Topic: NBER: Yep, Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, and Janet Reno Were Directly Responsible

[Pandora]

... for the 2008 Mortgage Meltdown

"... The National Bureau for Economic Research (NBER) just put the final nail in the coffin.

    Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession... But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."

    Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.

    To satisfy CRA examiners, "flexible" lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often... The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 — when banks rapidly sold CRA mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.

    CRA regulations are at the core of Fannie's and Freddie's so-called affordable housing mission. In the early 1990s, a Democrat Congress gave HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan quotas at Fannie and Freddie... It passed a law requiring the government-backed agencies to "assist insured depository institutions to meet their obligations under the (CRA)." The goal was to help banks meet lending quotas by buying their CRA loans.
    But they had to loosen underwriting standards to do it. And that's what they did.

    "We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals," Fannie Vice Chair Jamie Gorelick beseeched lenders gathered at a banking conference in 2000, just after HUD hiked the mortgage giant's affordable housing quotas to 50% and pressed it to buy more CRA-eligible loans to help meet those new targets. "We will buy them from your portfolios or package them into securities."

    She described "CRA-friendly products" as mortgages with less than "3% down" and "flexible underwriting." ... From 2001-2007, Fannie and Freddie bought roughly half of all CRA home loans, most carrying subprime features.

    ...Obama officials, who are cracking the CRA whip anew against banks, insist the law played no role in the mortgage meltdown... While the 1977 law was passed 30 years before the crisis, it underwent a major overhaul just 10 years earlier. Starting in 1995, banks were measured on their use of innovative and flexible" lending standards, which included reduced down payments and credit requirements.

    Banks that didn't meet Clinton's tough new numerical lending targets were denied merger plans, among other penalties. CRA shakedown groups like Acorn held hostage the merger plans of banks like Citibank and Washington Mutual until they pledged more loans to credit-poor minorities... WaMu CEO Kerry Killinger has blamed the CRA for his bank's overexposure to risky loans. He said he wanted to tighten lending requirements, but "such measures would have presented other issues such as the company's CRA rating and its commitment to serving its (low-income and minority) customers and communities."

Yep, you read that right; CRA has been revved up and reinvigorated.  Because it worked so well the first time ......

[Glock32]

Response from the MSM: "Shut up, conspiracy theorist!"


Response from average American moron: "Whatever. The news said that's a debunked conspiracy theory."

[IronDioPriest]

It was the overfed White man's predatory greed that tanked the whole world's economy. That's all the Leftists need people to know. They will use that to justify everything that they do, until in the end, when they use it to justify the killing.

[RickZ]

People forget that Owebama was a part of a communist-y orgainzing lawsuit against CitiBank in 1995, using the CRA.  Of course Owebama thinks the law's not responsible.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/03/with-landmark-lawsuit-barack-obama-pushed-banks-to-give-subprime-loans-to-chicagos-african-americans/

President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices.

As few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes with clean credit ratings, following a decade in which Obama and other progressives pushed banks to provide mortgages to poor African Americans.

The startling failure rate among Obama’s private sector clients was discovered during The Daily Caller’s review of previously unpublished court information from the lawsuit that a young Obama worked on as an attorney for the lead plaintiff. s]

Since the mortgage bubble burst, some of his former clients are calling for a policy reversal.

“If you see some people don’t make enough money to afford the mortgage, why would you give them a loan?” asked Obama client John Buchanan. “There should be some type of regulation against giving people loans they can’t afford.”

Banks “were too eager to lend to many who didn’t qualify,” said Don Byas, another client who saw banks lurch from caution to bubble-inflating recklessness. [RELATED: Obama's Citibank plaintiffs hit hard when housing bubble burst]

“I don’t care what race you are. … You need to keep financial wisdom [separate] from trying to help your people,” said Byas, an autoworker.

Obama’s lawsuit was one element of a national “anti-redlining” campaign led by Chicago’s progressive groups, who argued that banks unfairly refused to lend money to people living within so-called “redlines” around African-American communities. The campaign was powered by progressives’ moral claim that their expertise could boost home ownership among the United States’ most disadvantaged minority, African-Americans.

--SNIP--

“There should be some type of regulation against giving people loans they can’t afford.”  Well, jackass, there already is a law, an economic law about income and outgo, as in more outgo than income = sucker.

[warpmine]

“There should be some type of regulation against giving people loans they can’t afford.”  Well, jackass, there already is a law, an economic law about income and outgo, as in more outgo than income = sucker.

Nail hit squarely on the head!

This is why this crazy sounding sob(myself) is always spouting off about having these MF'ers tried and executed. They are all devoid of any common sense in reference to economics and morality and we really need to show for the future generations that this sh*t will not be rewarded but in fact punished with high prejudice. If we fail in our attempt to dole out punishment we'll forever have a repeated instances whereas hacks will seek their fortunes without consequences.

[RickZ]

They are all devoid of any common sense in reference to economics and morality and we really need to show for the future generations that this sh*t will not be rewarded but in fact punished with high prejudice. If we fail in our attempt to dole out punishment we'll forever have a repeated instances whereas hacks will seek their fortunes without consequences.

