• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

[QUOTE 1063309773]False narrative ? Yeah, redlining never existed. And Reagan's DOJ and HUD didn't look the other way when banks were basically ignoring the anti-discrimination requirements in the CRA. I guess they were all too busy deregulating the savings and loan industry, a move that led to widespread real estate speculation, hundreds of failed institutions, and a massive federal bailout.

>>The Democrats first, decided that the Private Sector standards, used by Banks for decades to keep the Housing markets stable where innately racist.

No, the standards were not racist. Many of the people applying them were. Did I say that? No, I got confused. Racism in America? Hasn't existed for at least a hundred years.

"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro …" "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom."​
[/QUOTE]


Answer this question.

If banks were actually guilty of discriminatory lending practices, that is they were actually refusing to lend to people based solely on the color of their skin, why did the Clinton administration force banks to lower their lending standards ?

HUDs 1995 Afordable Housing Goals for the GSEs mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up a increasing number of loans made to low income borrowers.

40 percent of their loan purchases had to be from low income borrowers.

Janet Reno in 1998 bragged about her 13 successful " Fair lending " lawsuites against banks and vowed to sue even more lenders.

Why would the Government fight legitmate discrimination by telling banks if they didn't lower their standards they were going to be subject to DOJ action ?

Are you telling me Minority loan applicants with Good credit scores received Sub-Prime loans ?

The way you fight legitmate discrimination based solely on color is you simply warn the banks to extend credit out to credit worthly applicants regardless of the color of their skin or else.

Use your brain man.
 
Can you point to the post that asserts redlining never existed? I must have missed that one.

Hmm. Well, perhaps I did overstate a bit. As you know, I was looking at:

Clinton's war against " Racist lenders " and his false narrative of " discrimination in lending ".

I should have limited my sarcasm to "redlining did not exist in the 1980s." I'd say it did, and that's why Clinton warned the banks he claimed were engaging in it that they'd better stop. If it didn't, then the banks he warned had nothing to be concerned about, right?

>>Still, given the choice between some redlining, or at least enforcement of common sense lending standards, and a housing bubble, I think it's an easy choice to make.

I see this as a false choice, and one that gets to heart of the matter here. Some on the Right want to portray the CRA as a giveaway to blacks. They do the same thing with affirmative action. The CRA is designed to force banks to give women and minorities equal treatment, not preferential treatment. Banks are not expected to provide mortgages to people who can't afford to pay them back, rather they are expected to stop their established practice of deciding that lending to women and minorities is inherently "risky."


I've taken some time to look around and see what what I could learn about this issue. My view hasn't changed. As yer saying, the CRA seems to have played a role, albeit a relatively small one, in the creation and implosion of the housing bubble. Some on the Right have decided that the Act, along with F & F, are pretty much solely responsible. And they absurdly claim that liberals and progressives "blame Bush and no one else."

I don't think I can contribute anything more, if I've even contributed anything to begin with, to this discussion. I'm gonna post an excerpt from an article that I think makes a good argument, along with a few links, and then, much to the disappointment of some I'm sure, probably have nothing much more to say.

In my searching, I found that this topic has been discussed repeatedly here at DB. I'm gonna call it a dead horse.

I await the Krauthammer column in which he points out the specific provision of the Community Reinvestment Act that forced Bear Stearns to run with an absurd leverage ratio of 33 to 1, which instructed Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers to blow up hundreds of millions of their clients' money, and that required its septuagenarian CEO to play bridge while his company ran into trouble. Perhaps Neil Cavuto knows which CRA clause required Lehman Bros. to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars in short-term debt in the capital markets and then buy tens of billions of dollars of commercial real estate at the top of the market. I can't find it. Did AIG plunge into the credit-default-swaps business with abandon because Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now members picketed its offices? Please. How about the hundreds of billions of dollars of leveraged loans—loans banks committed to private-equity firms that wanted to conduct leveraged buyouts of retailers, restaurant companies, and industrial firms? Many of those are going bad now, too. Is that Bill Clinton's fault?

