davidtaylorjr
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 30, 2013
- Messages
- 6,775
- Reaction score
- 1,123
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Lately I keep hearing talk of another recession around the corner. What do you think? If there is another recession, how much can America take and what do you think is the root problem?
:lamo:lamo just :lamo:lamo
Another way to measure the relationship between the CRA and the subprime crisis is to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods that are classified by income. Data made available by RealtyTrac on foreclosure filings from January 2006 through August 2008 indicate that most foreclosure filings (e.g., about 70 percent in 2006) have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods. More important, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA.9/ (See Table 7.)
Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.
:lamo:lamo just :lamo:lamo
There is nothing to suggest the CRA forced
banks to make risky loans. On the contrary, CRA loans were less likely to default than non-CRA loans of similar credit quality.
source
Fannie Mae's currently in possesion of 1.7 TRILLION dollars worth of CRA loans or MBSs backed by CRA loans.
But hey, the NBER disagrees with the Bush haters and has published a study that shows a direct correlation between CRA Test scores and risky lending.
And it's not so much the loans as it is the long list of Executive Orders in Clinton's 1995 National Homeownership Strategy, Janet Reno's threatening of banks, the publishing of banks CRA scores that activist groups like ACORN used to intimidate banks with false charges of discrimination, and the lowering of the Capital Requirements from 10% to 3% for loans purchased by the GSEs.
Tell me, if CRA was in response to " discrimination", that is the refusal of loans based soleley on the color of ones skin, WHY did they have to lower standards to combat it ?
Which are of the lowest default class.
Direct correlation, not causation. Which is not exactly compelling given the relative risk differentials between PLS and CRA mortgage origination. Why are loans supported by the government less likely to default than those that were a byproduct of the private sector?
Again.... CRA loans are not the trouble area.
There are many reasons. The first comes in the form of hedging and insurance; prior to the 1980's the mortgage and bond insurance market was much smaller in scale. Now days, there are a plethora of financial firms that charge fee's in exchange for guarantees to banks who purchase loans. The majority of these "fees" are built into the costs of these mortgages in question.
The homeownership strategy is just bad economics. High levels of homeownership leaves the aggregate economy prone to long bouts of heightened unemployment as these people are less capable of finding new employment opportunities outside of a 100 mile radius. Hence too much home ownership impedes employment mobility.
Blaming the mortgage crisis/housing bubble (even a small portion of it) on the CRA is just nonsense.
I’ve proven the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004. Fenton has to continue to convince himself that I haven’t.VERN and his manufactured Sub-Prime reality.
He actually thinks it all started after 2004. .
He post the same three links
and then makes s**t up on top of that.
Fannie Mae's currently in possesion of 1.7 TRILLION dollars worth of CRA loans or MBSs backed by CRA loans.
Wait, did the last recession end?
No, you have not.I’ve proven the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004. Fenton has to continue to convince himself that I haven’t.
Lol...we never came out of the last recession.
I tend to agree with you. The Liberal media is trying to convince us we have but I have a feeling a lot of their data is either fabricated, out of context or inaccurate; all to elect the President for another term.
No, you have not.
What you did was to start a thread about it which ended by you absolutely getting crushed on the issue by several different posters including myself. What you are doing now is a common tactic used by 9-11 truthers. You lick your wounds, wait for the dust to settle, and then come back with the exact same debunked garbage and hope that no one remembers.
Do you seriously believe the integrity of U.S. data compultation is in question because Obama is President?
If so, this is the place for you!
I don't think it's a secret the Media has a Liberal bias. Here are some reasons:
1. Ben Ghazi Do I need to say anything else?
2.Homeless Do you remember all those commercials for the homeless population of America during Bush's presidency? I'm all for making the public aware of the homeless but why have the commercials stopped? Is it because Obama is president? Or do we just no longer have homeless people in America?
3. Unemployment Look at this chart via Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.3
2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.6 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.8
2013 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.6
Remember the media's outrage when the unemployment rates would go above 5% during Bush's terms in office? Well the unemployment rates are currently nearing 8%. The media surely isn't completely silent to that fact but it is nothing compared to how upset they were when it rose during Bush's presidency. Another factor to consider, there is no way to track those people who have completely stopped searching for jobs.
4. Let's compare what Bush and Biden have said and the media's reaction. Biden has created phony gun statistics, told a man in a wheelchair to STAND UP! and told people "You can't enter a Seven Eleven or a Dunkin' Doughnuts without having a slight Indian accent." (Those are just a few.) I don't hear many in the media realm commenting. Bush makes a slight grammar error and is called a racist by Kanye West. Media is up in arms.
I don't want to get into a debate about the inner workings of each of my examples but simply wanted to provide a few reasons of why I believe the media is definitely bias and ask you, why does the media seem to be more silent on these issues now? (Insert my so-called "conspiracy" theory.)
I don't think it's a secret the Media has a Liberal bias. Here are some reasons:
:lamo:lamo just :lamo:lamo
Go back and re read the thread, Vern. Every single "conclusion" that you came to got hammered into smithereens. I'll refer to that thread as evidence because I have no interest in repeating the exact same exercise here.That’s funny Jack, how exactly did you and several different posters ‘crush’ Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets, the Federal Reserve, the Dallas Reserve Bank, the Atlanta Reserve Bank, Bush's HUD press releases, Bush's Statement of Policy, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Conference of State Bank Supervisors, Bush's Homeownership Policy Book - Executive Summary, United States Government Accountability Office, etc? I saw you and several posters whine at them, post made up facts and then whine some more but I really missed the part where you ‘crushed’ anything.
Hey, here’s an idea Jack, ‘crush’ the fannie mae data showing the poor performance of their loans during the documented dates of the Bush Mortgage Bubble. Based on your post, should be a piece of cake.
Go back and re read the thread, Vern. Every single "conclusion" that you came to got hammered into smithereens. I'll refer to that thread as evidence because I have no interest in repeating the exact same exercise here.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...atforms/156717-bush-mortgage-bubble-faqs.html
Your op got lit up like the Fourth of July, dude.
CRA prevented banks from discriminating against QUALIFIED borrowers
There is nothing to suggest the CRA forced banks to make risky loans. On the contrary, CRA loans were less likely to default than non-CRA loans of similar credit quality.
Any government intervention in the economy is coercive. All interventions substitute voluntary action with coercion.
Keynesian economics states that in the long run, the economy fixes itself. So far, it seems like Obama has been unsuccessful in implementing many of his policies (thanks to Republican opposition), and therefore, with the economy practically running itself and without government intervention, the economy is going to reach equilibrium... Basically, there's always going to be a pattern between the good times and the bad, and since there's been plenty of bad, there's plenty of good to come. It's figuring out the patterns that helps us as individuals to adjust our lives appropriately.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?