55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 10:49 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The government did not mandate, enable, or encourage the repackaging of shitty securities as good ones, and the investment in these securities by trading houses and banks. Not at all.


You must have missed this the first time I posted it. (Reminder before declaring this a rightwing wacko group: they endorsed Barack Obama for president (which I am pretty sure they are regretting by now):

Quote:
Stop Covering Up And Kill The CRA
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
11/28/2008

Regulation: The Community Reinvestment Act is to blame for the financial crisis, but it so powerfully serves Democrats' interests that they'll do anything to protect it " including revising history.

The CRA coerces banks into making loans based on political correctness, and little else, to people who can't afford them. Enforced like never before by the Clinton administration, the regulation destroyed credit standards across the mortgage industry, created the subprime market, and caused the housing bubble that has now burst and left us with the worst housing and banking crises since the Great Depression.

The CRA should be abolished, along with the government-sponsored enterprises that fueled the secondary market for subprimes " under pressure from Clinton, who ordered HUD to set quotas for "affirmative action" lending at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

But powerful Democrats in Washington want to protect the act " along with Fannie and Freddie " and spin the subprime scandal as the result of too little regulation, not too much.

"Repealing or weakening the CRA would be a mistake," warns Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who argues that the CRA should be strengthened.

Dodd, the top recipient of Fannie donations and himself a beneficiary of a sweetheart mortgage brokered by a subprime lender, recently invited one of Clinton's top enforcers of the CRA to testify.

"The notion that CRA has caused this problem is a pernicious thought," said former Comptroller of the Currency Gene Ludwig. "These are not truthful statements. The CRA has helped to create a better and sounder world for finance, not the opposite."

Dead wrong. But the mainstream media believe it, and have attacked those, including this paper, who dare to tell the truth about the crisis. Already the debacle has erased $13 trillion in wealth, while putting taxpayers on the hook for up to $8 trillion in bailouts.

"The latest salvo from conservatives began via a Sept. 15 editorial in Investor's Business Daily, titled 'The Real Culprits In This Meltdown,' " grumbled a column distributed by Scripps Howard News Service. "Its editorial blamed President Clinton for today's mess."

As we said, Clinton beefed up the CRA and used it to force banks to subsidize poor communities with close to $1 trillion in high-risk loans and other commitments that flouted underwriting rules.

Yet, somehow, these media-driven myths keep getting in the way of actual facts, such as:

Fact: The 1977 law was only lightly enforced until Clinton added teeth to it in 1994 and launched an anti-redlining campaign against banks, led by Ludwig, Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros (and later Andrew Cuomo) and Attorney General Janet Reno that lasted into this decade.

Minority homeownership rates, which had been flat, began a steep rise in 1995, and home prices soon followed, stoked by easier lending. Numerous bank officials complain that they still feel pressured by CRA regulators to make inner-city loans they know are at great risk of defaulting.

Myth: The CRA could not have led to financial Armageddon, because the overwhelming share of subprime mortgages came from lenders that were not banks and not regulated by the CRA.

Fact: Nearly 4 in 10 subprime loans between 2004 and 2007 were made by CRA-covered banks such as Washington Mutual and IndyMac. And that doesn't include loans made by subprime lenders owned by banks, which were in effect covered by the CRA.

Last year, when the bubble burst, bank subprime loans totaled $142 billion, dwarfing those made by lenders.

What's more, the biggest subprime lender, Countrywide, while not subject to the law, still came under federal pressure to make risky loans in minority communities.

Clinton created a separate department at HUD to police "fair lending" at Fannie and Freddie and also at lenders like Countrywide, which became Fannie's biggest client. In 1994, Countrywide became the nation's first mortgage lender to sign with HUD a "Declaration of Fair Lending Principles and Practices."

As a result, Countrywide made more loans to minorities than any other lender " and not surprisingly, was one of the first lenders swamped by loan defaults.

Other lenders felt the heat from Reno's Justice Department, which prosecuted them for failing to operate enough branches in black neighborhoods. Reno put the entire banking industry on notice about the CRA and her enforcement program.

Myth: The CRA did not force anyone to do subprime loans or take excessive risks.

Fact: Subprime loans were the vehicle banks used to satisfy CRA compliance, and Clinton and his regulators encouraged their use. Before Clinton took office, subprimes were virtually unheard of. By the time he left, they made up more than 9% of the market for mortgage originations. Today they're 20%.