Look: There was a culture of stupid, reckless lending, of which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the subprime lenders were an integral part. But the dumb-lending virus originated in Greenwich, Conn., midtown Manhattan, and Southern California, not Eastchester, Brownsville, and Washington, D.C. Investment banks created a demand for subprime loans because they saw it as a new asset class that they could dominate. They made subprime loans for the same reason they made other loans: They could get paid for making the loans, for turning them into securities, and for trading them—frequently using borrowed capital. — "Subprime Suspects: The right blames the credit crisis on poor minority homeowners. This is not merely offensive, but entirely wrong, Slate, Oct 7, 2008"​

"Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown?," The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Mar 1, 2009

"The Subprime Crisis: Is Government Housing Policy to Blame?," The Federal Reserve Board, Aug 3, 2011

"The Subprime Crisis: How Much Did Lender Regulation Matter?," by Robert B. Avery and Kenneth P. Brevoort, two Fed economists, published by George Washington University, Aug 2010

A review of the Avery and Brevoort study, by Peter van Doren of the Cato Institute, in the Spring 2011 edition of Regulation, p.61

"It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act," Economist's View, Sept 22, 2008 (contains lots of comments)

"The Community Reinvestment Act Did Not Induce Subprime Lending," Economist's View, Oct 5, 2012 (lots more comments)

>>The rest of your post is just so much noise, not worth responding to.

Yer gonna treat me that way after I gave you that wonderful little sandwich shop? :(
 
If banks were actually guilty of discriminatory lending practices, that is they were actually refusing to lend to people based solely on the color of their skin, why did the Clinton administration force banks to lower their lending standards ?

The answer is quite simple: the standards were not lowered. Got it?

>>Why would the Government fight legitmate discrimination by telling banks if they didn't lower their standards they were going to be subject to DOJ action ?

Same answer. And this "DOJ action" you refer to would have involved blocking expansions and mergers.

>>Are you telling me Minority loan applicants with Good credit scores received Sub-Prime loans ?

No, I'm telling you that women and minorities were being discriminated against.

>>The way you fight legitmate discrimination based solely on color is you simply warn the banks to extend credit out to credit worthly applicants regardless of the color of their skin or else.

"legitmate discrimination based solely on color"? I'm guessing you mean "illegitimate." The solution you point to is the one employed: lend to women and minorities who are qualified. Stop acting like they are inherently more risky.

>>Use your brain man.

But I'm just a commie libtard. I lack yer higher reasoning skills.

As one of the people who complains about my occasional non-use of quote boxes, maybe you oughta stop confusing people by failing to use the tags correctly.
 
Hmm. Well, perhaps I did overstate a bit. As you know, I was looking at:



I should have limited my sarcasm to "redlining did not exist in the 1980s." I'd say it did, and that's why Clinton warned the banks he claimed were engaging in it that they'd better stop. If it didn't, then the banks he warned had nothing to be concerned about, right?

>>Still, given the choice between some redlining, or at least enforcement of common sense lending standards, and a housing bubble, I think it's an easy choice to make.

I see this as a false choice, and one that gets to heart of the matter here. Some on the Right want to portray the CRA as a giveaway to blacks. They do the same thing with affirmative action. The CRA is designed to force banks to give women and minorities equal treatment, not preferential treatment. Banks are not expected to provide mortgages to people who can't afford to pay them back, rather they are expected to stop their established practice of deciding that lending to women and minorities is inherently "risky."


I've taken some time to look around and see what what I could learn about this issue. My view hasn't changed. As yer saying, the CRA seems to have played a role, albeit a relatively small one, in the creation and implosion of the housing bubble. Some on the Right have decided that the Act, along with F & F, are pretty much solely responsible. And they absurdly claim that liberals and progressives "blame Bush and no one else."

I don't think I can contribute anything more, if I've even contributed anything to begin with, to this discussion. I'm gonna post an excerpt from an article that I think makes a good argument, along with a few links, and then, much to the disappointment of some I'm sure, probably have nothing much more to say.

In my searching, I found that this topic has been discussed repeatedly here at DB. I'm gonna call it a dead horse.

I await the Krauthammer column in which he points out the specific provision of the Community Reinvestment Act that forced Bear Stearns to run with an absurd leverage ratio of 33 to 1, which instructed Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers to blow up hundreds of millions of their clients' money, and that required its septuagenarian CEO to play bridge while his company ran into trouble. Perhaps Neil Cavuto knows which CRA clause required Lehman Bros. to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars in short-term debt in the capital markets and then buy tens of billions of dollars of commercial real estate at the top of the market. I can't find it. Did AIG plunge into the credit-default-swaps business with abandon because Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now members picketed its offices? Please. How about the hundreds of billions of dollars of leveraged loans—loans banks committed to private-equity firms that wanted to conduct leveraged buyouts of retailers, restaurant companies, and industrial firms? Many of those are going bad now, too. Is that Bill Clinton's fault?

