Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
Informed Opinion

United States

#7618 Apr 24, 2013
Bored wrote:
<quoted text>Don't have a paycheck. Live on investment return.
Forget your ss increase come next year, Obama is cutting your pay.
Glad your inheritance worked out well for you.

We should all pick richer parents.
Bored

Commerce, GA

#7619 Apr 24, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, that's really a compelling case, except that CRA isn't what you think it is, and there's that little problem of Fannie and Freddie dealing with conforming loans. But hey, your story sounds really good.
And so does you story beginning in the middleof the story. Let's go back to another decade.

The story is laid out in detail in The Great American Bank Robbery by Paul Sperry and The Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell. Here it is in a nutshell.

Back in the early Clinton years, the big public debate was over Hillary Clinton's controversial plan to overhaul the healthcare system. But the Clintons had another major agenda item that was hardly noticed at the time: to aggressively promote homeownership for racial minorities.

Based on a flawed study by the Boston Fed in 1992 (coauthored by an economist friend of Hillary), the Democrats claimed that minority homeownership rates were being held back by "racist" banking practices. The study found that minorities had a higher rejection rate for home loan applications than the general public. Without providing any direct evidence, the authors simply assumed that the underlying cause must be institutional racism in the banking industry.

Common sense tells us, however, that racist lending practices would backfire and harm no one except the very banks, if any, that engaged in such practices. If some banks were willing to pass up good business opportunities in order to deny loans to minorities, other banks would certainly be more than happy to step in and take the business. And if all white-owned banks were racist, a golden opportunity would exist for wealthy minorities (or non-racist whites) to open banks in under-served areas and do a booming business with little effort. Any wealthy entertainer or athlete, such as Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, or any of hundreds of other wealthy athletes, could easily sponsor such a bank, for example. To believe that racist banks can stop qualified minorities from getting loans in this day and age, one must believe that (1) all white-owned banks are racist, and (2) no wealthy minorities (or non-racist whites) are willing to fill the void and make lots of easy money while providing badly needed services to minority communities.

But the Clintons and many other Democrats apparently believed such economic nonsense. To remedy the alleged racism at banks, they strengthened the "anti-redlining" regulations of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which had originally been passed during the Carter years, and they instituted an aggressive campaign that forced lenders to abandon their established underwriting criteria and drastically lower their standards to accommodate minorities who would not otherwise qualify for a home loan.

Key figures in the matter were Attorney General Janet Reno and her Deputy, none other than Eric Holder. They aggressively intimidated banks with threats of prosecution, lawsuits, stiff fines, and regulatory roadblocks to expansion and mergers. They paid little attention to actual lending practices and underwriting criteria, focusing instead on the end results in terms of percentages of minority loans approved. It mattered not whether the lenders were actually discriminating on the basis of race or whether minorities in general simply had worse credit histories (statistics show that they do). It was classic "affirmative action" for home loans.
Bored

Commerce, GA

#7620 Apr 24, 2013

Reno aggressively prosecuted several banks for "racist" lending practices, and she also encouraged private lawsuits against banks. One such lawsuit was filed against Citibank by a little-known community organizer and civil-rights lawyer named Barack Obama. Other government agencies also embarked on witch-hunts, including the Comptroller of Currency, the President's Fair Housing Council, and the Inter-agency Task Force on Fair Lending, the latter two having been set up by the Clinton administration specifically to harass banks. They even pressured some banks to open offices in dangerous neighborhoods.

With the US Attorney General and several other government agencies pressuring them to give more loans to minorities, banks and other lenders had no choice but to figure out ways to lower their underwriting standards. They drastically reduced or eliminated minimum down payments, increased limits on debt-to-income ratio, and started counting unemployment checks and food stamps as "income"! Then there were the infamous "NINJA" loans (no income, no job, no assets -- no problem). It was financial insanity run amok -- forced on lenders by the authority of the US government.