"It's instructive to go back to the early stages of the subprime market, which has essentially emerged out of the CRA," ex-Fed chief Alan Greenspan said in recent testimony on the roots of the crisis.

Clinton pushed banks to grant mortgages to minorities with poor credit by using "flexible" underwriting standards " or risk being branded racist. Rules were weakened to the point where welfare and unemployment checks were accepted as qualifying income.

Myth: Greedy investment bankers, who securitized and sold subprime mortgages, drove us to the credit crisis, not government.

Fact: Clinton's regulatory policies led to the creation of this new risk on Wall Street. His CRA amendments created the subprime market, and only after he pressured Fannie and Freddie to socialize the risk and guarantee the profit from the subprime loans did Wall Street get involved in a big way.

The exotic securitizations that have gotten so much of the blame were a symptom, not the cause, of the crisis.

The architects of the crisis want to divert attention from their own culpability by blaming the markets rather than their own regulations mandating that banks make high-risk loans based on race.

In fact, regulations had almost everything to do with this mess. And instead of strengthening them to atone for the alleged "sins of capitalism," we should be abolishing them.

Two bills in the House would be a good place to start. HR 7264, which has nine co-sponsors, would repeal the CRA. And HR 7094, with 17 co-sponsors, would dissolve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

During the last severe slump, President Reagan deregulated the economy, saying: "Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem." He's as right today as he was then.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?status=article&id=312766781716725&secid=1501
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:04 am
@Foxfyre,
Fox:

Quote:

The CRA coerces banks into making loans based on political correctness, and little else, to people who can't afford them.


Banks are not the problem, really. How did the government mandate the trading houses and companies like AIG get into the loan business? Specifically, please. The IBD editorial does not mention this little factoid. They only state this:

Quote:

The exotic securitizations that have gotten so much of the blame were a symptom, not the cause, of the crisis.


Bullshit. Without the exotic securities, this housing downturn would not have affected our market at all. They were not a 'symptom' of anything, but a device that people figured out how to manipulate to make money. Nothing more. Nobody forced anyone to buy these exotic securities, people chose to do so knowing that it was built on a shaky foundation.

The IBD may have endorsed Obama, but that had more to do with McCain now knowing the first thing about economics than any real love for Liberal policies. Here, they are only trying to cover the asses of those truly responsible.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:05 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxie must have missed the sections of the CRA mandate I posted (twice) about making sure that banks/finance companies adhere to make sure applications follow good business practices.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:15 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
(Reminder before declaring this a rightwing wacko group: they endorsed Barack Obama for president (which I am pretty sure they are regretting by now):...


According to all sources I could find (including their own reports), they made no endorsement in 2008 [in 2004, they endorsed Bush]).

Your source?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:15 am
@cicerone imposter,
No, I saw them CI though I never trust your unlinked posts for stuff like that. You really should provide the links.

You must have missed the comment in the article that the 'good business practices' part of the act was ordered ignored by subsequent administrations/congresses.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:17 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
(Reminder before declaring this a rightwing wacko group: they endorsed Barack Obama for president (which I am pretty sure they are regretting by now):...


According to all sources I could find (including their own reports), they made no endorsement in 2008 [in 2004, they endorsed Bush]).

Your source?


My source was a Blatham post in this thread when they first endorsed Obama. He posted it with his usual glee at presuming to skewer Republicans as he has never figured out that this thread isn't about skewering anybody but is rather focused on concepts and the implications of various practices in our sociopolitical lives together.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:17 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

No, I saw them CI though I never trust your unlinked posts for stuff like that. You really should provide the links.

You must have missed the comment in the article that the 'good business practices' part of the act was ordered ignored by subsequent administrations/congresses.


And that is the fault of the Act itself? Or is it the fault of the regulators, in this case, the Clinton and Bush administrations?

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:19 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
(Reminder before declaring this a rightwing wacko group: they endorsed Barack Obama for president (which I am pretty sure they are regretting by now):...


According to all sources I could find (including their own reports), they made no endorsement in 2008 [in 2004, they endorsed Bush]).

Your source?


My source was a Blatham post in this thread when they first endorsed Obama. He posted it with his usual glee at presuming to skewer Republicans as he has never figured out that this thread isn't about skewering anybody but is rather focused on concepts and the implications of various practices in our sociopolitical lives together.


