Taxes were cut, where are the jobs?

[j-mac]

here is how the scam went...

“Time and again, NACA has combined the street tactics of protest and demonstration with public policy tools such as the Community Reinvestment Act to pressure banks into expanding their operations in poor neighborhoods,” says the report authored by David Hogberg. “NACA typically extracts self-serving concessions from banks, forcing them to provide it with funds that it then uses to make mortgage loans to low-income borrowers. NACA rolls the fees it earns servicing these loans back into its campaign of bullying banks.”

In 2007, the year before the crash, NACA obtained $10 billion in bank commitments for its own loan commitments with what the group admits were aggressive, hounding intimidation tactics.

“NACA has been accused of being overly aggressive and personal,” explains the group’s website. “NACA wears this as a badge of honor, leaving no stone unturned and often hounding CEOs from their shareholder meetings to their homes. The rationale is simple: lenders have a personal and often devastating impact on the lives of the people who they refuse to provide affordable credit to or take advantage of through predatory loans and scams.”

NACA earned that reputation by first targeting Fleet Financial Group of New England, which was accused of lending money to private mortgage companies that, in turn, lent money at “loan shark rates.” NACA filed lawsuits against Fleet and worked with local media on disparaging news coverage. NACA’s “shock troops,” known for wearing yellow shirts, disrupted speeches by bank officials, including one by CEO Terrence Murray at the Harvard Business School.

Four days later, Murray met with Marks and agreed to settle all suits for $350 million.

According to Capital Research Center, that money was used to launch the next attacks on First Union Bank of North Carolina, headed by Edward Crutchfield, dubbed “Fast Eddie” by NACA.

NACA attempted to crash a shareholders meeting and then began invading Crutchfield’s personal life.

Again, the NACA website explains: “NACA hounded Fast Eddie at every turn. Thousands of postcards were sent to his home and neighbors, informing them of First Union’s practices. NACA drafted the ‘Fast Eddie Report,’ which contained Crutchfield’s personal information, and sent it to all of his neighbors and the neighbors of First Union’s directors and top officers. NACA wanted Crutchfield to understand that he had a personal impact on people’s lives by denying them credit, and thus his personal life would be affected as well.”

News was spread that Crutchfield was having an affair with a subordinate. NACA began sending protesters to the school his child attended.

Crutchfield and First Union soon settled for a $150 million payoff.

NACA has received similar payoffs from NationsBank, Bank of America and Citigroup.

In 2007, Countrywide Bank was targeted. It quickly acquiesced to demands for a settlement that included a stipulation to restructure its borrowed troubled loans. A year later, Countrywide was insolvent – touching off a string of bank defaults and government bailouts that have cost taxpayers trillions.

“NACA could not operate as it has without the Community Reinvestment Act,” says the CRC report. “The CRA is a federal law, first enacted in 1977, that banned the real estate practice of ‘redlining’ communities, singling out geographical areas where a bank would make no loans. To comply with the CRA, banks had to show that they did not discriminate in making loans in poor and black neighborhoods.”

That compliance got tougher in 1995 when President Clinton upped the ante, forcing banks to demonstrate statistically they were making their quota of loans in low-income neighborhoods and encouraging community activist groups like NACA to file complaints against banks.

http://www.wnd.com/2009/04/94031/

 

[Howey]

here is how the scam went...

Scam?

You're blaming the organization that has been applauded and honored for going after predatory lenders?

 

[CanceledB]

Scam?

You're blaming the organization that has been applauded and honored for going after predatory lenders?

He's either been brainwashed and duped into working against his own interests, or he's one of the whores himself. No other reasonable explanation exists.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

no use arguing with these idiots.....they wouldn't admit the Democrats started the fire even if they were burning to death....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

no use arguing with these idiots.....they wouldn't admit the Democrats started the fire even if they were burning to death....

OF course they wouldn't! And they will take credit for mystical shit that hasn't happened too! Here on this very board, you have them lauding Obama for creating millions of new jobs... while at the same time, asking republicans where the jobs are? Isn't that just a stroke of brilliance? (or a stroke of some kind)

 

[Althea]

here is how the scam went...

