« Open Systemic Fraud in Minnesota Senate Farce | Main | Open Thread »

good luck trying to get the "bush-bashers" to admit ANY wrongdoing. they weren't brought up to accept personal responsibility.

Unfortunately millions of people WANT to believe it's Bush's fault, so they will.

Roger what Nanc and Harris said; the reason they take these things at face value is that:

a)it comes from sources which are their objects of worship (so-called "Progressives"), and is therefore immune to scrutiny. Don't let "Liberals" tell you they are not religeous;

b)it is what they want to believe in the first place.

Childish, irrational mindsets won't be diverted from their fun by facts- even obvious ones.

Too bad Bernanke and the CEO of Bank of America have shot down the conservative lies that the CRA or Fannie & Freddie caused the meltdown:

Kenneth D. Lewis, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Bank of America:

I�ve seen a disturbing trend among some market observers, who are trying to lay primary blame for our current troubles on CRA. I think it�s fair to say that in many cases CRA lending standards fell victim to the same market pressures and overconfidence we saw in other sectors of the mortgage markets. In that regard, political pressure to expand homeownership did become one of many contributing factors as the housing bubble grew. But the charge that CRA lending was the primary or foundational cause of our housing crisis is not only unfair, it�s not true.

Bernanke: CRA Not To Blame For Housing Crisis:

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The federal law encouraging banks to lend to low- and moderate-income customers is not to blame for the current housing crisis, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a recent letter to a member of Congress.

Bernanke, responding to a letter from Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said the Fed's experience with 1977's Community Reinvestment Act - including data on the subprime loan market - "runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."

Bernanke, continuing in the Nov. 25 letter to Menendez, said declining home values, inadequate risk management of complex financial instruments, and lending models that favored quantity over quality all contributed to the current problems.

"The available evidence to date, however, does not lend support to the argument that CRA is to blame for causing the subprime loan crisis," Bernanke wrote.

Sorry folks. This meltdown has "Propertry of the Republican Party" stamped all over it.

Just like Obama has the Chicago political machine stamped all over him?

"Sorry folks. This meltdown has "Propertry [sic] of the Republican Party" stamped all over it."

Your "proof" consists of a couple of people saying that the CRA was not a factor, which still doesn't prove that it wasn't one. Try and do better next time.

A couple of people? Only the CEO of the only American bank left standing and the Federal Reserve Chief.

Here, allow me to reiterate the comments from each of these men in case you missed them:

"But the charge that CRA lending was the primary or foundational cause of our housing crisis is not only unfair, it�s not true.

and:

"The available evidence to date, however, does not lend support to the argument that CRA is to blame for causing the subprime loan crisis," Bernanke wrote.

There's more where that came from.

Read their whole statements. You'll see them blaming Wall Street.

You can't absolve the party that controlled the White House and both houses of Congress of blame. {That would be the republicans.} It's impossible. Just take your lumps, apologize, and start shutting up while the new guys try and correct the horrible mess your guys have left us with.

Yawn. Yet another allusion to the "speak truth to power" slogan.

"Only the CEO of the only American bank left standing and the Federal Reserve Chief."
Hmm, interesting. One can be an expert in a field and still be wrong, "and I speak as an expert on explosives" comes to mind. I would be interested in reading their complete statements, you know, in the spirit of the Bereans. Perhaps you could supply a working link, or even a plain text address?

http://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/index.php?s=speeches&item=213

http://news.morningstar.com/newsnet/ViewNews.aspx?article=/DJ/200812021226DOWJONESDJONLINE000492_univ.xml

I put the html in, it obviously didn't work.

Despite your side's desperation to blame this mess on anyone but the republicans who were in control, these links are strong evidence to the contrary. You can choose to not believe them but their words carry considerably more weight than anyone's here.

Thanks for the links. But it's not 'my side'. I'll give them a read and see if what you glean from them is true. I measure, I weigh, I interpret; then I come to a conclusion.

And it really is a tiresome melody, "speaking truth to power" when you're never in any danger.

I'd like to know why the liberals aren't on their hands and knees right now thanking Bush for the low gas prices. I mean, they screamed that it was his fault when gas was above $4 per gallon but now that's it's lowered, I don't hear a peep out of any of them.

