call someone free?

You have a certifiably fucked up and contradictory conception of freedom, gnarly. If I'm not hurting anyone government has no business bullying me. And if you think government should bully others for your benefit or convenience, then I think you should go **** yourself.

1. I asked about your concept of freedom that leads you to unite freedom with free trade. I don't believe throwing mud at me is a satisfactory defense of your position. Hell, I'm not even asking for a defense, I'm just asking you to define the link you see between freedom and free trade so that they are one in the same. Or do you not believe this?

2. Can you describe my fucked up conception of freedom? I don't believe I've stated it but you apparently recall me doing so and have thusly concluded it is shit. So if you will please define my position so I know what you are talking about.

3. You remember comments about what I've said on freedom, apparently, and yet you are a dingbat when it comes to remembering I too am anti-state. But that doesn't fit your bashing so you go ahead and say it without caring it's factually incorrect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

Thanks for the link.

Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?

Thanks for nothing.

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.

CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?

 

[Indeependent]

We not only have some real duds on this thread we have a few left extremes duds on this thread. I don't believe I have seen anyone so totally partisan to the extreme left as gnarley, phillips or indeependence any where else on the internet. Where do these duds get all their strange ideas about such easy to understand subjects? Anyone who believes that government policies were not the main cause of our housing crash and the recession in 2007/8/9 are complete fools.

Please explain why, starting in 2004, people who were not seeking out Mortgages or Home Equity Loans were being deluged by calls from Mortgage Brokers and Lenders who were approving, ON PAPER, and not via the Software, Loans to anybody who could breath.

Starting somewhere in 2006, when GW KNEW he was going to leave a legacy of an economy in the doldrums, Jumbo Mortgages became the norm, NOT because people were seeking out Loans, but because people were being AGGRESSIVLY pursued to accept Loans for which they were ABSILUTELY unqualified.

Now I have read DNSMITH using the catchy phrase, "The Market Heated Up" and I'd like a CLINICAL (you know, STEP BY STEP) explanation of how "The Market Heated Up".

I know how the "The Market Heated Up"...Institutions generating Fees and Commissions by bypassing the Vendor supplied Data Tables that would have resulted in a massive number of Rejections.

Until you Knee-Jerkers can explain, IN DETAIL, the events that ACTUALLY occurred, in THE ORDER in which they occurred, you can all cut it with your bullshit.

Yeah... people are mindless lemmings who can't choose anything for themselves, and thus are at the complete mercy of anyone on a phone saying "we have a mortgage for you!". Really?

Reminds me of this idiot that came to my high school way back when, and played a bunch of beer commercials, and explained that men were simply too stupid to not drink a beer when a commercial came on with girls on it.

To date, I have never had a beer. Apparently I am Super-Human Androw, the one and only human being able to say the magic complete sentence "no".

Similarly, back in 2006 to 2008, I paid off all my debts, cut up my credit cards, and to this day, am completely 100% debt free, owing no one anywhere anything.

Apparently my Super-Human ability protected me from the mind control of the mortgage lenders too.

Do you realize just how incompetent this post makes you look?

Really.... you and those like you, are so unbelievable stupid, so incredibly incompetent, that some doofus on a phone said you needed a sub-prime mortgage, and you idiotically just "dur dur ok! I need a mortgage!" and you and those like you crashed the entire economy???

Personally I don't think you are that stupid. I think you are just full of crap, making up whatever you can to try and cast blame.

But if what you say is actually true, and you mindless lemmings are so completely irresponsible that some doofus on a phone can convince you to crash the entire world economy, than I have a friendly helpful suggestion....... If you, and those like you, are such an absolute disaster to society, then for the social well being of all of humanity, you and those like you should gather together, and commit mass suicide.

If you people are so truly incompetent, then do one last good deed for the world. Take yourselves out of it.

And for the last time..... No one has ever yet suggested that Bush was not in favor of more home ownership. Bush continued the policies that Clinton continued, that Bush Sr continued, that Reagan continued, that Carter started, and that Obama is continuing TO THIS DAY.

Obama is pushing for more home ownership even as we speak.

Housing risk rising as FHA not compensating for high DTI loans | 2014-05-26 | HousingWire

Read it!