If you were truly interested, you'd provide default data on CRA loans, and compare them to the majority of defaults.

 

[j-mac]

Scam?

You're blaming the organization that has been applauded and honored for going after predatory lenders?

Applauded and honored by whom? Progressives? Other thug orgs? who?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
My contention is that the Bush Tax cuts DID NOT AND DO NOT CREATED JOBS. You forget that the unemployment rate does not fully take into account the amount of people whose unemployment benefits expire, BUT DO NOT GET REHIRED. As the WSJ pointed out, the Shrub's actual job creation numbers weren't all that hot: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/...ord-on-record/ The Dot.com bubble burst, a second rescession starts, Corporations start outsorucing and laying off en masse, but the END of the long game of trickle down tax cuts is shown in higher unemployment rates starting in 2008.

ROFLMAO... way to demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. The unemployment rate calculation has NOTHING to do with unemployment benefits.

No shit chuckles...which is why to a certain degree the unemployment rate is NOT as accurate as every politician and political hack (on either side of the fence) claims when convenient to their mantra du jour.

Let me dumb it down for ya, Freak: when you register for unemployment benefits, that counts in the calculation of the unemployment rate....BUT...when your unemployment benefits end, THERE IS NO STAID OR ACCURATE MECHANISM TO MEASURE IF YOU'VE BEEN REHIRED IN SOME CAPACITY. If there is an official tally as to how many folks unemployment benefits ended in one month and how many companies or corporations hired in the next month, I have yet to see it. Got it now bunky? If not, then please spare us all your faux hysterics and fantasies when you present your rebuttal (if any).
The unemployment rate had more to do with the housing bubble bursting than anything. I didn't say it had to do with the housing bubble, chuckles. I pointed to the DOT.COM bubble Do pay attention, will ya please? While Bush and the Dem Congress did nothing when the warning signs first showed, it was the repeal of Glass Steagall under Clinton and the Rep Congress and the low interest rate environment Greenspan kept us at under Clinton and Bush that spurred the bubble.

I've go no problem placing blame where it's due regarding Glass-Steagall, as this guy did does: http://www.davemanuel.com/fact-check-did-bill-clinton-repeal-the-glass-steagall-act-120/

But you forget that we had a nice little surplus from the Clinton era, which Bush promptly flushed down the toilet via his bogus war on Iraq (not budgeted poperly either, I might add).

As I've demonstrated above, it's ntocon/teabagger flunkies like YOU who have a problem with ALL the information regarding a subject. Get your act together, bunky....because the chronology of the post show YOUR willful ignorance in abundance..

The chronology of posts shows you are still ignorant.

Once again, you come on this board like some sort of economic expert, and then you just bullhorn the same old neocon "headline only" talking points like some Super Freak(ing Dumb) parrot, as I've demonstrated above.

The subject at hand is the effectiveness of reaganomics....how the GOP screamed for it's continuation EVEN AFTER it was proven to be a lousy job creator at best! If you and your equally blinders wearing buddies were to follow your own "logic", then the bush tax cuts would have MAINTAINED a low unemployment rate, and would NOT have had just a lull period. As the information provided by one of your buddies, that is NOT the case.

the chronology of the posts shows that I provided FACTS to back up what I say, while YOU and your cohorts demonstrate myopia on just ONE aspect of the picture, then run wild with your supposition and conjecture as if that is fact in and of itself.

Laugh that one off, chuckles.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
For year, the neocon/teabagger flunkines have been parroting the lie regarding the CRA....and I've continually asked them to produce the section from that law which states in no uncertain terms that banks HAD to make bad loans to minorities, and then bundle those loans with good ones to sell as toxic packages on the financial market.

My suggestion is to look into the NACA, and the extortion tactics they used to pressure banks into making bad loans, all supported by liberal demo's who turn a blind eye to the problem.

Naa-unnh, J-Mac.....every blessed time I put you neocon/teagbagger parrots on the spot regarding the CRA, you come back with MORE insinuations and allegations, and then want me to prove your point.

