CRA Not to Blame for Housing Debacle

[CTNative]

I think the interesting research will come from determining how many banks subject to CRA controls packaged and sold them as MBS.

There is an article from 1998 that points out $744 million in CRA loans that were securitized and sold as MBS.

I can't put links in my post here yet, so you will have to go to allbusiness.com and search for Packaging CRA Loans into Securities.

From the article:

"Both the First Union ($416 million) securitization in November 1997 and the Mellon deal ($328 million) in April 1998 were several times oversubscribed. What is even more interesting is who bought the loans. Was it banks seeking CRA investment credit? No, it wasn't. The overwhelming participants were money managers and insurance companies buying the loans strictly because of their investment appeal."

I've also been reading that CRA loans are less profitable, or not profitable, when compared to non-CRA loans. This would be more incentivization for banks to securitize them and sell them to the likes of Goldman-Sachs.

Ironically, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System website, their official website, has a page dedicated to a survey of banks to show evidence of the profitability or loss of their CRA loans....and so far, all of the links are broken.

If someone finds where those documents are, please let me know as that would show that banks losing money on CRA loans would bend over backwards to sell them.

Obviously, for the past 30 years banks did not make any more CRA loans than they could afford to and not go out of business. No bank would do that, and since all banks had the same restraint, namely making a profit, there were only so many CRA loans they any one bank could make so the playing field was even.

What is important to find out, is how many CRA loans were securitized and either sold to Wall Street or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If WS or the Government became insatiable buyers of these loans, (which I believe is likely since the government was incensed on making homes "affordable") then it would make sense for banks to make as many of these CRA loans as possible and sell them away as quickly as possible and just enjoy the fee revenue.

At the end of the day, the mortgage crisis was caused by many things, and if securitization of CRA loans (especially if they were not profitable or low-profit) proliferated after that oversubscribed offer of $744 million then the CRA was definitely a part of it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It does not make any difference WHY Frank did not support HR1461, IT PASSED 331-90, with the majority of both repubs and dems voting for it. Frank did not control the dems any more, he was irrelevant at that time.

The companion bill, S 190 was passed out of committee and went to the senate for consideration, but Bill Frist (R-Tenn) never brought the bill to a vote on the senate floor. You tell me why the repubs failed to govern, why the senate never voted on the F&F reform bill that was passed by a huge majority in the house, with strong bi-partisan support.

It passed in the house by a Republican majority which makes your point moot. So why didn't it make it to the senate?

Now I'm going to show you how the republicans fixed it so Fannie and Freddie could not be regulated, when regulation was needed.

Freddie Mac arranged stealth lobbying in 2005

Associated Press ,Oct. 19, 2008

WASHINGTON — Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.


In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.


Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it.


In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.

"If effective regulatory reform legislation ... is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole," the senators wrote in a letter that proved prescient.


Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.


In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage. The measure died at the end of the 109th Congress.


The Republican senators targeted by DCI began hearing from prominent constituents and financial contributors, all urging the defeat of Hagel's bill because it might harm the housing boom. The effort generated newspaper articles and radio and TV appearances by participants who spoke out against the measure.


Inside Freddie Mac headquarters in 2005, the few dozen people who knew what DCI was doing referred to the initiative as "the stealth lobbying campaign," according to three people familiar with the drive.
They spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying they fear retaliation if their names were disclosed.


Freddie Mac executive Hollis McLoughlin oversaw DCI's drive, according to the three people.


"Hollis's goal was not to have any Freddie Mac fingerprints on this project and DCI became the hidden hand behind the effort," one of the three people told the AP.


Before 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Democratic strongholds. After 2004, Republicans ran their political operations. McLoughlin, who joined Freddie Mac in 2004 as chief of staff, has given $32,250 to Republican candidates over the years, including $2,800 to McCain, and has given none to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics.
On Friday night, Hagel's chief of staff, Mike Buttry, said Hagel's legislation "was the last best chance to bring greater oversight and tighter regulation to Freddie and Fannie, and they used every means they could to defeat Sen. Hagel's legislation every step of the way."


"It is outrageous that a congressionally chartered government-sponsored enterprise would lobby against a member of Congress's bill that would strengthen the regulation and oversight of that institution," Buttry said in a statement. "America has paid an extremely high price for the reckless, and possibly criminal, actions of the leadership at Freddie and Fannie."
Nine of the 17 targeted Republican senators did not sign Hagel's letter: Sens. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Christopher "Kit" Bond and Jim Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and George Allen of Virginia. Aside from the nine, 20 other Republican senators did not sign Hagel's letter.

Freddie Mac arranged stealth lobbying in 2005 | Business | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Bill Frist (R-Tenn) did not bring the bill up for a vote because there was not adequate repub support to regulate Fannie, and since they were in the majority in the senate, that ended the effort. It turns out you don't have to buy the whole senate, you just have to get enough votes on the margin to deny the majority their majority, and DCI did that. But you will notice this did not come to light until 2008. For the republicans, you can be for regulation and against regulation at the same time.

Heck, by my count, that's 25 repubs in the senate in favor of reform, and 29 against, out of a total of 54 repub senators. The repubs couldn't even get a majority in their own caucus. This was not on Barney Frank, this could never have passed the senate because the republicans would have killed it if it came to a vote. Frist was just too smart to show the public the real story. Then you can talk about reform and blame its failure on someone else, since the hypocrits weren't on the record.

Yet in 2007 if it was already known by both parties they needed to fix Freddy and Fanny the democrats could have done so but did not.
2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07).

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07).

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/0...annie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone/

Oh and about the author of your "news source" pete yost

You news sourse got a new article written about itself

Pete Yost’s story: How a Democratic reporter covers Freddie Mac
If you’re a Democratic news reporter covering Freddie Mac, the mortgage lender that the Democrats for 15 years used as multibillion-dollar slush fund for poor home buyers who had no way to pay back their loans, the logical path is to steer the story away from the central culprits.

Pete Yost of the Associated Press accomplished the cover-up with his story yesterday.



http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2008/10/pete-yosts-stor.html

 

[finebead]

It passed in the house by a Republican majority which makes your point moot. So why didn't it make it to the senate?

Now I'm going to show you how the republicans fixed it so Fannie and Freddie could not be regulated, when regulation was needed.

Freddie Mac arranged stealth lobbying in 2005

Associated Press ,Oct. 19, 2008

WASHINGTON — Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.


In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.


Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it.


In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.

"If effective regulatory reform legislation ... is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole," the senators wrote in a letter that proved prescient.


Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.


In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage. The measure died at the end of the 109th Congress.


The Republican senators targeted by DCI began hearing from prominent constituents and financial contributors, all urging the defeat of Hagel's bill because it might harm the housing boom. The effort generated newspaper articles and radio and TV appearances by participants who spoke out against the measure.


Inside Freddie Mac headquarters in 2005, the few dozen people who knew what DCI was doing referred to the initiative as "the stealth lobbying campaign," according to three people familiar with the drive.
They spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying they fear retaliation if their names were disclosed.


Freddie Mac executive Hollis McLoughlin oversaw DCI's drive, according to the three people.


"Hollis's goal was not to have any Freddie Mac fingerprints on this project and DCI became the hidden hand behind the effort," one of the three people told the AP.