Look: There was a culture of stupid, reckless lending, of which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the subprime lenders were an integral part. But the dumb-lending virus originated in Greenwich, Conn., midtown Manhattan, and Southern California, not Eastchester, Brownsville, and Washington, D.C. Investment banks created a demand for subprime loans because they saw it as a new asset class that they could dominate. They made subprime loans for the same reason they made other loans: They could get paid for making the loans, for turning them into securities, and for trading them—frequently using borrowed capital. — "Subprime Suspects: The right blames the credit crisis on poor minority homeowners. This is not merely offensive, but entirely wrong, Slate, Oct 7, 2008"​

"Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown?," The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Mar 1, 2009

"The Subprime Crisis: Is Government Housing Policy to Blame?," The Federal Reserve Board, Aug 3, 2011

"The Subprime Crisis: How Much Did Lender Regulation Matter?," by Robert B. Avery and Kenneth P. Brevoort, two Fed economists, published by George Washington University, Aug 2010

A review of the Avery and Brevoort study, by Peter van Doren of the Cato Institute, in the Spring 2011 edition of Regulation, p.61

"It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act," Economist's View, Sept 22, 2008 (contains lots of comments)

"The Community Reinvestment Act Did Not Induce Subprime Lending," Economist's View, Oct 5, 2012 (lots more comments)

>>The rest of your post is just so much noise, not worth responding to.

Yer gonna treat me that way after I gave you that wonderful little sandwich shop? :(

NOT ONE of your links mentions the CRA changes in 1995.

Changes that allowed Fannie and Freddie to Count their purchases of Sub-Prime loans and securities towards their HUD affordable lending goals.

Changes that lowered Fannie and Freddies Capital requirements on Sub-Prime loans purchased down to 3 percent.

Not one of those links mentions the over 6 Trillion in CRA commitments made over the course of the Subprime bubble.

In 1994, Democrat James Johnson committed the GSEs to 1 TRILLION dollars in CRA purchases.

In 2000, Andrew Cuomo committed the GSEs to 2.4 Trillion dollars in Sub-Prime purchases.

Didn't see that in any of your links.

Changes that included CRA scores for lenders. Scores that were published publicly so the Feds and Community Activist groups and Plaintiffs lawyers could target these banks with very expensive lawsuites.

Barrack Obama was one of those Plaintiffs lawyers who targeted banks for "discrimination" in Chicago.

Not one of those links mentions the new GSE requirements mandated by Clintons National Homeownership Strategy.

Requirements that set a rising quota for Fannie and Freddie .

Your links didn't mention the fact that it was Fannie and Freddie in the 90s who first lobbied banks for their CRA loans.

Loans that they bundled, turned into securities and distributed out to the Markets as "AAA" rated.

Securities that were really backed wi worthless loans.

In fact everyone of those links skips over all of the relevant information that explains what really happened.

Try again I guess.
 
Tell me how debt to GDP ratio affects the average American and the budget of the United States?

I've already explained that. "[T]he money used to pay the debt service comes out of the (expanded) GDP." Understand now?

>>It is a great tool for people who love percentage change or percentage of a higher GDP number to try and make a point but it means nothing.

It may mean nothing to you. I can't account for that. Well, I suppose I can, but I wanna try t' be polite.

>>you believe that 6.7 trillion added to the debt is good because it is a 60% increase in the debt whereas 1.7 trillion debt is bad because it is triple the debt. Who does that make sense to?

$1.7 trillion? Try $4.9 trillion.

http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/02/DebtReaganObama.png

Put those numbers in constant dollars, and Mr. Bush comes out significantly worse.

>>Sorry but we aren't paying much out of the growing GDP because the GDP isn't growing.

http://www.roanen.com/uploads/1/0/2/9/10297813/6031041.png?674

>>Do you realize that you are … ignoring the projections made when it was implemented?

Remind me what those were, as if that makes any difference.

>>Do you realize what happened with that 842 BILLION Dollars and the impact on the economy?

Yes. Here's a summary for you.
 
NOT ONE of your links mentions the CRA changes in 1995.

A stupid lie, even by yer standards.

>>Didn't see that [blah, blah, blah] in any of your links.

You sure are a fast reader.

>>Try again I guess.

Not a chance. Live in yer partisan idiocy; it's not my concern.
 
I've already explained that. "[T]he money used to pay the debt service comes out of the (expanded) GDP." Understand now?

>>It is a great tool for people who love percentage change or percentage of a higher GDP number to try and make a point but it means nothing.

It may mean nothing to you. I can't account for that. Well, I suppose I can, but I wanna try t' be polite.

