FBI calls our President a LIAR"

[NotfooledbyW]

"the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007."

""...the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans -- a proxy for subprime loans -- had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law." "



Andylusion, post: 16933246

Every realestate investor in the entire country hopes for a crash. It makes buying investment property really cheap.

Every real estate investor doesn't become president. Trump is still a real estate investor.

He wants to cut taxes for rich folk like himself. That resulted in a crashed economy in 2007. Trickle down doesn't work. Let's not try it again.

Your sub prime argument is right wing bullcrap as well.

It was irrational exuberance by the middle and upper class trying to make a killing on the irrational rise of real estate values. The Feds didn't force banks to make loans to those irrationally exuberant home and ssecond home buyers.

And nothing forced banks the sell derivatives.

.
However, the new evidence from Manuel Adelino of the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University, Antoinette Schoar of the MIT Sloan School of Management and Felipe Severino of the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth undermines this story. In their paper, "Changes in Buyer Composition and theExpansion of Credit During the Boom," the researchers found:

"While there was a rapid expansion in overall mortgage origination during this time period, the fraction of new mortgage dollars going to each income group was stable. In other words, the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007. Taken together, the evidence in the paper suggests that there was no decoupling of mortgage growth from income growth where unsustainable credit was flowing disproportionally to poor people."
Lots of previous evidence supports this conclusion. For example, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commissionestablished by Congress concluded:

"...the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans -- a proxy for subprime loans -- had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."

Low-income loans didn't cause the financial crisis

Blaming the 2007 on Obama as a young lawyer in the nineties is so much crap, its as bad as birtherism.

 

[Andylusion]

"the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007."

""...the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans -- a proxy for subprime loans -- had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law." "



Andylusion, post: 16933246

Every realestate investor in the entire country hopes for a crash. It makes buying investment property really cheap.

Every real estate investor doesn't become president. Trump is still a real estate investor.

He wants to cut taxes for rich folk like himself. That resulted in a crashed economy in 2007. Trickle down doesn't work. Let's not try it again.

Your sub prime argument is right wing bullcrap as well.

It was irrational exuberance by the middle and upper class trying to make a killing on the irrational rise of real estate values. The Feds didn't force banks to make loans to those irrationally exuberant home and ssecond home buyers.

And nothing forced banks the sell derivatives.

.
However, the new evidence from Manuel Adelino of the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University, Antoinette Schoar of the MIT Sloan School of Management and Felipe Severino of the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth undermines this story. In their paper, "Changes in Buyer Composition and theExpansion of Credit During the Boom," the researchers found:

"While there was a rapid expansion in overall mortgage origination during this time period, the fraction of new mortgage dollars going to each income group was stable. In other words, the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007. Taken together, the evidence in the paper suggests that there was no decoupling of mortgage growth from income growth where unsustainable credit was flowing disproportionally to poor people."
Lots of previous evidence supports this conclusion. For example, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commissionestablished by Congress concluded:

"...the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans -- a proxy for subprime loans -- had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."

Low-income loans didn't cause the financial crisis

Blaming the 2007 on Obama as a young lawyer in the nineties is so much crap, its as bad as birtherism.

The problem is the commission made a decision to ignore causal links.

Yes, if you look at only loans that were directly covered by the CRA, then you would conclude it had a limited effect.

That is not the argument we are making. We are not suggesting that the few hundred thousands loans directly covered by the CRA caused the crash.

We are saying that there was a shift in the market, that was instigated by the CRA.

The commission simply said "out of 100 loans, only six were CRA loans, thus CRA wasn't the cause the problem."

The problem is, the evidence suggests that it was because of those six CRA loans, that the other loans were made.

From the late 70s, up till 1997, anyone could made a sub-prime loan. But if you look at the sub-prime loan market, it was a very niche market.

Before 1997, the market for sub-prime was tiny. So what exactly happened that made the market take off? Because before that, no one wanted a high-risk loan... it was.... high risk. Not worth the danger. What changed?

First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering Backed By Affordable Mortgages

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact - they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
​

Do you understand? Something had to happen. And it had to have happened in 1997.