As I've stated already, we are no longer a moral people confident in our selves and our Country.  Communists are not moral.

I'm not sure I should post my profanity laced missive to my state senator, Hoseb Peralta, one of those voting for NY's draconian gun-grabbing law.  I'm fed up, so I don't care if I receive a visit from Big Brother.  I do not bow down to communists.  Ever.  Oh, hell, here it is.  I used my real name because I. don't. give. a. shyt. any. more.:

I am in receipt of the birthday wishes card you wasted taxpayer money in sending me.  I would ask that you take those wishes and shove them up your ass, you gun grabbing, US Constitution hating motherf**king son-of-a-bitch.

You progressive f**ktards have no idea what you are doing.  But when it comes, you, and every other traitor, will be held responsible.

Just to give you a little clue, you f**king idiot, let me tell you what the 2nd Amendment RIGHT, not need, is all about.  It's not about hunting game, or target practice or self-defense.  No, the 2nd Amendment is for hunting tyrannical politicians such as your asshole self.  Don't believe me, motherf**ker?  Go read Jefferson, or Washington, or the f**king Federalist Papers, you clueless f**king moron.

Christ, I am so pissed at gun grabbing assholes like yourself taking away peoples' rights.  You take the 2nd away today, the 1st goes tomorrow and the 4th the day after that.

I truly hope that when the violence comes, and you are insuring it will come, all you f**king traitors who voted for this piece of sh*t bill suffer the only consequence a traitor should suffer, and with alacrity.

Go f**k your gun grabbing self, you asshole.

Oh, and quit wasting money on these f**king worthless and useless happy cards.  They don't work, not with you working hard at creating a communist totalitarian state right in my own Country.  You don't like this wonderful Country and its glorious History?  Then get the f**k out and go back to whatever f**king turd world hellhole your ancestors hailed.  Go f**k up that country and leave this one alone, asshole.

RickZ

[Libertas]

Yeah, nice of this to come out 25 years after I warned this would be the result!  I do not feel like celebrating the fricken fact I was right!  As a recovered bank auditor I feel like my alarms are still being pissed on, all I want to do is return the favor on all of the graves of the asshats who wrote this law, executed it and supported it!

[Glock32]

One of the mental hurdles we will have to get people over is this idea that just because the superficial trappings of representative, elected government are still used for ornamentation doesn't mean this is not a developing tyranny, and it doesn't mean we will somehow be anything less than righteous when we are finally forced to confront it openly.

"They're just doing what the people elected them to do", "If you have a problem with how things are, you can seek redress from your elected representatives", "We had free and fair elections (barf) and they won", and various permutations of this line of reasoning are going to have to be addressed. The first line of attack I take is the fact that this government was instituted to acknowledge and protect our fundamental, natural rights. It is not itself the progenitor of rights, and therefore it is not the prerogative of the state or any number of useful idiots to decide upon the disposition of these rights. Second, I would argue that the process itself has been corrupted beyond hope of repair. Our Founders implemented thoroughly brilliant failsafes into our system of government, making its various branches quite deliberately adversarial in nature. It is a testament to the Founders' genius that it has taken 200+ years for demagogues and would-be tyrants to short circuit their checks, balances, and safeties -- but it has nevertheless happened and we must recognize it.

I think this is worthy of a discussion thread in itself, this discussion of how to counter the phony legitimacy of government. Just imagine you are talking to the average middle of the road person (i.e. not a confirmed moonbat), how would you counter them when they raise objections such as "Well, come on, we still have elections" and "I don't like it either, but this is what the people decided" (as an aside, this demigod status that gets assigned to "the people" is like nails on a chalkboard) and various other appeals to the hollowed-out leftovers of a once-representative form of government?

[Libertas]

One of the mental hurdles we will have to get people over is this idea that just because the superficial trappings of representative, elected government are still used for ornamentation doesn't mean this is not a developing tyranny, and it doesn't mean we will somehow be anything less than righteous when we are finally forced to confront it openly.

"They're just doing what the people elected them to do", "If you have a problem with how things are, you can seek redress from your elected representatives", "We had free and fair elections (barf) and they won", and various permutations of this line of reasoning are going to have to be addressed. The first line of attack I take is the fact that this government was instituted to acknowledge and protect our fundamental, natural rights. It is not itself the progenitor of rights, and therefore it is not the prerogative of the state or any number of useful idiots to decide upon the disposition of these rights. Second, I would argue that the process itself has been corrupted beyond hope of repair. Our Founders implemented thoroughly brilliant failsafes into our system of government, making its various branches quite deliberately adversarial in nature. It is a testament to the Founders' genius that it has taken 200+ years for demagogues and would-be tyrants to short circuit their checks, balances, and safeties -- but it has nevertheless happened and we must recognize it.

I think this is worthy of a discussion thread in itself, this discussion of how to counter the phony legitimacy of government. Just imagine you are talking to the average middle of the road person (i.e. not a confirmed moonbat), how would you counter them when they raise objections such as "Well, come on, we still have elections" and "I don't like it either, but this is what the people decided" (as an aside, this demigod status that gets assigned to "the people" is like nails on a chalkboard) and various other appeals to the hollowed-out leftovers of a once-representative form of government?

The former is a certainty.  As for the latter. . . I would ask them to produce the evidence that these people they elected and gave power to are using this authority in a responsible way and are faithfully adhering to Founding principles and not enriching themselves and their parties and accruing more power unto themselves and away from us.  I don't see it, if they were adhering to Founding principles our problems would be less, our government would be less, our debt and deficits would be less and our freedom would be more.  Show me the proof!

[RickZ]

Glock, we've had a communist coup thanks to massive vote fraud.  But no one talks about that at all.

There is not enough tin foil to last me through the remainder of this Administration.

[Glock32]

Agreed. And I should clarify, when I ask what would you say to that middle of the road person, I ask not because I believe our only hope is somehow "reaching" these people. I ask more as a messaging exercise, because you know well that whenever direct, physical resistance finally starts happening, the resisters are going to be "insurgents", "terrorists", "seditionists", "traitors". The reality, of course, is that it is this government that is treasonous and traitorous.

I just keep playing a scenario in my mind where the meme is circulated that "the original American revolutionaries were justified because they had no representation in Parliament. That's not the case now, these terrorists had the opportunity to elect representatives to Congress, there's no justification for this!"

But our situation is actually worse now. Being dictated to by an overseas government in which you have no representation lays things out in clear terms. Far worse is the situation where you are still being dictated to by a distant, detached government but one in which you have make-believe representation. I guess I'm fearful that otherwise decent people will not acknowledge tyranny so long as we have make-believe representation.

[RickZ]

I guess I'm fearful that otherwise decent people will not acknowledge tyranny so long as we have make-believe representation.

If the OwebamaCare vote shenanigans didn't cure them of that fanstasy, nothing will.  Voting on such a revolutionary and far-reaching 2,700 page bill unread without deliberation is THE definition of Tyranny.

[warpmine]

This government has been illegitimate in the eyes of the Founders since the 17th was passed and that was deemed passed by those that wanted it despite many of the legislative bodies being in recess so therefore, I'm one of those that refuse to recognize the entire government as it is today which is a pure democracy of mob rule. Both houses of our legislative branch have representation by mob rule which was contrary to the vision of the Founders of people and states represented in the government. We can all plainly see the result of usurpation of rights by the Federales much the same way every other dictatorship has traveled. Screw all of them, they'll get theirs soon enough.

[Glock32]

I guess at some point it ceases to be a question of "proving" that we are in the grip of an unfolding tyranny, and simply making it clear that we believe it to be so, are preparing to give resistance, and let the chips fall where they may.

The American revolutionaries had to deal with people who didn't think the Crown was tyrannical, too. I suppose all human disagreement ultimately gets down to which side can physically destroy the other first.

[RickZ]

I guess at some point it ceases to be a question of "proving" that we are in the grip of an unfolding tyranny, and simply making it clear that we believe it to be so, are preparing to give resistance, and let the chips fall where they may.

The American revolutionaries had to deal with people who didn't think the Crown was tyrannical, too. I suppose all human disagreement ultimately gets down to which side can physically destroy the other first.

The problem with applying that piece of History to today is this:  There were roughly 3 groups approximating 1/3 of the population in each group:  The Rebels, the Tories, and those who straddled the fence and did nothing.  Today, the Fedcoats, modern Tories, are around 50%; I can't imagine what %age are the ditherers.  The modern Rebels, TEA Partiers, small government constitutionalists, I can't help but think they'd be any more than that 33% all those years ago, probably significantly less.  We modern Rebels are seriously outnumbered by the Free Shyt Army and ennui.  There's also the self-sufficiency and personal responsibility that was the norm then and the exact opposite today.  I think those are significant differences between now and then.  The one thing that happened back then was the heavy-handedness of the Lobsterbacks pushed some of the straddlers into the Rebel camp.  That might hold true today but, again, I still think the the numbers would be problematical.

[Libertas]

I think the biggest difference is the people of today are too soft and too accepting of encroachments upon their rights of person, thought and property...most will piss and bitch and throw up their arms and say "what can you do?" and go back to watching reality TV.  We may be outnumbered, but we are more principled and more determined to hold onto our rights and will die rather than live on our knees, we may lose, but they will not win easily.  Let the will of God prevail.

[RickZ]

Let the will of God prevail.

No.  That's sounds too much like insh'allah, too fatalistic.  You can ask God for help if you want, but I want our Constitutional will to prevail.  Full stop.

[Libertas]

Let the will of God prevail.

No.  That's sounds too much like insh'allah, too fatalistic.  You can ask God for help if you want, but I want our Constitutional will to prevail.  Full stop.

Not fatalistic, unburdened is more like it, I know what I believe is right and my actions will be in synch with that belief, if the opposition thinks they are right I am comfortable with the Ultimate Judge rendering verdict after the dust clears, that sits well with me, my conscience is clear.