It doesn't work that way, bunky....just ask any high school debate squad moderator. YOU and those like you have yet to provide an ACTUAL QUOTE FRM THE CRA THAT STATES BANKS MUST MAKE BAD LOANS TO MINORITIES, as you claim. The burden of proof is on YOU, J-Mac. If you can't provide valid proof of your claim, then that makes you a liar and BS artist.

To date, they can offer nothing more but bluff and bluster, repetition, supposition and conjecture.....just like the BS we see now regarding the Shrub tax cuts and jobs.

No the evidence has been repeatedly offered only to be dismissed, or ignored by liberals like you that are more interested in their own narrative than the truth.

What "evidence", J-Mac? YOU have yet to provide the actual quote frm the law itself that would easily prove your point. To date, you can't.

Bottom line: The CRA stated that low income family loans must be provided to ALL citizens, regardless of race, creed or color. This was done in part to stop a system of "red-lining", which was an unofficial practice among realtors (and banks) to keep minorities out of certain neighborhoods. No one told the bankers to just make a slew of lousy loans, then bundle those bad loans with good ones and make a toxic package that hey put on the market.

YOU have stated otherwise....Prove it! I'll wait.

 

[NOVA]

Here's how it worked fool....

7/11/2011
In what could be a repeat of the easy-lending cycle that led to the housing crisis, the Justice Department has asked several banks to relax their mortgage underwriting standards and approve loans for minorities with poor credit as part of a new crackdown on alleged discrimination, according to court documents reviewed by IBD.

Prosecutions have already generated more than $20 million in loan set-asides and other subsidies from banks that have settled out of court rather than battle the federal government and risk being branded racist. An additional 60 banks are under investigation, a DOJ spokeswoman says.

No Job, No Problem

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/eric-hold...witch-hunt-against-racist-banks#ixzz210broi2V
===============================================
12/2/2010
Banks will be accused of employing discriminatory credit standards when making mortgages in a series of fair housing complaints that a national consumer coalition plans to file beginning next week.

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition plans to challenge the widespread practice of requiring borrowers asking for FHA-backed loans to have higher FICO scores than the minimum required by the FHA, according to a report from Ken Harney at New Times.
It argues that because the FHA insures the loans, there is "no legitimate business justification" for rejecting applicants on the basis of FICO scores that are acceptable to FHA.

The irony is that until October, the FHA did not set a minimum FICO score. The FICO requirement was put in place in an attempt to reduce the risk the FHA was taking on as it has greatly expanded its balance sheet to fill the gap created in lending to risky borrowers by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40476508/Here_We_Go_Again_Banks_Face_Allegations_of_Racist_Credit_Standards

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/22/2011
Bank of America must pay $335 million settlement for being "horrible racist" lenders

 

[Taichiliberal]

here is how the scam went.....

“Time and again, NACA has combined the street tactics of protest and demonstration with public policy tools such as the Community Reinvestment Act to pressure banks into expanding their operations in poor neighborhoods,” says the report authored by David Hogberg. “NACA typically extracts self-serving concessions from banks, forcing them to provide it with funds that it then uses to make mortgage loans to low-income borrowers. NACA rolls the fees it earns servicing these loans back into its campaign of bullying banks.”

In 2007, the year before the crash, NACA obtained $10 billion in bank commitments for its own loan commitments with what the group admits were aggressive, hounding intimidation tactics.

“NACA has been accused of being overly aggressive and personal,” explains the group’s website. “NACA wears this as a badge of honor, leaving no stone unturned and often hounding CEOs from their shareholder meetings to their homes. The rationale is simple: lenders have a personal and often devastating impact on the lives of the people who they refuse to provide affordable credit to or take advantage of through predatory loans and scams.”

NACA earned that reputation by first targeting Fleet Financial Group of New England, which was accused of lending money to private mortgage companies that, in turn, lent money at “loan shark rates.” NACA filed lawsuits against Fleet and worked with local media on disparaging news coverage. NACA’s “shock troops,” known for wearing yellow shirts, disrupted speeches by bank officials, including one by CEO Terrence Murray at the Harvard Business School.