Not surprisingly, the reckless lending standards created the largest housing bubble in history. The bubble masked the underlying problem for several years. As long as housing prices were appreciating at a sufficient rate, the problem was not apparent and did not seem particularly urgent, certainly not to the general public. The unqualified buyers who got in early enough did reasonably well. As long as their property value had appreciated sufficiently they could always sell at a profit, or refinance, and not face default and foreclosure. But the unqualified buyers who got in later lost their homes and ended up much worse off than they would have been had traditional, uncoerced banking practices been permitted. It was a classic case of the unintended consequences of bad economic policy -- ultimately harming the very minorities it was intended to help.

In 1995, HUD (The Dept. of Housing and Urban Development) authorized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase mortgage-backed securities that included subprime and other risky CRA home loans. Since Fannie and Freddie are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), this unprecedented move was widely interpreted by banks and Wall Street as implied government backing of subprime mortgages. Though hardly noticed at the time, this development effectively shifted the liability for loan defaults from lenders to taxpayers. By relieving lenders of financial risk for loan defaults, it strongly encouraged them to give more loans to unqualified applicants. As if all that weren't bad enough, it also started the whole secondary market for subprime mortgages, which ended with the massive failures and subsequent bailouts of financial giants such as AIG and Citigroup. Had Clinton not started this bogus "investment" policy back in 1995, the massive TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bailouts in 2008 would have been completely unnecessary.
Bored

Commerce, GA

#7621 Apr 24, 2013
Eventually the housing bubble burst, but not until around 2006 or 2007. By 2008 it brought the entire financial system to its knees, and since the Republicans had the White House at that time, the Democrats and the "mainstream" media were able to pin the brunt of the political blame on them. The general public was hardly aware of the historical roots of the problem, and the party in power was assumed to be responsible, as usual. The general public tends to naively assume that the party in power has full control of the economy and is completely unencumbered by existing laws, regulations, and policies that were in place before they were elected. In the case of the subprime mortgage crisis, that was a very bad assumption.

The Republicans were not completely innocent in the matter, but they were certainly not the driving force behind the subprime mortgage meltdown and the subsequent financial crisis. President Bush promoted legitimate homeownership, but he also caved in to the Democrats' racial demagoguery and "went along" with their program to some extent. However, when Bush and the Republican Congress tried to actually head off the subprime mortgage crisis before it was too late, the Democrats opposed them fiercely.

When the Republicans attempted to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005, for example, the Democrats called them racists, as usual, and thwarted their efforts by filibustering with only 45 votes in the Senate.(A filibuster allows the minority party to block legislation in the US Senate with only 40 of 100 votes.) Hence, the Democrats prevailed even though the Republicans had the Presidency and controlled both house of Congress. But the general public simply assumes that the party in power must be responsible, and the Democrats managed to perpetrate the blatant lie that Republican opposition to stronger regulation was at the root of the problem.

Democratic Congressman Barney Frank and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, along with nearly all other Democrats in Congress, opposed the Republicans initiatives to reform Fannie and Freddie, insisting repeatedly that those government sponsored enterprises were in sound financial condition and functioning as intended. Many Democrats claimed that Republicans simply wanted to suppress minority homeownership. It's all on record, both written and video. Dodd and Frank later became the primary architects of the massive Dodd-Frank banking reform Act that was signed into law by Obama. Yeah, those are the two guys who should be rewriting banking regulations!(Not surprisingly, their reform bill does nothing to reform Fannie and Freddie.)

Leftists talk about "greedy" banks and "predatory" lending practices, but it was the Democrats who had actually forced banks against their will to recklessly provide home loans to unqualified applicants, many of whom later lost their homes to foreclosure. Before the housing bubble burst, Bill Clinton's website proudly touted his accomplishments in promoting minority homeownership. After the bubble burst, that material was scrubbed and replaced with material blaming Republicans and banks for the financial crisis and the ensuing major recession. As a community organizer, Barack Obama sued banks to force them to give risky loans to unqualified minorities. Later, as a US Senator, he joined in the Democrats' filibuster of the Republican attempts to reform the subprime mortgage industry. Yet he has the gall to routinely claim with a straight face that Republicans "drove the economy into a ditch." That sort of mendacity is perhaps to be expected from politicians, but we certainly don't have to fall for it.
Bored

