I know there's much more. I only addresses the CFM act because that's what you pointed to, when you tried to put all the blame for the crash on Clinton.
There's also videos of Bush bragging about the surge of new home owners under his watch. And the CRA? The mortgage banks like Counrtywide who committed vast amounts of fraud, forgeries and rampant greed, had nothing to do with the CRA, also most of the subprime loans were made by firms that weren't subject to the CRA. And the rating agencies who happily stamped AAA on the garbage that the banks were giving them also had nothing to do with CRA. Without those AAA ratings the banks wouldn't have been able to get rid of that garbage.
There's plenty of blame to go around.
Just look at the differences between your posts on this subject, and mine. I have blamed everyone, because that's where the blame belongs, on everyone. While you only blame the Dems and Clinton. Over the years that's been conservatives MO on the crash. The refuse to blame the Republican politicians, even though the GOP deserves some of the blame. They refuse to blame the banks, and Wall Street, and rating agencies, even though their actions caused the crash. You're just regurgitating the partisan hacks and conservative blogs. You don't want to discuss what really caused the crash, you just want to use it to further your 'all Dems are evil and stupid' agenda'.
I's not discussing this anymore, especially in this thread.
Liberals can not be trusted with our freedoms...
Obama is a disaster
Yes, Country Wide was one of the largest originators of Subprime loans.
Problem is their primary consumer was Fannie Mae, who started working with Country Wide back in 1999 when Country Wide developed a product exclusively for Fannie Mae called the " Fast and EZ " loan.
Fannie Mae was the primary consumer of Country Wides toxic loans when President Bush was pushing for a third party regulator for the highly corrupt GSEs.
And Bush's Homeowner-ship initaive wereasne through the FHA, not Fannie and Freddie and Homeowner-ship rates only increased 1 percent over his entire administration.
Homeowner-ship rates under Clinton rose from 63 percent in 1993 to 68 percent in 2000.
Thats a 5 percent increase.
Clintons CRA changes were so " successful " his own Treasury Secretary bragged about the exponential growth in mortgages to low income borrowers.
Someday if you really want to get into a open minded, none partisan politics discussion on this. I'd be all for it. It is an interesting and fascinating subject to discuss. But if you're going to just be an ideologue who's only going to blame one side, then no thanks.
The most important thing about the financial crisis is, IMO, precisely that there is widespread and bipartisan support for Wall Street in D.C. If you want to blame Clinton, and ignore Gramm's role or that he's now a senior VP with UBS (one of DOZENS of examples like that, in both parties), then you're missing the key problem, which is Wall Street just wields MASSIVE influence and it doesn't much matter which party is in charge of Congress or the regulators. They all serve the interests of the biggest banks.
In your 1st post on this subject you tried to put much of the blame for the crash on Clinton and the CFM act, until I pointed out it was a Republican bill. Then you moved on to trying to say the CRA was a major reason for the crash, until I pointed out most of the subprime loans were made by banks and firms who had nothing to do with CRA. Now you're onto fannie may. I can shoot some of that down too, but then, so you can be true to your agenda, you'll just move onto something else to try and put all the blame on the Dems.
I've been down this road before with Republicans and conservatives, your material is straight out of the conservative blogs and conservative people like Limbaugh and Hannity. I've heard this all before, and you are regurgitating it almost word for word. Limbaugh and the rest preach to a conservative crowd, so they can get away with the 1/2 truths and exaggerations. And they don't allow dissenting opinions. The problem for conservatives when they discuss the crash on public forums is this isn't a conservative echo chamber, if they are going to try and put all the blame on the Dems, they're going to get called out.
Someday if you really want to get into a open minded, none partisan politics discussion on this. I'd be all for it. It is an interesting and fascinating subject to discuss. But if you're going to just be an ideologue who's only going to blame one side, then no thanks.
The most important thing about the financial crisis is, IMO, precisely that there is widespread and bipartisan support for Wall Street in D.C. If you want to blame Clinton, and ignore Gramm's role or that he's now a senior VP with UBS (one of DOZENS of examples like that, in both parties), then you're missing the key problem, which is Wall Street just wields MASSIVE influence and it doesn't much matter which party is in charge of Congress or the regulators. They all serve the interests of the biggest banks.
Which is why it's also so funny that anyone can believe anyone in government forced the banks to do a single thing they didn't really want to do, like make loans to poor blahs in the inner city.....
Thank you for posting that. Good info.
But, I never claimed there was more secrecy, and as I pointed out in a response to another poster, just because this has been accepted practice in the past does not make it any more kosher.
Note: My stance on this is for pretty anything government, barring legitimate national defense concerns, etc. NN does not qualify for that exemption.
In 1998, Janet Reno bragged about the effectiveness of Clintons CRA changes and his " fair lending initiative " amd publicly and stated that the Clinton DOJ had already SUCCESSFULLY sued 13 lending institutions for " discriminatory lending practices " and vowed to target more.
And the DOJ wasn't the only one shaking down Banks. HUD sued Banks and so did Community Activist Organizations like ACORN.
Of-course the Banks were forced. In 1999, Clintons own Treasury Secretary congratulated Clinton in a Email over the success of his CRA changes.
There's your opinion, and then there's reality. Ill provide the reality, you provide your opinions.
What nonsense. The mortgage crisis wasn't created by CRA or pressure on banks to lend. The crisis was created by banks making loans that people could not pay back. Things would have been OK but the banks began to believe their own hype about the value of the loans and they loaded their portfolios with this junk. The fact that the government let banks behave in this way is awful.
What nonsense. The mortgage crisis wasn't created by CRA or pressure on banks to lend. The crisis was created by banks making loans that people could not pay back. There was no one in government who was pressuring any bank to do that. The reason that the banks did this was that they found out they could repackage the loans and get S&P to give a AAA rating on what should have been junk. This made selling loans the source of income rather than earning interest on the loan. The enabler for this was the invention of the credit-default swap. Things would have been OK but the banks began to believe their own hype about the value of the loans and they loaded their portfolios with this junk. The fact that the government let banks behave in this way is awful. However, blaming government for not preventing the financial system from being stupid is kind of silly. However, we see that if the government doesn't prevent it, the people in the financial system will game the system for their own personal benefit and not care if they put their companies or the entire financial system at risk. That's why talk of completely free markets is so stupid. It meets Einstein's definition of insanity.
In 1998, Janet Reno bragged about the effectiveness of Clintons CRA changes and his " fair lending initiative " amd publicly and stated that the Clinton DOJ had already SUCCESSFULLY sued 13 lending institutions for " discriminatory lending practices " and vowed to target more.
And the DOJ wasn't the only one shaking down Banks. HUD sued Banks and so did Community Activist Organizations like ACORN.
Of-course the Banks were forced. In 1999, Clintons own Treasury Secretary congratulated Clinton in a Email over the success of his CRA changes.
There's your opinion, and then there's reality. Ill provide the reality, you provide your opinions.
No, you're providing the completely one sided opinions of an ideologue that in half a dozen posts on the crisis hasn't managed to find any blame to spread to GOPers. You ignore that during the time in the mid 2000s that the banks were being forced by Janet Reno and Clinton to make loans to poor people that these poor, put upon banks were all making record profits, paying record bonuses, as were every other player in the mortgage lending field. They were running ads in my area on TV and radio begging poor people to take out loans, no doc liar loans, negative amortization loans, 110% of equity loans, home equity loans to go to Paris, buy a car - basically if you could fog a mirror, they wanted your business. The underwriters were making record bonuses, the people bundling the loans skimmed off their share and paid out record bonuses, the ratings agencies took record fees to rate them AAA, the house builders were getting wealthy - in short the entire industry was shoveling money in as fast as they could move the shovels.
And you're telling me it's because Reno and Clinton FORCED them to do these things that made them all wealthy beyond their wildest imaginations...... Sure. I buy it, and also that at the end of the rainbow is a pot of gold, etc.....
BTW, global phenomena require global causes. Here's a picture of the global housing market. How did CRA cause a housing bubble in Ireland? Guess Reno had a global reach...
You know who was advertising ? ACORN.
Here's a ACORN add that appeared in the 1995 Chicago Sun Times...
And yes, there were other Credit Bubbles aside from the US Sub-prime crisis in other Countries including Spain and Ireland. They actually prosecuted the corrupt Politicians that got involved in their Credit bubbles and I never said CRA had anything to do with it.
You people keep making the uniformed assertion that Banks were NOT forced. I've corrected you more than once. You whine about the Banks when Fannie and Freddie, stocked with Clinton appointments and protected by the Democrat party used their 4 Billion line of credit from the US Treasury, their 5 % Capital requirements and their " AAA " debt status to buy Trillions of dollars in Sub-prime loans and Securities.
They were the primary consumer of sub-prime loans and securities and their involvement and implicit Government created demand for a toxic financial product that inundated the Financial markets. On top of that they basically hid over a Trillion dollars in worthless debt from the SEC and from Congress and the Bush administration.
Well it was good while it lasted. :shrug:
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?