That assessment is an obtuse piece of flotsam. First of all, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 and it was the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (read GEORGE H.W. BUSH) which required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to greatly expand their securitization of subprime loans. You are also intentionally skewing the data. 80% of subprime loans were issued by institutions which did NOT fall under the jurisdiction of the CRA. The vast majority of subprime loans did NOT originate from GSEs. The debt obligations were purchased. In fact, most of the toxic securities didn't even contain CRA loans. These facts are well documented and aptly pointed out in Michel Barr's testimony to Congress. Your entire statement is just know-nothing partisan hackery.
If the argument is that regulators are misinterpreting the law or going beyond the law to force banks to give loans to the unqualified, then it is an issue with the interpretation or the enforcement, not the legislation itself. I don't believe that problem is widespread, but if anyone has statistics that doesn't come from a right wing organization that proves regulators frequently abused the law to force banks to provide loans to the unqualified I will reconsider.
I'm specifically addredsing issues that you seem to be ignoring. Debt obligations "purchased by the GSEs were purchased by .....the tax payer. We took the bath on that debt and that was mandated not by Bush but by slimey politicians in the 90s.
The GSEs purchased **** loads of bad debt ? You think ? I think even the libs in Congress knew their policies were threatening to sink private lending institutions.
Quotas for sub-prime debt purchased or otherwise still became part of a out of control Govt experiment that was mandated by DEMOCRATS. Quotas that were put in place and doubled down on by DEMOCRATS.
CRA loans aren't the issue really.
CRA given regulatory control in the early 90s over lending institutions in an effort to lower lending standards is the issue. HUD given regulatory control to force a quota system on the GSEs is the issue.
Clinton allowing these loans to be securitized is the issue and if your going to talk about true origins then be objective and start at the begining.
You get me ? I'm specifically speaking about who's respondible, who put the policies and regulations in place that started and perpetuated this mess.
And its ALL on the Democrats.
Whos policies allowed for the underwriting standards to be lowered ?
If you say HUD didn't impose a quaota system on the GSEs then you would be lying.p
If you say the GSEs didn't hold a majority of sub-prime debt when the inevitable happened you would be lying. Or Govt finacial institutions institutions in general you would be lying.
If you say Barney Frank didn't advocate for the lowering of underwriting standards and then empower agencies like CRA and HUD to actually force the lowering of those standards then you would be lying.
Libs always do this. Jump in to the debate at or around 2002 to pathetically blame Bush when Conservatives are trying to enlighten you guys and every one else on the ROOT CAUSE of the collapse.
Hey, can you go get one of them GSE loans for no money down financed at 105% with an ARM now. ? Why not ?
Did they do something about that ? Reinstate the standards that were institutionally driven down by politicians in the 90s.
With out the lowering of underwriter standards for mortgages there would have been no "sub-prime" collapse period.
Without the institutionalizing of sub-prime debt by the GSEs who were put on a quota system in 1992 that started at 30% and stopped at 55% there would not have been a sub-prime collapse.