Before 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Democratic strongholds. After 2004, Republicans ran their political operations. McLoughlin, who joined Freddie Mac in 2004 as chief of staff, has given $32,250 to Republican candidates over the years, including $2,800 to McCain, and has given none to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics.
On Friday night, Hagel's chief of staff, Mike Buttry, said Hagel's legislation "was the last best chance to bring greater oversight and tighter regulation to Freddie and Fannie, and they used every means they could to defeat Sen. Hagel's legislation every step of the way."


"It is outrageous that a congressionally chartered government-sponsored enterprise would lobby against a member of Congress's bill that would strengthen the regulation and oversight of that institution," Buttry said in a statement. "America has paid an extremely high price for the reckless, and possibly criminal, actions of the leadership at Freddie and Fannie."
Nine of the 17 targeted Republican senators did not sign Hagel's letter: Sens. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Christopher "Kit" Bond and Jim Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and George Allen of Virginia. Aside from the nine, 20 other Republican senators did not sign Hagel's letter.

Freddie Mac arranged stealth lobbying in 2005 | Business | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Bill Frist (R-Tenn) did not bring the bill up for a vote because there was not adequate repub support to regulate Fannie, and since they were in the majority in the senate, that ended the effort. It turns out you don't have to buy the whole senate, you just have to get enough votes on the margin to deny the majority their majority, and DCI did that. But you will notice this did not come to light until 2008. For the republicans, you can be for regulation and against regulation at the same time.

Heck, by my count, that's 25 repubs in the senate in favor of reform, and 29 against, out of a total of 54 repub senators. The repubs couldn't even get a majority in their own caucus. This was not on Barney Frank, this could never have passed the senate because the republicans would have killed it if it came to a vote. Frist was just too smart to show the public the real story. Then you can talk about reform and blame its failure on someone else, since the hypocrits weren't on the record.

Yet in 2007 if it was already known by both parties they needed to fix Freddy and Fanny the democrats could have done so but did not.
2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07).

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07).

The White House Warned Congress About Fannie Mae Freddie Mac 17 Times In 2008, Alone Nice Deb

Oh and about the author of your "news source" pete yost

You news sourse got a new article written about itself

Pete Yost’s story: How a Democratic reporter covers Freddie Mac
If you’re a Democratic news reporter covering Freddie Mac, the mortgage lender that the Democrats for 15 years used as multibillion-dollar slush fund for poor home buyers who had no way to pay back their loans, the logical path is to steer the story away from the central culprits.

Pete Yost of the Associated Press accomplished the cover-up with his story yesterday.

Free Frank Warner: Pete Yost?s story: How a Democratic reporter covers Freddie Mac

I see you don't dispute even one fact in the AP story about how the repubs sold themselves out in the senate and failed to pass some of the most needed legislation of our time. You question my source based on an anonymous internet blogger with zero credentials. I googled him and came up with nothing except his little personal blog. He's a nobody.

But the democrats think Pete Yost is against THEM, at least over at Slate.com:

Posted Tuesday, Aug. 22, 2000

Associated Press reporter Pete Yost played by the journalistic rules last Thursday when he granted anonymity to the sources who provided him with his big scoop: that Independent Counsel Robert Ray had impaneled a new grand jury to hear evidence against President Clinton. As Yost chased his own story on Thursday and Friday, publishing the peeved speculations of big-name Democrats that the sources were Republicans, he continued to follow the official rulebook. He kept a poker face, reported the facts, and protected his sources. But playing by the rules, in this instance, meant behaving unethically.

The sleazy thing about reporting the Democrats' speculations was that Yost knew that the speculations were basically wrong. As it turned out, one of Yost's sources was not a vengeful Republican but a Democrat on the federal bench.

Yost's scoop, which hit the wires at 3:29 p.m. ET on Thursday, made the Democrats mad as red ants. With Vice President Al Gore just hours from giving his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Democrats insisted that Republican leakers, determined to embarrass Gore on his big night, were behind Yost's story.

The Associated Press Plays Dumb - Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

And again in a separate matter, the dems accuse Yost of supporting republican lies about the dems:

February 18, 2006

The Republicans have been caught red-handed in Abramoffgate. So what is their defense? To say Democrats took Abramoff money too.

Of course that is just another REPUBLICAN BIG LIE. Abramoff was a hard-core Republican and never gave a single penny to a Democrat in his life.

Howard Dean smacked down the REPUBLICAN BIG LIE on Wolf Blitzer's show on 1/9/06.

"There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true."

But Republicans cannot stop lying. On Friday, GOP spokesliar Tracey Schmitt told Pete Yost of the AP: "Considering 28 of the 31 Democrats have received Abramoff-affiliated funds themselves, it appears their hypocrisy has exceeded even their partisanship."

What the hell are "Abramoff-affiliated funds"? If Abramoff called Pizza Hut in DC and a Pizza Hut delivery man in California gave $1 to Barbara Boxer, is that an "Abramoff-affiliated fund"?

This is utter bullshit, and it is utter bullshit that Pete Yost included this in his article. Let's demand a retraction and an apology: pyost@ap.org

AP's Pete Yost Endorses GOP Lies | Democrats.com

Now, if you can piss off the repubs and the dems, Mr. Yost looks like a pretty balanced reporter to me, certainly more creditable than your lonely blogger, and remember, you never (nor did your lone blogger) even attempted to dispute one single fact that was reported. What good does it possibly do to attempt to tarnish a source, if you ACCEPT all his facts? Fail.

Now, re Pres Bush and the dems passage of Fannie and Freddie reform, post the dems winning the congress in 2006:

- January 2007 - Democrats take control of the House and Senate; Barney Frank is named Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
- March 28, 2007 - The House Financial Services Committee passes H.R. 1427, the GSE reform bill, by a vote of 49-15. The legislation had the support of the Bush Administration and represented a tougher bill than the 2005 effort. Incredibly, 19 Republicans opposed the bill.
- May 22, 2007 - The House of Representatives passes H.R. 1427, by a vote of 313-104. All opposition came from Republicans.
- January, 2008 - Chairman Frank offers to insert both GSE reform and FHA reform into the stimulus bill that was being negotiated by Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration. Secretary Paulson declined, citing opposition from the White House.
- May 8, 2008 - House of Representatives passes H.R. 3221, which contains GSE reform provision, after receiving the Senate amendments to the original bill.
- May 20, 2008 - The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee passes a bill containing GSE Reform provisions- The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008.
- July 11, 2008 - The United States Senate passes GSE reform as part of a bigger bill.
- July 30, 2008 - President Bush signs GSE reform as part of H.R. 3221

https://financialservices.house.gov...11/timeline_for_fannie_freddie_regulation.pdf

So, the dem congress did pass Fannie and Freddie reform and President Bush signed the bill. Of course by that time, July 2008, the financial crisis was about to explode in Sept 2008 with the failure of Lehman Bros. and the fire sale acquisitions of Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch. The last opportunity to do something to avert the disaster that occurred on the republican watch (and it grew up on the repub watch also, especially in 2004-2006), was S 190 in the senate, and while many repubs talked about the problem, the problem was well known, THEY DID NOTHING TO PREVENT THE PROBLEM FROM GETTING WORSE! When we needed the repubs in the senate (who had the majority at the time in 2005) to ACT, with a bill passed by all repubs in committee, Bill Frist never brought it to the senate floor for a vote because he could not even get a majority of his republican caucus to vote for the bill. The repubs had that mantle to govern, and they allowed a bubble in housing coupled with lack of banking and mortgage regulations to create the biggest financial crisis in the US since the great depression. The republicans failed to govern effectively from 2001 to 2006. And you have failed to show anything to dispute that this assessment is true.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Now I'm going to show you how the republicans fixed it so Fannie and Freddie could not be regulated, when regulation was needed.


