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.
No. Because I am more likely than not one of millions of Black Americans that were not allowed to participate in said poll. Unless you poll the majority of the subject of said polls, the results are pretty much worthless.
You obviously have no idea how polls work. You use polls because it is cost prohibitive to ask every single person in a population their opinion. So you select a random sample that attempts to give you some insight into how the larger population feels. Is it 100% right? No hence the margin of error and confidence intervals.
Obummer? What are you 10 years old? Try debating like an adult. It's sort of funny that you're pasting an editorial from yesterday and giving opinion here. It's almost like you get your opinion by reading one editorial and not by having a clue of what you're talking about.
The banks were already making loans to poor white people. They were accused of not giving out any mortgages in certain neighborhoods. That, by itself, doesn't lead to a mess. It just leads to poor black people having the same opportunities as poor white people.
The banks almost destroyed the system through their own actions as the safeguards to stop this had been removed. I'd explain that further, but you wouldn't have the brainpower to understand.
When banking was deregulated the ticket to the show a good CRA status. This allowed organizations like ACORN to basically extort money from the banks.
Except that only commercial banks are obliged to follow the CRA, and they didn't even have a market majority during the boom. It was fueled by investment banks, non-bank landers and mortgage brokers, none of whom have to pay the slightest heed to the CRA. Incidentally, subprime loans made by institutions governed by the CRA have defaulted at a lower rate than subprime loans made by other institutions.
Blaming the CRA as a major cause isn't going to fly. For f*ck's sake, it was passed in 1977.
The President, as you know, has a broad, comprehensive strategy for dealing with the economic problems of the country for putting the country back on the right track for the long-term. A lot of the legislative and executive actions that have taken place in 1993 have been pursuant to that long-term economic strategy of the President's.
An important component of that strategy is to deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities -- pursuant to his belief that we must make real progress in those areas if this country is going to be successful in the future for all of us. The reform of the Community Reinvestment Act is an essential building block in the efforts I've just mentioned.
In July the President asked the four banking regulators to reform CRA, to reduce paperwork in process and reward performance, and to get that done by January 1, 1994. We're delighted to report that that has been accomplished on schedule. And in conjunction with the President's Community Development Bank and financial institution legislation, which recently passed the House of Representatives, CRA reform will generate billions of dollars in new lending and extend basic banking services to the inner cities and to distressed rural communities around the country.
Sandra F. Braunstein, Director, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs
The Community Reinvestment Act
Before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives
February 13, 2008
The CRA regulations were substantially revised again in 1995, in response to a directive to the agencies from President Clinton to review and revise the CRA regulations to make them more performance-based, and to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden. This directive addressed criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results. The agencies also changed the CRA examination process to incorporate these revisions.
It wasn't until 12 years later the bubble took off. And CRA loans still were better risks than their non-CRA subprime equivalents. And well over half of the subprime loans were made by entities that wasn't even governed by the CRA.
The banks have been incredibly busy looking for some sort of scapegoat, but the sad truth is, they just weren't up to the job of safeguarding the economy on their own.
It wasn't until 12 years later the bubble took off. And CRA loans still were better risks than their non-CRA subprime equivalents. And well over half of the subprime loans were made by entities that wasn't even governed by the CRA.
The banks have been incredibly busy looking for some sort of scapegoat, but the sad truth is, they just weren't up to the job of safeguarding the economy on their own.
The CRA started in 1977. I don't know if you were here or not but the housing boom started in the 1980's. By the time the housing bubble became a serious problem in the 2000's everyone that wasn't a high risk had a loan and those risky loans originated by actions of the FR basically stating what sort of practices loan officers should be indulging in (1992). Here are some to name a few:
Quote:
The compensation structure for loan production staff should not discourage them from working with lower–income or financially unsophisticated applicants. If staff are compensated according to a pay structure based simply on the number and size of loans closed, they will be reluctant to work with applicants who requiremore time and assistance or who are requesting relatively small loans.
