patrick.net

BAP:

In response to your quote: "hmmmm, not sure … maybe a crack addicted single mother of 5 (each with a different daddy) that is a 6th generations-removed slave could explain how to retain that historical blaming ability you mention - maby the key is using hope-n-change?"

The mental enslavement and impoverished thoughts holding the black community back are a direct result of what occurred 40 years ago....you make it seem as if blacks had a fair shot at the American Dream in the 1960's, 1970's. It wasnt until corporations realized that they were excluding talent that could potentially increase revenues that they started embracing equal employment. A crack addicted mother that is 6 generations removed from slavery deserves our empathy yet NOT our sympathy. It was her choice, however, her children will suffer the ramifications of her choice. Hopefully, those children will latch on to HOPE and CHANGE in order to turn around their lives. Lets all hope that these children show the extreme levels of resiliency it takes to break the cycle of poverty and reverse the history of discrimination the black community has faced for the past 400 years.

Here is your answer. When people go without basic necessities and hear talk of the American Dream, envy kicks in and they look for someone to blame for their not being able to achieve that same dream. When the realization kicks in that you are not living the lgood life everyone else is we all have a choice:

1. Show Resiliency - Work toward accomplishing that dream through education, skill building, self improvement
2. Reject Success/Pop Culture - Fall into the trap of blaming others, envy, frustration, anger, and disconnect from popular society.

You should be ashamed of your comments here, they show no remorse for America's past which is riddled with discrimination and hatred against a people whose history is filled with achievement. Today, Africans come to America free of the enslaved thoughts and just like the Irish, Italians of the early 1900's they achieve success because they have no realization of a past that ever held them back.

I encourage you to understand the true history of this nation, built on the free labor of the past.

Kurt S: It’s hard to grasp the implications, because people who spent years studying the housing bubble might not conclude its root cause was a devious socialist plot. In fact, residential RE was nothing but a boom to business and the liberal media until homeowners could not pay resetting morts. But that’s the way your typical lefty conspirator works–he suckers you in with loose lending and easy mortgages so his lefty banking friends can make billions off the commie derivatives market. Then, before you know it, the banks are so deeply awash in debt that their only hope is to usher in a new age of socialism (for them) by brainwashing homedebtor Americans to elect Wall Street’s very own euro-socialist candidate Obama, thus destroying the efficient free-market system. I know, it’s all so hard to believe, but trust me—this is what happened! There’s no limit to depraved socialist trickery.

Are you calling George Bush Sr. a socialist? He drafted Gramm-Leach-Bliley in response to the S&L Crisis of 1989, Clinton signed it in 1992.

Thunderlips: YES, NAFTA was written to allow American businesses the opportunity to compete in the global market place. No, it was written to allow US businesses to move to Mexico and have an opportunity to make goods at Mexican wages while charging American Prices. We did just fine without free trade from 1792-1972.

So free trade stopped in 1972, explain?...I need to read up on this.

Many people in America are not aware that regulation IS the cause of bubbles, economic downturns, jobs moving off-shore, etc. Right. Until the 20th Century and those pesky progressives from Teddy to FDR to Nixon… without the ERA, Child Labor Laws, HUD, AFDC, and the FDA and EPA… there were never any business cycles. There weren’t any panics in the 19th Century!
There also wasnt any stock market or large corporations right?

BAP - I stand corrected. I want my rating to be 100%

:) Abe

Staynumz: Wow, the leftist really got in a tizzy in this thread. I know it hurts when your leader and your party let you down. And you must be smarting with what owebama has done. But come on, call a spade a spade. CRA was a leftist idea. Do you honestly think it is a good idea to assist people that cant afford a house to “buy” one?

Sounds like you are a bit tiffed about the anti-bush sentiment going around. Obama is only making his first attempts at repairing the mistakes of the last 8 years. Yes, it is a good idea to assist people with buying a home...just not a home that is unaffordable with their income/debt ratio. All expenses need to be considered prior to lending anyone a home. First Obama, has not put our country at risk by engaging in new wartime efforts. Even if he is not making decisions that I consider impactful, I know he is making sound judgements in pursuit of improving the US economy, healthcare, and military efforts. 25% of the federal budget goes to the Military efforts so if you think it is better to invest more in WAR than HEALTHCARE just try getting really sick, go bankrupt and then give us your opinion on your death bed when your family is suffering the consequences of your choices. Everyone is 1 major illness away from bankruptcy, we must do something for the American People now that we have save the American Businesses.