Freddie Mac arranged stealth lobbying in 2005 | Business | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Bill Frist (R-Tenn) did not bring the bill up for a vote because there was not adequate repub support to regulate Fannie, and since they were in the majority in the senate, that ended the effort. It turns out you don't have to buy the whole senate, you just have to get enough votes on the margin to deny the majority their majority, and DCI did that. But you will notice this did not come to light until 2008. For the republicans, you can be for regulation and against regulation at the same time.

Heck, by my count, that's 25 repubs in the senate in favor of reform, and 29 against, out of a total of 54 repub senators. The repubs couldn't even get a majority in their own caucus. This was not on Barney Frank, this could never have passed the senate because the republicans would have killed it if it came to a vote. Frist was just too smart to show the public the real story. Then you can talk about reform and blame its failure on someone else, since the hypocrits weren't on the record.

Yet in 2007 if it was already known by both parties they needed to fix Freddy and Fanny the democrats could have done so but did not.
2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07).

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07).

The White House Warned Congress About Fannie Mae Freddie Mac 17 Times In 2008, Alone Nice Deb

Oh and about the author of your "news source" pete yost

You news sourse got a new article written about itself

Pete Yost’s story: How a Democratic reporter covers Freddie Mac
If you’re a Democratic news reporter covering Freddie Mac, the mortgage lender that the Democrats for 15 years used as multibillion-dollar slush fund for poor home buyers who had no way to pay back their loans, the logical path is to steer the story away from the central culprits.

Pete Yost of the Associated Press accomplished the cover-up with his story yesterday.

Free Frank Warner: Pete Yost?s story: How a Democratic reporter covers Freddie Mac

I see you don't dispute even one fact in the AP story about how the repubs sold themselves out in the senate and failed to pass some of the most needed legislation of our time. You question my source based on an anonymous internet blogger with zero credentials. I googled him and came up with nothing except his little personal blog. He's a nobody.

But the democrats think Pete Yost is against THEM, at least over at Slate.com:

The Associated Press Plays Dumb - Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

And again in a separate matter, the dems accuse Yost of supporting republican lies about the dems:

February 18, 2006

The Republicans have been caught red-handed in Abramoffgate. So what is their defense? To say Democrats took Abramoff money too.

Of course that is just another REPUBLICAN BIG LIE. Abramoff was a hard-core Republican and never gave a single penny to a Democrat in his life.

Howard Dean smacked down the REPUBLICAN BIG LIE on Wolf Blitzer's show on 1/9/06.

"There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true."

But Republicans cannot stop lying. On Friday, GOP spokesliar Tracey Schmitt told Pete Yost of the AP: "Considering 28 of the 31 Democrats have received Abramoff-affiliated funds themselves, it appears their hypocrisy has exceeded even their partisanship."

What the hell are "Abramoff-affiliated funds"? If Abramoff called Pizza Hut in DC and a Pizza Hut delivery man in California gave $1 to Barbara Boxer, is that an "Abramoff-affiliated fund"?

This is utter bullshit, and it is utter bullshit that Pete Yost included this in his article. Let's demand a retraction and an apology: pyost@ap.org

AP's Pete Yost Endorses GOP Lies | Democrats.com

Now, if you can piss off the repubs and the dems, Mr. Yost looks like a pretty balanced reporter to me, certainly more creditable than your lonely blogger, and remember, you never (nor did your lone blogger) even attempted to dispute one single fact that was reported. What good does it possibly do to attempt to tarnish a source, if you ACCEPT all his facts? Fail.

Now, re Pres Bush and the dems passage of Fannie and Freddie reform, post the dems winning the congress in 2006:

- January 2007 - Democrats take control of the House and Senate; Barney Frank is named Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
- March 28, 2007 - The House Financial Services Committee passes H.R. 1427, the GSE reform bill, by a vote of 49-15. The legislation had the support of the Bush Administration and represented a tougher bill than the 2005 effort. Incredibly, 19 Republicans opposed the bill.
- May 22, 2007 - The House of Representatives passes H.R. 1427, by a vote of 313-104. All opposition came from Republicans.
- January, 2008 - Chairman Frank offers to insert both GSE reform and FHA reform into the stimulus bill that was being negotiated by Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration. Secretary Paulson declined, citing opposition from the White House.
- May 8, 2008 - House of Representatives passes H.R. 3221, which contains GSE reform provision, after receiving the Senate amendments to the original bill.
- May 20, 2008 - The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee passes a bill containing GSE Reform provisions- The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008.
- July 11, 2008 - The United States Senate passes GSE reform as part of a bigger bill.
- July 30, 2008 - President Bush signs GSE reform as part of H.R. 3221

https://financialservices.house.gov...11/timeline_for_fannie_freddie_regulation.pdf

So, the dem congress did pass Fannie and Freddie reform and President Bush signed the bill. Of course by that time, July 2008, the financial crisis was about to explode in Sept 2008 with the failure of Lehman Bros. and the fire sale acquisitions of Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch. The last opportunity to do something to avert the disaster that occurred on the republican watch (and it grew up on the repub watch also, especially in 2004-2006), was S 190 in the senate, and while many repubs talked about the problem, the problem was well known, THEY DID NOTHING TO PREVENT THE PROBLEM FROM GETTING WORSE! When we needed the repubs in the senate (who had the majority at the time in 2005) to ACT, with a bill passed by all repubs in committee, Bill Frist never brought it to the senate floor for a vote because he could not even get a majority of his republican caucus to vote for the bill. The repubs had that mantle to govern, and they allowed a bubble in housing coupled with lack of banking and mortgage regulations to create the biggest financial crisis in the US since the great depression. The republicans failed to govern effectively from 2001 to 2006. And you have failed to show anything to dispute that this assessment is true.

Oh and about the author of your "news source" pete yost

You news sourse got a new article written about itself

Pete Yost’s story: How a Democratic reporter covers Freddie Mac
If you’re a Democratic news reporter covering Freddie Mac, the mortgage lender that the Democrats for 15 years used as multibillion-dollar slush fund for poor home buyers who had no way to pay back their loans, the logical path is to steer the story away from the central culprits.

Pete Yost of the Associated Press accomplished the cover-up with his story yesterday.

Free Frank Warner: Pete Yost?s story: How a Democratic reporter covers Freddie Mac

I see you don't dispute even one fact in the AP story about how the repubs sold themselves out in the senate and failed to pass some of the most needed legislation of our time. You question my source based on an anonymous internet blogger with zero credentials. I googled him and came up with nothing except his little personal blog. He's a nobody.

More on the author of your source and how he does the news

He kept a poker face, reported the facts, and protected his sources. But playing by the rules, in this instance, meant behaving unethically.
The Associated Press Plays Dumb - Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

Pete yost is a hac and is not a report your source is a big fat failure.

Whats to dispute your sources was a lie.

 

[finebead]

Yet in 2007 if it was already known by both parties they needed to fix Freddy and Fanny the democrats could have done so but did not.
2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07).

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07).