This month’s NMRI update shows about 22% of all purchase loans have a debt-to-income ratio greater than the QM limit of 43%.

It states that the Federal Housing Administration is not compensating for riskiness of high DTI loans; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are compensating only to a limited extent.

It also shows that the percentage of low-risk loans accounted for 41.8% of April activity, down from 46.5% in August 2013.

The FHA leads with 45% of purchase loans exceeding the 43% DTI limit.

Indices for Fannie/Freddie and FHA/RHS both hit new highs in April.

Fully 35% of FHA’s home purchase loans have a FICO score below 660 (the demarcation line for subprime credit); these have an average NMRI of 35%.

What's your excuse now? Is Bush the cause of FHA, Fannie and Freddie increasing sub-prime loans TODAY?!?

I want to hear it. What's your explanation?

I'M SO IMPRESSED that you weren't one of the MILLIONS who took the bait because until ONE DAY BEFORE THE CRASH the S&P stated that the "Sky was the limit!".
Actually, I really am impressed...By your frugality, not by your dismissing recent historical facts.

Paper approvals ruled the day and you're quoting me numbers from a document that has NOTHING to do with reality?
You think by insulting the MILLIONS who took out Jumbo Loans with Paper Approval, you are automatically whisking them into non-existence?
How desperate are you?

 

[Andylusion]

You're obviously incapable to posting the specific verbiage of any law that required FOR PROFIT LENDERS to engage in an "epidemic of mortgage fraud" in 2004.

Why is that?

Stawman? Never said there was a law, and that fact is irrelevant. You're obviously incapable of understand that there's no law that any mortgage lender must follow Freddie or Fannie guideline for conforming loans. Yet they do. Why? Because Fannie and Freddie dominate the mortgage market, and that is also why they can say "this has an implied AAA rate" and people follow.

Do you agree private lenders bribed private ratings agencies in order to secure those AAA ratings?

If that was true, then why did it start in 1997? Why not at any time between 1970 to 1996? Why not later? Why not between 1998 to 2008?

In fact, do you realize that it was because of government regulations, that lenders starting being forced to pay for ratings, instead of buyers? Before government created a system where the big three rating agencies were preferred, there were dozens of rating agencies, and buyers of derivatives paid to have them rated. But then because government created preferred rating agencies, forced the sellers of derivatives to pay for the ratings themselves. In fact, according to John A. Allison who was working BB&T at the time, the proponents of the change were Unions that didn't want to pay for rating of their investments.

See, if there was no other explanation, then you could make a stronger case. But the fact that NOT ONE SINGLE sub-prime loan was given a AAA rating until Freddie Mac, arm of the govenrnment, gave them a AAA rating.... says there's a causal link there.

Combine that with the fact Government was literally suing banks to force them to make sub-prime loans, indicates motive on the part of government to give these loans a positive rating.

Can you actually provide proof that they were bribed? Or is correlation causation in your world?

 

[Andylusion]

I specifically stated "reducing" the demands on energy. The plans are to power them via electricity, which is mostly fossil fuels at present.

But it's not a reduction. It's not. Light rail uses more energy than a car. By far.

You make innumerable claims that are generally suspect. So just for shits and giggles, why don't you offer some evidence for this "by far" statement. I'm willing to believe lite rail uses more energy to travel the same distance as one car but one car doesn't transport 800 people either.

Again..... if you can prove that every rail, or even the majority, or even a significant fraction, are fully loaded.... you might have a point.

But they are not. And those numbers you are using to show that energy usage, do not include all of the hundreds of millions of megawatts of power used in support of those light rails. All the lights, all the ticket systems, turn styles, the fresh air systems, the track systems, switches, signals, and the monitoring system, the control units, the Control center with hundreds of computers and system running 24-hours a day.

Again, there is even energy bleed just from powering the hundreds of miles of tracks with 1,200 amps worth of electricity. Power is used (lost) even if not a single train is moving.

Now if you want to believe blindly that all those nearly empty trains running all day long, is still energy efficient over a car, fine. Believe whatever myths you want. But you are the one making the claim they are. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. So you show me an efficiency report, that includes all those costs I just listed, and compares it to the average Sedan.