...trust me on this one your not prepared to debate with a true progressive and supporter of Obama. You can bully others with banter, but lets use the facts here:

@4X,
#1) If you can find a race mentioned in my post, reveal it. All you have done is prove yurself a racist. Your smart assed hammer swinging does not impress me.
#2) my post was in response to a specific post and you refuse to read it in context .. big suprize. The point being historical guilt / blame ... but, actually reading what is in front of you does not seem to be your thing. You should be ashamed.
#3) what percentage "black" or "African" (both your words, not mine) must a person be to be able to call themselves black? must they look negro? must they have dark skin? surly you have a ruler you can point us to so we can be enlightened.

4X said, "Yes, it is a good idea to assist people with buying a home…"
Bap33 says, "Prove it."

@BAP,
#1) If you can find a race mentioned in my post, reveal it. All you have done is prove yurself a racist. Your smart assed hammer swinging does not impress me.

When you speak of slaves in America, you speak of Black Americans. You surely were not speaking of slavery in the Congo where the fighting between the Hutu and Tutsi which has resulted in enslavement.

#2) my post was in response to a specific post and you refuse to read it in context .. big suprize. The point being historical guilt / blame … but, actually reading what is in front of you does not seem to be your thing. You should be ashamed.

When you speak of asking a crack mom with 6 kids "how to use the blame game" then you show ignorance of why people blame and also attempt to paint the picture of a certain demographic of people as being disfunctional. Your underlying message was clear, I understood your point being that we need to speak with someone who blames others for their misfortune. However, your approach was off track and showed poor taste. Shame on you for showing no remorse for any 6th generation children of slaves, they need our empathy and good will. Imagine if someone had of kicked you until you were down for 400 years and then all of sudden released your shackles, sent you on your way with no education or understanding of how society works. Some Black Americans are in the infancy stages of assimilating into American culture where as others are fully integrated into achieving the American Dream. Shame on you for your superiority complex.

#3) what percentage “black” or “African” (both your words, not mine) must a person be to be able to call themselves black? must they look negro? must they have dark skin? surly you have a ruler you can point us to so we can be enlightened.

Black describes descendants of the African Slaves that came here 400 years ago. African describes those who currently reside in Africa, including the South Afrikan whites.

I would love to continue this battle of wits with you, but you have obviously come unprepared.

1) you can not find race, or America, or anything else you mention in my post. You are a thug racist.
2) you're rediculous
3) you refuse to answer. why? I want to see/read/experience the ruler you use oh great and mighty know-it-all.

@BAP
1) you can not find race, or America, or anything else you mention in my post. You are a thug racist.
2) you’re rediculous
3) you refuse to answer. why? I want to see/read/experience the ruler you use oh great and mighty know-it-all.

Well, your not being able to complete a sentence using proper English leads me to believe that a 3rd grade education is not going to get you far in this debate. How do you spell ridiculous again? So, let me get this right, your referring to a "crack addicted single mother of 5 (each with a different daddy) that is a 6th generations-removed slave " does not insinuate or lead us to believe you are speaking of a African American Woman who is on crack?

Ohh, I know...BAP stands for Black American Princess. Your African American and were only referring to yourself.

Geez...I feel like I am debating myself here.

Honest Abe says

Answer this: Was America a better place (more freedom, sound money, fewer taxes, less regulation, less inflation, in the 1950's

More freedom? Rosa Parks disagrees.

During the 1950's the top tax brackets were over 90%. I think your history book has a misprint if it describes 1950 America as a nearly tax-free utopia. Similarly corporate taxes would be considered RUINOUSLY high by post-1980 standards and yet American business thrived. Sound money went out the door with gold & silver standards which is much further back.

Here's one link to historic tax info:

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates

The one true statement above is that inflation was nearly non-existent during 1950's but the private banker cartel known as the Federal Reserve view this as a FAILURE of their inflationary policies. The modus operandi of bankers is to inflate the money supply to rob the middle class, but they prefer to do it at a steady and predictable rate. You have to boil the frog very slowly. When they fail, they never utter the word "deflation" even if it's present like now, they say "inflation is negative" because the other word cannot be spoken. It baffles me why people accept this as normal without questioning why inflation is supposed to be the natural order, or whether it's good for the nation and the economy.