The White House Warned Congress About Fannie Mae Freddie Mac 17 Times In 2008, Alone Nice Deb

Oh and about the author of your "news source" pete yost

You news sourse got a new article written about itself

Pete Yost’s story: How a Democratic reporter covers Freddie Mac
If you’re a Democratic news reporter covering Freddie Mac, the mortgage lender that the Democrats for 15 years used as multibillion-dollar slush fund for poor home buyers who had no way to pay back their loans, the logical path is to steer the story away from the central culprits.

Pete Yost of the Associated Press accomplished the cover-up with his story yesterday.

Free Frank Warner: Pete Yost?s story: How a Democratic reporter covers Freddie Mac

I see you don't dispute even one fact in the AP story about how the repubs sold themselves out in the senate and failed to pass some of the most needed legislation of our time. You question my source based on an anonymous internet blogger with zero credentials. I googled him and came up with nothing except his little personal blog. He's a nobody.

But the democrats think Pete Yost is against THEM, at least over at Slate.com:

The Associated Press Plays Dumb - Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

And again in a separate matter, the dems accuse Yost of supporting republican lies about the dems:

AP's Pete Yost Endorses GOP Lies | Democrats.com

Now, if you can piss off the repubs and the dems, Mr. Yost looks like a pretty balanced reporter to me, certainly more creditable than your lonely blogger, and remember, you never (nor did your lone blogger) even attempted to dispute one single fact that was reported. What good does it possibly do to attempt to tarnish a source, if you ACCEPT all his facts? Fail.

Now, re Pres Bush and the dems passage of Fannie and Freddie reform, post the dems winning the congress in 2006:

https://financialservices.house.gov...11/timeline_for_fannie_freddie_regulation.pdf

So, the dem congress did pass Fannie and Freddie reform and President Bush signed the bill. Of course by that time, July 2008, the financial crisis was about to explode in Sept 2008 with the failure of Lehman Bros. and the fire sale acquisitions of Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch. The last opportunity to do something to avert the disaster that occurred on the republican watch (and it grew up on the repub watch also, especially in 2004-2006), was S 190 in the senate, and while many repubs talked about the problem, the problem was well known, THEY DID NOTHING TO PREVENT THE PROBLEM FROM GETTING WORSE! When we needed the repubs in the senate (who had the majority at the time in 2005) to ACT, with a bill passed by all repubs in committee, Bill Frist never brought it to the senate floor for a vote because he could not even get a majority of his republican caucus to vote for the bill. The repubs had that mantle to govern, and they allowed a bubble in housing coupled with lack of banking and mortgage regulations to create the biggest financial crisis in the US since the great depression. The republicans failed to govern effectively from 2001 to 2006. And you have failed to show anything to dispute that this assessment is true.

Oh and about the author of your "news source" pete yost

You news sourse got a new article written about itself

Pete Yost’s story: How a Democratic reporter covers Freddie Mac
If you’re a Democratic news reporter covering Freddie Mac, the mortgage lender that the Democrats for 15 years used as multibillion-dollar slush fund for poor home buyers who had no way to pay back their loans, the logical path is to steer the story away from the central culprits.

Pete Yost of the Associated Press accomplished the cover-up with his story yesterday.

Free Frank Warner: Pete Yost?s story: How a Democratic reporter covers Freddie Mac

I see you don't dispute even one fact in the AP story about how the repubs sold themselves out in the senate and failed to pass some of the most needed legislation of our time. You question my source based on an anonymous internet blogger with zero credentials. I googled him and came up with nothing except his little personal blog. He's a nobody.

More on the author of your source and how he does the news

He kept a poker face, reported the facts, and protected his sources. But playing by the rules, in this instance, meant behaving unethically.
The Associated Press Plays Dumb - Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

Pete yost is a hac and is not a report your source is a big fat failure.

Whats to dispute your sources was a lie.

You have never disputed any of the facts in Mr. Yost story. Until you can dispute the facts in his story, you have not disproved ANYTHING.

You have not added anything new to your previous inadequate post. Fail.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I see you don't dispute even one fact in the AP story about how the repubs sold themselves out in the senate and failed to pass some of the most needed legislation of our time. You question my source based on an anonymous internet blogger with zero credentials. I googled him and came up with nothing except his little personal blog. He's a nobody.

But the democrats think Pete Yost is against THEM, at least over at Slate.com:

The Associated Press Plays Dumb - Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

And again in a separate matter, the dems accuse Yost of supporting republican lies about the dems:

AP's Pete Yost Endorses GOP Lies | Democrats.com

Now, if you can piss off the repubs and the dems, Mr. Yost looks like a pretty balanced reporter to me, certainly more creditable than your lonely blogger, and remember, you never (nor did your lone blogger) even attempted to dispute one single fact that was reported. What good does it possibly do to attempt to tarnish a source, if you ACCEPT all his facts? Fail.

Now, re Pres Bush and the dems passage of Fannie and Freddie reform, post the dems winning the congress in 2006:

https://financialservices.house.gov...11/timeline_for_fannie_freddie_regulation.pdf

So, the dem congress did pass Fannie and Freddie reform and President Bush signed the bill. Of course by that time, July 2008, the financial crisis was about to explode in Sept 2008 with the failure of Lehman Bros. and the fire sale acquisitions of Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch. The last opportunity to do something to avert the disaster that occurred on the republican watch (and it grew up on the repub watch also, especially in 2004-2006), was S 190 in the senate, and while many repubs talked about the problem, the problem was well known, THEY DID NOTHING TO PREVENT THE PROBLEM FROM GETTING WORSE! When we needed the repubs in the senate (who had the majority at the time in 2005) to ACT, with a bill passed by all repubs in committee, Bill Frist never brought it to the senate floor for a vote because he could not even get a majority of his republican caucus to vote for the bill. The repubs had that mantle to govern, and they allowed a bubble in housing coupled with lack of banking and mortgage regulations to create the biggest financial crisis in the US since the great depression. The republicans failed to govern effectively from 2001 to 2006. And you have failed to show anything to dispute that this assessment is true.

Oh and about the author of your "news source" pete yost

You news sourse got a new article written about itself

Pete Yost’s story: How a Democratic reporter covers Freddie Mac
If you’re a Democratic news reporter covering Freddie Mac, the mortgage lender that the Democrats for 15 years used as multibillion-dollar slush fund for poor home buyers who had no way to pay back their loans, the logical path is to steer the story away from the central culprits.

Pete Yost of the Associated Press accomplished the cover-up with his story yesterday.

Free Frank Warner: Pete Yost?s story: How a Democratic reporter covers Freddie Mac

I see you don't dispute even one fact in the AP story about how the repubs sold themselves out in the senate and failed to pass some of the most needed legislation of our time. You question my source based on an anonymous internet blogger with zero credentials. I googled him and came up with nothing except his little personal blog. He's a nobody.

More on the author of your source and how he does the news

He kept a poker face, reported the facts, and protected his sources. But playing by the rules, in this instance, meant behaving unethically.
The Associated Press Plays Dumb - Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

Pete yost is a hac and is not a report your source is a big fat failure.

Whats to dispute your sources was a lie.

You have never disputed any of the facts in Mr. Yost story. Until you can dispute the facts in his story, you have not disproved ANYTHING.

You have not added anything new to your previous inadequate post. Fail.

