I don't know how that is given the fact more people entered the work market. You do know that boomers are working after retirement, don't you?
Wrong on all counts. Boomers are retiring at a rate of 360,000 a month. only about 180,000 replacements are graduating college or high school every month.
It would take a major league fuckup to have high unemployment, but that's what Trump specializes in. he's the only guy who could LOSE money running casinos.
I'm not denying that, I'm stating what started it all. It was the feds lowering interest rates and forcing banks to greatly lower their loan standards to meet Clinton's desire, which was to have more poor and minorities in their own houses. It worked too, that's exactly what happened.
Bush screwed up because he too wanted to be known as the President that had more minorities own homes. So he didn't stop it. He loved taking credit for it as he was trying to buy more minority votes. He did try to stop it, but the Democrats wouldn't play along.
again, the banks that dealt in that market weren't the ones that needed the bailout. The thing about CRA loans is that because the government regulates them, banks had to produce a lot more paperwork proving due diligence... as opposed to the banks that were just cashing in on the McMansion Boom.
Bush had nothing to do with it. Do you think he oversees loans? The banks go by one standard--the government standard. It was government that told banks to make those bad loans, specifically F&F. Left on their own, the banks would never do such a thing.
Actually, the banks made bad loans to white people buying McMansions because they figured the property values would go up after they defaulted. They took those bad mortgages and misrepresented their value as investments.
I could spend time educating you on this, but you've heard a story on Hate Radio and you're sticking to it.
Here's an article from that Commie Rag "Forbes" that explains it well.
Once again, critics of the Community Reinvestment Act are claiming that the CRA forced banks to offer risky mortgages to minorities and the poor, resulting in the global financial collapse. Except, it's not true.
www.forbes.com
A pernicious attempted excuse is that regulations are unnecessary because the banks and other financial institutions weren't the actual cause of the financial collapse not so long ago. Instead, it was all the CRA's fault because banks were somehow "forced" to lend to people who weren't honest about their incomes.
Somehow, supposedly, financial institutions suddenly were forced to make bad loans. Except they weren't. If you've ever read any of the CRA, which its critics generally haven't, you'll not see a word about providing more lenient lending standards. Banks aren't required to change their risk management and underwriting processes at all, which is why for decades there was no enormous problem that sprang up. Lenders weren't taking undue chances.
That started in the 2000s when, now free of Glass-Steagall, all the financial institutions could start getting into other profitable lines of business. As one former industry CEO once told me, banks scrambled to get into these other areas that they didn't really understand and they failed to undertake the necessary risk management.
Research has shown ā as noted by law professor and author Jennifer Taub ā that only 6% of high-cost loans had any connection to CRA lending. In fact,
loans from CRA-connected lenders were half as likely to default as those made in the same neighborhoods by other mortgage lenders that didn't come under the CRA.
nypost.com
