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.
the guy was denied b/c of his income. Obama found a loophole, so they could go after other peoples money.
False. The case specifically alleged that Citibank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.
Obama may or may not be considered as a big player in what has already happened but the $8000 credit and the proposed bigger one can be laid in his lap.
Ask around and see how many that were not already(and able) to buy are thrilled with this bonus money and how many actually needed it to buy.
AND...if they needed it to buy......were they good candidates for new, secure mortages in other respects?
You can't hold a lawyer accountable for the stances he takes on matters. There could have been any number factors, from the firm's position to simply needing a highly visible case - that would cause any lawyer to defend an obvious murderer or some such.
Your hypothesis on illegal immigration is pretty absurd and perhaps rooted in an observation of your community. Where I lived, immigration wasn't an issue and housing prices still skyrocketed based on increased demand for urban amenities.
you miss the point that when you have a bubble you need a catalyst. i don't see how you can deny that allowing the flooding of millions of people, who previously did not have homes in the country, would, in fact, create such a catalyst. i am not saying that the housing situation is the fault of illegal immigrants, but that they were the catalyst to start the last housing boom.
the states with the highest foreclosure rates now also have the highest immigration rates.
False. The case specifically alleged that Citibank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.
As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. ACORN Housing Corporation
the organization he was associated with is still trying to lend risky mortgages!
Pretty sleazy. In addtion to being unrelated to the Buycks-Roberson case, the quote you cited is found nowhere on any ACORN website as you imply with your link. Instead, it is ripped in its entirety and without attribution from an unsourced and unsubstantiated editorial written for the deceptively named American Thinker by right-wing propagandist James Simpson. Here is the link. Fourth paraghraph from the bottom.
The allegations presented are meanwhile false. Unless of course YOU can provide the sort of evidence in support of them that Mr. Simpson could not.
Actually, Obama has cited on numerous occasions a lack of regulatory oversight as a significant contributor to the housing crisis. That's why he's introducing new regulations for the market as one tool of many to prevent this sort of issue from happening again.
Exactly. There's plenty of blame to go around (including Bill Clinton - thanks, Bill [/sarcasm]), but none of it to President Obama. It's important to understand the background. This crisis has its history in the Lobbying industry, going back as far as the 1960s, but the real **** storm we're facing actually took root in the Federal Reserve during Regan's tenure. PBS's Frontline did a pretty good historical outline of the events, here.
Quote:
. . .
In March 1987, the Fed approves an application by Chase Manhattan to engage in underwriting commercial paper, applying the same reasoning as in the 1986 Bankers Trust decision, and in April it issues an order outlining its rationale. While the Board remains sensitive to concerns about mixing commercial banking and underwriting, it states its belief that the original Congressional intent of "principally engaged" allowed for some securities activities. The Fed also indicates that it will raise the limit from 5 percent to 10 percent of gross revenues at some point in the future. The Board believes the new reading of Section 20 will increase competition and lead to greater convenience and increased efficiency.
In August 1987, Alan Greenspan -- formerly a director of J.P. Morgan and a proponent of banking deregulation -- becomes chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. One reason Greenspan favors greater deregulation is to help U.S. banks compete with big foreign institutions.
In January 1989, the Fed Board approves an application by J.P. Morgan, Chase Manhattan, Bankers Trust, and Citicorp to expand the Glass-Steagall loophole to include dealing in debt and equity securities in addition to municipal securities and commercial paper. This marks a large expansion of the activities considered permissible under Section 20, because the revenue limit for underwriting business is still at 5 percent. Later in 1989, the Board issues an order raising the limit to 10 percent of revenues, referring to the April 1987 order for its rationale.
[The Bush Administration tried several times, unsuccessfully, to repeal Glass-Steagal during the early '90s]
[Mergers and deals and crap ensue over the next several years]
In May 1998, the [Republican controlled] House passes legislation by a vote of 214 to 213 that allows for the merging of banks, securities firms, and insurance companies into huge financial conglomerates. And in September, the Senate Banking Committee votes 16-2 to approve a compromise bank overhaul bill. Despite this new momentum, Congress is yet again unable to pass final legislation before the end of its session.
As the push for new legislation heats up, lobbyists quip that raising the issue of financial modernization really signals the start of a fresh round of political fund-raising. Indeed, in the 1997-98 election cycle, the finance, insurance, and real estate industries (known as the FIRE sector), spends more than $200 million on lobbying and makes more than $150 million in political donations. Campaign contributions are targeted to members of Congressional banking committees and other committees with direct jurisdiction over financial services legislation.
After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeals Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts. Supporters hail the change as the long-overdue demise of a Depression-era relic.
On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities. Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.
. . .
And since that leaves off in 1999, let's pick it up from there with George W. Bush's speech to the White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership at The George Washington University Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2002, wherein he expressed making it his GOAL to increase low-income and minority home ownership by 5.5 million during his administration, and praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for their role in this plan. The White House website has taken down the text of his speech, and I can't find it anywhere but on blogs, so I'll choose the Sean Hannity one to link to so I don't get cooties on all the Republicans' computers. See here.
Quote:
. . .
Last June, I issued a challenge to everyone involved in the housing industry to help increase the number of minority families to be home owners. And what I'm talking about, I'm talking about your bankers and your brokers and developers, as well as members of faith-based community and community programs. And the response to the home owners challenge has been very strong and very gratifying. Twenty-two public and private partners have signed up to help meet our national goal. Partners in the mortgage finance industry are encouraging homeownership by purchasing more loans made by banks to African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities.
Freddie Mae -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- I see the heads who are here; I want to thank you all for coming -- (laughter) -- have committed to provide more money for lenders. They've committed to help meet the shortage of capital available for minority home buyers.
Fannie Mae recently announced a $50 million program to develop 600 homes for the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. Franklin [Raines], I appreciate that commitment. They also announced $12.7 million investment in a condominium project in Harlem. It's the beginnings of a series of initiatives to help meet the goal of 5.5 million families. Franklin told me at the meeting where we kicked this office, he said, I promise you we will help, and he has, like many others in this room have done.
. . .
President Bush then prevented Attorneys General in all 50 states from enacting or upholding their own states' laws against predatory lending, going so far as to SUE to prevent investigations into the practice.
Quote:
. . .
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Without the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, there wouldn't have been a market for bad loans.
The blame sits squarely on the shoulders of (then) Republican Senator Phill Gramm and Democrat President Bill Clinton.
See, it was a bipartisan effort that created the mechanism that sunk the housing market and turned Wall Street into a mortgage eating monster.
Some people around here need to know learn their history
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.