>>you believe that 6.7 trillion added to the debt is good because it is a 60% increase in the debt whereas 1.7 trillion debt is bad because it is triple the debt. Who does that make sense to?

$1.7 trillion? Try $4.9 trillion.

http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/02/DebtReaganObama.png

Put those numbers in constant dollars, and Mr. Bush comes out significantly worse.

>>Sorry but we aren't paying much out of the growing GDP because the GDP isn't growing.

http://www.roanen.com/uploads/1/0/2/9/10297813/6031041.png?674

>>Do you realize that you are … ignoring the projections made when it was implemented?

Remind me what those were, as if that makes any difference.

>>Do you realize what happened with that 842 BILLION Dollars and the impact on the economy?

Yes. Here's a summary for you.

Again, what expanded GDP as not only did the debt service grow but so did the budget items other than Debt service.

Further the 1.7 trillion debt or tripling of the debt was Reagan's, not Bush"s so again I ask you is the 6.7 trillion dollars added to the debt better than the 1.7 trillion because it is a lower percentage change in GDP?

Today the total debt on the U.S. exceeds our yearly GDP, please tell me what President in modern history did that, Reagan, Bush? Nope, Obama

Interesting how you tout the success of the Stimulus when so many others don't including those surveyed as to Obama's JAR

I know how difficult this has to be for you as usually you are dealing with "low information" Obama supporters. That isn't the case with Conservatives who have the facts to refute your feelings.
 
A stupid lie, even by yer standards.

>>Didn't see that [blah, blah, blah] in any of your links.

You sure are a fast reader.

>>Try again I guess.

Not a chance. Live in yer partisan idiocy; it's not my concern.

What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? You aren't dealing with low information Obama supporters here but rather people who can actually do research and verify what they are told. Most conservatives understand economics as well as the laws that are passed along with their results. You seem to buy what you are told and the question is why?
 
. . . .

>>The rest of your post is just so much noise, not worth responding to.

Yer gonna treat me that way after I gave you that wonderful little sandwich shop? :(

Yeah. OK. :) Perhaps that was a bit harsh, but just seems like a soapbox spiel. Is OK.
 
A stupid lie, even by yer standards.

>>Didn't see that [blah, blah, blah] in any of your links.

You sure are a fast reader.

>>Try again I guess.

Not a chance. Live in yer partisan idiocy; it's not my concern.

A Lie ??

Well then prove its a Lie.

Don't t turn into a child on me and throw temper tantrums.

Back up your accusations.

Hey you know what ? Fannie and Freddie were the only Financial entities put under SEC investigations over the Sub-Prime Collapse.

Yep. In 2004 and 2011.

2004 was because of Clinton appointee Franklin Raines corruption and Securities fraud and 2011 was because both of the GSEs hid all their worrhless debt.

You have to be proud of that. That the democrats ran two American iconic institutions in to the ground.

And Fannie Mae had been around since the 30s too.
 
A Lie ??

Well then prove its a Lie.

Don't t turn into a child on me and throw temper tantrums.

Back up your accusations.

Hey you know what ? Fannie and Freddie were the only Financial entities put under SEC investigations over the Sub-Prime Collapse.

Yep. In 2004 and 2011.

2004 was because of Clinton appointee Franklin Raines corruption and Securities fraud and 2011 was because both of the GSEs hid all their worrhless debt.

You have to be proud of that. That the democrats ran two American iconic institutions in to the ground.

And Fannie Mae had been around since the 30s too.

Temper tantrums are the mode of operation for most Obama supporters when challenged and proven wrong. They simply cannot believe that "their" President would lie to them and be so incompetent nor would other liberals with the hunger for power would distort, ignore, and even perpetuate lies to remain in power and grow that power. Rather than honest debate and admitting they are wrong Obama supporters will get mad, upset, and lash out at anyone who dares challenge them with facts, logic, and common sense. Many here seem to be just seeking attention though.
 
Again, what expanded GDP

The expanded GDP indicated in the chart I posted. Tell ya what, give me some quarterly US GDP figures under Obama that don't indicate the economy expanded.

Here, let me help you. If you use real dollars, we did have a negative 2011 Q1 that you can legitimately "blame on Obama." But it seems you want to state flatly that the economy simply isn't growing. Sometimes I wonder if you post this nonsense just to see if I'll become annoyed. But no, you actually believe it.

real_GDP_2009_2014_by_quarter.jpg

>>Further the 1.7 trillion debt or tripling of the debt was Reagan's, not Bush"s

Hey, who can tell what ridiculous claim yer making?

