Also, where is Bear Stearns crying that they were forced to make these loans? Where are ANY bankers crying that? The only place you seem to find that accusation is in right-wing blogs.
Don't you think they'd have been screaming at the top of their lungs that none of this is really their fault if this was the case?
I am finding this debate to be quite comical. To give you a background I am neck deep in this debacle and it is hysterical once the bailout plan had to be encountered (and trust me it NEEDS to be encountered) the politicization of the causes of the problems. Didn't hear about any of these issues at all prior to last week. Even when Fannie and Freddie were bailed out three weeks ago.
The op-ed piece from a professor from Columbia in the Wall Street Journal started this argument of the allowing of Freddie and Fannie to get involved in buying of sub-prime mortgages caused all of this! Then the talking heads who could not possibly understand all the inticacies of Credit Default Swaps, Changes in Accounting and tax Policies, the unregulated and economically fueled rating agency failure, the change in Fed policy (and world policy, see Basel II bank regulations, major push from REPUBLICANS and Greenspan) in regards to capital by investment and commercial banks that allowed them to increase their leverage from 10-15x to over 35X LEVERAGE, the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, just keep repeating the same information out to the world.
No doubt that the freeing of money to sub prime lenders who then paid out the freer cash to those who should have not qualified for mortgages has a part. A SMALL PART.
Here's my call:
Capitalism and all the good that comes with it, has a nasty down side. Once someone sees an in for taking profit, which could be a good plan, everyone wants to have a piece of it. Companies come out of the woodwork who are willing to do everything to make a buck and will push the envelope. Banks found themselves unregulated in the CDS market making and allowed them to put percieved hedges in place which they believed took out the risk. The rating agencies signed off on all this and made a hyper market where eveyone was bringing profits down which led everyone to look for more risky positions to increase volume to overcome lowering profits. They took more risks on higher volume and did not take into account counter-party risk of those they were laying off their risks through hedges. Hedges were not regulated by anyone and companies that should have not been in these business (ie AIG) were taking on massive risk without having enough capital to overcome them if there was an issue.
So now what happens, housing prices start going down (that was bound to happen at sometime folks), people were over-levered (and not just poor people, LOTS of people, it was not just the sub-prime market that is falling, it is the prime market and the floating rate Alt-A market) and started walking away from the residences but more importantly their INVESTMENTS) and stopped paying their loans. Those loans cause defaults and failures to pay in the securities (don't get me started on CDO's which over-levered the markets to massive extremes, I will happily write a paper of that failure again the RA).
Losses occur and banks are seeing their values dissipate. They are not completely honest about what was on their balance sheets (big failure of banks and accounting firms). Now people start looking to get payment from the Insurance companies who owe them on the hedges (Big failure of banks and insurers on understanding the risks). They are levered so much that they don't have enough in capital to cover their losses.
AND THE HOUSE OF CARD FALLS --
This is not a question of democrat and republican (All sides are to blame). This is a question of risk and understanding it and regulating how far companies can go until it becomes a CONCERN to all of us.
For capitalism to work, there can not be tons of regulation, but there can not be none (anarchy)
Will be happy to have the bullets shot at me now!
No bullets! : ) ... Thanks for being a voice of reason!
Oh Ms. Ann Coutler ... the woman would spin and twist just about anything, even her own birthday! : ) That is what she does. Ya can't take her at truth value. She provides interesting food for thought ... though not often is it very wise or truthful food for thought.
Ann Coulter. Now there is one unbiased source of information. No way she's going to slant anything.
Try as they might to deflect, obfuscate, and spin, all of the GOP mouthpieces, apologists, and wonks in the world cannot erase one indisputable fact:
This situation worsened and came to a head on George W. Bush's watch. He is the President and chief executive of the United States, but he's a terrible, clueless fucking leader and has been since day one, hour one of his first term.
Ann, it's YOUR president who's now come forward with hat in hand. Not Bill Clinton. Not Al Gore. Not John Kerry.
Would this have happened had Al Gore become President? Don't know. Can't know. What I know is what we've got, and it's a plateful of shit, and it's not going to change unless we change it.
I love the culture of responsibility in America. Did you fuck up? Have you been asleep at the switch? Just blame the other guy. Yes, I'm aware that Democrats do it too.
