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.
Please this is not a school yard, I've posted substantiation for my argument so I'm not about to get into some infantile, did, did not argument that you folks like to engage in.
Quote:
That if blacks were getting a lower percentage of loans it could only be because they were being discriminated against.
Wishful thinking isn't going to to help you in your argument.
I will not argue that in certain cases it can't be argued that they weren't but we already had laws to cover that.
The Fracking CRA has no enforcement power, there are no penalties, the best the CRA can do is publicly shame an institution! I wish you people would research your arguments before engaging your keyboards!
We believe that Congress has plainly spoken on the question of what enforcement tools are available to the agencies under the CRA. The CRA provides for enforcement only in the application context, requiring that the agencies shall take an institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its community into account when evaluating that institution's application for a deposit facility. Congress specified only this one enforcement mechanism in the CRA, and we do not believe it is permissible for the agencies to employ other enforcement mechanisms, on the authority of the CRA, in the absence of some basis in the text of the statute. Agencies may act only pursuant to delegations of power that are explicit or can fairly be implied from the statutory scheme. See Railway Labor Executives Ass'n v. National Mediation Bd., 29 F.3d 655, 670-71 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (en banc).
The CRA contains no express directive for the agencies to use any other modes of enforcement, much less such coercive enforcement as cease-and-desist orders and monetary penalties, and there is no basis for inferring such authority from any provision in the statute. The statute's only general grant of authority to the agencies is the authority to promulgate implementing regulations. We reject the argument that a delegation of broad enforcement authority can be inferred from the statute's delegation of authority to issue implementing regulations and the fact that the CRA does not explicitly state that the agencies may only sanction financial institutions through the application process. First of all, the authority to issue regulations is limited to "carry[ing] out the purposes" of the CRA, 12 U.S.C. § 2905, and those purposes are limited to requiring the agencies to "use [their] authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs" of their communities, 12 U.S.C. § 2901(b) (emphasis added). More fundamentally, as the D.C. Circuit wrote recently, "[w]ere courts to presume a delegation of power absent an express withholding of such power, agencies would enjoy virtually limitless hegemony, a result plainly out of keeping with Chevron and quite likely with the Constitution as well." Railway Labor Executives Ass'n, 29 F.3d at 671 (emphasis in original).
Yeah sure, common sense tells a banker to not loan money to a people that they do not think will be able to pay it back.
Based upon what criteria, the color of their skin, nationality, ethnicity?
Quote:
Then government comes along and orders the banker to go back thru that list of loans he refused, and to loan money only to people of color. That is ideological, and tyrannical, and not common sense.
See the above enforcement powers of the CRA and the cases and charges that were filed under what relevant statutes?
We could argue this all day. Written, suggested, implied whatever, the banks knew the government would step in and they did.
And nothing has changed. Why not <-----another question I suppose that will not get addressed.
Greenspan being the Godfather of this mess has absolutely zero credibility. We know that without a shadow of a doubt that Countrywide ran afoul of Sarbanes/Oxley every way you could and yet, not a single charge. Why not?
Why hasn't it changed? Because the financial institutions are lobbying heavily to prevent any serious financial reforms from occurring. While I might be disappointed with the Democratic parties response, at least they are not out there claiming the attempts at financial reforms should be halted and rolled back like the Republican party.
There is absolutely no way that they do that without the underlying government guarantee of the loans. You are making generalizations with nothing in the way of verification but your generalizations. "Private bank loans were not insured for the most part"?
Why is it do you think that the government took over billions and billions in bad loans and made tax payers responsible for them?
Many of these loans were written with bogus information because the banks were in a feeding frenzy. You do realize that any loan that is shown to have been fraudulently written is supposed to be placed back on the books of the banks.
These banks are making record profits right now because of the various government programs to see that they are made whole and they are not being required to take these loans and place them back on their books.
Why is that?
I will also note that you did not address any of my other questions.