Tonight on PBS Frontline there was a highly informative program with the title "The Warning",

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

The program explains how CFTC chairwoman Brooksley Born in 1997 tried to regulate the over-the-counter (OTC) financial derivatives market but was viciously suppressed by the troika of Greenspan, Rubin and Summers plus Arthur Levitt (SEC). Greenspan even went so far as saying that even *fraud* should not be regulated, because "the market would take care of it".

The next year (1998), the failure of the LTCM hedge fund demonstrated exactly what Born had predicted was due to lack of OTC regulation. A large portion of 1.6B of the 4.6B total losses were attributable to OTC derivatives.

Greenspan convinced Congress that LTCM was just an "anomaly of the markets". or a "Black Swan" as we call it today (Greenspan later admitted his mistaken belief in the free markets during 2008-10-23 congressional testimony, in the aftermath of the Lehman crisis.)

Congress then passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) in 1999, forbidding the CFTC from regulating OTC financial swaps (spare me the crap about Clinton being president at the time, please).

And the rest, from 1999-2009, is history.

If we do not soon get our act together and regulate harshly, I'm afraid that same history will soon repeat itself. So enough with the nonsense about CRA, and get cracking on where the real problems are.

Also look up GLBA, Greenspan, and Born on Wikipedia for more details. And no, I won't take any shit about how Wikipedia is LIBRUL and therefore must be wrong. That is not a valid argument against the truth.

Honest Abe says

TAPUPU, one simple comparison should convince even you that the liberal policies of the past 40 + years have been a series of costly failed experiements. Answer this: Was America a better place (more freedom, sound money, fewer taxes, less regulation, less inflation, low house prices, fewer stupid laws, etc) in the 1950’s or now - in our current liberal nightmare we find ourselves in? Honest Abe.

OK--so let's go through your assumptions and try to see how true they are. I know you prefer not to let the truth interfere with your posts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg

Looking at the chart, certainly appears that taxes were much higher back in the 50's, doesn't it?

Not sure how you quantify more "freedom" or "fewer stupid laws". I'll agree that the Patriot Act has reduced our freedom some, but the strides made in gaining equality for everyone has probably more than offset for it. Stupid laws exist in every decade. House prices are higher now--mostly due to inflation, but partly due to the housing bubble. That's a temporary situation, however, as everyone is learning these days. Finally, the last 2.5 decades (since Reagan) have been a non-ending orgy of de-regulation. So, for you to suggest that we are MORE regulated than in the 50's is pure folly.

Just our of curiousity, what are these policies of the past 40+ years that have been so costly?? And please don't mention the CRA. Hopefully, you've realized that it had very little to zero effect on the housing bubble by now.

4X, if you somehow have a mental glitch that equates drug use and single parenting to Americans that look like Negro's, that is your personal problem. You are a thug racist.

@justme,
that is good information you share, but in my opinion the "idea" to grant access to homeloanership to people that do not make the cut based on their own income and ability to repay the note --- all on there own --- was a very bad idea, and allowed this mess to get going. We both have said "perfect storm" in the past, and it hold true still.

@Honest Abe,
You are a great American, and your voice and opinion needs to spread like wildfire to save this land. Thank you.

Bap33 says

@justme,
that is good information you share, but in my opinion the “idea” to grant access to homeloanership to people that do not make the cut based on their own income and ability to repay the note — all on there own — was a very bad idea, and allowed this mess to get going. We both have said “perfect storm” in the past, and it hold true still.

I think there is a misconception out there about what the CRA actually was(and is). Here is what the Fed says:

"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 operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulation BB (12 CFR 228). The regulation was substantially revised in May 1995, and was most recently amended in August 2005.
Evaluation of CRA Performance
The CRA requires that each depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities.

Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions. Rather, the law indicates that the evaluation process should accommodate an institution's individual circumstances. Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.

CRA examinations are conducted by the federal agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions. Information on this page is related to depository institutions that are examined by the Federal Reserve, mainly state-chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve. CRA information on other depository institutions is available from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). Interagency information about the CRA is available from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)."

It specifically mentions on multiple occasions that it is not designed to encourage risky loans. "CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner" If banks chose to make crappy decisions, it was their own doing. And now they are just trying to pass the blame for their ineptness.