We don't all need to be greedy...this is extremely bipartisan. There are plenty of monumental screwups to go around for both parties, administrations, and ideologies on this issue.
Couldn't agree more. Affirmitive action lending practices. The Dems wanted no regulation for Freddie and Fannie. However, subprime is not responsible for all of this mess. Look at the top who Freddie and Fannie gave money to Dodd & Obama. I am hearing crickets on this one as far as the Dem's are concerned. However, when oil prices run up all you hear is the W is from Texas and he is taking care of his rich friends. The whole Enron mess was blamed on Republicans. Yet no is blaming the Dems for this mess. Hey I don't like having to pay a monthly mortgage maybe I should say fuck it and someone can bail me out.
It seems that you are forgetting that 26 of McCain's campaign heads are lobbyists. And that Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, received over 2 million dollars in five years to be president of an advocacy group for Freddie Mac. And he's still his campaign manager. Hmmmm...... forget that did ya??!!!
How about the fact that Davis' firm STILL received $15,000 per month up to Aug. 2008 for doing nothing!!!! I hear what you are saying that some Dems are at fault, but it was a Repubilican that wrote the bill, Phil Graham. You remember him, the one that called Americans, " a naton of whinners". That Phil.
"Love ain't love until you give it up." - Amongst The Waves
...
Then... WHY didn't the Republican Controlled Senate, House of Representatives and White House DO anything to correct this between 2000 and 2006? That is Six years of letting it continue... and grow. Shouldn't THAT had been a part of the 'Contract With America'?
...
And... in your book... this offsets the fiasco that is the trillion dollar war in Iraq... the failure of FEMA in response of Hurricane Katrina... The politicalization of the Justice Department... the attempt to seat Harriet Meirs in the Supreme Court... warrantless wiretaps... Soviet-style Gulags and KGB tactics... feeding the Islamic state of Pakistan with weapons, tax-dollars and military intelligence?
That's like you cheering like crazy when your team finally kicks a field goal to get on the board with 1:04 left in a 76-3 game.
Yeah... "YAY! TEAM!!!"
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Then... WHY didn't the Republican Controlled Senate, House of Representatives and White House DO anything to correct this between 2000 and 2006? That is Six years of letting it continue... and grow. Shouldn't THAT had been a part of the 'Contract With America'?
...
And... in your book... this offsets the fiasco that is the trillion dollar war in Iraq... the failure of FEMA in response of Hurricane Katrina... The politicalization of the Justice Department... the attempt to seat Harriet Meirs in the Supreme Court... warrantless wiretaps... Soviet-style Gulags and KGB tactics... feeding the Islamic state of Pakistan with weapons, tax-dollars and military intelligence?
That's like you cheering like crazy when your team finally kicks a field goal to get on the board with 1:04 left in a 76-3 game.
Yeah... "YAY! TEAM!!!"
Thank you, Cosmo. That was a great way to put this. I wish there were more people like you in Texas here with me. I will keep up the fight here. We will see a change on Nov. 4th.... hopefully for the better.
"Love ain't love until you give it up." - Amongst The Waves
Camden 8/28/1998; Jones Beach 8/24/2000; Camden 9/1/2000; Camden 9/2/2000; Albany 4/29/2003; New York 7/8/2003; Vancouver 9/2/2005; Atlantic City 10/1/2005; Albany 5/12/2006; E. Rutherford 6/1/2006; E. Rutherford 6/3/2006; New York 6/24/2008; New York 6/25/2008; New York 5/20/2010
interesting. there may be something to it. probably some contributing factors.
If I start now I can probrably pause through this video before the election.
so it was all Obama's fault? it was all the democrats doing?
five terms of republican presidents and countless republican majorities in the senate and the house and they couldn't overturn it?
they acted strong and dominant but they were actually weak?
either way, you have to admit, this financial crisis might have been easier to handle if we hadn't flushed 3 trillion down the crapper in iraq, (current estimated cost by conclusion) wasted away a record surplus, and emassed a record deficit.
Democrats have a hard time admitting that their party is equally as crooked and retarded as the Republican party. Why? Because there's this image associated with being a Democrat that it automatically makes you open-minded and enlightened. In reality, political parties are dumb.
So a youtuber puts the blogs into an animated presentation and that makes it more credible? He explains the subprime balloon but he never makes the link between the subprime mess and CRA that he indicates at the beginning and end of his slides. Because there is no link.