"You can't absolve the party that controlled the White House and both houses of Congress of blame. {That would be the republicans.} It's impossible. Just take your lumps, apologize, and start shutting up while the new guys try and correct the horrible mess your guys have left us with.

Posted by: Truth speaker at December 22, 2008 4:46 PM"

Um dude Bernanke has countless billions in bailouts to justify. The guy says it's "unfair" to blame the crisis on the CRA - and that's all the proof you need?

Hahaha .. Sadly for you, numbers don't lie.

As for the Democrats "fixing" the problem, um, okay then, what precisely is the policy strategy that Obama has formulated in response to the market's current condition?

Are you able to outline it in one or two paragraphs?

Oh, wait, you're not, because there is no Democrat economic strategy besides blaming Republicans for everything bad and making more of the pie-in-the-sky promises of federal money backing everything in sight that caused the current crisis to begin with.

NB: implied federal support for MBS; "redlining" lawsuits, etc.

The depth and breadth of Obama and the other Democrats' financial chops extends to "it's the Republicans' fault! They need to hand over the keys to the economy to us, because we won't do what they did.." Without being able to articulate precisely what it is "they" did to stuff the economy up in the first place, or what precisely will be done to fix it, or even why it broke to begin with.

Citing Bernanke as claiming the CRA and other federally backed distortions to the home loan market as being less of a factor than "declining housing prices" is ludicrous. I tell you this as a financial professional.

"You can't absolve the party that controlled the White House and both houses of Congress of blame."??

I thought the Democrats were in control of Congress.

People want change, yet they didn't change what needed it most.

I thought the Democrats were in control of Congress.

Posted by: Dwaine at December 22, 2008 11:01 PM

No no, you don't understand at all. When something goes wrong it is the fault of the right, because they were "in charge" of, like, the gubmint, and that. Doesn't matter which Democrats blocked reforms to the lenders or what Republicans did to try and prevent things collapsing - it's the right's fault. That's why America has shown that the right are out of touch and that the GOP has finished, by voting for Obama in as large numbers as they voted for John Kerry.

The Iraq war, on the other hand, is a different matter. You know how it's pretty much over now, to the point where Iraqi Christians are openly celebrating Christmas, and homicide rates are one fifth of what they are in America?

Well, that's because of the outpouring of good will after Obama was elected. George Bush only screwed the pooch worse with that silly failure of a "surge."

The blathering idiots that inhabit Washington DC are to blame. The idiots that “we the people” keep putting into office are the ones who have set up the environment we are faced with today. They win popularity contests in each of their districts with snappy speeches and promises, spending millions of dollars to acquire that sweet job and all of its’ perks. They set up offices with budgets that make your head spin. They live lavish lives, tooling around the beltway in limos, flying cross country and around the world in private jets. They own summer and winter homes (some of these people don’t even know how many homes they own). They hob-knob with the rich and famous so as to acquire the funding needed to win the next popularity contest. They “legislate” in order to protect this way of life i.e.; automatic pay raises, kick-ass health care and pensions. They “legislate” to protect their funding sources by awarding huge corporations and conglomerates subsidies and leniency. When the shit hits the fan, they promulgate the “my side vs. your side” argument in order to deflect attention from the root cause and perpetuate their hold on this lifestyle indefinitely. Every once in a while they throw out a tidbit in order to keep the little people happy, however the bulk of their time, energy and resources are spent on maintaining their positions of power. They do this on our dime and we continue to allow it to happen. Dems and Repubs are to blame for this for they are all politicians – nothing more, nothing less.

If only it were so simple as "It's all the republicans fault." The Bank of America president does say CRA is not to blame. He also mentions sub-prime mortgages and bad lending practices, a lot. He contradicts himself and reaches an illogical conclusion that CRA is not the cause, forgetting which domino fell first.

But sometimes a bank can do everything right and still not be doing enough under the CRA. Profit? You had no right!

To me it's ironic that a bunch of Ivy League educated bankers, lawyers, and politicians led this country to economic ruin... and yet we're supposed to be *so impressed* because B. Hussein Obama and all his Harvard educated buddies are in charge now.

The media ragged on Sarah Palin because she didn't attend a "prestige university." But it wasn't alumni from Idaho State or Brigham Young that drove our economy over a cliff.

