U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-30-2011, 08:29 PM
 
Location: The Twilight Zone
773 posts, read 466,037 times
Reputation: 363

Advertisements

Here is something I find ironic, which the sheeple don't seem to realize.

In the 1970's, the big bad evil banks were vilified for having actual qualification requirements where people had to have a job, proper income and a good size down payment to buy a house. They would not loan to just anyone with a pulse. The banks were crucified for it and along came the stupid CRA legislation to force them to make loans to people who could not afford them. When the gubmint discovered some people still were not getting loans, Clinton went and lowered the standards so all you needed was not to have been declared deceased.

Fast forward to today and the big bad evil banks are vilified for giving the exact loans the gubmint wanted them to.

What gives in the minds of the sheeple?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-30-2011, 08:36 PM
 
13,709 posts, read 8,942,459 times
Reputation: 6586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heritage Member View Post
Here is something I find ironic, which the sheeple don't seem to realize.

In the 1970's, the big bad evil banks were vilified for having actual qualification requirements where people had to have a job, proper income and a good size down payment to buy a house. They would not loan to just anyone with a pulse. The banks were crucified for it and along came the stupid CRA legislation to force them to make loans to people who could not afford them. When the gubmint discovered some people still were not getting loans, Clinton went and lowered the standards so all you needed was not to have been declared deceased.

Fast forward to today and the big bad evil banks are vilified for giving the exact loans the gubmint wanted them to.

What gives in the minds of the sheeple?
Wrong. The CRA didn't force banks to give loans. It only stopped them from blocking out areas from where they wouldn't accept loan applications. They had to at least process an application to see if the borrower qualified. The CRA didn't say they had to give anyone loans. The law was passed back in the 70's. The current housing/financial mess was the result of Phil Gramm's bank deregulation bill, which went into law in the late 90's.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2011, 08:36 PM
 
Location: The Twilight Zone
773 posts, read 466,037 times
Reputation: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Wrong. The CRA didn't force banks to give loans. It only stopped them from blocking out areas from where they wouldn't accept loan applications. They had to at least process an application to see if the borrower qualified. The CRA didn't say they had to give anyone loans. The law was passed back in the 70's. The current housing/financial mess was the result of Phil Gramm's bank deregulation bill.
Incorrect
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2011, 08:37 PM
 
13,709 posts, read 8,942,459 times
Reputation: 6586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heritage Member View Post
Incorrect
Yes, I know you're incorrect. That's my whole point.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2011, 08:44 PM
 
6,137 posts, read 4,581,675 times
Reputation: 1515
The CRA played a minor role in the crash if any.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2011, 08:47 PM
 
Location: The Twilight Zone
773 posts, read 466,037 times
Reputation: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Yes, I know you're incorrect. That's my whole point.
Wow. That reminds me of first grade in the school yard.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2011, 08:49 PM
 
Location: it depends
6,073 posts, read 5,879,483 times
Reputation: 5776
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow View Post
The CRA played a minor role in the crash if any.
The efforts of Dodd, Frank and others to have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac serve the political agenda of increasing homeownership without regard for ability to pay--there's your culprit. The guarantees provided by Fannie and Freddie enabled all the rest of the nonsense, including securitization of bad loans. Countrywide is a poster-child for bad mortgage practices, but Fannie knew Counrywide as its biggest producer.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2011, 08:52 PM
 
3,588 posts, read 4,608,576 times
Reputation: 3141
Winter Sucks is 100% correct. Disagreeing with his facts means you have an agenda. If you still think the CRA was responsible, then you need to read this short, TRUTHFUL article:
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral - The Washington Post
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2011, 08:56 PM
 
Location: The Twilight Zone
773 posts, read 466,037 times
Reputation: 363
The point of the thread is that the banks were once villified for NOT giving loans to those who should not be buying a house and now they are villified for giving the loans. Bank haters can't have it BOTH ways.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2011, 08:58 PM
 
9,849 posts, read 7,776,867 times
Reputation: 3292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heritage Member View Post
Here is something I find ironic, which the sheeple don't seem to realize.

In the 1970's, the big bad evil banks were vilified for having actual qualification requirements where people had to have a job, proper income and a good size down payment to buy a house. They would not loan to just anyone with a pulse. The banks were crucified for it and along came the stupid CRA legislation to force them to make loans to people who could not afford them. When the gubmint discovered some people still were not getting loans, Clinton went and lowered the standards so all you needed was not to have been declared deceased.

Fast forward to today and the big bad evil banks are vilified for giving the exact loans the gubmint wanted them to.

What gives in the minds of the sheeple?
See Barney Frank and the Democrats for this issue.
This was forced upon banks by leftists wanting everyone to have a house without being able to pay the loan.
IMO those politicians deserved jail.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top