>>again I ask you is the 6.7 trillion dollars added to the debt better than the 1.7 trillion because it is a lower percentage change in GDP?

Becaaaause … the numbers can only be properly understood in relation to the size of the economy. E.g., between 1941 and 1945, the national debt increased from $49 billion to $259 billion, a total of $210 billion. You may agree that today we'd be very happy to run a one-year, much less a four-year, deficit of $210 billion. But notice that the increase was about 530%. That's a big number. Make any sense?

>>Today the total debt on the U.S. exceeds our yearly GDP, please tell me what President in modern history did that, Reagan, Bush? Nope, Obama

Completely misleading. All the debt piled up under the last three Republican presidents pushed us closer and closer to a figure that exceeds the GDP. We got a break from that trend under the last Democratic president. Now we have another Democratic president who is working hard to clean up a God-awful mess that he had nothing to do with. And you people scream and holler that's it's his fault. Just makes me shake my head.

>>Interesting how you tout the success of the Stimulus when so many others don't including those surveyed as to Obama's JAR

The CBO "touts" it, for one. Who doesn't? Limpblow, Handjob, and Blech? Speaking of Gunk, I can't figure yer reference to "Obama's JAR.' Is it this?

>>I know how difficult this has to be for you as usually you are dealing with "low information" Obama supporters. That isn't the case with Conservatives who have the facts to refute your feelings.

You really have this routine down — you always close with a joke.

Any trouble following along in my post this time?
 
Temper tantrums … Obama supporters will get mad, upset, and lash out at anyone who dares challenge them with facts, logic, and common sense. Many here seem to be just seeking attention though.

And where did I, even slightly, lose my temper? I do have one. But I'd have to take you clowns seriously before I could lose it.
 
Yeah. OK. :) Perhaps that was a bit harsh, but just seems like a soapbox spiel. Is OK.

I suppose I'm a frustrated politician. I tried, but I guess the community just wasn't able to discern my wisdom. :(

How's business at Oohrnberger's Cheeburgers anyway? Mmm. Haven't had lunch yet; I could go for one right now. Do you guys deliver in my area? The special all the way, with grilled onions and a cold pop? :)
 
I suppose I'm a frustrated politician. I tried, but I guess the community just wasn't able to discern my wisdom. :(

How's business at Oohrnberger's Cheeburgers anyway? Mmm. Haven't had lunch yet; I could go for one right now. Do you guys deliver in my area? The special all the way, with grilled onions and a cold pop? :)

Umm. No. I do leadership IT stuff, so sorry, no burgers here.
 
A Lie ?? Well then prove its a Lie. Don't t turn into a child on me and throw temper tantrums. Back up your accusations.

Just because I called you a liar, does that mean I threw a temper tantrum? I was quite calm when I called you a liar.

NOT ONE of your links mentions the CRA changes in 1995.

From #1: "The CRA, which was amended in the 1990s and this decade, requires banks—which had a long, distinguished history of not making loans to minorities—to make more efforts to do so."

From #2: "CRA performance evaluations have become more quantitative since 1995, when regulatory changes were enacted that stress actual performance rather than documented efforts to serve a community's credit needs."

I'll give ya some more from that one, since you apparently didn't read it:

However, the CRA does not stipulate minimum targets or even goals for the volume of loans, services, or investments banking institutions must provide. While it is fair to say that the primary focus of CRA evaluations is the number and dollar amount of loans to lower-income borrowers or areas, the agencies instruct examiners to judge banks' performance in light of 1) each institution's capacity to extend credit to lower-income groups and 2) the local economic and market conditions that might affect the income and geographic distribution of lending.

The current crisis is rooted in the poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007. If the CRA did indeed spur the recent expansion of the subprime mortgage market and subsequent turmoil, it would be reasonable to assume that some change in the enforcement regime in 2004 or 2005 triggered a relaxation of underwriting standards by CRA-covered lenders for loans originated in the past few years. However, the CRA rules and enforcement process have not changed substantively since 1995. This fact weakens the potential link between the CRA and the current mortgage crisis.

When considering the potential role of the CRA in the current mortgage crisis, it is important to account for the originating party. In particular, independent nonbank lenders, such as mortgage and finance companies and credit unions, originate a substantial share of subprime mortgages, but they are not subject to CRA regulation and, hence, are not directly influenced by CRA obligations. (We explore subprime mortgage originations in further detail below.)