 

[Andylusion]

Please explain why, starting in 2004, people who were not seeking out Mortgages or Home Equity Loans were being deluged by calls from Mortgage Brokers and Lenders who were approving, ON PAPER, and not via the Software, Loans to anybody who could breath.

Starting somewhere in 2006, when GW KNEW he was going to leave a legacy of an economy in the doldrums, Jumbo Mortgages became the norm, NOT because people were seeking out Loans, but because people were being AGGRESSIVLY pursued to accept Loans for which they were ABSILUTELY unqualified.

Now I have read DNSMITH using the catchy phrase, "The Market Heated Up" and I'd like a CLINICAL (you know, STEP BY STEP) explanation of how "The Market Heated Up".

I know how the "The Market Heated Up"...Institutions generating Fees and Commissions by bypassing the Vendor supplied Data Tables that would have resulted in a massive number of Rejections.

Until you Knee-Jerkers can explain, IN DETAIL, the events that ACTUALLY occurred, in THE ORDER in which they occurred, you can all cut it with your bullshit.

Yeah... people are mindless lemmings who can't choose anything for themselves, and thus are at the complete mercy of anyone on a phone saying "we have a mortgage for you!". Really?

Reminds me of this idiot that came to my high school way back when, and played a bunch of beer commercials, and explained that men were simply too stupid to not drink a beer when a commercial came on with girls on it.

To date, I have never had a beer. Apparently I am Super-Human Androw, the one and only human being able to say the magic complete sentence "no".

Similarly, back in 2006 to 2008, I paid off all my debts, cut up my credit cards, and to this day, am completely 100% debt free, owing no one anywhere anything.

Apparently my Super-Human ability protected me from the mind control of the mortgage lenders too.

Do you realize just how incompetent this post makes you look?

Really.... you and those like you, are so unbelievable stupid, so incredibly incompetent, that some doofus on a phone said you needed a sub-prime mortgage, and you idiotically just "dur dur ok! I need a mortgage!" and you and those like you crashed the entire economy???

Personally I don't think you are that stupid. I think you are just full of crap, making up whatever you can to try and cast blame.

But if what you say is actually true, and you mindless lemmings are so completely irresponsible that some doofus on a phone can convince you to crash the entire world economy, than I have a friendly helpful suggestion....... If you, and those like you, are such an absolute disaster to society, then for the social well being of all of humanity, you and those like you should gather together, and commit mass suicide.

If you people are so truly incompetent, then do one last good deed for the world. Take yourselves out of it.

And for the last time..... No one has ever yet suggested that Bush was not in favor of more home ownership. Bush continued the policies that Clinton continued, that Bush Sr continued, that Reagan continued, that Carter started, and that Obama is continuing TO THIS DAY.

Obama is pushing for more home ownership even as we speak.

Housing risk rising as FHA not compensating for high DTI loans | 2014-05-26 | HousingWire

Read it!

This month’s NMRI update shows about 22% of all purchase loans have a debt-to-income ratio greater than the QM limit of 43%.

It states that the Federal Housing Administration is not compensating for riskiness of high DTI loans; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are compensating only to a limited extent.

It also shows that the percentage of low-risk loans accounted for 41.8% of April activity, down from 46.5% in August 2013.

The FHA leads with 45% of purchase loans exceeding the 43% DTI limit.

Indices for Fannie/Freddie and FHA/RHS both hit new highs in April.

Fully 35% of FHA’s home purchase loans have a FICO score below 660 (the demarcation line for subprime credit); these have an average NMRI of 35%.

What's your excuse now? Is Bush the cause of FHA, Fannie and Freddie increasing sub-prime loans TODAY?!?

I want to hear it. What's your explanation?

I'M SO IMPRESSED that you weren't one of the MILLIONS who took the bait because until ONE DAY BEFORE THE CRASH the S&P stated that the "Sky was the limit!".
Actually, I really am impressed...By your frugality, not by your dismissing recent historical facts.

Paper approvals ruled the day and you're quoting me numbers from a document that has NOTHING to do with reality?
You think by insulting the MILLIONS who took out Jumbo Loans with Paper Approval, you are automatically whisking them into non-existence?
How desperate are you?