Commerce, GA

#7622 Apr 24, 2013
The bottom line is that Democrats were the primary architects and the driving force behind the irresponsible banking practices that led to the subprime mortgage meltdown, the financial crisis, and the recession that resulted. But they managed to successfully pin the public blame on Republicans, and Barack Obama was elected as a result. If the Democrats are not finally held accountable in the next election, they will continue to wreck the US economy until it is unrecognizable as a free market, and the days of American prosperity will be over.
Informed Opinion

United States

#7623 Apr 24, 2013
Bored wrote:
<quoted text>We guessed from your posts you are not a Christian.

Now we know you are not a Jew.
I'll take that as your admission that I was correct that Jesus never said a single bad thing about gays, and that we aren't to judge people for who they like to sleep with.

If you believe the Old Testament verses that say being gay is bad, we also have to believe you think its fine to sell your kids into slavery, but if you get a haircut you're doomed to Hell.

That Muslim Taliban's got nothin compared to our own Christian Taliban.

If the Old Testament is right when it says gays are headed to Hell, then so is those crazed sinners who get haircuts or eat shrimp (another abomination).

We can't pick and choose only parts of the Old Testament to believe now, can we ?

Get it right

Dawsonville, GA

#7624 Apr 24, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop it with the facts !!!
First we have Right Wing Wacko Ronnie Ray-Gun using Right Wing economic policies and Tripling the national debt - and the Middle Class gets screwed.
Then we have Right Wing Wacko and Corporate Tool Bush #2 using Right Wing Wacko economic policies to turn a budget surplus into a $1.4 Trillion Dollar deficit, to double the national debt, and screw the Middle Class.
Next then you know - you'll be claiming anyone with an IQ higher than a fire hydrant would understand Right Wing Whacko economic policies are ........ well...... Wacko.
Typical liberal tactic of telling only a small prt of the story. That is called a lie, by the way.
Then you follow up with a bunch of name calling because you're too lazy to back up your foolish lies. Nice. By the way, why are solar panels exempt from the made in America Act? Or weren't you aware?
ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

#7625 Apr 24, 2013
Bored wrote:
Obama increased the national debt $6 trillion to $16 trillion."
Your entire post is built on this fallacy.

Didn't happen. The vast majority of that is Dubya's - as a result of his wars, tax breaks, big pharma gifts and tanking the economy. In the name of ZOG how many more times do we have to go over this?

Let me type it out in capital letters to make it easier to understand:

DID NOT HAPPEN!! MOST OF DEFICIT IS RESULT OF BUSH POLICIES!

Your post- built on a fallacy.
ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

#7626 Apr 24, 2013
Bored wrote:
The bottom line is that Democrats were the primary architects and the driving force behind the irresponsible banking practices that led to the subprime mortgage meltdown, the financial crisis, and the recession that resulted.
Complete fallacy, and it has been covered many many times here.
Get it right

Dawsonville, GA

#7627 Apr 24, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Your entire post is built on this fallacy.
Didn't happen. The vast majority of that is Dubya's - as a result of his wars, tax breaks, big pharma gifts and tanking the economy. In the name of ZOG how many more times do we have to go over this?
Let me type it out in capital letters to make it easier to understand:
DID NOT HAPPEN!! MOST OF DEFICIT IS RESULT OF BUSH POLICIES!
Your post- built on a fallacy.
Do you just make it up as you go along or are you really that ill informed?
Bored

Commerce, GA

#7628 Apr 24, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take that as your admission that I was correct that Jesus never said a single bad thing about gays, and that we aren't to judge people for who they like to sleep with.
If you believe the Old Testament verses that say being gay is bad, we also have to believe you think its fine to sell your kids into slavery, but if you get a haircut you're doomed to Hell.
That Muslim Taliban's got nothin compared to our own Christian Taliban.
If the Old Testament is right when it says gays are headed to Hell, then so is those crazed sinners who get haircuts or eat shrimp (another abomination).
We can't pick and choose only parts of the Old Testament to believe now, can we ?
It aint the picking, it's the twisting you are famous for.
Bored