Millions of banks and lenders across the planet, did not just wake up one day, and all decide magically without talking to each other, to start making sub-prime loans. What made those loans appear safe, was the CRA loans, which were considered safe by this partnership with Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns, and First Union.

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation (NYSE: FTU).​

This deal between the Federal Government backed Freddie Mac, gave sub-prime CRA loans, the status of having a AAA rating.

Now this you need to grasp. There is no practical difference between a CRA loan, and a sub-prime loan on the market from a private lender. Both are loans that are 'sub'.... prime. Meaning simply that they don't meet the requirements of a prime-rate loan.

There is nothing 'magical' about CRA loans, that makes them default or fail, less than any other sub-prime loan.

So many banks said, if those sub-prime loans under the CRA are safe, then why not our sub-prime loans? That's why the market shot off like a rocket after 1997. If you continue to doubt that, fine but two things. First, I'll gladly take another explanation that fits the facts.

You need to find some explanation that describes how banks that had long considered sub-prime to be too risk, all together, in the same year, from coast to coast, all went full-retard in unison. I personally can't think of any private institution that would have such a universal influence strong enough, to affect the entire industry.

Government on the other hand, does routinely.

Lastly, I'm not the only one who has said this.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008XKXAAG/?tag=ff0d01-20

People in the banking sector have said the same thing.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Andylusion, post: 16950702,

You need to find some explanation that describes how banks that had long considered sub-prime to be too risk, all together, in the same year, from coast to coast, all went full-retard in unison. I personally can't think of any private institution that would have such a universal influence strong enough, to affect the entire industry.

It's called greed. The appreciation rate of residential property and vacation condos and houses etc drove everyone nuts. Buyers and banks alike. Banker greed was convincing all classes of Americans to take out variable rate loans because property would seemingly grow in value forever.

You started your argument as based on blaming Clinton/Obama and liberals in the Federal government for FORCING banks to give sub prime loans to poor people (dog whistle for black people welfare).

Now you have to admit based on facts that's sub prime loans to poor white and black folk had very little impact on the financial meltdown known as the Great Bush Recession.

JimH52, post: 8881464.

Now that America has gained back all the jobs lost in the Bush Recession, will conservatives still blame Obama?

It has taken five years to gain back the jobs that were lost in the Great Bush Recession. Now the GOP wants the White House back so they can begin working on their second Great Recession.

And we see where you decided to take this. You blame liberals and the Federal Government for the fact that bankers cannot control their greed because Federal Assistance to disadvantaged people messed up many bankers normal rational and ethically guided minds.

So pathetic the way you twist reality to bring about an outcome vindicating crooks and blaming their victims.

 

[Andylusion]

Andylusion, post: 16950702,

You need to find some explanation that describes how banks that had long considered sub-prime to be too risk, all together, in the same year, from coast to coast, all went full-retard in unison. I personally can't think of any private institution that would have such a universal influence strong enough, to affect the entire industry.

It's called greed. The appreciation rate of residential property and vacation condos and houses etc drove everyone nuts. Buyers and banks alike. Banker greed was convincing all classes of Americans to take out variable rate loans because property would seemingly grow in value forever.

You started your argument as based on blaming Clinton/Obama and liberals in the Federal government for FORCING banks to give sub prime loans to poor people (dog whistle for black people welfare).

Now you have to admit based on facts that's sub prime loans to poor white and black folk had very little impact on the financial meltdown known as the Great Bush Recession.

JimH52, post: 8881464.

Now that America has gained back all the jobs lost in the Bush Recession, will conservatives still blame Obama?

It has taken five years to gain back the jobs that were lost in the Great Bush Recession. Now the GOP wants the White House back so they can begin working on their second Great Recession.

And we see where you decided to take this. You blame liberals and the Federal Government for the fact that bankers cannot control their greed because Federal Assistance to disadvantaged people messed up many bankers normal rational and ethically guided minds.

So pathetic the way you twist reality to bring about an outcome vindicating crooks and blaming their victims.

Greed is an illogical explanation.