Lots of obfuscating but little else from your feeble attempts at rebuttal.

It's not unusual that conservatives deny they are wrong. It's all part fo that arrogant cluelessness they are famous for.

Probably the most feeble defense is that democrats control Congress. Of course, the years the bubble was building, 2000-2007, republicans controlled the Congress and the White House. Democrats took over in 2007, not 2006, and Bush was still President.

All those years of arrogance from republicans that they ran it all and were going to do such a great job they'd rule for a century. How'd that work out? As soon as things broke down they scrambled like roaches when the light goes on.

You can try and ignore the facts as stated by two highly educated and capable experts (the BofA CEO and Bernanke) even if you're a "financial professional" (lol) but the voters did remove republicans from their perch prematurely (at least to them, Dude, where's my century of control?) in the last 2 elections and as the meltdown heats up will continue to punish republicans for their inattention and mismanagement that led us to this mess.

Just to let you know Mandible, I have been contacted by the Obama transitiion team and they want you to replace Bernanke as Fed Chief since you are a "financial professional" whose breadth of experience and expertise exceeds that of any known human on the planet.

"...facts as stated by two highly educated and capable experts..."

What do we call this logical fallacy? Anyone? "Appeal to authority" was it? What they've stated are their OPINIONS, pure and simple, and that doesn't make them right. Just because they align with your ideology doesn't mean they fit the facts.

The CRA, as amended under Clinton, was used to extort banks to make loans no bank in its right mind would make, under threat of fines and sanctions. The free money drove real estate values up all out of proportion to what they should have been. That had to collapse eventually. The banks (sensibly) wanted rid of all that trash paper, so they packaged it up into bonds. Who would doubt bonds backed by mortgages? Mortgages are traditionally solid, especially with the IMPLICATION that they were covered by fannie & freddie, right? Only they weren't. Well, housing values corrected, and all that fake paper value got sucked out of all those bonds, as well as the paper the banks still held. Everybody's left holding the bag. So, where exactly did Republican policies come into this? Deregulation? The banks were just doing what they were required to, YES, BY THE CRA. Greed on Wall Street? how is it "greed" to seek a profit? You buy bonds in hopes of profiting, duh! Fannie & freddie were being milked for millions by the guys in charge of them, with their "beneficiaries" in congress looking out for them. (And who was it receiving all those "contributions"?) There's your greed.

Cling to whatever beliefs (and I mean that word in its most literal sense) make you comfortable, but we know you've just put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Both men cited DATA to support their statements. They are experts, you are not. They operate from a position of experts familiar with the issue, you operate from a position of ignorance and preconceived, faulty notions.

Thus anyone with half a brain would conclude that you are simply wrong.

No one forced banks to lower standards. No one forced banks to loan to the unworthy. In fact, 80% of subprime loans originated with non-CRA institutions. And that doesn't mean that 20% were bad CRA loans, just that 20% of subprime loans were made from CRA-regulated banks.

If you believe that anyone forced banks to do anything you aren't very educated about how our financial system works. Not surprising considering that conservatives will go to any lengths to blame the poor for our mess.

Go take a look at the housing developments that are failing the worst. They are largely McMansions never purchased by the poor. Read some anecdotes about those foreclosed on. Mainly middle class and upper middle class who wanted to be pretend they were rich folks.

So Truth, if people payed their mortgages every month this still would have happened? I got some beachfront property in Las Vegas that I think you'd like

Here's what I'm having trouble understanding.

The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulations 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e.

From http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/history.htm

If making the loans that the CRA "encourages" was consistent with safe and sound banking operations, what was the need for the CRA to begin with?

I'm wondering about Truth Speaker's figures... where did he get the 80% figure?

I found an interesting article from about 4 years ago: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-12-07-subprime-day-2-usat_x.htm

Fun to read with hindsight. In part, "The majority of subprime mortgages are now sold by the initial lenders, bundled into bonds and offered to individual and institutional investors. In 1994, $11 billion of subprime mortgages were sold on the secondary market; in 2003, it was more than $200 billion."