I just posted an article that quotes the International Center on Housing Risk, showing that current day policies by our Federal Government are encouraging the exact sub-prime lending that caused the crash of 2008, and some moron on the internet says it has nothing to do with reality.

If you want to prove it doesn't reflect reality, do so. If you are just going to ignore anything that does fit with your ideological stupidity, then you have just now proven yourself too stupid for me to bother talking to.

Please let me know which it is right now, because I'm not going to debate anything else with you, if you are in fact too stupid to talk to. Just saying... no point in debating quantum physics with Forest Gump. He's just too dumb to get it.

If that's you on this topic.... I'll move on. So let me know which it is, and I'll respond accordingly.

 

[Indeependent]

Thanks for the link.

Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?

Thanks for nothing.

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.

CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?

Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?

Thanks for nothing.

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.

CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?

Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.

Let's begin:
How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?

The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.

What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?

Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.



Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider

 

[gnarlylove]

I'M SO IMPRESSED that you weren't one of the MILLIONS who took the bait because until ONE DAY BEFORE THE CRASH the S&P stated that the "Sky was the limit!".
Actually, I really am impressed...By your frugality, not by your dismissing recent historical facts.

Paper approvals ruled the day and you're quoting me numbers from a document that has NOTHING to do with reality?
You think by insulting the MILLIONS who took out Jumbo Loans with Paper Approval, you are automatically whisking them into non-existence?
How desperate are you?

So I'm not the only one who thinks he seems desperate in defending very uncritical positions. Good to know. Nevertheless, you gotta admit, he's consistent and sincere, albeit way in left field.

 

[gnarlylove]

But it's not a reduction. It's not. Light rail uses more energy than a car. By far.

You make innumerable claims that are generally suspect. So just for shits and giggles, why don't you offer some evidence for this "by far" statement. I'm willing to believe lite rail uses more energy to travel the same distance as one car but one car doesn't transport 800 people either.

Again..... if you can prove that every rail, or even the majority, or even a significant fraction, are fully loaded.... you might have a point.

But they are not. And those numbers you are using to show that energy usage, do not include all of the hundreds of millions of megawatts of power used in support of those light rails. All the lights, all the ticket systems, turn styles, the fresh air systems, the track systems, switches, signals, and the monitoring system, the control units, the Control center with hundreds of computers and system running 24-hours a day.

Again, there is even energy bleed just from powering the hundreds of miles of tracks with 1,200 amps worth of electricity. Power is used (lost) even if not a single train is moving.

Now if you want to believe blindly that all those nearly empty trains running all day long, is still energy efficient over a car, fine. Believe whatever myths you want. But you are the one making the claim they are. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. So you show me an efficiency report, that includes all those costs I just listed, and compares it to the average Sedan.

If you want to see how this works, just look how it functions in all the other developed nations around the world.

Saying they run all day without passengers shows you are not being careful. I am not talking about metro elevated trains like Chicago, DC, Denver, SLC, BART etc. I'm talking real fast travel across the US. That is what lite rail means. But as far as things go, I think we agree on some basic points here and I don't want to detract from that.

BTW, thanks for the InfoLinks signature.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I wonder if the advocates of a state controlled economy believe we can really have freedom without the freedom to earn and trade as we see fit?

You are veritably fanatical about freedom. Fanaticism never leads to the truth. It shrouds you in a private language that only makes sense to you and other insiders.

So can you explain to an outsider how does free trade = freedom? Freedom is not achieved merely through being able to trade x for y freely. That just means free trade. Freedom is a variety of conditions, which includes free trade, but is not itself fully encompassed by free trade. There are other areas besides trade one must consider before determining the freedom.

In logic this would be written, "free trade is a necessary condition for freedom but is not a sufficient condition for freedom."

Do you think free trade is a sufficient condition for freedom meaning the only condition needed to call someone free?

Is English your second language?

Maybe you can't read?

can [we] really have freedom without the freedom to earn and trade as we see fit?

He didn't say that was the entirety of freedom.
He said, if we can't earn and trade freely, we're not free.

There are many other parts of freedom, he didn't deny that.

You verbose twit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You make innumerable claims that are generally suspect. So just for shits and giggles, why don't you offer some evidence for this "by far" statement. I'm willing to believe lite rail uses more energy to travel the same distance as one car but one car doesn't transport 800 people either.

Again..... if you can prove that every rail, or even the majority, or even a significant fraction, are fully loaded.... you might have a point.

But they are not. And those numbers you are using to show that energy usage, do not include all of the hundreds of millions of megawatts of power used in support of those light rails. All the lights, all the ticket systems, turn styles, the fresh air systems, the track systems, switches, signals, and the monitoring system, the control units, the Control center with hundreds of computers and system running 24-hours a day.

Again, there is even energy bleed just from powering the hundreds of miles of tracks with 1,200 amps worth of electricity. Power is used (lost) even if not a single train is moving.

Now if you want to believe blindly that all those nearly empty trains running all day long, is still energy efficient over a car, fine. Believe whatever myths you want. But you are the one making the claim they are. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. So you show me an efficiency report, that includes all those costs I just listed, and compares it to the average Sedan.

If you want to see how this works, just look how it functions in all the other developed nations around the world.

Saying they run all day without passengers shows you are not being careful. I am not talking about metro elevated trains like Chicago, DC, Denver, SLC, BART etc. I'm talking real fast travel across the US. That is what lite rail means. But as far as things go, I think we agree on some basic points here and I don't want to detract from that.

BTW, thanks for the InfoLinks signature.

If you want to see how this works, just look how it functions in all the other developed nations around the world.

Excellent idea, show how it works in a nation as large as the US.

 

[Indeependent]

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.

CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?

Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.

Let's begin:
How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?

The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.

What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?

Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.



Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider

The Housing Bubble was not only a free for all for the poor black communities experiencing Red Lining, it was a free for ALL.
I'd say "Nice try", but your postings are getting lamer by the minute.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.

Let's begin:
How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?

The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.

What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?

Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.



Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider

The Housing Bubble was not only a free for all for the poor black communities experiencing Red Lining, it was a free for ALL.
I'd say "Nice try", but your postings are getting lamer by the minute.

The Housing Bubble was not only a free for all for the poor black communities experiencing Red Lining

You'll have to show me where I claimed that.

 

[dnsmith35]

Point out the passage in the CRA that authorizes fraudulent lending practices or STFU, *****.

It was not the actual verbiage in the law which caused the problem, it was the way leftist extremists understood the spirit of the law, and the way administrations of Clinton and Bush wanted it to work. The bottom line is, regulators were told to push sub primes and government entities not only pushed them, they chose to securitize sub prime loans as a means to follow the spirit of CRA.

Take you blinders off and come into the real world.

Right after you name a few of those "leftist extremists" in the Clinton and Bush Administrations.

You really can't read. I did not specifically say they were in the Clinton or Bush administrations. But it was leftist extremists who wanted the sub prime loans, like Obama as a lawyer sued for them. Clinton was not an extremist, but some of his puppeteers were. The very idea to push for loans for people who can't pay them back just so that less wealthy people can own homes, for which they can not pay is left wing extremism.

 

[dnsmith35]

I wonder if the advocates of a state controlled economy believe we can really have freedom without the freedom to earn and trade as we see fit?

You are veritably fanatical about freedom. Fanaticism never leads to the truth. It shrouds you in a private language that only makes sense to you and other insiders.

So can you explain to an outsider how does free trade = freedom? Freedom is not achieved merely through being able to trade x for y freely. That just means free trade. Freedom is a variety of conditions, which includes free trade, but is not itself fully encompassed by free trade. There are other areas besides trade one must consider before determining the freedom.

In logic this would be written, "free trade is a necessary condition for freedom but is not a sufficient condition for freedom."

Do you think free trade is a sufficient condition for freedom meaning the only condition needed to call someone free?

When I address left wing extremism, I am talking about fanaticism. People who believe capitalism is worse for the people than socialism or communism are fanatics. Especially in the face of the economic facts that capitalism makes more people prosperous than any other system.

 

[Chris]

Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

It wasn't the housing bubble.