Commerce, GA

#7629 Apr 24, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Your entire post is built on this fallacy.
Didn't happen. The vast majority of that is Dubya's - as a result of his wars, tax breaks, big pharma gifts and tanking the economy. In the name of ZOG how many more times do we have to go over this?
Let me type it out in capital letters to make it easier to understand:
DID NOT HAPPEN!! MOST OF DEFICIT IS RESULT OF BUSH POLICIES!
Your post- built on a fallacy.
A chicken without a head.
Bored

Commerce, GA

#7630 Apr 24, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Complete fallacy, and it has been covered many many times here.
Wrong, all is documented. Time for you to google. Course without a head, that's impossible.
Bored

Commerce, GA

#7631 Apr 24, 2013
Get it right wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you just make it up as you go along or are you really that ill informed?
He's not ill informed, he's a libtard. A big difference.
Informed Opinion

United States

#7632 Apr 24, 2013
Get it right wrote:
<quoted text>Typical liberal tactic of telling only a small prt of the story. That is called a lie, by the way.
Then you follow up with a bunch of name calling because you're too lazy to back up your foolish lies. Nice. By the way, why are solar panels exempt from the made in America Act? Or weren't you aware?
Lots of words - no substance.

Name one thing said that wasn't accurate. Oh.. Can't be done.

Solar panels ... exempt from some act ?

-Thousand of dead Marines,
-$6,000,000,000,000.00 in costs.
- 3,000 dead at WTC.
- Protected bin Laden.
- Doubled the deficit.
- Constitution in tatters.
- Economic disparity highest in industrialized world.

and you're losing sleep because of solar panels and some act ?

That maybe explains why Right Wingers thought invading Iraq would teach the bin Laden family running Saudi Arabia not to kill another 3,000 Americans - they just link things together differently than the rest of us.
Bored

Commerce, GA

#7633 Apr 24, 2013
Gotta love this item.
Obama emulating Bush because he knows Bush was right on most things.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-bush-distinct-men...
Get it right

Dawsonville, GA

#7634 Apr 24, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Lots of words - no substance.
Name one thing said that wasn't accurate. Oh.. Can't be done.
Solar panels ... exempt from some act ?
-Thousand of dead Marines,
-$6,000,000,000,000.00 in costs.
- 3,000 dead at WTC.
- Protected bin Laden.
- Doubled the deficit.
- Constitution in tatters.
- Economic disparity highest in industrialized world.
and you're losing sleep because of solar panels and some act ?
That maybe explains why Right Wingers thought invading Iraq would teach the bin Laden family running Saudi Arabia not to kill another 3,000 Americans - they just link things together differently than the rest of us.
Sounding more and more like a liberal who knows what a mess your boy has made of what was not a good situation. He took bad and made it much worse. Poor Baby.
domino

United States

#7635 Apr 24, 2013
You can be arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally.
domino

United States

#7636 Apr 24, 2013
Working class Americans pay for their own health care (and the health of everyone else) while unmarried women are free to have child after child on the "states" dime while never being held responsible for their own choices.
domino

United States

#7637 Apr 24, 2013
You have to have your parents' signature to go on a school field trip, but not to get an abortion at taxpayers expense. Too bad Obamas Mom likely didnt believe in abortions.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kingsland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Trumpcare DOA? 29 min mmmmmmm 18
Skewing the monkey survey 1 hr Jorge 7
Space: the final frontier 1 hr Get Real 2
Ted Koppel smacked Sean Hannity to his face 2 hr Saltygirl 17
1 out of 3 days at a Trump property 3 hr watcher 10
Salt, Pepper, and Thyme 6 hr Jorge 17
A Black savage identification course for Liberals (Jul '14) 9 hr Jorge 308

Kingsland Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Kingsland Mortgages