So, lessee... CRA amended in 1995 by... oh, you know who. Anyway, not so long before subprime loans became hot potatoes. I mean, if you've got loans that are going to make you money, they're stable investments, you keep 'em, right? But if they're not, you get rid of 'em. To the tune of $200 billion in 2003 ALONE.

Oooh, they're "experts" and they cite "facts". It's still a logical fallacy, and their "facts" aren't lining up with reality. That "half a brain" thing is sure to make your case, at least with those who already BELIEVE as you do. go pour salt on yourself and shrivel up.

So, the banks weren't "forced" to do anything, eh? They were given two choices: make bad loans, or pay fines. There's no force there, is there? They don't HAVE to make the bad loans, after all. They could just pay the fines, you know. No force. Just a choice between two options, both distasteful. The thing is, either you make the bad loans and have a chance to foist them off on some other schmuck, or pay the fine and be on record as a violator. Which one would you pick?

Oh, and then you had COMMUNity activISTS like acorn, represented by lawyers, like the moonbat messiah for example, out there on the front lines extorting the banks. of course there are a lot of McMansions in foreclosure, along with a lot of everything else. You don't think they could just offer those terms to the affirmative action loan market? The whole real estate market was overinflating from the bottom up, and if they hadn't kept everything moving, it would have been a lot sooner that nothing was moving.

I'm not saying nobody knew there was something wrong with it; that's obviously not the case given the number of times the R's tried to rein things in, only to be foiled by the rats. Maybe they just didn't try hard enough, but who's more to blame, the one who fails to stop a wrong or the one who prevents him from stopping it?

This isn't really hard to understand unless you just don't want to.

The need for the CRA arose when banks located in certain areas wouldn't lend their deposits to the surrounding neighborhood. It's called redlining. The banks would take the deposits from people and not loan it back to them which banks are supposed to do. Did you all flunk capitalism 101? So the government told banks that if they wanted certain ratings they had to start loaning to their depositors. THEY WERE NOT FORCED. And never were they forced to loan money to unworthy applicants.

Here is something for those of you who insist there was something in the CRA that forced banks to loan money. THERE WASN'T. It's a ruling from the assistant attorney general stating that there is no financial penalty that can be levied against banks that don't comply with the CRA:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/cra.htm

Here's a piece:

By its terms, the CRA provides only that the agencies must evaluate an institution�s record of meeting the credit needs of the community, that the agencies must take that record into account when considering an institution�s application for permission to merge or expand, and that the agencies must prepare a written record of their evaluations for public dissemination. Nowhere does the CRA expressly impose any obligation on financial institutions themselves. The statute�s references to financial institutions are couched in precatory rather than mandatory terms. In the �statement of purpose� provision of the CRA, Congress stated that �it is the purpose of this chapter to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority . . . to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of [their] communities . . . .� 12 U.S.C. � 2901(b) (emphasis added). The CRA does not instruct the agencies to require institutions to meet community credit needs. Moreover, although the CRA directs the agencies to take an institution�s record of meeting credit needs into account when evaluating the institution�s application for a deposit facility, 12 U.S.C. � 2903, it does not require the agencies to deny applications from institutions with questionable records.(7)

There's more but you get the idea. Read it yourself if you can understand it. Let me warn you- it won't fit neatly into your theory that the poor took us down.

But you'll find some reason to reject it because you know if you don't you'll have to accept that it was the Wall Street republicans and their friends in the White House and Congress who led us to this crisis. The republicans not only didn't try to rein anything in, they encouraged the shady loan practices to continue.

This economic crisis has PROPERTY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY stamped all over it.

Evilwrench, did you understand the part where it says there was no requirement?

Read the whole ruling. There were no fines either. None. Zip. Nada.

Who will you blame now? Maybe it was the homosexuals, they're always a good culprit for conservatives.

Nope, though there were a couple of homos hip deep in this thing, the CRA is still at the root of it, though it couldn't have achieved what it did without fannie & freddie cheering it on. Even in the parts you quoted there are teeth. You just have to be able to read though the government-ese. You want it to sound like a kindergarten teacher telling the kid with the crayons "it's nice to share."

All that stuff really does say "you make loans to people who can't pay them back if you know what's good for you." How else were people like acorn and the moonbat messiah able to use this thing to extort loans from banks, if there are no teeth to it? Greed makes people do some dumb things sometimes, but loaning money out with little prospect of it coming back is not an expression of greed.