I'm going to be straight up with you. When you used that source you failed. It showed you will go to any extent to lie. No matter what else you used.Your first attempt was a failure. Pete Yost is a democratic hack. He's a democratic team player. He's not a news reporter. He's an agenda pusher. He's an unethical hack

 

[finebead]

Oh and about the author of your "news source" pete yost

You news sourse got a new article written about itself

Pete Yost’s story: How a Democratic reporter covers Freddie Mac
If you’re a Democratic news reporter covering Freddie Mac, the mortgage lender that the Democrats for 15 years used as multibillion-dollar slush fund for poor home buyers who had no way to pay back their loans, the logical path is to steer the story away from the central culprits.

Pete Yost of the Associated Press accomplished the cover-up with his story yesterday.

Free Frank Warner: Pete Yost?s story: How a Democratic reporter covers Freddie Mac




More on the author of your source and how he does the news

He kept a poker face, reported the facts, and protected his sources. But playing by the rules, in this instance, meant behaving unethically.
The Associated Press Plays Dumb - Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

Pete yost is a hac and is not a report your source is a big fat failure.

Whats to dispute your sources was a lie.

You have never disputed any of the facts in Mr. Yost story. Until you can dispute the facts in his story, you have not disproved ANYTHING.

You have not added anything new to your previous inadequate post. Fail.

I'm going to be straight up with you. When you used that source you failed. It showed you will go to any extent to lie. No matter what else you used.Your first attempt was a failure. Pete Yost is a democratic hack. He's a democratic team player. He's not a news reporter. He's an agenda pusher. He's an unethical hack

And you have hard information that substantiates this, other than an unknown internet blogger who calls himself Frank Warner on his blog?

Do you have any info to refute the facts in the article? Don't you think if the article was false you could find an article where the repubs attacked the article? I can't find a republican refutation. Can you?

 

[CTNative]

Can I ask a simple question?

Suspending the discussion of the CRA's role in the housing bubble for a minute...I'd like to ask the supporters of the CRA to explain why they support it at all?

You're spending a lot of time defending it, so I'd like to know why.

The only entities that take part in unprofitable ventures are the government and bankrupt companies. If making CRA loans were profitable, then banks would already have done them. In fact I would not discount the very likely possibility that CRA loans fail at a rate higher than non-CRA loans. They don't have to fail much more, only enough more to make them unattractive to participate in.

Whether the costs associated with CRA's are due to defaulted loans or simply higher servicing costs, it would seem clear that they are not profitable or banks would already be in the business of providing them pre-government mandate.

If we believe CRA loans are unprofitable for banks, then the costs of providing them are socialized among the bank's other customers through higher fees and/or interest rates or higher hurdles to qualify for a loan.

It takes a law created by social engineers (read politicians) to force a private company to do something unprofitable. So with that in mind, and suspension of the current thread for a moment why do the supporters of the CRA on this thread support the CRA (or its concept) at all?

Why do supporters of the CRA believe that the associated higher servicing costs should be distributed to other citizens?

 

[william the wie]

Can I ask a simple question?

Suspending the discussion of the CRA's role in the housing bubble for a minute...I'd like to ask the supporters of the CRA to explain why they support it at all?

You're spending a lot of time defending it, so I'd like to know why.

The only entities that take part in unprofitable ventures are the government and bankrupt companies. If making CRA loans were profitable, then banks would already have done them. In fact I would not discount the very likely possibility that CRA loans fail at a rate higher than non-CRA loans. They don't have to fail much more, only enough more to make them unattractive to participate in.

Whether the costs associated with CRA's are due to defaulted loans or simply higher servicing costs, it would seem clear that they are not profitable or banks would already be in the business of providing them pre-government mandate.

If we believe CRA loans are unprofitable for banks, then the costs of providing them are socialized among the bank's other customers through higher fees and/or interest rates or higher hurdles to qualify for a loan.

It takes a law created by social engineers (read politicians) to force a private company to do something unprofitable. So with that in mind, and suspension of the current thread for a moment why do the supporters of the CRA on this thread support the CRA (or its concept) at all?

Why do supporters of the CRA believe that the associated higher servicing costs should be distributed to other citizens?

Best question posted in the thread. Can't rep you again but you do deserve it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have never disputed any of the facts in Mr. Yost story. Until you can dispute the facts in his story, you have not disproved ANYTHING.

You have not added anything new to your previous inadequate post. Fail.

I'm going to be straight up with you. When you used that source you failed. It showed you will go to any extent to lie. No matter what else you used.Your first attempt was a failure. Pete Yost is a democratic hack. He's a democratic team player. He's not a news reporter. He's an agenda pusher. He's an unethical hack

And you have hard information that substantiates this, other than an unknown internet blogger who calls himself Frank Warner on his blog?

Do you have any info to refute the facts in the article? Don't you think if the article was false you could find an article where the repubs attacked the article? I can't find a republican refutation. Can you?

Just look at the BS you posted He's a political hack period.

find an article where the repubs attacked the article?

Some people aren't as fast contecting the dots as I am. It's the small stuff that I look at. Yost is a poklitcal hack the story is a fail. Unless you have proof from some other source supporting yost propaganda.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Can I ask a simple question?

Suspending the discussion of the CRA's role in the housing bubble for a minute...I'd like to ask the supporters of the CRA to explain why they support it at all?

You're spending a lot of time defending it, so I'd like to know why.

The only entities that take part in unprofitable ventures are the government and bankrupt companies. If making CRA loans were profitable, then banks would already have done them. In fact I would not discount the very likely possibility that CRA loans fail at a rate higher than non-CRA loans. They don't have to fail much more, only enough more to make them unattractive to participate in.

Whether the costs associated with CRA's are due to defaulted loans or simply higher servicing costs, it would seem clear that they are not profitable or banks would already be in the business of providing them pre-government mandate.

If we believe CRA loans are unprofitable for banks, then the costs of providing them are socialized among the bank's other customers through higher fees and/or interest rates or higher hurdles to qualify for a loan.

It takes a law created by social engineers (read politicians) to force a private company to do something unprofitable. So with that in mind, and suspension of the current thread for a moment why do the supporters of the CRA on this thread support the CRA (or its concept) at all?

Why do supporters of the CRA believe that the associated higher servicing costs should be distributed to other citizens?

Suspending the discussion of the CRA's role in the housing bubble for a minute...I'd like to ask the supporters of the CRA to explain why they support it at all?

It shifts the blame from the banks and back to the democrats, thats why are are fighting it.

 

[Terral]

Hi Toro:

The idea that the CRA was a big contributor to the housing debacle keeps popping up. Thus, I'm creating a new thread to refute this assertion.

Trying to blame the Community Reinvestment Act or sub-prime loans or anything to do with banks for the current Foreclosure/Bankruptcy/Housing Crisis is effort thrown after complete and utter foolishness!!!! The reason your home price value will continue to go DOWN into the toilet is for reasons that have nothing to do with banks and everything to do with corrupt US Federal, State and Local politicians bowing to corporate elites that are destroying America very much on purpose. The primary reason for the current housing crisis is summed up in two words:

1. Worker Displacement. Google the phrase and educate yourself.

The corrupt politicians are responsible for displacing as many U.S. workers as possible from the local job markets by:

A. NAFTA offshoring of the manufacturing base. Thank Robert Reich (story).

B. 23 HB-1 Visa-style Guest Worker Programs that import 1.5 million foreign nationals into the USA every year 'legally.'

C. Outsourcing of jobs overseas and south of the border.

D. 20 million goddamned illegal aliens making up the Clinton/Bush/Obama Cheap Illegal Alien Labor Pool that allows U.S. employers to pick around U.S. workers in favor of hiring foreign nationals from all over the world for pennies on the dollar.