That entire "theory" depends on equating CRA and subprime. I already posted all the figures on a previous page in this thread - some of the most important ones to keep in mind are that only 25% of banks are even subject to CRA. Of that, only a percentage of their loans are CRA. Independent mortgage lenders aren't subject to CRA at all. The end result being that over 80% of subprime mortgages were made by institutions not subject CRA. In fact, banks NOT subject to CRA made subprime loans at twice the rate as banks guided by CRA. Can you explain that? I'll wait...
Another figure that your link fails to mention is that Bush weakened CRA in 2005 - and subprimes ballooned in 2006/07. Convenient to leave that out.
The video also asserts that the Bush administration tried to halt subprime lending when in fact the individual states tried to halt it and Bush actively blocked them from doing so:
CRA also was not intended to give loans to less-qualified. It was enacted because statistics showed that equally qualified minorities were being denied mortgages. Clear discrimination.
You video states that CRA somehow encouraged predatory lending. CRA specifically discourages predatory lending and - unlike the lenders who got us into this mess - CRA mortgages are regulated and subject to federal oversight which actually kept them from making the types of subprime and predatory loans which are defaulting at a higher rate.
I'll repost the link to the study which proved that CRA loans default at a lower rate than traditional subprime, thereby PROTECTING the neighborhoods they were operating in. If people couldn't have gotten these CRA loans, they probably would've gone for the predatory loans in even higher numbers:
The Community Reinvestment Act: A Welcome Anomaly in the Foreclosure Crisis : Indications that the CRA Deterred Irresponsible Lending
in the 15 Most Populous U.S. Metropolitan Areas:
There's a reason why this "theory" has languished as an internet rumor among right-wing bloggers (and now right-wing youtubers! yay!) It's simply not supported by fact. Which is why you'll never hear an actual banker - like Bear Stearns cited in that presentation - put forth this lame idea.
Bill Clinton's arrogance and Democratic Party ineptitude certainly are at least partially to blame for the last seven years.
if you can, explain how George Bush turned Clinton's $200 billion surplus into a $500 billion deficit, since republicans are supposed to be the big conservatives and so on.
and btw, social spending is insignificant compared to corporate welfare.
To this day, I cannot find a single source indicating that the 700 Billion is going to purchase actual "foreclosure" properties.
Instead, the term is "troubled assets."
"Troubled assets" are properties that have incurred a debt that is larger than their market value.
That's why this whole mess has less to do with subprime lending and more to do with inflation in home prices.
That inflation was caused by the federal reserve's lowering of interest rates for several consecutive years.
Not only have economists warned against it from day one, but Ron Paul has mentioned it time and again in his speeches. In fact, when he mentioned it during the debates, his opponents smirked as though he was a crazy man talking out of his ass. That's because economics is too complicated of a subject for most politicians.
The root cause of this problem is the Bush Administration, who allowed Alan Greenspan to lower interest rates, which resulted in massive inflation of housing values.
Again, the only way to disprove that is to find a source which details the 700 billion as purchasing actual foreclosed properties, not "troubled assets."
if you can, explain how George Bush turned Clinton's $200 billion surplus into a $500 billion deficit, since republicans are supposed to be the big conservatives and so on.
and btw, social spending is insignificant compared to corporate welfare.
Simply put, Clinton's arrogance set the table for a nitwit like Bush to steal the White House, when the 2000 election should have been a landslide for Gore that even the Supreme Court couldn't hijack. No Bush, no deficit (not to mention other things).
And if John Kerry had possessed even the first idea as to how to run an effective campaign, there's a good chance he could've won in 2004.
Growup, every problem in America is not about blacks. Banks would allow minority people's incomes to qualified them as renters but not homeowner. Under this program, all incomes had to be considered when buying a home. This program also allow WOMEN to use their income (not the husband's) to qualify as a homeowner. It allowed women to claim alimony and child support as income.
Tell Ann, that even Sarah Palin said she was a product of Affirmative Action.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Look...
Democrats are just as much to blame for this mess as Republicans; no doubt.
But the simple fact is
George W Bush and his James Gang like band of swindlers have bled this country of their dignity, pride, and resources so bad that President Obama (that's right) will have his work cut out for him.
It's going to be an ugly clean up folks.