Four days later, Murray met with Marks and agreed to settle all suits for $350 million.

According to Capital Research Center, that money was used to launch the next attacks on First Union Bank of North Carolina, headed by Edward Crutchfield, dubbed “Fast Eddie” by NACA.

NACA attempted to crash a shareholders meeting and then began invading Crutchfield’s personal life.

Again, the NACA website explains: “NACA hounded Fast Eddie at every turn. Thousands of postcards were sent to his home and neighbors, informing them of First Union’s practices. NACA drafted the ‘Fast Eddie Report,’ which contained Crutchfield’s personal information, and sent it to all of his neighbors and the neighbors of First Union’s directors and top officers. NACA wanted Crutchfield to understand that he had a personal impact on people’s lives by denying them credit, and thus his personal life would be affected as well.”

News was spread that Crutchfield was having an affair with a subordinate. NACA began sending protesters to the school his child attended.

Crutchfield and First Union soon settled for a $150 million payoff.

NACA has received similar payoffs from NationsBank, Bank of America and Citigroup.

In 2007, Countrywide Bank was targeted. It quickly acquiesced to demands for a settlement that included a stipulation to restructure its borrowed troubled loans. A year later, Countrywide was insolvent – touching off a string of bank defaults and government bailouts that have cost taxpayers trillions.

“NACA could not operate as it has without the Community Reinvestment Act,” says the CRC report. “The CRA is a federal law, first enacted in 1977, that banned the real estate practice of ‘redlining’ communities, singling out geographical areas where a bank would make no loans. To comply with the CRA, banks had to show that they did not discriminate in making loans in poor and black neighborhoods.”

That compliance got tougher in 1995 when President Clinton upped the ante, forcing banks to demonstrate statistically they were making their quota of loans in low-income neighborhoods and encouraging community activist groups like NACA to file complaints against banks.

http://www.wnd.com/2009/04/94031/

As ususal, the then neocon rag WND draws a false conclusion based on the conjecture of a right wing think tank/research center regarding CRA.

The NACA has a history of shady behavior http://blackpoliticalbuzz.blogspot.com/2009/12/nacas-better-business-bureau-complaints.html

That the NACA conned and scammed banks STILL DOES NOT IMPLICATE THE CRA ACT, as THERE IS NO LANGUAGE IN THE CRA THAT FORCES A BANK TO MAKE FALSE LOANS.

The criminal actions of the NACA was NOT solely responsible for the bulk of the bankers chicanery. Note this article from Bloomberg news (no "liberal" source by any means):
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

 

[Taichiliberal]

Here's how it worked fool....

7/11/2011
In what could be a repeat of the easy-lending cycle that led to the housing crisis, the Justice Department has asked several banks to relax their mortgage underwriting standards and approve loans for minorities with poor credit as part of a new crackdown on alleged discrimination, according to court documents reviewed by IBD.

Prosecutions have already generated more than $20 million in loan set-asides and other subsidies from banks that have settled out of court rather than battle the federal government and risk being branded racist. An additional 60 banks are under investigation, a DOJ spokeswoman says.

No Job, No Problem

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/eric-hold...witch-hunt-against-racist-banks#ixzz210broi2V
===============================================
12/2/2010
Banks will be accused of employing discriminatory credit standards when making mortgages in a series of fair housing complaints that a national consumer coalition plans to file beginning next week.

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition plans to challenge the widespread practice of requiring borrowers asking for FHA-backed loans to have higher FICO scores than the minimum required by the FHA, according to a report from Ken Harney at New Times.
It argues that because the FHA insures the loans, there is "no legitimate business justification" for rejecting applicants on the basis of FICO scores that are acceptable to FHA.

The irony is that until October, the FHA did not set a minimum FICO score. The FICO requirement was put in place in an attempt to reduce the risk the FHA was taking on as it has greatly expanded its balance sheet to fill the gap created in lending to risky borrowers by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40476508/Here_We_Go_Again_Banks_Face_Allegations_of_Racist_Credit_Standards

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/22/2011
Bank of America must pay $335 million settlement for being "horrible racist" lenders

And what was the policy of banks making loans to low income non-minority folk with bad credit?