First, by claiming the cause was greed.... would mean that the entire mortgage industry for the last 50 years prior to 1997, was all not greedy... because they could have made sub-prime mortgages then but did not. So then because of some alien invasion, or some other magic reason, everyone suddenly became greedy.

That's not logical.

Second, while it is obvious that the appreciation rate caused all of the secondary problems you listed, that still does not explain the appreciation rate itself.

Yes, banks were more than happy to sell loans, when they knew the value of the house would increase, thus offsetting the money lost if there was a default.

But that in and of itself, didn't happen by magic. The price value of homes was fairly stable if you look at the graph. Then the value of homes drastically increased starting in 1997.

You can't blame banks pushing sub-prime loans, on a rise in home values that didn't exist... until banks started pushing sub-prime loans.

You started your argument as based on blaming Clinton/Obama and liberals in the Federal government for FORCING banks to give sub prime loans to poor people (dog whistle for black people welfare).
Now you have to admit based on facts that's sub prime loans to poor white and black folk had very little impact on the financial meltdown known as the Great Bush Recession.

No. You are wrong. If the government had not validated sub-prime loans, they never would have been part of the mortgage market.

You are just wrong. Sorry. If what you said was true, then there would be no connection between the two. If what you said was true, then why didn't the banks push sub-prime loans in the 20 years before 1997? If what you said was true, then why didn't it happen in the 10 years after 1997?

Why did it happen in 1997? Not before. Not after. In 1997 to 1998, the sub-prime mortgage market increased from less than 1% of the market to over 12% in ONE SINGLE YEAR. No, I don't have to admit what isn't true. There is a direct causal link between the two, and only and idiot would deny it.

You blame liberals and the Federal Government for the fact that bankers cannot control their greed because Federal Assistance to disadvantaged people messed up many bankers normal rational and ethically guided minds.

Well I suppose if I was a moron, and wanted to skew the views of the direct evidence we have to fit some per-determined ideology.... ok yeah it's Bush's fault.

But if you actually want to examine the facts, and see that banks didn't make risky loans before the government got involved because they were........ .risky... Then you have to conclude that government had an influence... especially since they openly stated they intended to influence the system and lower lending standards.

However, that involves rational thinking, and not partisan spitting. Jackass.

So pathetic the way you twist reality to bring about an outcome vindicating crooks and blaming their victims

Funny given that based on everything you posted, that is exactly what I think about you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

First, by claiming the cause was greed.... would mean that the entire mortgage industry for the last 50 years prior to 1997, was all not greedy... because they could have made sub-prime mortgages then but did not. So then because of some alien invasion, or some other magic reason, everyone suddenly became greedy.

The cause of the greed under discussion as I said was the crazy hyper appreciation rate of property.

Guess you don't understand that part.

The point still is you cannot blame banks being forced by the Feds to give hone loans to poor folks. That is pure nonsense.

That was your basic argument that failed and now you are scrambling to find another.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Andylusion, post: 16958678

Second, while it is obvious that the appreciation rate caused all of the secondary problems you listed, that still does not explain the appreciation rate itself.

Greed is what caused the appreciation. Buyers and lenders went nuts together. Buyers risked their ass taking variable rate mortgages. People with good credit signed onto those.

The recession was not caused by sub prime loans. Recessions start when consumer spending declines. The mess of Iraq and other Bush disasters such as increasing debt gave Americans a gloomy outlook. China's economy I believe slowed dramatically cutting exports to that huge market. Then jobs start getting lost and mortgages are then unable to be paid. And the derivatives mess caused the global financial meltdown.


Blaming Obama as a lawyer promoting sub prime loans a decade before the Great Bush Recession is absurd.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Andylusion, post: 16958678.

But if you actually want to examine the facts, and see that banks didn't make risky loans before the government got involved because they were........ .risky... Then you have to conclude that government had an influence... especially since they openly stated they intended to influence the system and lower lending standards.

Banks were never forced or coerced by the government to get involved in risky loans.

Your whole argument falls apart on the issue of government coercion on banks. That's where you started. I have backed you down to 'influenced.'


Influenced is very subjective and a rather weak argument as a cause of the Great Bush Recession.

 

[Andylusion]

Andylusion, post: 16958678.

But if you actually want to examine the facts, and see that banks didn't make risky loans before the government got involved because they were........ .risky... Then you have to conclude that government had an influence... especially since they openly stated they intended to influence the system and lower lending standards.

Banks were never forced or coerced by the government to get involved in risky loans.

Your whole argument falls apart on the issue of government coercion on banks. That's where you started. I have backed you down to 'influenced.'


Influenced is very subjective and a rather weak argument as a cause of the Great Bush Recession.

No, that's wrong. They were forced to make risky loans. This is well documented in numerous cases.



In 1998, Andrew Cuomo was United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He was directly appointed, and a part of the Clinton Administration.

The Clinton administration through HUD, directly sued banks specifically to make sub-prime loans. Andrew Cuomo in the video directly says "to take a higher risk" So he knew they were making the banks take higher risk loans. By the way, he never mentions CRA. These loans that the Clinton administration forced banks to make, were not CRA loans. And they were not prime-rate loans because he says specifically they were people who would not qualify for a loan, that under this legal action would get a loan. They were simply forcing them to make sub-prime loans.

And Andrew Cuomo even openly says, the default rate will be much higher, than on other loans. So they knew exactly what they were doing, even if some idiot on a forum somewhere pretends he doesn't.

 

[Andylusion]

Andylusion, post: 16958678

Second, while it is obvious that the appreciation rate caused all of the secondary problems you listed, that still does not explain the appreciation rate itself.

Greed is what caused the appreciation. Buyers and lenders went nuts together. Buyers risked their ass taking variable rate mortgages. People with good credit signed onto those.

The recession was not caused by sub prime loans. Recessions start when consumer spending declines. The mess of Iraq and other Bush disasters such as increasing debt gave Americans a gloomy outlook. China's economy I believe slowed dramatically cutting exports to that huge market. Then jobs start getting lost and mortgages are then unable to be paid. And the derivatives mess caused the global financial meltdown.


Blaming Obama as a lawyer promoting sub prime loans a decade before the Great Bush Recession is absurd.

Again completely illogical.
If "greed" was all that is required to make home values go up, then they would have gone up consistently forever. And the values would never have stopped going up.

So no one was greedy during the 1920s. Nor were they between the 40s and 70s, or the 90s, and apparently since 2007 till today, no one, not one bank, has been greedy.

Because according to your magic fairy thinking, the cause of the price bubble isn't supply and demand, or economic causes affected by government policy.... nope, it's the magic of greed that caused it.... so greed ceased to exist all during those times, and hasn't existed since 2007? Right? That's what your theory indicates.

Greedy is the sole cause of price rises, and since we don't see price rises during those times and since 2007... there must be no greed going on. Everyone is magically altruistic.

What a dumb argument. That's the best you got? I have facts and links, and evidence presented... you have the magic greedy theory.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If "greed" was all that is required to make home values go up, then they would have gone up consistently forever. And the values would never have stopped going up.

Stop lying. I did not say greed was "all@ that was required to make home values go up.

Of course laws of supply and demand start certain waves.

Once the waves are started then what I'm saying is and I'm quoting myself here: "Buyers and lenders went nuts together"

You tell me that greed was not a major factor but Obama's work as a lawyer on sub prime loans in the nineties caused a major recession and financial calamity starting in late 2007 and did not end until early 2009.

Do you realize what a nut job you are.

You live in a world where bankers and borrowers are not responsible for their actions. You blame government and Obama and poor people for the recession that started on Bush's watch.

When you claimed government coerced bankers that was a flat out lie.

 

[Andylusion]

If "greed" was all that is required to make home values go up, then they would have gone up consistently forever. And the values would never have stopped going up.

Stop lying. I did not say greed was "all@ that was required to make home values go up.

Of course laws of supply and demand start certain waves.

Once the waves are started then what I'm saying is and I'm quoting myself here: "Buyers and lenders went nuts together"

You tell me that greed was not a major factor but Obama's work as a lawyer on sub prime loans in the nineties caused a major recession and financial calamity starting in late 2007 and did not end until early 2009.

Do you realize what a nut job you are.

You live in a world where bankers and borrowers are not responsible for their actions. You blame government and Obama and poor people for the recession that started on Bush's watch.

When you claimed government coerced bankers that was a flat out lie.

You tell me that greed was not a major factor but Obama's work as a lawyer on sub prime loans in the nineties caused a major recession and financial calamity starting in late 2007 and did not end until early 2009.

No I'm saying if Greed was the major factor, then why did everyone "buyers and lenders" magically start being greedy in 1997, and magically stop being greedy in 2009? You say no, they were greedy before 1997 and after 2009? Then why did the price bubble stop growing in 2007? Why didn't the price bubble start before 1997?

Whether or not it was a factor, is irrelevant. The reason people go to work, is because they want to earn money. The reason people invest is because they want money. The reason you have a computer, and an internet connection, is because people want money, and make the products you want, in order to get money.

Every car you buy, or bus you ride on, is built from this desire. Every bite of food you eat, and everything thread of clothing you wear, is built from this desire. Everything everywhere, only exists because people want to earn money.

Calling it "greed" and saying that's what caused the crisis, is like saying "the sun caused this tornado"... yeah, the sun also caused the warm sunny days, the cold wet days, the snowy blizzard days, the everything everywhere everyday.

I want to know why after literally decades where banks did not make sub-prime loans specifically because they were risky, why all of a sudden, without any prior growth, the market for sub-prime high risk loans jumped from less than 1% of the market to over 12%, in ONE SINGLE YEAR. "Greed" is not a logical rationally, intelligent answer to that question.

When you claimed government coerced bankers that was a flat out lie

Well, I posted concrete undeniable proof of my claim. A direct video clip outlining that this is what the Clinton administration did, and they even admitted it would cause defaults. You are choosing to be ignorant, and disqualified from this discussion. Good bye. Your opinion no longer matter to anyone worth talking to.

Thanks for stopping by. You are dismissed sir.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Andylusion, post: 16974069

I want to know why after literally decades where banks did not make sub-prime loans specifically because they were risky, why all of a sudden, without any prior growth, the market for sub-prime high risk loans jumped from less than 1% of the market to over 12%, in ONE SINGLE YEAR. "Greed" is not a logical rationally, intelligent answer to that question.

Greed is the only intelligent explanation. Bankers were not coerced by the government to issue every single subprime loan. There was other motivation besides government coercion driving the loans. Do you think lenders did it motivated by concern that people with bad credit could not by a home and get in on a the booming housing bubble?

I doubt that. It was greed. Greed on both sides.

Irrational exuberance got the best of people when a perfect storm of supply and demand conditions created the rapidly rising home appreciation rates.

 

[Andylusion]

Andylusion, post: 16974069

I want to know why after literally decades where banks did not make sub-prime loans specifically because they were risky, why all of a sudden, without any prior growth, the market for sub-prime high risk loans jumped from less than 1% of the market to over 12%, in ONE SINGLE YEAR. "Greed" is not a logical rationally, intelligent answer to that question.

Greed is the only intelligent explanation. Bankers were not coerced by the government to issue every single subprime loan. There was other motivation besides government coercion driving the loans. Do you think lenders did it motivated by concern that people with bad credit could not by a home and get in on a the booming housing bubble?

I doubt that. It was greed. Greed on both sides.

Irrational exuberance got the best of people when a perfect storm of supply and demand conditions created the rapidly rising home appreciation rates.

Bankers were not coerced by the government to issue every single subprime loan.

Look, until you admit that the government directly forced banks to make sub-prime loans... I don't really care about your mindless blathering about 'greed' and crap, 'well they didn't make them issue every single one'.... none of that matter to me anymore.

You either own up to the fact the government under Bill Clinton, directly sued banks, and supported external law suits like the one filed by Obama against citigroup...... or your opinion don't matter anymore. You are not qualified to talk about this. Period.

So.....
Thanks for stopping by. You are dismissed sir. If you can't admit to what is plainly proven... then who cares what you think? I want to talk to adults. If you are not an adult, then your posts are not welcome, and I'm not going to bother responding to someone like an adult, when they have proven themselves not to be so.