And the next President will likely have to spend the majority of the first term in office cleaning up the vommit, piss, broken glass, and costly wreckage left from this Frat Boy Republican Toga Party that's been going on in Washington for the last 8 years. It'll be a miracle if anything gets done in the wake of this disasterous mismanagement of the highest office in the land.
And mark my words...
The Republicans will no doubt come back in 4 years and blame Obama for getting nothing done...when in fact...Those fuckers knowingly left the him with the biggest cleanup job in the history of the White House.
And as for this economic bail out...
Well...We'll just have to hold our noses and walk through the shit and hope for some kind of return.
Perhaps Obama's election to President of the United States in November 08 will help to stifle this trend of greedy dirt bag politicians padding their pockets, staining the White House furniture, and driving the country like a drunk driver off the road and into a ditch.
"When you look at the data, it’s true that minorities are slightly over-represented in the sub-prime mortgage market. Yet, whites (non-minorities) received 72.5% of subprime mortgages. Blacks got 16.2% of subprime mortgages, which isn’t all that different from the 12.4% of the general population that blacks comprise. The Hispanics about whom Malkin is so hysterical got only 6.2% of subprime mortgages, significantly less than their 14.8% of the general population. But you don’t find an analysis of that data at blogs like those of Malkin or Krikorian. "
"When you look at the data, it’s true that minorities are slightly over-represented in the sub-prime mortgage market. Yet, whites (non-minorities) received 72.5% of subprime mortgages. Blacks got 16.2% of subprime mortgages, which isn’t all that different from the 12.4% of the general population that blacks comprise. The Hispanics about whom Malkin is so hysterical got only 6.2% of subprime mortgages, significantly less than their 14.8% of the general population. But you don’t find an analysis of that data at blogs like those of Malkin or Krikorian. "
That's what bugs me about the extreme right bloggers/radio personalities. They take tiny segments of the facts, and attribute entire problems to those and only those segments.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
To this day, I cannot find a single source indicating that the 700 Billion is going to purchase actual "foreclosure" properties.
Instead, the term is "troubled assets."
"Troubled assets" are properties that have incurred a debt that is larger than their market value.
That's why this whole mess has less to do with subprime lending and more to do with inflation in home prices.
That inflation was caused by the federal reserve's lowering of interest rates for several consecutive years.
Not only have economists warned against it from day one, but Ron Paul has mentioned it time and again in his speeches. In fact, when he mentioned it during the debates, his opponents smirked as though he was a crazy man talking out of his ass. That's because economics is too complicated of a subject for most politicians.
The root cause of this problem is the Bush Administration, who allowed Alan Greenspan to lower interest rates, which resulted in massive inflation of housing values.
Again, the only way to disprove that is to find a source which details the 700 billion as purchasing actual foreclosed properties, not "troubled assets."
Isn't the problem with the mortgage backed securities? Many of the investments created are made up of many good loans and indeed, some of the mortgages that have been abanoned.
In total, these securites are in the majority, ok. It's just the small percentage of the overall mortgages that are the sub prime mortgages that are included. And these are what are cragging down the values.
Thus, this is why the government thinks it can actually recover much of what it's spending ....
Perhaps I stood too close to the kool aid stand, but, this was what I took out of some of what I've read.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
that's not true based on his approval rating (65%) when he left office.
Gore way underestimated how much people gave a shit about the so called "scandal".
I am sure you remember it differently because you are clearly not a fan.
If Clinton could run today, he'd beat mccain with one penis tied behind his back.
Oh, come on, now.
Bill Clinton was impeached.
Just about anyone with a shred of objectivity on the matter knows it was bullshit, but so what? Just about anyone with a shred of objectivity on the matter knows that marijuana ought to also be at very least decriminalized, and that it's nonsense to be unable to buy a beer or a bottle of wine in a grocery store on Sundays in my state, but people are still going to jail for simple marijuana possession, and you still can't buy a beer or a bottle of wine in a grocery store on Sundays in my state.
Clinton may not have been as toxic to Gore in 2000 as Bush is to McCain now, but it's closer than it ought to be. And because he was a prideful, arrogant SOB who put his need for hummer above the good of the country. And he's really not doing much better now.
There's something called guilt by association. Gore was Clinton's VP for 8 years.
Can I say how many votes in how many states Clinton cost Gore? Sure can't. But in an election that close (and only because it was close did it go to the Supreme Court), it could have very easily been enough.