The CRA may directly affect nonbank subsidiaries or affiliates of banking institutions. Banking institutions can elect to have their subsidiary or affiliate lending activity counted in CRA performance evaluations. If the banking institution elects to include affiliate activity, it cannot be done selectively. For example, the institution cannot "cherry pick" loans that would be favorably considered under the law while ignoring loans to middle- or higher-income borrowers.​

From #3: "Since the mid 1990's, federal bank examiners have relied upon a series of numerical measures to help evaluate compliance with the CRA. These measures include the share of loans originated (or purchased from other lenders) in LMI census tracts or made to LMI borrowers."

#4 is a review of #3 by a Cato Institute Senior Fellow, so I assume you won't include him as a member of the communist conspiracy to overthrow the government.

#5 is a very short piece, and it's loaded with comments referring to the 1995 revisions. #6 is short as well — I didn't notice anything in that one.

So in other words, five of the six links I put up do refer to what you say they "don't mention." I guess that means you are a liar. To be fair, the lie was the suggestion that you had read any of that material to begin with. And you can't refute one little bit of it. Not because some it can't be contested, I'm sure it can. Yer problem is that you have no clue what yer talking about.
 
Umm. No. I do leadership IT stuff, so sorry, no burgers here.

Yeah, yeah. But yer the off-site owner. I was hoping you might call the boys and have them send something over. Too late now. I must return to pillaging the US Treasury, not for fun, and for little profit.
 
Just because I called you a liar, does that mean I threw a temper tantrum? I was quite calm when I called you a liar.



From #1: "The CRA, which was amended in the 1990s and this decade, requires banks—which had a long, distinguished history of not making loans to minorities—to make more efforts to do so."

From #2: "CRA performance evaluations have become more quantitative since 1995, when regulatory changes were enacted that stress actual performance rather than documented efforts to serve a community's credit needs."

I'll give ya some more from that one, since you apparently didn't read it:

However, the CRA does not stipulate minimum targets or even goals for the volume of loans, services, or investments banking institutions must provide. While it is fair to say that the primary focus of CRA evaluations is the number and dollar amount of loans to lower-income borrowers or areas, the agencies instruct examiners to judge banks' performance in light of 1) each institution's capacity to extend credit to lower-income groups and 2) the local economic and market conditions that might affect the income and geographic distribution of lending.

The current crisis is rooted in the poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007. If the CRA did indeed spur the recent expansion of the subprime mortgage market and subsequent turmoil, it would be reasonable to assume that some change in the enforcement regime in 2004 or 2005 triggered a relaxation of underwriting standards by CRA-covered lenders for loans originated in the past few years. However, the CRA rules and enforcement process have not changed substantively since 1995. This fact weakens the potential link between the CRA and the current mortgage crisis.

When considering the potential role of the CRA in the current mortgage crisis, it is important to account for the originating party. In particular, independent nonbank lenders, such as mortgage and finance companies and credit unions, originate a substantial share of subprime mortgages, but they are not subject to CRA regulation and, hence, are not directly influenced by CRA obligations. (We explore subprime mortgage originations in further detail below.)

The CRA may directly affect nonbank subsidiaries or affiliates of banking institutions. Banking institutions can elect to have their subsidiary or affiliate lending activity counted in CRA performance evaluations. If the banking institution elects to include affiliate activity, it cannot be done selectively. For example, the institution cannot "cherry pick" loans that would be favorably considered under the law while ignoring loans to middle- or higher-income borrowers.​

From #3: "Since the mid 1990's, federal bank examiners have relied upon a series of numerical measures to help evaluate compliance with the CRA. These measures include the share of loans originated (or purchased from other lenders) in LMI census tracts or made to LMI borrowers."

#4 is a review of #3 by a Cato Institute Senior Fellow, so I assume you won't include him as a member of the communist conspiracy to overthrow the government.

#5 is a very short piece, and it's loaded with comments referring to the 1995 revisions. #6 is short as well — I didn't notice anything in that one.

So in other words, five of the six links I put up do refer to what you say they "don't mention." I guess that means you are a liar. To be fair, the lie was the suggestion that you had read any of that material to begin with. And you can't refute one little bit of it. Not because some it can't be contested, I'm sure it can. Yer problem is that you have no clue what yer talking about.

Not one mentioned Clinton's 1995 National Homeownership Strategy reducing the GSEs Capital requirement standards for Sub-Prime loans down to 3 percent.

Not one mentioned HUDs threats of restricting a banks access to the secondary markets if they posted a low CRA score.


Not one mentioned Clinton CRA changes that allowed the GSEs to count Sub-Prime loans and securities towards their HUD affordable lending goals.