Here, you drunken buffoon, learn something:


http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was irrelevant to the subprime boom, which was overwhelmingly driven by loan originators not subject to the Act.[/I]

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201010040001


Facts Show Private Lenders Who Were Not Subject To CRA, Not Government-Backed Ones Who Were, Drove The Subprime Mortgage Market

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201110140001#facts

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
For year, the neocon/teabagger flunkines have been parroting the lie regarding the CRA....and I've continually asked them to produce the section from that law which states in no uncertain terms that banks HAD to make bad loans to minorities, and then bundle those loans with good ones to sell as toxic packages on the financial market.

To date, they can offer nothing more but bluff and bluster, repetition, supposition and conjecture.....just like the BS we see now regarding the Shrub tax cuts and jobs.

No...but they'll keep on repeating it, even though the facts don't support their racist agenda.

Just for fun, ask the morons about the fact that the CRA doesn't apply to private lenders.

It's fun to watch them squirm.

Their heads would explode, as they are currently doing everything BUT providing the actual quote(s) from the CRA of 1977 that supports any of their claims and assertions.

And remember, all this is an aside from the FACT that the Bush tax cuts (reaganomics by any other name) DID NOT produce the jobs the neocons/teabaggers and libertarian lunkheads all swore they would.

 

[NOVA]

Here's how it worked fool....

7/11/2011
In what could be a repeat of the easy-lending cycle that led to the housing crisis, the Justice Department has asked several banks to relax their mortgage underwriting standards and approve loans for minorities with poor credit as part of a new crackdown on alleged discrimination, according to court documents reviewed by IBD.

Prosecutions have already generated more than $20 million in loan set-asides and other subsidies from banks that have settled out of court rather than battle the federal government and risk being branded racist. An additional 60 banks are under investigation, a DOJ spokeswoman says.

No Job, No Problem

12/22/2011
Bank of America must pay $335 million settlement for being "horrible racist" lenders

And what was the policy of banks making loans to low income non-minority folk with bad credit?

If they were forced to give loans to minoritys with bad credit, I guess they had to give the same treatment to non-minority folk with bad credit.


BOA paid 335 million, fool....for alleged racist lending....
this is how they WERE FORCED to comply....

Bottom line: The CRA stated that low income family loans must be provided to ALL citizens, regardless of race, creed or color.

YOU said it....

It helped cause the housing market collapse....case closed, fool !

 

[Taichiliberal]

It is cute how you framed your question. Of course the CRA didn't just come out and say "Hey all you evil banks now by law have to give out bad loans to coloreds". Please tell me you aren't that stupid? No law is ever written that specific. They are always written in a vague manner then it is left up to the bureaucrats to implement and enforce. Since, I am here to help, I will explain to you as briefly how this all happened and how the entire financial collapse was due to meddling in the free market by politicians and bureaucrats.

First you must go all the way back to the formation of the Federal Reserve and giving them the power to artificially set interest rates.

1) CRA passed by President Carter. From Wikipedia.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]
The Act instructs the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions (Section 804.)[6]

How about that? The federal gobblement is going to "review" lending practices and "take it into consideration when approving new bank branches and mergers or acquisitions". And it was designed to prevent "redlining". Now if you don't know what "redlining", I suggest you ask Jessa Jackson Jr. Just visit him in the rehab center.

2) Now after the CRA was passed, it really didn't have much impact. Not much changed. But, then Billy Clinton and Janet Reno came into office and they put it on steroids. Listen to this press conference by the current Governor of New York. He admits that there will be an increase in defaults. He fucking admits it. Now, I know that whenever a liberal gets caught telling the truth, you fellow travelers will just say he was taken out of context.

3) In 1994, one B. Hussein Obama, working for ACORN sued CitiBank for so called redlining

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.
U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000

4) Now this shakedown of banks were having no real material impact on the financial health of banks. They were able to absorb these bad loans. And don't forget Fannie and Freddie (quasi gobblement agencies) were there to act as sponges for these bad loans.