Bush and Obama are throwing money at their Wall Street Bankster pals, while masons and carpenters and tile setters and dry-wall people and painters and everyone working with their hands are being systematically displaced out of the job markets by cheap illegal aliens willing to do the job for less than half the price and nobody is doing one thing to enforce the perfectly good immigration, employment and document fraud laws already on the books. The idiot border patrol people sit out there staring across the border, while 20 million goddamned illegal aliens run around loose EVERYWHERE stealing identities and jobs from U.S. Citizens 'and' kill 25 U.S. Citizens every day (12 by murder).

The reason the value of your house will continue going down has nothing to do with Community Reinvestment or any such NONSENSE, which is only a smokescreen topic to keep you looking in the wrong direction. Fewer and fewer Americans can afford to make their own house payments, because of 'Worker Displacement,' which means more foreclosures and bankruptcies and more distressed houses on the market in direct competition with your house. Period. Your house is only worth what real Americans are willing to pay at any given time and that number will continue to go DOWN into the ground, until somebody starts looking out for U.S. workers. That is never going to happen, because the corrupt politicians are destroying America very much on purpose, so the House of Rothschild/Rockefeller can bring in their New World Order and make subjects of everyone in the Fascist State of CanAmeriMexico.

That is what Americans deserve for being so stupid ...

GL,

Terral

 

[CTNative]

Best question posted in the thread. Can't rep you again but you do deserve it.

Thanks for the support. I was reading this entire thread and saw so much heavy lifting by those defending the CRA involvement in the housing bubble I wanted to jump in and say something in their defense.

Obviously the CRA did not cause the housing bubble all by itself, but nobody can prove that it didn't contribute to it. For all the times CRA supporters demand empirical evidence that it played a part, they never seem to provide empirical evidence that it didn't.

Which means the burden falls on the concept of the CRA itself. If they are defending it at all for any reason, then they must support the idea of a CRA in general and that is really the core of this problem.

The CRA is a bad idea for the reasons I stated in my previous comments. So regardless of the percentage of involvement it played in the housing bubble, be it 0.9% or 99% or somewhere in between, it was a bad idea and CRA supporters, to use their own words, 'must prove with empirical evidence' that it was, and is, a good idea and why.

Otherwise, can we all agree to just abolish it? Can the CRA supporters, regardless of its involvement in the housing bubble, at least agree that we should eliminate the CRA?

Yes? No? Your people will call my people?

 

[CTNative]

It shifts the blame from the banks and back to the democrats, thats why are are fighting it.

Agree.

 

[william the wie]

Well the major problem with CRA and other forms of economic stimulus (which CRA was designed to be for poor neighborhoods) is that it distorts investment decisions. In simple terms the goal of CRA was to avoid gentrification or other changes that might break up the culture of poverty but instead to discourage movement out of the ghetto or barrio. The CRA specified investment in areas that were redlined for good actuarial reasons as in why rent in Watts when you can buy there? Well first off do you want your kids growing up in that kind of dysfunctional community?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Best question posted in the thread. Can't rep you again but you do deserve it.

Thanks for the support. I was reading this entire thread and saw so much heavy lifting by those defending the CRA involvement in the housing bubble I wanted to jump in and say something in their defense.

Obviously the CRA did not cause the housing bubble all by itself, but nobody can prove that it didn't contribute to it. For all the times CRA supporters demand empirical evidence that it played a part, they never seem to provide empirical evidence that it didn't.

Which means the burden falls on the concept of the CRA itself. If they are defending it at all for any reason, then they must support the idea of a CRA in general and that is really the core of this problem.

The CRA is a bad idea for the reasons I stated in my previous comments. So regardless of the percentage of involvement it played in the housing bubble, be it 0.9% or 99% or somewhere in between, it was a bad idea and CRA supporters, to use their own words, 'must prove with empirical evidence' that it was, and is, a good idea and why.

Otherwise, can we all agree to just abolish it? Can the CRA supporters, regardless of its involvement in the housing bubble, at least agree that we should eliminate the CRA?

Yes? No? Your people will call my people?

You did great with your question. As far as the repeal of the CRA I doubt it will happen to many hands are in the money pot for that to happen. Plus the ACLU, with the support of the NAACP would sue to prevent it from happening. Not saying that a law suit would stop congressional legislation but it would raise a big stink.

 

[Toro]

Can I ask a simple question?

Suspending the discussion of the CRA's role in the housing bubble for a minute...I'd like to ask the supporters of the CRA to explain why they support it at all?

You're spending a lot of time defending it, so I'd like to know why.

The only entities that take part in unprofitable ventures are the government and bankrupt companies. If making CRA loans were profitable, then banks would already have done them. In fact I would not discount the very likely possibility that CRA loans fail at a rate higher than non-CRA loans. They don't have to fail much more, only enough more to make them unattractive to participate in.

Whether the costs associated with CRA's are due to defaulted loans or simply higher servicing costs, it would seem clear that they are not profitable or banks would already be in the business of providing them pre-government mandate.

If we believe CRA loans are unprofitable for banks, then the costs of providing them are socialized among the bank's other customers through higher fees and/or interest rates or higher hurdles to qualify for a loan.

It takes a law created by social engineers (read politicians) to force a private company to do something unprofitable. So with that in mind, and suspension of the current thread for a moment why do the supporters of the CRA on this thread support the CRA (or its concept) at all?

Why do supporters of the CRA believe that the associated higher servicing costs should be distributed to other citizens?

I'm not a supporter of the CRA and I am not defending it. I have no opinion about the CRA as policy. What I am dispelling is that it caused or was even a factor in the Housing Bubble.

The only people I ever see make this argument are highly partisan individuals who have a vested interest in promoting an ideological or political agenda. I once read a bank CEO complain about having to make uneconomic loans because of the CRA, but that doesn't explain perhaps the biggest asset bubble in history.

Obviously the CRA did not cause the housing bubble all by itself, but nobody can prove that it didn't contribute to it. For all the times CRA supporters demand empirical evidence that it played a part, they never seem to provide empirical evidence that it didn't.

Well, there's also no proof that the New England Patriots didn't cause the Housing Bubble too, but we can safely say they didn't. You can't prove a negative, after all.

But in fact, we can safely conclude the CRA didn't play any meaningful part in the debacle since we can look at the outcomes of the Housing Bubble.

If one believes in the efficacy of markets - and most on the Right do - then one would have expected that CRA-loans would have had a disproportionate affect on housing prices. A disproportionate amount of credit would have been funneled to CRA areas, which would have lead to an excess of buying and skyrocketing prices, leading to a collapse and massive defaults.

But did that happen? No, of course not. The poor areas were not the markets which saw the biggest increases in price. In fact, it was just the opposite. Also, one would have expected the biggest subsequent home price collapses to have occurred in CRA areas, but again, this is not what occurred.

One would have also expected to have seen a higher rate of default on CRA loans. But again that did not happen.

It also defies belief when one of the biggest 25 subprime lenders were subject to CRA loans. This is like saying that one small, Midwest brokerage was responsible for the Tech Bubble while all the others had nothing to do with it. C'mon, that's not a serious argument.

