Three Causes of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis - ForensisGroup.com
Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek
,,,and yes, the thread to which I reference...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/govern...-218-a-17.html (Did you buy it? [W:218])
Last edited by upsideguy; 02-07-13 at 11:33 PM.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
CRA in conjunction with HUD regulations that mandated quotas on the GSEs are actually the primary cause of the sub-prime debacle.
The GSEs which owned 60% of the total sub-prime debt by 2008 and over 70% of sub-prime debt wound up on Govt financial institutions by 2008.
Those quotas which exceeded 50% of the GSEs total mortgae originations under Clinton.
Clinton also green lighted securitization of that junk paper.
Nice try anyway.
I can sit here and post hundreds of articles (they aren't hard to find) that tell us this was a complex problem, but none will offer much, if any blame to the CRA. I don't think you can find one credible article that supports your point the CRA was the primary cause (because that is hard to find)....
Last edited by upsideguy; 02-08-13 at 01:42 AM.
Quotas that forced them to increase their sub-prime debt from less than 10% to close to 50% by the time it was all said and done.
You want me to post a legitimate a source of legitmacy but then you take up for Paul Krugman.
A leftist who gave up on his economic aspiration to be Obama's bitch.
Krugman a lunatic and all you have to do is Google my claims and refute them .
S&P Lawsuit Portrays CDO Sellers as Duped Victims - Bloomberg
That's the government's case. Banks who were dumb enough to create faulty securities only did so because S&P told them their pile of crap was golden. Good luck with that.Here’s the gist. Near the end of its 119-page complaint, the Justice Department listed about two-dozen collateralized- debt obligations issued in 2007 as examples where S&P allegedly defrauded banks and credit unions. It was important that the Justice Department be able to identify such lenders as investors, because it’s suing S&P under a 1989 statute that covers frauds against federally insured financial institutions.
Under the government’s theory, Citigroup and Bank of America paid S&P for ratings that convinced the banks their own CDO offal was rock-solid. And because S&P deceived them into thinking the best of their own rubbish, these banks and other lenders suffered more than $5 billion of investment losses, according to the suit.
Still no cite.... I'll settle for an independent cite that has CRA as even a significant factor.... not that it changes the truth, but at least I would like to see a credible argument. You are free to continue with your unsubstantiated posts, but you are out of bounds in admonishing others on this issue when you can't even substantiate your own point lest you have merely proven your original assertion that its amazing how many people on this board have no understanding of this issue.