5) Now fast forward to 2000 and 2001. We have the dot com meltdown and the 9-11 terrorist attacks. The US economy has suffered a serious jolt. And like all pussy politicians, the current crop in Washington can't stomach a recession. Politicians don't get re-elected when there are recessions. So in swoops the Federal Reserve. Remember them? They are going to artificially lower interest rates to get the economy moving. Well, anyone who knows anything about finance will tell you that when interest rates are low, money will move toward more risky investments. People were scared off of the stock market because of the dot com fiasco so they started moving toward real estate. Then it all started.

6) All of these "creative" loans came about by sketchy businesses. Banks jumped on board. Fannie and Freddie were buying them up as fast as the banks could write them. The regulators looked the other way. The politicians looked the other way. It all seemed too good to be true. And it was.

7) Soon Fannie and Freddie were filling up their capacity to take on these bad loans. When they first started chopping up the loans, they were 97% good loans, 3% bad. But over time, the bad loans started to increase. Then they had to chop the loans up even more. They were chopped and diced so many times that nobody even knew who owned the underlying asset or what it was worth (which takes to how it all came down so fast)

8) When the first wave hit, panic struck as individuals began to ask questions about the underlying assets propping up these sketchy loans. All of a sudden people realized that these loans weren't going to get paid back. Banks were now looking at their balance sheets and going "OH SHIT". Why? Well, there was a little known provision in Sarbanes/Oxley. Remember that? That was going to fix everything after Enron. Sarbanes/Oxley said that companies had to account for assets on their balance sheet using mark to market. Which means instead of counting the asset as what you originally paid for it, you had to count what the current value of the asset is TODAY. Well, when the banks looked at all of these CDOs and derivatives they didn't know who owned what or what anyone of them were worth. So overnight they saw their balance sheets eroding trying to comply with mark to market. They could have prevented the huge crash by eliminating mark to market. But, I digress.

I have seriously compressed events in the interest of space and time, but this is a general gist of how the financial collapse unfolded. Like all things, it wasn't just one single event. It was many different events that in isolation seem innocuous enough, but overtime had devastating effects not only on the people they purported to help, but the country as a whole. So did the CRA by itself cause the financial meltdown? No. And I don't know any rational person who thinks that it did. But, to say that it didn't play a part is just being ignorant of the facts. Like all well meaning legislation, there are always unintended economic consequences that aren't felt until long after the legislation is passed. When liberals say stupid things like "Show me where the law said banks have to make bad loans", they are being disingenuous to the extreme and they know it.

The education is free. What you do with it, is solely up to you.

Once backed into a corner our insipidly stubborn neocon/teabagger flunkie spews forth bits and parts of reality, then covers it with his usual suppostion and conjecture, backed by biased right wing nut punditry, bloggers and hacks.

Sorry bunky, but you can't snow me. Here's what cuts throughyour smoke screen:


The facts about the subprime mortgage market prove that claim false: Private firms dominated the subprime market boom of 2004-06, and were not even subject to the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act some Republicans vilify.
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201110140001#facts


Education requires the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth, bunky. Time you learned that.

 

[Althea]

If they were forced to give loans to minoritys with bad credit, I guess they had to give the same treatment to non-minority folk with bad credit.


BOA paid 335 million, fool....for alleged racist lending....
this is how they WERE FORCED to comply....

Bottom line: The CRA stated that low income family loans must be provided to ALL citizens, regardless of race, creed or color.

YOU said it....

It helped cause the housing market collapse....case closed, fool !

But not to people who have no ability to pay. Bad credit includes those with NO credit. The CRA only demands that people who can repay a loan, be given a loan that IS CONSISTENT WITH SOUND BANKING PRACTICES.

Likewise, the CRA NEVER forced anyone to lend 125% of the appraised value of the house.....did it?

 

[Althea]

Their heads would explode, as they are currently doing everything BUT providing the actual quote(s) from the CRA of 1977 that supports any of their claims and assertions.

And remember, all this is an aside from the FACT that the Bush tax cuts (reaganomics by any other name) DID NOT produce the jobs the neocons/teabaggers and libertarian lunkheads all swore they would.