People who make the CRA argument not only have no idea what actually happened in the market, they don't know history. In fact, what happened in the Financial Crisis is normally what happens in real estate bubbles. The people who drove it were generally middle and upper middle class people buying into the Sun Belt. For the last 100 years, there have been periodic booms and busts in real estate in this country, and they all look pretty similar. Generally, the places that have gone up the most then fell the most were Southern California, Florida and Arizona. Las Vegas, which is a relatively new city and hasn't seen as many wild swings, got into the act as well. Texas mostly skipped the boom and bust because it is still hung over from the 80s bust and the oil economy has done well. This is no different.

The other glaring omission is that this boom and bust was global. Other countries which saw massive real estate bubbles were Ireland, the UK, Holland, Portugal, Spain, Singapore, Australia, Canada, China, Norway and South Africa, to name a few. Some countries, such as Canada, Norway, Australia and China, are still in the bubble. This is the first time in history when a real estate bubble was global. How did the CRA cause a housing bubble in Norway and Portugal?

This is a political argument completely without merit.

That doesn't mean the government is absolved of all blame. Far from it. In fact, I think the government was the primary cause of the Housing Bubble, primarily through the Federal Reserve, which kept interest rates too low. If you know financial history and understand the commonalities of all these bubbles, you understand that the Fed is one of the primary culprits. Bubbles only occur with excess credit creation. It is they who are most responsible for influencing credit creation in this country, and it is they who de-regulated and resisted regulation of much of the financial industry, which created all sorts of products which channeled credit into the asset markets, meaning Wall Street shares in a great deal of the culpability. Others have made the argument that excess savings in China were responsible, and that may be true to some extent, but I think it had far less responsibility than the Fed.

 

[Care4all]

Can I ask a simple question?

Suspending the discussion of the CRA's role in the housing bubble for a minute...I'd like to ask the supporters of the CRA to explain why they support it at all?

You're spending a lot of time defending it, so I'd like to know why.

The only entities that take part in unprofitable ventures are the government and bankrupt companies. If making CRA loans were profitable, then banks would already have done them. In fact I would not discount the very likely possibility that CRA loans fail at a rate higher than non-CRA loans. They don't have to fail much more, only enough more to make them unattractive to participate in.

Whether the costs associated with CRA's are due to defaulted loans or simply higher servicing costs, it would seem clear that they are not profitable or banks would already be in the business of providing them pre-government mandate.

If we believe CRA loans are unprofitable for banks, then the costs of providing them are socialized among the bank's other customers through higher fees and/or interest rates or higher hurdles to qualify for a loan.

It takes a law created by social engineers (read politicians) to force a private company to do something unprofitable. So with that in mind, and suspension of the current thread for a moment why do the supporters of the CRA on this thread support the CRA (or its concept) at all?

Why do supporters of the CRA believe that the associated higher servicing costs should be distributed to other citizens?

I'm not a supporter of the CRA and I am not defending it. I have no opinion about the CRA as policy. What I am dispelling is that it caused or was even a factor in the Housing Bubble.

The only people I ever see make this argument are highly partisan individuals who have a vested interest in promoting an ideological or political agenda. I once read a bank CEO complain about having to make uneconomic loans because of the CRA, but that doesn't explain perhaps the biggest asset bubble in history.

Obviously the CRA did not cause the housing bubble all by itself, but nobody can prove that it didn't contribute to it. For all the times CRA supporters demand empirical evidence that it played a part, they never seem to provide empirical evidence that it didn't.

Well, there's also no proof that the New England Patriots didn't cause the Housing Bubble too, but we can safely say they didn't. You can't prove a negative, after all.

But in fact, we can safely conclude the CRA didn't play any meaningful part in the debacle since we can look at the outcomes of the Housing Bubble.

If one believes in the efficacy of markets - and most on the Right do - then one would have expected that CRA-loans would have had a disproportionate affect on housing prices. A disproportionate amount of credit would have been funneled to CRA areas, which would have lead to an excess of buying and skyrocketing prices, leading to a collapse and massive defaults.

But did that happen? No, of course not. The poor areas were not the markets which saw the biggest increases in price. In fact, it was just the opposite. Also, one would have expected the biggest subsequent home price collapses to have occurred in CRA areas, but again, this is not what occurred.

One would have also expected to have seen a higher rate of default on CRA loans. But again that did not happen.

It also defies belief when one of the biggest 25 subprime lenders were subject to CRA loans. This is like saying that one small, Midwest brokerage was responsible for the Tech Bubble while all the others had nothing to do with it. C'mon, that's not a serious argument.

People who make the CRA argument not only have no idea what actually happened in the market, they don't know history. In fact, what happened in the Financial Crisis is normally what happens in real estate bubbles. The people who drove it were generally middle and upper middle class people buying into the Sun Belt. For the last 100 years, there have been periodic booms and busts in real estate in this country, and they all look pretty similar. Generally, the places that have gone up the most then fell the most were Southern California, Florida and Arizona. Las Vegas, which is a relatively new city and hasn't seen as many wild swings, got into the act as well. Texas mostly skipped the boom and bust because it is still hung over from the 80s bust and the oil economy has done well. This is no different.

The other glaring omission is that this boom and bust was global. Other countries which saw massive real estate bubbles were Ireland, the UK, Holland, Portugal, Spain, Singapore, Australia, Canada, China, Norway and South Africa, to name a few. Some countries, such as Canada, Norway, Australia and China, are still in the bubble. This is the first time in history when a real estate bubble was global. How did the CRA cause a housing bubble in Norway and Portugal?

This is a political argument completely without merit.

That doesn't mean the government is absolved of all blame. Far from it. In fact, I think the government was the primary cause of the Housing Bubble, primarily through the Federal Reserve, which kept interest rates too low. If you know financial history and understand the commonalities of all these bubbles, you understand that the Fed is one of the primary culprits. Bubbles only occur with excess credit creation. It is they who are most responsible for influencing credit creation in this country, and it is they who de-regulated and resisted regulation of much of the financial industry, which created all sorts of products which channeled credit into the asset markets, meaning Wall Street shares in a great deal of the culpability. Others have made the argument that excess savings in China were responsible, and that may be true to some extent, but I think it had far less responsibility than the Fed.

thank you so much for taking the time to explain that Toro! It makes perfect sense.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Can I ask a simple question?

Suspending the discussion of the CRA's role in the housing bubble for a minute...I'd like to ask the supporters of the CRA to explain why they support it at all?

You're spending a lot of time defending it, so I'd like to know why.

The only entities that take part in unprofitable ventures are the government and bankrupt companies. If making CRA loans were profitable, then banks would already have done them. In fact I would not discount the very likely possibility that CRA loans fail at a rate higher than non-CRA loans. They don't have to fail much more, only enough more to make them unattractive to participate in.

Whether the costs associated with CRA's are due to defaulted loans or simply higher servicing costs, it would seem clear that they are not profitable or banks would already be in the business of providing them pre-government mandate.

If we believe CRA loans are unprofitable for banks, then the costs of providing them are socialized among the bank's other customers through higher fees and/or interest rates or higher hurdles to qualify for a loan.

It takes a law created by social engineers (read politicians) to force a private company to do something unprofitable. So with that in mind, and suspension of the current thread for a moment why do the supporters of the CRA on this thread support the CRA (or its concept) at all?

Why do supporters of the CRA believe that the associated higher servicing costs should be distributed to other citizens?