Not a fan??? Where the hell did you get that? Because I called him out for screwing up and contributing to eight years of Bush crap? I only voted for him twice and would probably do so again if he could run. That doesn't change the fact that he's partially to blame for this mess we're in now.
And the Dems, in your words, have been "unbelievably lame the last two years." Two years? TWO?
I suppose you consider John Kerry's 2004 campaign to be a staggering work of political genius?
Clinton may not have been as toxic to Gore in 2000 as Bush is to McCain now, but it's closer than it ought to be. And because he was a prideful, arrogant SOB who put his need for hummer above the good of the country. And he's really not doing much better now.
that's your opinion, one I only partially agree with. I think Clinton enemies hated him just as much, I don't think one Clinton supporter was swayed.
There's something called guilt by association. Gore was Clinton's VP for 8 years.
Gore actually pulled the same crap McCain is doing now except in reverse.
gore said: "we are gonna clean up washington" from what, the surplus? our great relationship with other countries? our great economy?
And the Dems, in your words, have been "unbelievably lame the last two years." Two years? TWO?
yes. yes. yes. Am I wrong? did they not just reclaim the majority in 2006 for the 1st time in 8 years? and yes, they may have been lame before, but they weren't exactly a major force.[/quote]
Isn't the problem with the mortgage backed securities? Many of the investments created are made up of many good loans and indeed, some of the mortgages that have been abanoned.
In total, these securites are in the majority, ok. It's just the small percentage of the overall mortgages that are the sub prime mortgages that are included. And these are what are cragging down the values.
Thus, this is why the government thinks it can actually recover much of what it's spending ....
Perhaps I stood too close to the kool aid stand, but, this was what I took out of some of what I've read.
The market was inflated not just by subprime lending, but also by low interest rates and unconventional lending arrangements such as interest-only, negative amortization...etc. Also, there was the homeowner's tax break, and "flip this house" fever which added to the market demand.
When interest rates went up, many adjustable rate mortgages went into default as minimum payments increased. Those weren't even subprime-related defaults. Later, subprime-related defaults started happening.
You're right that those defaults only amounted to a small percentage of total home loans.
However, because the housing market was so overwhelmingly inflated, even the smallest trigger such as the aforementioned foreclosures caused the housing market to become unstable, and eventually supply began to outpace demand.
And, of course, you know that when supply outpaces demand, prices fall.
Well, when prices fell, it suddenly rendered all of those mortgage-backed securities to be overvalued. That is, the debt that was attached to those securities amounted to an amount greater than the value of the property to which those debts were attached.
So, even though those homeowners were paying their bills like responsible homeowners, the derivatives inside which their homeloans were packaged became unattractive, and thus proved nearly impossible for the banks to unload.
That's where the term "troubled assets" comes from. And in an industry that is overloaded with "troubled assets", lenders take even greater chances by lending out more money. That's the basis for the credit crunch.
However, according to an article I posted in this forum which was written by a Harvard economist, those banks could in fact unload those derivatives, but they would rather wait to be bailed out by the government.
You lost credibility the moment to gave Ann Coulter some.
Steve
11/18/97 Oakland
07/13/98 Los Angeles
07/14/98 Los Angeles
10/31/99 Bridge School
10/28/00 San Bernardino
10/31/00 Mountain View
10/21/01 Bridge School
06/01/03 Mountain View
07/15/06 SF I
07/16/06 SF II
07/18/06 SF III
10/21/06 Bridge School
04/07/08 Berkeley
04/08/08 Berkeley
Comments
Don't you think they'd have been screaming at the top of their lungs that none of this is really their fault if this was the case?
power to the peaceful
No bullets! : ) ... Thanks for being a voice of reason!
Oh Ms. Ann Coutler ... the woman would spin and twist just about anything, even her own birthday! : ) That is what she does. Ya can't take her at truth value. She provides interesting food for thought ... though not often is it very wise or truthful food for thought.
The Community Reinvestment Act: A Welcome Anomaly in the Foreclosure Crisis
Indications that the CRA Deterred Irresponsible Lending
in the 15 Most Populous U.S. Metropolitan Areas:
http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
power to the peaceful
Try as they might to deflect, obfuscate, and spin, all of the GOP mouthpieces, apologists, and wonks in the world cannot erase one indisputable fact:
This situation worsened and came to a head on George W. Bush's watch. He is the President and chief executive of the United States, but he's a terrible, clueless fucking leader and has been since day one, hour one of his first term.