None one mentioned Janet Renos all out attack on banks who wouldn't lower their standards and make risky loans.

Not one mentioned COUNTRY WIDE, ( not a Bank but a Originating party ) which was one of the primary originators of Sub-Prime loans.

Im guessing they didn't mention Country Wide by name because FANNIE MAE bought the vast majority of Country Wides crap loans.

Oh and Country Wides habit of providing special "VIP" loans to Politicians like Chris Dodd.

Not one mentioned the CRA changes that allowed a banks CRA scores to be publicized so they could be targeted by groups like ACORN, the DOJ, HUD and Plaintiffs attorneys like Barack Obama.

And if there were minorities who didn't recieve mortgage loans prior to Clintons 1995 Changes its because they weren't credit worthy.

Cmon, they're called Sub-Prime loans for a reason.
 
The expanded GDP indicated in the chart I posted. Tell ya what, give me some quarterly US GDP figures under Obama that don't indicate the economy expanded.

Here, let me help you. If you use real dollars, we did have a negative 2011 Q1 that you can legitimately "blame on Obama." But it seems you want to state flatly that the economy simply isn't growing. Sometimes I wonder if you post this nonsense just to see if I'll become annoyed. But no, you actually believe it.

View attachment 67166924

>>Further the 1.7 trillion debt or tripling of the debt was Reagan's, not Bush"s

Hey, who can tell what ridiculous claim yer making?

>>again I ask you is the 6.7 trillion dollars added to the debt better than the 1.7 trillion because it is a lower percentage change in GDP?

Becaaaause … the numbers can only be properly understood in relation to the size of the economy. E.g., between 1941 and 1945, the national debt increased from $49 billion to $259 billion, a total of $210 billion. You may agree that today we'd be very happy to run a one-year, much less a four-year, deficit of $210 billion. But notice that the increase was about 530%. That's a big number. Make any sense?

>>Today the total debt on the U.S. exceeds our yearly GDP, please tell me what President in modern history did that, Reagan, Bush? Nope, Obama

Completely misleading. All the debt piled up under the last three Republican presidents pushed us closer and closer to a figure that exceeds the GDP. We got a break from that trend under the last Democratic president. Now we have another Democratic president who is working hard to clean up a God-awful mess that he had nothing to do with. And you people scream and holler that's it's his fault. Just makes me shake my head.

>>Interesting how you tout the success of the Stimulus when so many others don't including those surveyed as to Obama's JAR

The CBO "touts" it, for one. Who doesn't? Limpblow, Handjob, and Blech? Speaking of Gunk, I can't figure yer reference to "Obama's JAR.' Is it this?

>>I know how difficult this has to be for you as usually you are dealing with "low information" Obama supporters. That isn't the case with Conservatives who have the facts to refute your feelings.

You really have this routine down — you always close with a joke.

Any trouble following along in my post this time?

Fact, the economy is not growing fast enough or big enough to put the 20 million plus unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers back to work and the reality is the debt today exceeds 100% of GDP and that comes from the Treasury Dept and is accurate data. CBO is a non partisan source that gets their assumptions from the Congress most of whom in both parties are partisan. Tell me a CBO estimate that has even been close to accurate? How many times has Obamacare numbers been changed?

The debt from Previous Presidents totalled 10.6 trillion on a 14.5 trillion dollar GDP, that isn't 100%. Today the debt is 17.4 trillion on a 17 trillion dollar GDP. That exceeds 100%.
 
Yeah, yeah. But yer the off-site owner. I was hoping you might call the boys and have them send something over. Too late now. I must return to pillaging the US Treasury, not for fun, and for little profit.

Clearly, you have me confused with someone else.
 
I suppose I'm a frustrated politician. I tried, but I guess the community just wasn't able to discern my wisdom. :(

How's business at Oohrnberger's Cheeburgers anyway? Mmm. Haven't had lunch yet; I could go for one right now. Do you guys deliver in my area? The special all the way, with grilled onions and a cold pop? :)

What the heck is a "pop"?

You must be one of them danged yankees. Down here, we call them "dranks".
 
Just because I called you a liar, does that mean I threw a temper tantrum? I was quite calm when I called you a liar.



From #1: "The CRA, which was amended in the 1990s and this decade, requires banks—which had a long, distinguished history of not making loans to minorities—to make more efforts to do so."

From #2: "CRA performance evaluations have become more quantitative since 1995, when regulatory changes were enacted that stress actual performance rather than documented efforts to serve a community's credit needs."