Yes indeed as "justme" posted, watch this:

Frontline: The Warning

Wall Street & toady nutjobs like Greenspan, were the NAVIGATORS, giving the directions that drove us off the cliff. Politicians are just the idiot driver following bad directions. It should be obvious to anyone after GM got a drubbing by Congress when they came hat in hand, yet when banks held a gun to all our heads, they meekly handed over a blank check.

... and Barry Ritholtz has some commentary on the Born/Frontline program:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/10/brooksley-born-on-pbs-frontline-tonight-talking-about-the-financial-crisis/

@tatopu,
WOuld you agree that this is another case of "great intentions" gone bad? And in that doc the verbage suggests that banking is "local", IE - local communities -- that is not realistic. Also, why were banks taken to court, or threatened with action by folks like Barry and B.Frank and ACORN?? Was it not to force (bad) loans? If you say no, I'll be forced to go gather those dang links, so please just agree. lol

Vicente says

Wall Street & toady nutjobs like Greenspan, were the NAVIGATORS, giving the directions that drove us off the cliff.

Yeah...given all the "cheap gas" by the Fed, banks put the "pedal to the floor" on mortgage volume. All they cared about was "speed"; the risk of cliff-diving was bundled and sold off to investors. Sheer mort volume and decoupled risk were done simply for profit, as ample documentation suggests. Redlining played little if any role in "prime" bubble RE markets--and nobody forced the banks to make money by dubious means--and eventually drive off that cliff. The notion that markets cannot destroy themselves is false; they are no more perfect than Humanity. History shows how markets often hang themselves by their own rope--I feel like Obvious Man stating this. 1929 is but one example.

You keep acting like CRA means beans and thus is worth sensible people spending a lot of effort dissecting. It's as if in the World Trade Center lobby early morning September 11th 2001 there had been a mugging, that would be FASCINATING and the MOST IMPORTANT EVENT of that day at that location.

A few lawsuits here and there for some small sums, no regulatory actions of note, no obvious data of any sort that CRA was the key difference that cost us umpty TRILLIONS of dollars. AFAICT the CRA might have had some small impact in subprime, but our economic problems went FAR FAR beyond subprime into all kinds of mortgages, securities, and derivatives-squared, and just outright fraud. Yet you are totally obsessed by it, as if that mugger made the planes crash into the Towers. You haven't made your case very well and now you want others to prove you wrong. Good luck with that.

umm ... more like the politico folks that did not allow the CIA and FBI to collaberate the evidence of the planning hi-jackers as reported by the flight school .. blamming the politicos (klinton group) is what I would do, blaming the flight attendant for teaching them to fly is what some would do. Others on here would blame the people that built the cranes that were used to help build the Twin Towers.

I do agree Vincent, CRA was sub-prime specific (NINJA). And we agree that flooding the bottom with free money resulted in over-night specuvestors that knew how to play money and did the exotic poop to sucker in more bottom buyers as well as free-up bubble-equity for middle income folks (Alt A, HELOC, ect).

The fact that the gov has nursed the banks that should be allowed to die, created "buyer incentives"(currently $8K) for non-buyers, changed loan intrest rates to intice upside down loanowners, all on the backs of tomorrows taxpayers - and still the market is resetting - should result in the friggin gov staying out of RE lending all together.

Bap33 says

@tatopu,
WOuld you agree that this is another case of “great intentions” gone bad? And in that doc the verbage suggests that banking is “local”, IE - local communities — that is not realistic. Also, why were banks taken to court, or threatened with action by folks like Barry and B.Frank and ACORN?? Was it not to force (bad) loans? If you say no, I’ll be forced to go gather those dang links, so please just agree. lol

No, I wouldn't agree. Please post some links. I'm anxiously awaiting them!

The reports I've seen suggest that CRA had very little effect on anything, but any affect it did have was likely positive.

Bap33 says

should result in the friggin gov staying out of RE lending all together.

I'd agree with the tax credit being undesirable distortion. Otherwise, the idea CRA was the first hit of heroin and after that bankers were just zombie junkies unable to think for themselves simply doesn't wash. They knew exactly what they were doing. Run up a bubble, then take the money and run.

For the record "flight attendants" seem unlikely to be teaching anyone to fly a plane.

Cheers!

heck .. I meant flight instructors .. lol ... dang it.