There was no guarantee other than F&F backed loans, the government bailout of the banks had nothing to do wit the CRA, the lions share was in private hands, not backed by any federal institution. The federal bailout of Citigroup, etc came after the meltdown.
The point is that banks took on the subprime loans due to greed, not the issues with redlining or the CRA, they were not forced to give bad loans just give more loans to deserving applicants in inner city neighborhoods. They would always break even or better in a rising housing market, or so they thought, when prices decreased they were in big trouble.
Yes many of the loans were purposely awarded to buyers with little information, if you knew anyone in the real estate industry they could not believe the people who were getting loans from these banks.
The truth about investment banks is the CEO, risk management, Moodys have no idea what is going on, far too complicated. Look at Jamie Dimon at JP Morgan, you would have thought he learned from 2008 but JP MOrgan had large losses right under his nose. That is one reason why no one went to jail, the SEC had inside access to many of these financial institutions beforehand and still never saw it coming. One more reason to reinstitute Galss Steagall and make banking boring again.
Why hasn't it changed? Because the financial institutions are lobbying heavily to prevent any serious financial reforms from occurring. While I might be disappointed with the Democratic parties response, at least they are not out there claiming the attempts at financial reforms should be halted and rolled back like the Republican party.
Ron Paul is the one of the few that are pushing for real reform. The GOP passed regulations to allow a full audit of the Fed and it's Reid and the Dems blocking it.
Now, that is not a defense of the GOP as a whole. They are as much to blame as anyone overall but I'm not going to vote for someone who I know will not do anything because I don't think the other side will either.
We have one of the biggest markets cheerleaders running the Treasury. Romney will appoint likewise. Why vote for them?
There was no guarantee other than F&F backed loans, the government bailout of the banks had nothing to do wit the CRA, the lions share was in private hands, not backed by any federal institution. The federal bailout of Citigroup, etc came after the meltdown.
You can claim it all day but in the end we know what happened and is still happening. The government covering for the banks completely and draining the savings from the lower classes to fill the markets coffers.
Quote:
The truth about investment banks is the CEO, risk management, Moodys have no idea what is going on, far too complicated. Look at Jamie Dimon at JP Morgan, you would have thought he learned from 2008 but JP MOrgan had large losses right under his nose. That is one reason why no one went to jail, the SEC had inside access to many of these financial institutions beforehand and still never saw it coming. One more reason to reinstitute Galss Steagall and make banking boring again.
I do nt disagree with your lsat statement BUT that is NOT why there have been no prosecutions. I've noted this over and over. I disagree with your assessment that nobody knew what was going on (there were many whistleblowers, they were all fired and ignored) but let's say they didn't. We know today that many of them were fudging their books. I've already pointed out that everyone knows Countrywide was a total mess. We can charge them under sarbanes/Oxley but the government refuses to.
You can claim it all day but in the end we know what happened and is still happening. The government covering for the banks completely and draining the savings from the lower classes to fill the markets coffers.
I do nt disagree with your lsat statement BUT that is NOT why there have been no prosecutions. I've noted this over and over. I disagree with your assessment that nobody knew what was going on (there were many whistleblowers, they were all fired and ignored) but let's say they didn't. We know today that many of them were fudging their books. I've already pointed out that everyone knows Countrywide was a total mess. We can charge them under sarbanes/Oxley but the government refuses to.
You resort to the same tired arguments.
How do you get a conviction of management when you have the SEC inside the building monitoring these firms, what's your argument. If the SEC didn't know what's your case, quite different than Enron where there was willful intent to defraud. Some traders at the bottom certainly profited from Moodys overating mortgage instruments as AAA what's your case? There were some whisleblowers that were fired, but the extent was really minor, I would agree on Countrywide.
There were many problems with the system, real estate, mortgage banks, investment banks, take your pick. The largest part of the issue to me was when the investment banks sold the bad mortgages in complicated instruments. THE CRA impact if any was minimal.
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.
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.