I'll give ya some more from that one, since you apparently didn't read it:

However, the CRA does not stipulate minimum targets or even goals for the volume of loans, services, or investments banking institutions must provide. While it is fair to say that the primary focus of CRA evaluations is the number and dollar amount of loans to lower-income borrowers or areas, the agencies instruct examiners to judge banks' performance in light of 1) each institution's capacity to extend credit to lower-income groups and 2) the local economic and market conditions that might affect the income and geographic distribution of lending.

The current crisis is rooted in the poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007. If the CRA did indeed spur the recent expansion of the subprime mortgage market and subsequent turmoil, it would be reasonable to assume that some change in the enforcement regime in 2004 or 2005 triggered a relaxation of underwriting standards by CRA-covered lenders for loans originated in the past few years. However, the CRA rules and enforcement process have not changed substantively since 1995. This fact weakens the potential link between the CRA and the current mortgage crisis.

When considering the potential role of the CRA in the current mortgage crisis, it is important to account for the originating party. In particular, independent nonbank lenders, such as mortgage and finance companies and credit unions, originate a substantial share of subprime mortgages, but they are not subject to CRA regulation and, hence, are not directly influenced by CRA obligations. (We explore subprime mortgage originations in further detail below.)

The CRA may directly affect nonbank subsidiaries or affiliates of banking institutions. Banking institutions can elect to have their subsidiary or affiliate lending activity counted in CRA performance evaluations. If the banking institution elects to include affiliate activity, it cannot be done selectively. For example, the institution cannot "cherry pick" loans that would be favorably considered under the law while ignoring loans to middle- or higher-income borrowers.​

From #3: "Since the mid 1990's, federal bank examiners have relied upon a series of numerical measures to help evaluate compliance with the CRA. These measures include the share of loans originated (or purchased from other lenders) in LMI census tracts or made to LMI borrowers."

#4 is a review of #3 by a Cato Institute Senior Fellow, so I assume you won't include him as a member of the communist conspiracy to overthrow the government.

#5 is a very short piece, and it's loaded with comments referring to the 1995 revisions. #6 is short as well — I didn't notice anything in that one.

So in other words, five of the six links I put up do refer to what you say they "don't mention." I guess that means you are a liar. To be fair, the lie was the suggestion that you had read any of that material to begin with. And you can't refute one little bit of it. Not because some it can't be contested, I'm sure it can. Yer problem is that you have no clue what yer talking about.

I dunno about all of that fancy legal stuff, but what I do know is that the worst offenders in the housing bubble and burst were companies that weren't actually classified as banks, thus they weren't parties to the CRA.

Also, I am under the impression that most loans made under the CRA were not subprime loans, but I may be mistaken about that.

Blaming the CRA for the subprime housing bubble is like blaming the earthquake we had a few months ago on global warming. It seems logical, until we realize that one is a geologic event, the other is a weather event, and thus there is little relationship.
 
Its funny that we dismiss CBO estimates when they don't fit into our political agenda, but when they do, the CBO is the gold standard of predictions.

In another thread someone was arguing against a higher min wage, citing that the CBO projects that a higher min wage would result in the loss of a half million jobs. the same poster who was using CBO projections to argue his case in one thread, dismissed the CBO projections that Obamacare was going to reduce the deficit in another thread.

I guess we all pick and chose our sources, not for the value of the sources, but based upon if that source happens to support their aguement or not. We all all hipocrits.
 
Its funny that we dismiss CBO estimates when they don't fit into our political agenda, but when they do, the CBO is the gold standard of predictions.

In another thread someone was arguing against a higher min wage, citing that the CBO projects that a higher min wage would result in the loss of a half million jobs. the same poster who was using CBO projections to argue his case in one thread, dismissed the CBO projections that Obamacare was going to reduce the deficit in another thread.

I guess we all pick and chose our sources, not for the value of the sources, but based upon if that source happens to support their aguement or not. We all all hipocrits.

Your observation is really not a surprise.

The CBO estimates whatever the congress critter states as their assumptions. You expect a congress critter's assumptions fed to the CBO to estimate to not be politically biased? :lamo Not to their political advantage? :lamo Not to their political agenda? :lamo

The CBO is an apolitical calculating machine. You put garbage in, you'll get garbage out. Most of what the congress critters put into the CBO for estimation is garbage in one way or another, so you get the same type of political garbage back out from the CBO.

Yes, the CBO is apolitical. It calculates everyone's garbage on request with equal accuracy. It's not the CBO's fault the congress keeps feeding them garbage assumptions. Right?
 
Back
Top Bottom