Well, they can't make the case for Raygunomics, so they'll divert the discussion to another flawed topic.


Ask them about figures re default rates for CRA loans.

BOA hailed CRA paper as a good investment in the early stages of Bush's tenure.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by bravo
Here's how it worked fool....

7/11/2011
In what could be a repeat of the easy-lending cycle that led to the housing crisis, the Justice Department has asked several banks to relax their mortgage underwriting standards and approve loans for minorities with poor credit as part of a new crackdown on alleged discrimination, according to court documents reviewed by IBD.

Prosecutions have already generated more than $20 million in loan set-asides and other subsidies from banks that have settled out of court rather than battle the federal government and risk being branded racist. An additional 60 banks are under investigation, a DOJ spokeswoman says.

No Job, No Problem

12/22/2011
Bank of America must pay $335 million settlement for being "horrible racist" lenders

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And what was the policy of banks making loans to low income non-minority folk with bad credit?

If they were forced to give loans to minoritys with bad credit, I guess they had to give the same treatment to non-minority folk with bad credit.


BOA paid 335 million, fool....for alleged racist lending....
this is how they WERE FORCED to comply....

Bottom line: The CRA stated that low income family loans must be provided to ALL citizens, regardless of race, creed or color.

YOU said it....

It helped cause the housing market collapse....case closed, fool !

Bravo, you have GOT to be one of the dumbest barstool bumpkin's on the face of the Earth.


A JUSTICE DEPT. ENACTION IN 2011 IS AFTER WHAT WENT DOWN WITH THE HOUSING MARKET FIASCO....AND IT DOES NOT USE THE CRA OF 1977 AS IT'S BASIS.

What your source points out is that lawsuits against SPECIFIC institutions that have committed red-lining practices...something the CRA of 1977 was addressing. The CRA of 1977 DOES NOT apply to private lenders, you blithering idiot! Never did. READ THE CRA OF 1977! TELL ME WHERE IT FORCES BANKS TO MAKE BAD LOANS TO MINORITIES!

If you can't, then just STFU and go back to your fellow rummies at the bar, as you've ignored ALL THE INFORMATION I provided in the previous post http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-cut-where-are-the-jobs&p=1039904#post1039904

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by bravo
If they were forced to give loans to minoritys with bad credit, I guess they had to give the same treatment to non-minority folk with bad credit.


BOA paid 335 million, fool....for alleged racist lending....
this is how they WERE FORCED to comply....

Bottom line: The CRA stated that low income family loans must be provided to ALL citizens, regardless of race, creed or color.

YOU said it....

It helped cause the housing market collapse....case closed, fool !

But not to people who have no ability to pay. Bad credit includes those with NO credit. The CRA only demands that people who can repay a loan, be given a loan that IS CONSISTENT WITH SOUND BANKING PRACTICES.

Likewise, the CRA NEVER forced anyone to lend 125% of the appraised value of the house.....did it?

You're talking to our willfully ignorant neocon flunkie Bravo....he wasn't aware of this fact because HE DIDN'T READ THE CRA OF 1977! All you've done now is spur the drunken dolt to repeat his previous intellectual myopia in various forms.

But God forgive me, it is fun to watch the fools spin and fluster!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Their heads would explode, as they are currently doing everything BUT providing the actual quote(s) from the CRA of 1977 that supports any of their claims and assertions.

And remember, all this is an aside from the FACT that the Bush tax cuts (reaganomics by any other name) DID NOT produce the jobs the neocons/teabaggers and libertarian lunkheads all swore they would.

Well, they can't make the case for Raygunomics, so they'll divert the discussion to another flawed topic.


Ask them about figures re default rates for CRA loans.

BOA hailed CRA paper as a good investment in the early stages of Bush's tenure.

Just more FACTS that willfully ignorant flunkies like Bravo don't know and don't want to know...and FACTS that will send our self vaunted Surper Freak(ing dumb) economic expert scrambling for a slew of links and information that he will use to try and gloss over (or outright side step) with a combination of neocon/teabagger supposition and conjecture.