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.
With the collapse of the housing market being fueled to a great extent by the failure of mortgages given to low income citizens who could not afford homes in the first place, do libs still advocate this practice? Why or Why Not? This was a cornerstone of lib politics since the Carter administration. Is it still a good idea?
With the collapse of the housing market being fueled to a great extent by the failure of mortgages given to low income citizens who could not afford homes in the first place, do libs still advocate this practice? Why or Why Not? This was a cornerstone of lib politics since the Carter administration. Is it still a good idea?
You do realize, don't you...that a lot of the bad mortgages given were issued to people that made quite a bit of money? Those people simply (stupidly) bought more house than they could afford, and made other bad financial decisions, such as taking out equity to cover unsecured debt.
With the collapse of the housing market being fueled to a great extent by the failure of mortgages given to low income citizens who could not afford homes in the first place, do libs still advocate this practice? Why or Why Not? This was a cornerstone of lib politics since the Carter administration. Is it still a good idea?
Why start a thread asking for input if you've already have the answers? Care to provide a link to backup this low income mortgage? Care to provide actual statistics on your bias statements?
We'll wait. Last I checked the "American Dream" was both a Republican and Democratic Presidential and Congressional fiasco. But don't let that get in the way with your bias rant...continue
With the collapse of the housing market being fueled to a great extent by the failure of mortgages given to low income citizens who could not afford homes in the first place, do libs still advocate this practice? Why or Why Not? This was a cornerstone of lib politics since the Carter administration. Is it still a good idea?
You just do not know what you are talking about.
More on your bogus "minority lending did it" argument.
Janet L. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, made the following case in a March 31 speech:
"There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households. We should not view the current foreclosure trends as justification to abandon the goal of expanding access to credit among low-income households, since access to credit, and the subsequent ability to buy a home, remains one of the most important mechanisms we have to help low-income families build wealth over the long term."
University of Michigan Law Professor Michael Barr,
a specialist in banking and finance law, flatly rejected claims that the CRA was "a significant factor in the current crisis. CRA was enacted more than 30 years ago. It would be quite odd if this 30-year old law suddenly caused an explosion in bad subprime loans from 2002-2007....Subprime mortgages were mostly made by mortgage brokers and lenders and securitized by investment banks -- institutions not covered by CRA," he told the Huffington Post, adding, "CRA only covers banks and thrifts, and these institutions mostly have not suffered to the same extent or kind from bad lending as the non-CRA-covered institutions at the core of the current crisis. The problem here is not CRA. It is what the late former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich called 'the giant hole in the supervisory safety net' -- bad lending by firms outside the banking sector's rules for prudential supervision, capital requirements, consumer protection and yes, the CRA."
Along similar lines, University of Oregon economist Marc Thoma
Cited the long delay between enactment of CRA and the current crisis and the fact that only 20 percent of subprime loans were made by CRA-regulated lenders, adding two other points: that "subprime loans grew twice as fast in institutions that did not have to meet the conditions of the CRA" and that the scope of coverage of CRA was reduced in 2004 under the Bush administration, "but even though fewer banks were subject to CRA restrictions, the growth of the subprime market continued unabated."
You forgot a step there. Before you sell those "bundled mortgages" you have to have mortgages.
Wall Street didn't sell those homes. Wall Street didn't underwrite those mortgages. Wall Street didn't fund those loans or qualify those buyers.
Not all those investors were foolish. Before the bust "AAA Insured" carried a lot of weight. It was as good as a bank CD in terms of bond quality.
Yes everbody was in on it. The lender, the real estate agent, the mortgage company, the appraiser, the mortgage bundler, the stock broker who sold them, the bond rating companies as well.
NONE OF THIS HAD TO DO WITH CRA LENDING.
IN FACT CRA, LENDERS WERE LESS EFFECTED.
STOP TRYING TO SINGLE OUT MINORITIES OR THOSE WHO PROMOTE LENDING TO MINORITES.
You do realize, don't you...that a lot of the bad mortgages given were issued to people that made quite a bit of money? Those people simply (stupidly) bought more house than they could afford, and made other bad financial decisions, such as taking out equity to cover unsecured debt.
The reason people did as you stated above was because home prices were going through the roof and they thought that they would never go down. This was caused by a flood of unqualified borrowers to the housing market.
STOP TRYING TO SINGLE OUT MINORITIES OR THOSE WHO PROMOTE LENDING TO MINORITES.
And then you go and do it again.
Who the hell has said minorities in this thread other than you?
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.