Are you sure you aren't thinking of FT or the Economist instead? They endorsed Obama.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:19 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxie, Too lazy to look it up yourself? That tells me more than I need to know.


0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:20 am
@Cycloptichorn,
If there was no act, then dishonest or opportnistic politicians would be unable to use it for their own dishonest or opportunisitic purposes. Honest politicians of integrity would be demanding that the banks and lending institutions use sound business policy and practices instead of requiring them to use risky business policy and practices in order to buy votes and/or power for those politicians.

Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:23 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

If there was no act, then dishonest or opportnistic politicians would be unable to use it for their own purposes. Honest politicians of integrity would rather be demanding that the banks and lending institutions use sound business policy and practices instead of requiring them to use risky business policy and practices in order to buy votes and/or power for those politicians.


This is something of a stretch. Honest politicians will do the right thing and dishonest ones will not regardless of the laws in question. To blame the laws themselves is a little ridiculous.

Also, sub-prime mortgages are not necessarily risky, and Prime ones not necessarily safe. The type of mortgage has as much to do with the defaults as the classification; many very rich people got ARMs, b/c they could and it seemed like a good idea at the time. And the value of their houses when they lost them is as great as that of the larger number of poor folks, due to their size and location...

I'm still waiting for a straight answer from a Conservative here. What law or rule forced investment companies and AIG to get involved in the mortgage business?

If you cannot produce this law or rule I'm forced to conclude that their participation was entirely voluntary, that they incurred the risks themselves, and that these investment bankers and financial institutions are purely and solely to blame for their bad investment choices. The concept of Personal Responsibility used to be a Conservative one, but apparently no longer...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:23 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
(Reminder before declaring this a rightwing wacko group: they endorsed Barack Obama for president (which I am pretty sure they are regretting by now):...


According to all sources I could find (including their own reports), they made no endorsement in 2008 [in 2004, they endorsed Bush]).

Your source?

My source was a Blatham post in this thread when they first endorsed Obama. He posted it with his usual glee at presuming to skewer Republicans as he has never figured out that this thread isn't about skewering anybody but is rather focused on concepts and the implications of various practices in our sociopolitical lives together.


Are you sure you aren't thinking of FT or the Economist instead? They endorsed Obama.

Cycloptichorn


Now that you mention it, it could be. I didn't take the time to go back and check. So if it wasn't the Investor Daily, then I apologize for and withdraw my comment that they endorsed Obama.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:27 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Now that you mention it, it could be. I didn't take the time to go back and check. So if it wasn't the Investor Daily, then I apologize for and withdraw my comment that they endorsed Obama.



No worries, I confuse those two all the time!

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:28 am
@Cycloptichorn,
According to this list, I don't think Investor Daily endorsed anybody in 2008. I don't know anything about this site however so have no opinion on its reliability:

http://infochimps.org/static/gallery/politics/endorsements_map/endorsement_graph.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:29 am
@Foxfyre,
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C30.txt

Quote:
(b) It is the purpose of this chapter to require each appropriate
Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when
examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to
help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they
are chartered
consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.


What do you think that means, Foxie?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:31 am
@cicerone imposter,
Apparently it means whatever the politicians want it to mean, C.I. I am going not with the wording in the act, but the actions of administrations and congresses using the Act as a basis for their actions.

Not that you ever really read anything, but I also posted these sources yesterday in addition to the Investor Business Daily piece:

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-218#post-3585972
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:34 am
@Foxfyre,
And?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:34 am
Also, I just saw this on CNBC -

Quote:


European banks have $24 trillion of toxic assets on their balance sheets.



Surely Conservatives are not going to argue that European banks were forced by the US government to give loans to poor folks, and that's why they are in trouble?

The truth is plainly obvious that this is not the case. Instead, financial games, gimmicks, and tricks were used to 'create wealth' from nothing. Everyone wanted a piece of the cheese. So everyone started munching down. Now they're all facing the consequences of their poor investment choices.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:37 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre, libs on this forum, as the Democrats, live in denial, they have to, in order to avoid any blame in this. Clearly, any government intervention into a market creates unintended consequences, and clearly this has happened.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:37 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Again a link would be helpful. I would like to know what the toxic assets are. Are they us? If so, then our own miserable business practices have infected everybody else.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/17/2025 at 03:52:50