Have a nice day. Good bye.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Andylusion, post: 16977546

Look, until you admit that the government directly forced banks to make sub-prime loans... I don't really care about your mindless blathering about 'greed' and crap, 'well they didn't make them issue every single one'.... none of that matter to me anymore.

The government forced loans were not the ones that failed and there were not enough to cause the Great Bush Recession. Facts are not enough for you to admit the absurdity that sub prime loans are what caused the Great Bush Recession. So you run. Run then who cares you are wrong.

 

[Andylusion]

Andylusion, post: 16977546

Look, until you admit that the government directly forced banks to make sub-prime loans... I don't really care about your mindless blathering about 'greed' and crap, 'well they didn't make them issue every single one'.... none of that matter to me anymore.

The government forced loans were not the ones that failed and there were not enough to cause the Great Bush Recession. Facts are not enough for you to admit the absurdity that sub prime loans are what caused the Great Bush Recession. So you run. Run then who cares you are wrong.

Why would I run? You are the idiot that knows absolutely NOTHING about what were talking about, and you proved it again with this post.

CRA loans were not the ones that failed? Funny, because the Federal Reserve in 1999, just 2 years after the bubble started, and discovered default rates were nearly DOUBLE for CRA loans over prime-rate loans.

The Fed - Survey of the Performance and Profitability of CRA-Related Lending

Report Tables, Table 3c page 7.
Median delinquency rate for all loans 1.44% for CRA loans 2.46%
And you can do through the report, nearly all CRA Loan portfolios were either money losers, are just breaking even at best.
They had higher defaults, lower stability, on and on and on. CRA loans WERE IN FACT the loans that failed. Period.

Why should I run, when you are the ignorant idiot?
Still dumb as a rock? Here's more.

1997, Controller of Currency
https://www.occ.gov/topics/community-affairs/publications/single-family-affordable-housing.pdf
Page 16 (25 on my PDF)

Standard loans, 1.0 on the scale.
All affordable housing loans, promoted by CRA, double the delinguency or more.

Why should I run, when you are brainless moron here? You should be ashamed of being this dumb, and yet arrogant about it. Heck, I'm embarrassed FOR YOU. You call yourself an American? Americans should at least know, when they don't know anything.

And we already said that the CRA loans alone were not the single cause of the crash, but rather that Freddie and Fannie, through the CRA programs, lowered lending standards across the entire market.

https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/crareport.pdf

Again, the US Treasury report, published 2000, page 102.

One would need to control for the factors listed above to conclude with greater certainty that
the growth in CRA loan share proves that the CRA played a major role in helping financial
institutions to reach targeted markets. Conversely, it would be inappropriate to conclude,
however, that the CRA has not played a major role simply because of the growth in
subprime lending by non-CRA covered institutions (Chart 14). As discussed below, the weight of the
evidence suggests that CRA is helping to expand access to credit for LMI borrowers and areas.
​

And if you think the US Treasury is lying.... just read what Fannie Mae itself reported....

https://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archi... Fannie Mae Foundation Making New Markets.pdf

From a year 2000 report on Countrywide Financial:

Underwriting Standards
Countrywide tends to follow the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted under
GSE and FHA guidelines. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best
lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria, Countrywide benefits from its
status as one of the largest originators of mortgage loans and one of the largest partici-
pants in the GSE programs.
When necessary—in cases where applicants have no established credit history, for ex-
ample—Countrywide uses nontraditional credit, a practice now accepted by the GSEs.
​

Largest participant in GSE programs.

Follows the most 'flexible' underwriting criteria.

In cases where applicant has no credit history.... uses non-traditional credit.... now accepted by GSEs.

What do you think that means stupid? It means sub-prime non-traditional mortgages... the very mortgages that crashed the economy.

I've proven you wrong with facts over and over and over, stupid. Now get off the forum. You are too dumb, and too immature to be here.

 

[Desperado]

Well after yesterday, the FBI is correct. Trump is a liar.
He ran his campaign on America First and we would pursue a non-interventionist foreign policy.
We would no longer pursue regime change as part of our foreign policy. Now we all know that he straight face lied to us.