Ann, it's YOUR president who's now come forward with hat in hand. Not Bill Clinton. Not Al Gore. Not John Kerry.
Would this have happened had Al Gore become President? Don't know. Can't know. What I know is what we've got, and it's a plateful of shit, and it's not going to change unless we change it.
I love the culture of responsibility in America. Did you fuck up? Have you been asleep at the switch? Just blame the other guy. Yes, I'm aware that Democrats do it too.
It seems that you are forgetting that 26 of McCain's campaign heads are lobbyists. And that Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, received over 2 million dollars in five years to be president of an advocacy group for Freddie Mac. And he's still his campaign manager. Hmmmm...... forget that did ya??!!!
How about the fact that Davis' firm STILL received $15,000 per month up to Aug. 2008 for doing nothing!!!! I hear what you are saying that some Dems are at fault, but it was a Repubilican that wrote the bill, Phil Graham. You remember him, the one that called Americans, " a naton of whinners". That Phil.
Then... WHY didn't the Republican Controlled Senate, House of Representatives and White House DO anything to correct this between 2000 and 2006? That is Six years of letting it continue... and grow. Shouldn't THAT had been a part of the 'Contract With America'?
...
And... in your book... this offsets the fiasco that is the trillion dollar war in Iraq... the failure of FEMA in response of Hurricane Katrina... The politicalization of the Justice Department... the attempt to seat Harriet Meirs in the Supreme Court... warrantless wiretaps... Soviet-style Gulags and KGB tactics... feeding the Islamic state of Pakistan with weapons, tax-dollars and military intelligence?
That's like you cheering like crazy when your team finally kicks a field goal to get on the board with 1:04 left in a 76-3 game.
Yeah... "YAY! TEAM!!!"
Hail, Hail!!!
Thank you, Cosmo. That was a great way to put this. I wish there were more people like you in Texas here with me. I will keep up the fight here. We will see a change on Nov. 4th.... hopefully for the better.
It seems I only hear (or read) Republicans using this phrase, often after those "facts" have been twisted to support their position.
assuming the new definition of "facts" is now "completely made up stuff" then yes.
follow my logic....
First of all, the column is entitled "opinion"
second, I don't see any source notes next to her reporting, so how are these facts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
interesting. there may be something to it. probably some contributing factors.
If I start now I can probrably pause through this video before the election.
so it was all Obama's fault? it was all the democrats doing?
five terms of republican presidents and countless republican majorities in the senate and the house and they couldn't overturn it?
they acted strong and dominant but they were actually weak?
either way, you have to admit, this financial crisis might have been easier to handle if we hadn't flushed 3 trillion down the crapper in iraq, (current estimated cost by conclusion) wasted away a record surplus, and emassed a record deficit.
Obama didn't do that.
.
I don't.
Bill Clinton's arrogance and Democratic Party ineptitude certainly are at least partially to blame for the last seven years.
So a youtuber puts the blogs into an animated presentation and that makes it more credible? He explains the subprime balloon but he never makes the link between the subprime mess and CRA that he indicates at the beginning and end of his slides. Because there is no link.
That entire "theory" depends on equating CRA and subprime. I already posted all the figures on a previous page in this thread - some of the most important ones to keep in mind are that only 25% of banks are even subject to CRA. Of that, only a percentage of their loans are CRA. Independent mortgage lenders aren't subject to CRA at all. The end result being that over 80% of subprime mortgages were made by institutions not subject CRA. In fact, banks NOT subject to CRA made subprime loans at twice the rate as banks guided by CRA. Can you explain that? I'll wait...
Another figure that your link fails to mention is that Bush weakened CRA in 2005 - and subprimes ballooned in 2006/07. Convenient to leave that out.
The video also asserts that the Bush administration tried to halt subprime lending when in fact the individual states tried to halt it and Bush actively blocked them from doing so:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html
CRA also was not intended to give loans to less-qualified. It was enacted because statistics showed that equally qualified minorities were being denied mortgages. Clear discrimination.
You video states that CRA somehow encouraged predatory lending. CRA specifically discourages predatory lending and - unlike the lenders who got us into this mess - CRA mortgages are regulated and subject to federal oversight which actually kept them from making the types of subprime and predatory loans which are defaulting at a higher rate.
I'll repost the link to the study which proved that CRA loans default at a lower rate than traditional subprime, thereby PROTECTING the neighborhoods they were operating in. If people couldn't have gotten these CRA loans, they probably would've gone for the predatory loans in even higher numbers:
The Community Reinvestment Act: A Welcome Anomaly in the Foreclosure Crisis : Indications that the CRA Deterred Irresponsible Lending
in the 15 Most Populous U.S. Metropolitan Areas:
http://www.traigerlaw.com/publicatio...udy_1-7-08.pdf
There's a reason why this "theory" has languished as an internet rumor among right-wing bloggers (and now right-wing youtubers! yay!) It's simply not supported by fact. Which is why you'll never hear an actual banker - like Bear Stearns cited in that presentation - put forth this lame idea.
power to the peaceful
and btw, social spending is insignificant compared to corporate welfare.
Instead, the term is "troubled assets."
"Troubled assets" are properties that have incurred a debt that is larger than their market value.
That's why this whole mess has less to do with subprime lending and more to do with inflation in home prices.
That inflation was caused by the federal reserve's lowering of interest rates for several consecutive years.
Not only have economists warned against it from day one, but Ron Paul has mentioned it time and again in his speeches. In fact, when he mentioned it during the debates, his opponents smirked as though he was a crazy man talking out of his ass. That's because economics is too complicated of a subject for most politicians.
The root cause of this problem is the Bush Administration, who allowed Alan Greenspan to lower interest rates, which resulted in massive inflation of housing values.
Again, the only way to disprove that is to find a source which details the 700 billion as purchasing actual foreclosed properties, not "troubled assets."
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Simply put, Clinton's arrogance set the table for a nitwit like Bush to steal the White House, when the 2000 election should have been a landslide for Gore that even the Supreme Court couldn't hijack. No Bush, no deficit (not to mention other things).
And if John Kerry had possessed even the first idea as to how to run an effective campaign, there's a good chance he could've won in 2004.
Tell Ann, that even Sarah Palin said she was a product of Affirmative Action.
Democrats are just as much to blame for this mess as Republicans; no doubt.
But the simple fact is
George W Bush and his James Gang like band of swindlers have bled this country of their dignity, pride, and resources so bad that President Obama (that's right) will have his work cut out for him.
It's going to be an ugly clean up folks.
And the next President will likely have to spend the majority of the first term in office cleaning up the vommit, piss, broken glass, and costly wreckage left from this Frat Boy Republican Toga Party that's been going on in Washington for the last 8 years. It'll be a miracle if anything gets done in the wake of this disasterous mismanagement of the highest office in the land.
And mark my words...
The Republicans will no doubt come back in 4 years and blame Obama for getting nothing done...when in fact...Those fuckers knowingly left the him with the biggest cleanup job in the history of the White House.
And as for this economic bail out...
Well...We'll just have to hold our noses and walk through the shit and hope for some kind of return.
Perhaps Obama's election to President of the United States in November 08 will help to stifle this trend of greedy dirt bag politicians padding their pockets, staining the White House furniture, and driving the country like a drunk driver off the road and into a ditch.
Godspeed
yawn.
gore lost the election because he DIDN'T embrace bill clinton.
the republicans had control from 1998 to 2006.
yeah, the DEms have been unbelievably lame the last two years. but they've had a historical amount of shit to straighten out.
doesn't take long for revisionist history to take effect.
"When you look at the data, it’s true that minorities are slightly over-represented in the sub-prime mortgage market. Yet, whites (non-minorities) received 72.5% of subprime mortgages. Blacks got 16.2% of subprime mortgages, which isn’t all that different from the 12.4% of the general population that blacks comprise. The Hispanics about whom Malkin is so hysterical got only 6.2% of subprime mortgages, significantly less than their 14.8% of the general population. But you don’t find an analysis of that data at blogs like those of Malkin or Krikorian. "
That's what bugs me about the extreme right bloggers/radio personalities. They take tiny segments of the facts, and attribute entire problems to those and only those segments.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Isn't the problem with the mortgage backed securities? Many of the investments created are made up of many good loans and indeed, some of the mortgages that have been abanoned.
In total, these securites are in the majority, ok. It's just the small percentage of the overall mortgages that are the sub prime mortgages that are included. And these are what are cragging down the values.
Thus, this is why the government thinks it can actually recover much of what it's spending ....
Perhaps I stood too close to the kool aid stand, but, this was what I took out of some of what I've read.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Clinton made it so he had no choice.
But whatever.
that's not true based on his approval rating (65%) when he left office.
Gore way underestimated how much people gave a shit about the so called "scandal".
I am sure you remember it differently because you are clearly not a fan.
If Clinton could run today, he'd beat mccain with one penis tied behind his back.
Oh, come on, now.
Bill Clinton was impeached.
Just about anyone with a shred of objectivity on the matter knows it was bullshit, but so what? Just about anyone with a shred of objectivity on the matter knows that marijuana ought to also be at very least decriminalized, and that it's nonsense to be unable to buy a beer or a bottle of wine in a grocery store on Sundays in my state, but people are still going to jail for simple marijuana possession, and you still can't buy a beer or a bottle of wine in a grocery store on Sundays in my state.
Clinton may not have been as toxic to Gore in 2000 as Bush is to McCain now, but it's closer than it ought to be. And because he was a prideful, arrogant SOB who put his need for hummer above the good of the country. And he's really not doing much better now.
There's something called guilt by association. Gore was Clinton's VP for 8 years.
Can I say how many votes in how many states Clinton cost Gore? Sure can't. But in an election that close (and only because it was close did it go to the Supreme Court), it could have very easily been enough.
Not a fan??? Where the hell did you get that? Because I called him out for screwing up and contributing to eight years of Bush crap? I only voted for him twice and would probably do so again if he could run. That doesn't change the fact that he's partially to blame for this mess we're in now.
And the Dems, in your words, have been "unbelievably lame the last two years." Two years? TWO?
I suppose you consider John Kerry's 2004 campaign to be a staggering work of political genius?
Eh. Whatever. This is tiring. Done.
and somehow left office with a 65% approval rating.
that's your opinion, one I only partially agree with. I think Clinton enemies hated him just as much, I don't think one Clinton supporter was swayed.
Gore actually pulled the same crap McCain is doing now except in reverse.
gore said: "we are gonna clean up washington" from what, the surplus? our great relationship with other countries? our great economy?
again your opinion and one I disagree with.
yes. yes. yes. Am I wrong? did they not just reclaim the majority in 2006 for the 1st time in 8 years? and yes, they may have been lame before, but they weren't exactly a major force.[/quote]
The market was inflated not just by subprime lending, but also by low interest rates and unconventional lending arrangements such as interest-only, negative amortization...etc. Also, there was the homeowner's tax break, and "flip this house" fever which added to the market demand.
When interest rates went up, many adjustable rate mortgages went into default as minimum payments increased. Those weren't even subprime-related defaults. Later, subprime-related defaults started happening.
You're right that those defaults only amounted to a small percentage of total home loans.
However, because the housing market was so overwhelmingly inflated, even the smallest trigger such as the aforementioned foreclosures caused the housing market to become unstable, and eventually supply began to outpace demand.
And, of course, you know that when supply outpaces demand, prices fall.
Well, when prices fell, it suddenly rendered all of those mortgage-backed securities to be overvalued. That is, the debt that was attached to those securities amounted to an amount greater than the value of the property to which those debts were attached.
So, even though those homeowners were paying their bills like responsible homeowners, the derivatives inside which their homeloans were packaged became unattractive, and thus proved nearly impossible for the banks to unload.
That's where the term "troubled assets" comes from. And in an industry that is overloaded with "troubled assets", lenders take even greater chances by lending out more money. That's the basis for the credit crunch.
However, according to an article I posted in this forum which was written by a Harvard economist, those banks could in fact unload those derivatives, but they would rather wait to be bailed out by the government.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
You lost credibility the moment to gave Ann Coulter some.
11/18/97 Oakland
07/13/98 Los Angeles
07/14/98 Los Angeles
10/31/99 Bridge School
10/28/00 San Bernardino
10/31/00 Mountain View
10/21/01 Bridge School
06/01/03 Mountain View
07/15/06 SF I
07/16/06 SF II
07/18/06 SF III
10/21/06 Bridge School
04/07/08 Berkeley
04/08/08 Berkeley