Property Standards and Minimum Loan Amounts:
These standards should be checked for arbitrary rules as to the age, location, condition, or size of the property. Such standards could negatively affect applicants who wish to purchase two– to four–family homes, older properties, or homes in less expensive areas.
Obligation Ratios:
Special consideration could be given to applicants with relatively high obligation ratios who have demonstrated an ability to cover high housing expenses in the past. Many lower–income households are accustomed to allocating a large percentage of their income toward rent. While it is important to ensure that the borrower is not assuming an unreasonable level of debt, it should be noted that the secondary market is willing to consider ratios above the standard 28/36.
Down Payment and Closing Costs:
Accumulating enough savings to cover the various costs associated with a mortgage loan is often a significant barrier to homeownership by lower–income applicants. Lenders may wish to allow gifts, grants, or loans from relatives, nonprofit organizations, or municipal agencies to cover part of these costs. Cash–on–hand could also be an acceptable means of payment if borrowers can document its source and demonstrate that they normally pay their bills in cash.
Credit History:
Policies regarding applicants with no credit history or problem credit history should be reviewed. Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor. Certain cultures encourage people to “pay as you go” and avoid debt. Willingness to pay debt promptly can be determined through review of utility, rent, telephone, insurance, and medical bill payments. In reviewing past credit problems, lenders should be willing to consider extenuating circumstances. For lower–income applicants in particular, unforeseen expenses can have a disproportionate effect on an otherwise positive credit record. In these instances, paying off past bad debts or establishing a regular repayment schedule with creditors may demonstrate a willingness and ability to resolve debts.
Successful participation in credit counseling or buyer education programs is another way that applicants can demonstrate an ability to manage their debts responsibly. (See the section on Buyer Education.) Property Appraisal/Neighborhood Analysis: Terms like “desirable area,” “homogeneous neighborhood,” and “remaining economic life” are highly subjective and allow room for racial bias and bias against urban areas. The same holds true when lenders evaluate properties based on their market appeal or compatibility with the rest of the neighborhood. (See the section on Third Party Involvement in the Loan Process.) It should be noted that the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) has stated that neighborhoods undergoing revitalization should be assessed on their potential as well as their existing condition. Also, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) will accept block–by–block underwriting analyses in urban neighborhoods being rehabilitated.
Employment History:
It is important to distinguish between length of employment and employment stability. Many lower–income people work in sectors of the economy where job changes are frequent. Lenders should focus on the applicant’s ability to maintain or increase his or her income level, and not solely on the length of stay in a particular job.
Sources of Income:
In addition to primary employment income, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will accept the following as valid income sources: overtime and part–time work, second jobs (including seasonal work), retirement and Social Security income, alimony, child support, Veterans Administration (VA) benefits, welfare payments, and unemployment benefits.
Government setup all the guidelines, the roads, the tools and the venue for the housing bubble. That's an irrefutable fact. All that had to occur after that was the loss of a direction for the economy and a running-out of unrisky borrowers which is exactly what happened after a couple of decades of people thinking they have to own homes because they're a "savings" plan. Of course some people know how to play the housing market to their advantage but the average Joe simply wanted a way to save money other than doing it the traditional way and what better way than to pay yourself through a home loan that (sic) couldn't do anything but go up in value.
The banks were already making loans to poor white people. They were accused of not giving out any mortgages in certain neighborhoods. That, by itself, doesn't lead to a mess. It just leads to poor black people having the same opportunities as poor white people.
Actually, it gave poor black people a greater opportunity to buy a home that was likely to decline in value.
Government setup all the guidelines, the roads, the tools and the venue for the housing bubble.
Insofar as the agencies tasked with regulation and oversight utterly failed to regulate and oversee, true. But if you're trying to make the point that the government somehow forced the lenders to issue the subprime loans that eventually caused the implosion, you're simply wrong. The private actors in the market figured that out all on their own.
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.