The CRA puts you between a rock and a hard place. Then fannie & freddie come along "implying" they back it all, so it'll all be ok. The banks still wanted rid of the paper, and the buyers of the bonds would have been stupid to buy them if they knew how rotten they really were. Now, I'm not saying it was all "the poor" either, but affirmaive action mortgages broke real estate values loose from inflaion, and once they were loose they floated free. That's how bubbles start, and we know how they always wind up.

Oh, and... what ever happened to he guys that were in charge of fannie & freddie after they absconded with some millions? Know where they are today?

Wanted: One henhouse guard, no experience necessary. EOE; foxes encouraged to apply.

The more I hear this idiot truth-fu*ker rant on, the better I feel that the dems, especially, Dodd and Frank, are 80% to blame. It makes me happy seeing an idiot Obmanite defend the indefensible. Go get 'em Mr. Evilwrench! If this were a college debate class, truthfu*ker would be your bitch.

Allow me to recap:

Evil and others say the CRA forced banks to loan money to poor people that couldn't pay it back, leading to the financial crisis.

Truth speaker:

From the CEO of Bank of America: "But the charge that CRA lending was the primary or foundational cause of our housing crisis is not only unfair, it’s not true."

From Ben Bernanke, Cheif of the Fed: "The available evidence to date, however, does not lend support to the argument that CRA is to blame for causing the subprime loan crisis," Bernanke wrote.

Links: http://tinyurl.com/9bxqms
http://tinyurl.com/9sjnuj

Evil and others say banks were subject to fines if they didn't lend to poor people who couldn't pay the money back.

Truth speaker:

A Department of Justice ruling explains how there is NO FINANCIAL PENALTY FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE CRA. NEVER HAS BEEN. The only legal recourse the government has against banks for noncompliance is to rate the bank during the bank's application for a new bank branch or a merger.

Link: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/cra.htm

NEW INFORMATION:

Bank regulators rarely give banks ratings other than "satisfactory" or "outstanding". More proof that NO BANKS DID ANYTHING AGAINST THEIR WILL.

link: http://tinyurl.com/7hkogc

The purpose of the CRA as written "is to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet thecredit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operations of such institutions."

NO BANKS WERE FORCED TO MAKE RISKY LOANS.

A study by the Orange County Register concluded that 80% of subprime loans made between 2004 and 2007 were from banks that were NOT SUBJECT TO THE CRA:

Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law

Did a 31-year-old law giving poor people a break at the bank accidentally break the bank?

A lot of opinion leaders think so. From the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal to talk shows to the op-ed page of The Register, people are charging that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 forced banks to make bad loans, leading to financial Armageddon.

There's just one problem: It isn't true.

A Register analysis of more than 12 million subprime mortgages worth nearly $2 trillion shows that most of the lenders who made risky subprime loans were exempt from the Community Reinvestment Act. And many of the lenders covered by the law that did make subprime loans came late to that market – after smaller, unregulated players showed there was money to be made.

Among our conclusions:

Nearly $3 of every $4 in subprime loans made from 2004 through 2007 came from lenders who were exempt from the law.

There you have it. If you think the CRA was even a minor factor in this economic crisis, you are wrong.

Try reading a bit, doing some research before you swallow your party's lies. You'll never regain power through ignorance.

Okay, truth fucker, answer me this. If the dems hold no blame than why did Barney "Hide the" Frank agree that Freddie and Fanny were a-okay. If the dems are so innocent than why was the chairman do much of a fucking moron that he couldn't see the bubble about to burst? Answer? The answer is because he, like all libtards, are incapable of seeing the forest through the trees. Here we have Frank say that things (in 2006) are good and to pass any oversight would be a travesty. The truth is truthfucker is that the dems are 80% the reason we are where we are. Now go jack off.

Remember Dino, the libtard moron? You have to read this blog as it relates to Freddie and Fannie. Dino gets so frustrated at being a moron that he absolutely loses it, Howard Dean-style. This is too priceless to miss folks. This blog sounds just like the crap truthfucker spews.

http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/the_cra_fannie_freddie_and_faulty_conservative_dogma/

could Dino be the Truth Queer?