• 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!

3M chief warns Obama over business regulation

USA_1 said:
It ain't gonna happen. They need those lies to rewrite history and if they say the lies long enough some people will start to believe them..
Click to expand...

So, CRA didn't have anything to do with it?
 
apdst said:
So, CRA didn't have anything to do with it?
Click to expand...

Only 6% of the subprimes were CRA. So no it didn't.

http://www.responsiblelending.org/m...lame-for-blame-for-the-mortgage-meltdown.html

The Comptroller of the Currency. John C. Dugan, agrees: "CRA [the Community Reinvestment Act] is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace. Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA. A recent study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas."
Click to expand...
This is getting old. We prove something........then you hear misinformation on Fox and pass it on as fact.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
How is it false? The government dropped Glass-Steigal, then forced banks to conform to the new regulations.

BTW, I'm not Jesus; just a regular guy. I understand how you could get confused.
Click to expand...
This Glass Steigal?
The bill that ultimately repealed the Glass Steigal Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate[
 
apdst said:
How is it false? The government dropped Glass-Steigal, then forced banks to conform to the new regulations.

BTW, I'm not Jesus; just a regular guy. I understand how you could get confused.
Click to expand...

lol.....ok. (i should have known, jesus can spell) :)

no, no, no.......the govt NEVER forced banks to make bad loans. show me the reg that requires THAT.
 
USA_1 said:
This Glass Steigal?
The bill that ultimately repealed the Glass Steigal Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate[
Click to expand...

The government, right?
 
liblady said:
lol.....ok. (i should have known, jesus can spell) :)

no, no, no.......the govt NEVER forced banks to make bad loans. show me the reg that requires THAT.
Click to expand...

So, when CRA was passed and became the law of the land, banks had the option to ignore it and do what they wanted?
 
apdst said:
Do you even know what CRA is? It's not as if banks could just ignore a congressional act.
Click to expand...

i work for a bank.........cra didn't force banks to make bad loans.
 
apdst said:
So, when CRA was passed and became the law of the land, banks had the option to ignore it and do what they wanted?
Click to expand...
The Comptroller of the Currency. John C. Dugan, agrees: "CRA [the Community Reinvestment Act] is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace. Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA. A recent study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas."
Click to expand...
.................................Don't you at least try to find out the facts before you make stupid comments?
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
i work for a bank.........cra didn't force banks to make bad loans.
Click to expand...

So, banks could still, "redline", customers that they didn't think could pay for the loan?
 
liblady said:
i work for a bank.........cra didn't force banks to make bad loans.
Click to expand...

Of course not. It's the only thing the republicans have to blame the democrats. Lies.
 
apdst said:
So, banks could still, "redline", customers that they didn't think could pay for the loan?
Click to expand...

Yes they could. And the smart ones did.. They were only 6% of the subprime loans anyway.
 
USA_1 said:
.................................Don't you at least try to find out the facts before you make stupid comments?
Click to expand...

Ever hear of a banks, "CRA compliance record? Which was taken into account by government regulators when the banks tried to expand?
 
USA_1 said:
Of course not. It's the only thing the republicans have to blame the democrats. Lies.
Click to expand...

Ok, tell us, using an actual link this time, what was the purpose of the community re-investment act?
 
apdst said:
So, banks could still, "redline", customers that they didn't think could pay for the loan?
Click to expand...

oh dear....loan qualifications didn't CHANGE.........redlining was discriminating, not enforcing loan policy.
 
liblady said:
oh dear....loan qualifications didn't CHANGE.........redlining was discriminating, not enforcing loan policy.
Click to expand...

Right and CRA made redlining illegal. Shall we keep going?
 
apdst said:
Ok, tell us, using an actual link this time, what was the purpose of the community re-investment act?
Click to expand...

why? it's clear you have a simplistic view of what actually happened.
 
apdst said:
Ok, tell us, using an actual link this time, what was the purpose of the community re-investment act?
Click to expand...

To reduce discrimination against people that are qualified yet disqualified due to race or ethnicity.
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods.[7] The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business.[3] The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank's compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.[8]

The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.[3][4] An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.[6][9
Click to expand...
]Wikipedia
It doesn't matter how much proof I give, you will still try to spread the lies.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Right and CRA made redlining illegal. Shall we keep going?
Click to expand...

what cra did, and continues to do, is make it illegal to discrimate against borrowers based on race or income level. (redlining)

now, what that means is that a black person with the same qualifications as white person would have to be given a loan if the white person was given that same loan. period.

in NO WAY did CRA force banks to make bad loans. if it did, then why aren't they still making bad loans? seriously??
 
liblady said:
what cra did, and continues to do, is make it illegal to discrimate against borrowers based on race or income level. (redlining)

now, what that means is that a black person with the same qualifications as white person would have to be given a loan if the white person was given that same loan. period.

in NO WAY did CRA force banks to make bad loans. if it did, then why aren't they still making bad loans? seriously??
Click to expand...

So, CRA simply existed to stop the mean ol' racists from denying loans to black folks? :lamo
 
apdst said:
So, CRA simply existed to stop the mean ol' racists from denying loans to black folks? :lamo
Click to expand...
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods.[7] The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business.[3] The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank's compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.[8]

The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.[3][4] An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.[6][
Click to expand...
9]..............................................
 
From your Link, sir:

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods
Click to expand...

it's not hard to read between the lines, bro.
 
liblady said:
lol.....ok. (i should have known, jesus can spell) :)
Click to expand...

I love it when someone has the audacity to mention another poster's spelling. Ever heard of the saying "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?"

liblady said:
what cra did, and continues to do, is make it illegal to discrimate against borrowers based on race or income level. (redlining)
Click to expand...
 
What the hell is this guy talking about? The regulatory environment remains minimal - at best the Obama administration has restored a bare-bones framework of common-sense measures to prevent another total collapse of the economy.

In 2009, George Buckley earned a total compensation of $13,992,628, which included a base salary of $1,720,000, a cash bonus of $3,859,112, stocks granted worth $4,333,655, options granted of $3,757,572, and other compensation of $322,289.
Click to expand...

George W. Buckley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gee, sure doesn't sound like all this "regulation" is hurting his paycheck. So who exactly is he talking about? Or is he infuriated that his paycheck isn't even bigger while the rest of America struggles?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom