Welcome to PatsFans.com

Do you know what is the "Community Re-investment Act"??

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Fogbuster, Oct 2, 2008.

  1. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Last edited: Oct 2, 2008
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,268
    Likes Received:
    330
    Ratings:
    +829 / 27 / -33

    Another you tube compilation, that is definitely biased and once again proves nothing.. anyone who grasps this stuff to be real and factual needs to examine their thought processes.

    There are a variety of sources out there debunking this myth... here is are several.. Fog please do not read any of these, just be comfortable with the realization that you are right and there are no other answers,btw Coulter has written a column today or yesterday with the same story line..

    The reality is that the CRA was not the major problem here, in fact there are studies that show a lower default rate amongst those who benefitted from this legislation. On the other hand, and quite anecdotally, know many people who have benefitted from this action and now live in their own homes.. it is the american dream and they have achieved.

    One would think that a man who aspires to christian values as a lifestyle, might want to look at the other side to try to find some balance. That would be the intelligent approach...

    FactCheck.org: Who Caused the Economic Crisis?

    11 Racist Lies Conservatives Tell to Avoid Blaming Wall Street for the Financial Crisis | | AlterNet

    Comments from Janet L. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco

    http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html

     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2008
  3. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Everybody in America knows that housing costs have sky-rocketed out of control for the past 20 years. Not just for "luxury" housing that Yuppies buy, but even basic housing, particularly in the big cities of America. Big city housing -- even that of the very lowest quality -- has sky-rocketed in price over the past 20 years. The cost of housing has risen at a rate that has been FAR in excess of the rate of inflation, which NEVER happened before in history.

    BEFORE the passage of the CRA housing costs very closely followed the rate of inflation. My parents bought a decent fixer-upper in Needham in 1956 for $17,000, sold it 7 years later in '63 for $45,000; they had upgraded it, but nothing fancy, no hot tubs, not even a finished basement or attic, none of that; just re-doing the walls, floors, and ceilings, outside paint and a new roof, basically. The price of that same house today, with very little in the way of physical changes, is about $700,000. So the cost rise closely reflected the rate of inflation. This example is comparable to millions of examples in America in that era, ie, up until 1978, immediately AFTER the CRA had been voted into law.

    The CRA caused a doubling, then a tripling, and even a quadrupling of this rate of inflation for housing costs. First time in American history this ever happened, and it all happened after the CRA was introduced under Carter and voted in by the Democrat dominated Congress.

    Anybody can see in the video, YouTube - Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

    and more details are easily found by Googling "Community Reinvestment Act". This act forced banks to give loans to people whom they knew could never re-pay them, and the banks did this because they were forced to grant these bad loans under penalty of law suit (see: Obama's own law firm arguing these law suits in the video). Many banks were sued in court, and [highlight] Barack Obama himself participated in suing banks to force them to throw good money after bad.[/highlight]

    Those are the facts, and any attempts by anyone to deny them are simply lies, plain and simple. I invite anyone to prove one thing in this video that is not true. Prove one false statement in the video, or accept it is all true.

    //
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2008
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,006
    Likes Received:
    322
    Ratings:
    +597 / 24 / -19

    So, do you support redlining, Fog? The CRA, which affected only about 15% of mortgages, was designed to prevent redlining, which was the tactic by banks to refuse to lend to minorities because they wanted to buy homes in their communities. Prior to the CRA, many banks would only lend to people who wanted to buy homes in what the bank considered good communities, which were almost always white. The CRA encouraged enormous investment in poorer areas, and for the most part worked. The foreclosure crisis has more to do with finance companies, which are not covered by the CRA, and with deregulation, which made it easier for finance companies to provide loans to less than qualified people. The crisis is a perfect example of the failure of Reagonomics that was all about deregulation and trusting companies to act in the public interest. Instead, these companies made enormous short and medium term gains for their large shareholders at the expense of America.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2008
  5. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    When anybody forces anyone to do something they don't want to do, it is wrong. Unless you believe in totalitarianism, in which case one should man-up and say so. The Democrats never say it, but that is exactly what some of their hard-core cadre want more than anything else: Total socialism in America.

    The CRA forced banks and lending institutions to give loans to people that had never proven their credit-worthiness, and now the tax-payers of America are being told by this Democrat-led Congress that they are on the hook for this horrific, dictatorial CRA law and its consequences.

    Forcing honest, hard-working, and responsible tax-payers to pay for the vote-pandering this legislation was designed to produce is about the most immoral thing that anyone has ever done in Congress. It far exceeds any other financial scandal in U.S. history, by several magnitudes.

    //
     
  6. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,456
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +915 / 7 / -3


    Read what that woman says. Their being higher priced or not, isn't the crux of the problem. IT's that the people who got them, can't afford to pay them back. It doesn't matter if you let someone borrow $100 at %5 interest, or $200 at 10% interest, if niether person ever had the means to pay it back in the first place. You've got to love how people play with words in this country. Honesty is a quality that lots of people have lost.
     
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,456
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +915 / 7 / -3

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............
     
  8. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,006
    Likes Received:
    322
    Ratings:
    +597 / 24 / -19

    Mistake 1: It only dealt with banks and savings & loans companies, but about 85% of mortgages are given out by other entities.

    Mistake 2: It died not force banks to give loans to people who were not credit worthy. It merely required banks to offer loans to people in neighborhoods where those banks had operations. So, if a bank has an office in Dorchester, it must be willing to give mortgages to credit worthy people in that neighborhood.

    If you bothered to look at something other than video and find some more objective sites, you might not have posted this video at all. It is factually inaccurate.

    It's Still Not CRA | New America Blogs
    Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek
     
  9. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    .

    The CRA was the "door-way drug": it opened the way for other pernicious, predatory, evil practices to expand upon the foundation that the CRA provided. After all, when the Congress tells banks: "We will sue you unless you give loans to anybody who walks in and asks for a mortgage loan", then you know it is open season to get in on the action. And many other sharks were attracted to this very tempting bait, a baiting attraction that the sponsors of the CRA knew was built on a house of cards.

    Gate-way drugs are just as evil as the drugs that finally put people in the grave after one usage.

    //
     
  10. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,742
    Likes Received:
    56
    Ratings:
    +159 / 20 / -17

    Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie
    How the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history gave birth to the mortgage crisis


    http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/541234


    Cuomo's predecessor, Henry Cisneros, did that for the first time in December 1995, taking a cautious approach and moving the GSEs toward a requirement that 42 percent of their mortgages serve low- and moderate-income families. Cuomo raised that number to 50 percent and dramatically hiked GSE mandates to buy mortgages in underserved neighborhoods and for the "very-low-income." Part of the pitch was racial, with Cuomo contending that Fannie and Freddie weren't granting mortgages to minorities at the same rate as the private market. William Apgar, Cuomo's top aide, told The Washington Post: "We believe that there are a lot of loans to black Americans that could be safely purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac if these companies were more flexible
     
  11. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Get a brown paper bag, and breathe into it deeply. We're all well aware you're giddy as a school girl regarding your new little video.

    So far, communication with Fog on this issue has gone something like this:

    Fog: It's all the Dems' fault!!! Here's a video my new anti-commie poster friend showed me that I was clueless about!!! Now I'm the authority on it!!

    Anyone else: Perhaps that's partially true. But the blame is bi-partisan, and here are reasons A, B, C and D.

    Fog: It's all the Dems' fault!!!! Those are facts!!! And anyone saying otherwise is a liar!!! The video!!! The video!!! <bacaw!!>

    Anyone else: Yes, we've conceded the role that some Dems played in pushing this legislation. But what about A, B, C and D?

    Fog: It's all the Dems' fault!!! Don't lie!!! God-fearing conservatives would never do this. Oh, and I don't know anything about any "Ownership Society."

    Anyone else: OK, Fog. You sure are awesome at this.​
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2008
  12. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,268
    Likes Received:
    330
    Ratings:
    +829 / 27 / -33

    Fog do not read anything that has been provided, there are two sides. and to blame one person or group of people for these systemic mistakes seriously begs the issue..our responsibility is to be as informed as we can be, and somewhere in the middle there is the truth.. but you do not want to even consider there are other factors..
     
  13. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Your argument might be worthy of serious consideration except for one not so small point: Obama and Biden are running a major part of their campaign on the economic disaster now upon America (and the world). They are certainly profiting politically from the current economic melt-down, as people always blame the incumbent party for their economic woes.

    So, here's a challange: please indicate to me and everyone else what FACTS presented in this video are not true. Show me something that is false about this video. You say I am only relying on "one source" but does anyone have to study about "alternate laws of gravity" to know that if someone jumps off a ten story building they are going to hit the ground pretty hard?? I don't think so.

    This video sums up perfectly the root causes of the current economic disaster, and this melt-down belongs to Jimmy Carter and the Dem Congress of the 70s, and to Bill Clinton and the Dem Congress of the 90s. The record clearly shows that both Geo Bush II and John McCain sounded alarms about this growing crisis, and they were consistently rebuffed time and again by the likes of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and fellow Democrat ideologues who would not even consider any oversight or reform on this problem.

    Those are the facts. There is no disputing them. If you think you can, please let's hear it. I'll wait....

    In the meantime, look at the latest update:
    YouTube - Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

    And while you're at it, check this out:
    YouTube - Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial mess

    //
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2008
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,006
    Likes Received:
    322
    Ratings:
    +597 / 24 / -19

    Fog, I've already provided you with facts: that the CRA covers only about 15% of relevant mortgages and the CRA did not require bad lending policies, it required banks to offer mortgages in communities where those banks are located (as well as other communities). In fact, Fog, if you were familiar with the CRA, you, given your religious beliefs might be for it. Prior to the CRA, banks would simply refuse mortgages to people, even qualified people, who lived in areas that the bank considered undesirable. This had the effect of keeping bad areas depressed and denying worthy, but lower income borrowers, the opportunity to become homeowners. The CRA addressed redlining, where a bank would basic draw a red line and declare they would not lend to anyone who wanted to invest in areas outside that red line. Try reading up on redlining, and you might come around. The CRA is not the best target for attacking Democrats if you have concern for the working poor. The real problem came about because of deregulation (actually started by Carter, though pursued more aggressively by Reagan and his successors), which allowed banks to lend to virtually anyone who could fill out paperwork.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2008
  15. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,268
    Likes Received:
    330
    Ratings:
    +829 / 27 / -33

    you forgot the predatory lenders who literally "sold" mortgages to people beyond their means.. my idiot son in law, brought Apt houses with monopoly and every 6 months or so would cash in his "equity".. he would pay the mortgage company 5k+.. I could not figure out how he could do this for crap investment properties.. well now he is bankrupt,lost his properties and is my ex son in law rotten stupid bastard.. low life scumsucker.. lower than whale crap..
     
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,006
    Likes Received:
    322
    Ratings:
    +597 / 24 / -19

    That's awful. I think the economy has become nothing more than a giant casino. I've been reading a few articles on the specialized investment vehicles, national and international, a couple of which I never even heard of. There are these layers of investing that go beyond options and futures into exotic areas. It's a house of cards, and it's getting very shaky. If it collapses, I think capitalism itself will be in for a major setback. Just as the Great Depression brought a lot of socialist policies into our society, another Depression would force the same type of review. I'm beginning to think that the solution is to tax assets (above some big number like $100 million), but since no one else has suggested that idea, it's probably a really bad one!
     
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,623
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +469 / 12 / -14


    And you ignore the idiot dems who pressured the lenders to make the subprime loans to meet the goal the dems set...
     
  18. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    This is way more than about "redlining". Once bad practices are condoned -- even recommended by the sitting president and then WRITTEN into law by his party's Congress -- it becomes extremely difficult to oppose that law, no matter how ill-advised it may be. America is like the largest ocean-liner in the world. It takes like five miles to stop the large ocean liners of today; it takes about 100 miles to slow down and stop the huge enterprise known as the U.S. of A. government.

    After the CFA was passed, it looked like a good thing. After all, doesn't everybody want to give people who have never owned their own homes a chance?? I sure do, and I bet everybody here on this list feels the same.

    But there's a right and a wrong way to do it. The right way is to provide clear incentives for people to keep their work habits going, to develop the habit of paying one's bills on time, each month; to develop the sense of "ownership" not only over one's own home, but of one's own life. Actually, for me and many, it would be "co-ownership" shared with God.

    But that takes time, and perseverance, and sacrificing things that may have been done before ownership: the carefree nights out with the guys or gals, spending money foolishly on things that just are not worth it, but which provide cheap thrills. Instead, one would profit more in the long term by investing their efforts in a life of steady responsibility to one's family, to one's spouse, to one's children. For many that has never been a top priority, and giving a lot of money to buy a home to such people is like giving a gun to a child -- tragedies can -- and usually do -- happen, as we have seen in this sub-prime mortgage melt-down. Chris Dodd says it himself, but he points the finger at Wall Street, not at HIS OWN legislation that led to it. Shame on him and those who stand with him.

    CRA was not the total element in the national poison pill that America was fed in the late 70s and all the way up until last year, but it was the starter drug that later led to bigger and more potent drugs: the predatory lending practices that preyed on people who got caught up in the "bigger is better" mentality. It even produced the new industry of "property flipping", where speculators would buy homes with this easy CRA money with no intention of using them, but rather hold them for a year or two, then sell them at huge profits, simply because the housing market was so artificially inflated by all the "funny money" available through the CFA.

    It's not rocket science to see how this problem started off as a relatively innocent attempt to give first-time home-buyers the chance of a lifetime but later became the Dracula that sucked the blood out of both the borrowers who could not keep up the payments, as well as the general public who saw home prices sky-rocket at 4 or 5 times the rate of inflation. Very, very poor legislation. A national Ponzi scheme.

    And when attempts were made to reform -- or even create oversight on the problem -- people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were there to shout it down, calling the reformers "racists" and stuff like that. Awful, awful. And the Dem party owns the majority share in this turkey, a "butter-ball" filled with industrial strength greasy hubris.

    //
     
  19. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,006
    Likes Received:
    322
    Ratings:
    +597 / 24 / -19

    Fog, The specific lending practices by banks and others were not caused by the CRA, but the result of deregulation that allowed banks and others to make risky loans. That's all that the foreclosure crisis is about: Banks and others making risky loans. The fact that both parties encouraged them is another matter, but if you have deregulation than the responsibility rests with the lending institutions; the point of deregulation is that business knows better than government what to do. Apparently, that tenet of modern Republicanism is flatout wrong.
     
  20. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Au contraire, mon frer: provisions of the CFA that Clinton created were for stiff penalties to banks who did NOT comply with the CFA's mandate to give loans to bad credit risk individuals. Janet Reno -- remember her?? Clinton's AG -- fined Citibank $500 million for not granting enough CFA sub-prime loans.

    Don't say that the CFA didn't force banks to lend money to people with no credit history or bad credit history because that is simply not true; CFA mandated mortgage loans to people with no/bad credit. Look at the video again. Take your time, use the pause button, check the affidavits. They don't lie.

    //
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>