I'm not a supporter of the CRA and I am not defending it. I have no opinion about the CRA as policy. What I am dispelling is that it caused or was even a factor in the Housing Bubble.

The only people I ever see make this argument are highly partisan individuals who have a vested interest in promoting an ideological or political agenda. I once read a bank CEO complain about having to make uneconomic loans because of the CRA, but that doesn't explain perhaps the biggest asset bubble in history.

Obviously the CRA did not cause the housing bubble all by itself, but nobody can prove that it didn't contribute to it. For all the times CRA supporters demand empirical evidence that it played a part, they never seem to provide empirical evidence that it didn't.

Well, there's also no proof that the New England Patriots didn't cause the Housing Bubble too, but we can safely say they didn't. You can't prove a negative, after all.

But in fact, we can safely conclude the CRA didn't play any meaningful part in the debacle since we can look at the outcomes of the Housing Bubble.

If one believes in the efficacy of markets - and most on the Right do - then one would have expected that CRA-loans would have had a disproportionate affect on housing prices. A disproportionate amount of credit would have been funneled to CRA areas, which would have lead to an excess of buying and skyrocketing prices, leading to a collapse and massive defaults.

But did that happen? No, of course not. The poor areas were not the markets which saw the biggest increases in price. In fact, it was just the opposite. Also, one would have expected the biggest subsequent home price collapses to have occurred in CRA areas, but again, this is not what occurred.

One would have also expected to have seen a higher rate of default on CRA loans. But again that did not happen.

It also defies belief when one of the biggest 25 subprime lenders were subject to CRA loans. This is like saying that one small, Midwest brokerage was responsible for the Tech Bubble while all the others had nothing to do with it. C'mon, that's not a serious argument.

People who make the CRA argument not only have no idea what actually happened in the market, they don't know history. In fact, what happened in the Financial Crisis is normally what happens in real estate bubbles. The people who drove it were generally middle and upper middle class people buying into the Sun Belt. For the last 100 years, there have been periodic booms and busts in real estate in this country, and they all look pretty similar. Generally, the places that have gone up the most then fell the most were Southern California, Florida and Arizona. Las Vegas, which is a relatively new city and hasn't seen as many wild swings, got into the act as well. Texas mostly skipped the boom and bust because it is still hung over from the 80s bust and the oil economy has done well. This is no different.

The other glaring omission is that this boom and bust was global. Other countries which saw massive real estate bubbles were Ireland, the UK, Holland, Portugal, Spain, Singapore, Australia, Canada, China, Norway and South Africa, to name a few. Some countries, such as Canada, Norway, Australia and China, are still in the bubble. This is the first time in history when a real estate bubble was global. How did the CRA cause a housing bubble in Norway and Portugal?

This is a political argument completely without merit.

That doesn't mean the government is absolved of all blame. Far from it. In fact, I think the government was the primary cause of the Housing Bubble, primarily through the Federal Reserve, which kept interest rates too low. If you know financial history and understand the commonalities of all these bubbles, you understand that the Fed is one of the primary culprits. Bubbles only occur with excess credit creation. It is they who are most responsible for influencing credit creation in this country, and it is they who de-regulated and resisted regulation of much of the financial industry, which created all sorts of products which channeled credit into the asset markets, meaning Wall Street shares in a great deal of the culpability. Others have made the argument that excess savings in China were responsible, and that may be true to some extent, but I think it had far less responsibility than the Fed.

thank you so much for taking the time to explain that Toro! It makes perfect sense.

Really it made sense to you? How can some who does not support the CRA argue for it? That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Care4all]

I'm not a supporter of the CRA and I am not defending it. I have no opinion about the CRA as policy. What I am dispelling is that it caused or was even a factor in the Housing Bubble.

The only people I ever see make this argument are highly partisan individuals who have a vested interest in promoting an ideological or political agenda. I once read a bank CEO complain about having to make uneconomic loans because of the CRA, but that doesn't explain perhaps the biggest asset bubble in history.



Well, there's also no proof that the New England Patriots didn't cause the Housing Bubble too, but we can safely say they didn't. You can't prove a negative, after all.

But in fact, we can safely conclude the CRA didn't play any meaningful part in the debacle since we can look at the outcomes of the Housing Bubble.

If one believes in the efficacy of markets - and most on the Right do - then one would have expected that CRA-loans would have had a disproportionate affect on housing prices. A disproportionate amount of credit would have been funneled to CRA areas, which would have lead to an excess of buying and skyrocketing prices, leading to a collapse and massive defaults.

But did that happen? No, of course not. The poor areas were not the markets which saw the biggest increases in price. In fact, it was just the opposite. Also, one would have expected the biggest subsequent home price collapses to have occurred in CRA areas, but again, this is not what occurred.

One would have also expected to have seen a higher rate of default on CRA loans. But again that did not happen.

It also defies belief when one of the biggest 25 subprime lenders were subject to CRA loans. This is like saying that one small, Midwest brokerage was responsible for the Tech Bubble while all the others had nothing to do with it. C'mon, that's not a serious argument.

People who make the CRA argument not only have no idea what actually happened in the market, they don't know history. In fact, what happened in the Financial Crisis is normally what happens in real estate bubbles. The people who drove it were generally middle and upper middle class people buying into the Sun Belt. For the last 100 years, there have been periodic booms and busts in real estate in this country, and they all look pretty similar. Generally, the places that have gone up the most then fell the most were Southern California, Florida and Arizona. Las Vegas, which is a relatively new city and hasn't seen as many wild swings, got into the act as well. Texas mostly skipped the boom and bust because it is still hung over from the 80s bust and the oil economy has done well. This is no different.

The other glaring omission is that this boom and bust was global. Other countries which saw massive real estate bubbles were Ireland, the UK, Holland, Portugal, Spain, Singapore, Australia, Canada, China, Norway and South Africa, to name a few. Some countries, such as Canada, Norway, Australia and China, are still in the bubble. This is the first time in history when a real estate bubble was global. How did the CRA cause a housing bubble in Norway and Portugal?

This is a political argument completely without merit.

That doesn't mean the government is absolved of all blame. Far from it. In fact, I think the government was the primary cause of the Housing Bubble, primarily through the Federal Reserve, which kept interest rates too low. If you know financial history and understand the commonalities of all these bubbles, you understand that the Fed is one of the primary culprits. Bubbles only occur with excess credit creation. It is they who are most responsible for influencing credit creation in this country, and it is they who de-regulated and resisted regulation of much of the financial industry, which created all sorts of products which channeled credit into the asset markets, meaning Wall Street shares in a great deal of the culpability. Others have made the argument that excess savings in China were responsible, and that may be true to some extent, but I think it had far less responsibility than the Fed.

thank you so much for taking the time to explain that Toro! It makes perfect sense.

Really it made sense to you? How can some who does not support the CRA argue for it? That doesn't make any sense at all.

seriously big reb?

he is NOT arguing FOR the CRA for goodness sakes! He is simply stating the facts....that CRA did not CAUSE the real estate/financial boom/bust. He gave SOLID reasoning and FACTS that supports this as well....

YOU my dear, need to read his post again....especially regarding where the booms took place.....which were NOT Community Reinvestment Act. CRA areas.....

Toro is a Canadian citizen, he is NOT a Democrat, he is NOT a Republican....

supporting or not supporting the CRA's cause, is irrelevant, regarding the housing boom/financial boom in subprime loans/MBS's and their bust....