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says

@tatopu,
WOuld you agree that this is another case of “great intentions” gone bad? And in that doc the verbage suggests that banking is “local”, IE - local communities — that is not realistic. Also, why were banks taken to court, or threatened with action by folks like Barry and B.Frank and ACORN?? Was it not to force (bad) loans? If you say no, I’ll be forced to go gather those dang links, so please just agree. lol

No, I wouldn’t agree. Please post some links. I’m anxiously awaiting them!
The reports I’ve seen suggest that CRA had very little effect on anything, but any affect it did have was likely positive.

Here is the proof of Barry and Barney and ACRON forcing banks to do bad loans:

search #1: "fannie mae and freddie mac barney frank"
result #1: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBF_en&q=fannie+mae+and+freddie+mac+barney+frank&revid=2032497490&ei=d23fSqKqD5LqsQPc6a3mDw&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=0&ct=broad-revision&cd=1&ved=0CCAQ1QIoAA

search #2: "acorn sues bank"
result #2: http://www.google.com/search?q=acorn+sues+bank&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBF_en

I did it that way to avoid the "you pick and choose" arguement that follows. Happy reading.

one more .. for the CRA defenders : http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-did-bank-of-america-pay-acorn/

total time spend researching, 2 minutes. I had to answer the phone between posts. lol

Bap33 says

Here is the proof of Barry and Barney and ACRON forcing banks to do bad loans:
search #1: “fannie mae and freddie mac barney frank”
result #1: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBF_en&q=fannie+mae+and+freddie+mac+barney+frank&revid=2032497490&ei=d23fSqKqD5LqsQPc6a3mDw&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=0&ct=broad-revision&cd=1&ved=0CCAQ1QIoAA
search #2: “acorn sues bank”
result #2: http://www.google.com/search?q=acorn+sues+bank&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBF_en
I did it that way to avoid the “you pick and choose” arguement that follows. Happy reading.

Bap--

A google search doesn't really prove anything. If you want to prove something, please post a link to a reputable article showing instances of banks being forced to make bad loans against their will.

By your logic, the following is proof that the world will end in 2012:

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu6v_b99KIFABFF1XNyoA?p=ending+of+world+2012&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&sao=1

Or that George W. Bush is actually a monkey:

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu5MOcN9Kn8wA5atXNyoA?p=George+Bush+is+monkey&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&sao=1

Or that Israel caused 9/11:

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geutgycN9K_z0A1NpXNyoA?p=Israel+caused+9%2F11&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&sao=2

Obviously, none of that is true, but you can get a google or yahoo search to tell you whatever you want it to. There are enough nutjobs out there with blogs...

And pajamas TV doesn't count as a reputable source..

@BAP33

You cant even remember your own ignorant statements, I quote you as a racist stating "“crack addicted single mother of 5 (each with a different daddy) that is a 6th generations-removed slave ” So we are to believe a "6th generations-removed slave" was not meant to refer to a Black American?

I get it...you were referring to Chinese slaves or Anglo-Germanic slaves that were brought to this country on slave ships in the 1600's?

@tatupu70

BAP33 doesnt use logic, only rhetoric to prove herself right. She is a Black American Princess that is 33 years old and likes to refer to other African Americans as "Slaves" and "Crack Moms".

the search option was so you could choose any one of many examples and avoid doing EXACTLY what you did with the pajama story.. see how that worked? Now go back and read a few of the hits on each search.

4X, please leave me out of your racist attacks.

"Congress then passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) in 1999, forbidding the CFTC from regulating OTC financial swaps (spare me the crap about Clinton being president at the time, please)."

OTC financial swaps in what? in what 'assets' did the OTC swaps invest in ... was it highly graded S&P mortgages back securities ?

Ask Barney Franks if there is a Real Estate bubble which will implode like the Tech Bubble and he answers back ...
Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE

Clearly Franks thinks prices were sustainable, if not fundamental justified , and therefore any OTC swaps were clearly not a concern because a housing bubble did not exist and any implosion in prices just wasn't going to happen.

Certainly in 2001-03 the warning of systemic risk to economy was openly discussed but it was stone walled by Congress!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

Anyone catch this one... Seems no one was interested in the Accounting Fraud, over paid CEOs, and risks to economy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

Overall, Franks still talks about the credit crunch and wall street as the cause of home price drops.

No doubt, Franks must believe once you provide more funding, prices can go up. Would anyone be surprised about that?

Sure Franks and Company like to regulate the evil banks and wall street, but hell over high water do they want to regulate risky government backed entities. The CRA was just another Government backed program for social engineering.

Bap33 says

the search option was so you could choose any one of many examples and avoid doing EXACTLY what you did with the pajama story.. see how that worked? Now go back and read a few of the hits on each search.

So, what you're saying is that you couldn't find any reputable links for me, so instead you posted a link to a google search with 10 crappy links. In your mind, if there are 10 wackos out there writing it, then it must be true?

Still waiting...

@tatupu,
welp .... you are the suggesting I pin-point a "reputable source". You are the only one that knows what sources you find reputable. Please name me your top three "reputable sources", and I'll see if they even covered any part of these stories, and if they did I'll get you the exact link vs. you having to read anything or click a "next page" arrow.

Your next step is to list your three top reputable choices.

How about something without the word pajamas in the title? We can start there. I'm really not that picky--just something from an actual news organization and not a blogger. I'll give you an example here:

http://www.bis.org/publ/work259.pdf?noframes=1

I'll encourage you to read this. It's very interesting.

Vicente says

Yes indeed as “justme” posted, watch this:
Frontline: The Warning
Wall Street & toady nutjobs like Greenspan, were the NAVIGATORS, giving the directions that drove us off the cliff. Politicians are just the idiot driver following bad directions. It should be obvious to anyone after GM got a drubbing by Congress when they came hat in hand, yet when banks held a gun to all our heads, they meekly handed over a blank check.

Justme and Vincente, I watched the tail end of this Frontline report last night. Really eye-opening stuff. I had a good idea already that Greenspan et al were 'free marketers' who navigated the Pols off the cliff, i.e. their guidance was a big reason for the bubbles (including Internet bubble) and subsequent crash(es). The specifics of Ms. Born and her warning was news to me however. A true American Patriot.

elvis says

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is a US Federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of low income borrowers. In other words bank were, in essence, forced to make loans to non-qualified borrowers. The benevolent US government pushed the risk of doing so onto unsuspecting taxpayers (Thanks Uncle Sam). Very few positive things in life are derived through force or forcing risk onto others.

Ummmm, not exactly. I'll post it again to refresh your memory.

tatupu70 says

“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 operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulation BB (12 CFR 228). The regulation was substantially revised in May 1995, and was most recently amended in August 2005.
Evaluation of CRA Performance
The CRA requires that each depository institution’s record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution’s application for deposit facilities.
Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions. Rather, the law indicates that the evaluation process should accommodate an institution’s individual circumstances. Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution’s CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.
CRA examinations are conducted by the federal agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions. Information on this page is related to depository institutions that are examined by the Federal Reserve, mainly state-chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve. CRA information on other depository institutions is available from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). Interagency information about the CRA is available from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC).”

Nice try though--I like the theory that it's the smart people that are ruining the country. I know I'd feel better with Homer Simpson in charge. Oh wait, we just voted him out of office, didn't we?

Tatupu - I'd like to say my description of CRA is 'close enough' for Government work - haha.

And right on - you'd LIKE to think smart people are running the country...but as you say, its a "theory". Yes, Homer is gone but so many more need replacing. RE-ELECT NO ONE. :)

Honest Abe says

Yes, Homer is gone but so many more need replacing. RE-ELECT NO ONE

I don't necessarily disagree with that one... If only I thought there was anyone better waiting in the wings...

Just for you tatupu:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/the-true-origins-of-this-finan
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080924145932.aspx
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html

we pause for some excellant quotes contained in and properly accredited in these links:

"An additional 4.5 million were guaranteed by the FHA and sold through Ginnie Mae before 2008, and a further 2.5 million loans were made under the rubric of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which required insured banks to provide mortgage credit to home buyers who were at or below 80% of median income. Thus, almost two-thirds of all the bad mortgages in our financial system, many of which are now defaulting at unprecedented rates, were bought by government agencies or required by government regulations. "

"In analyzing the mortgage crisis, economist Walter E. Williams has written: “Starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that was given more teeth during the Clinton administration, Congress started intimidating banks and other financial institutions into making loans, so-called sub-prime loans, to high-risk homebuyers and businesses."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574475110152189446.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/49791
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

ok, last one: "The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued." -- Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

Welp, happy spinning. lol