The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[Faun]

The opinion was rendered after Obama and a filibuster proof democrat majority in Congress were elected. It wouldn't matter anyway, because the Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and government bureaucrats are never going to blame government for any of the catastrophe's it causes.

Wrong again, dumbfuck. That report was written while Bush was president. Any more imaginary shit you want to invent in your sycophantic rant? Your last one, that Bush appointees drafted a report that excoriated Bush while exonerating Carter and Clinton, was fucking hysterical, dumbfuck!

Yea and this report was written AFTER the Federal Reserve white wash of CRA!!!

The below quote comes from Page xvii showing where Federal Reserve is an example of FAILURE...
... So again how can anyone believe their report!!!!

The prime example is the Federal Reserve’s pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages, which it could have done by setting prudent mortgage-lending standards.
The Federal Reserve was the one entity empowered to do so and it did not.
The record of our examination is replete with evidence of other failures:
financial institutions made, bought, and sold mortgage securities they never examined,
did not care to examine, or knew to be defective;
firms depended on tens of billions of dollars of borrowing that had to be renewed each and every night,
secured by subprime mortgage securities; and major firms and investors blindly relied on credit rating agencies as their arbiters of risk.
What else could one expect on a highway where there were neither speed limits nor neatly painted lines?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
These were the people that made up the report:

View attachment 47450

A lot of Republicans on that commission!

And what did they find ... ?

The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis.​

Nonetheless, economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that banks undergoing CRA-related regulatory exams took additional mortgage lending risk. The authors of a study entitled "Did the Community Reinvestment Act Lead to Risky Lending?" compared "the lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month (the treatment group) to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that did not face these exams (the control group). This comparison clearly indicates that adherence to the CRA led to riskier lending by banks." They concluded:
"The evidence shows that around CRA examinations, when incentives to conform to CRA standards are particularly high, banks not only increase lending rates but also appear to originate loans that are markedly riskier."
Loan delinquency averaged 15% higher in the treatment group than the control group one year after mortgage origination.[52]

Low interest rates, high home prices, and flipping (or reselling homes to make a profit), effectively created an almost risk-free environment for lenders because risky or defaulted loans could be paid back by flipping homes.

Private lenders pushed subprime mortgages to capitalize on this, aided by greater market power for mortgage originators and less market power for mortgage securitizers.[18] Subprime mortgages amounted to $35 billion (5% of total originations) in 1994,[136] 9% in 1996,[137] $160 billion (13%) in 1999,[136] and $600 billion (20%) in 2006.[137][138][139]

Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In short, the lax lending standards created in response to the CRA had dug a pit that was waiting to get filled when the circumstances were right.
Ah ha! So it wasn’t the CRA that caused the mess. It was everything else!
Of course it wasn’t the CRA that caused everything.
The CRA was a factor in lowering lending standards. This was a necessary, although not sufficient, cause for the mortgage mess.
: Here s How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble s Lax Lending - Business Insider

Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis.
Hey Barney Frank The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis - The Atlantic

Of course they took additional risk. That's why they were heavily regulated, unlike the toxic subprime loans which actually did cause the financial collapse.

No one is disputing they assumed additional risk. What they did not do, was cause the financial collapse. Your link proves that as did my own.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong again, dumbfuck. That report was written while Bush was president. Any more imaginary shit you want to invent in your sycophantic rant? Your last one, that Bush appointees drafted a report that excoriated Bush while exonerating Carter and Clinton, was fucking hysterical, dumbfuck!

Yea and this report was written AFTER the Federal Reserve white wash of CRA!!!

The below quote comes from Page xvii showing where Federal Reserve is an example of FAILURE...
... So again how can anyone believe their report!!!!

The prime example is the Federal Reserve’s pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages, which it could have done by setting prudent mortgage-lending standards.
The Federal Reserve was the one entity empowered to do so and it did not.
The record of our examination is replete with evidence of other failures:
financial institutions made, bought, and sold mortgage securities they never examined,
did not care to examine, or knew to be defective;
firms depended on tens of billions of dollars of borrowing that had to be renewed each and every night,
secured by subprime mortgage securities; and major firms and investors blindly relied on credit rating agencies as their arbiters of risk.
What else could one expect on a highway where there were neither speed limits nor neatly painted lines?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
These were the people that made up the report:

View attachment 47450

A lot of Republicans on that commission!

And what did they find ... ?

The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis.​

Nonetheless, economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that banks undergoing CRA-related regulatory exams took additional mortgage lending risk. The authors of a study entitled "Did the Community Reinvestment Act Lead to Risky Lending?" compared "the lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month (the treatment group) to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that did not face these exams (the control group). This comparison clearly indicates that adherence to the CRA led to riskier lending by banks." They concluded:
"The evidence shows that around CRA examinations, when incentives to conform to CRA standards are particularly high, banks not only increase lending rates but also appear to originate loans that are markedly riskier."
Loan delinquency averaged 15% higher in the treatment group than the control group one year after mortgage origination.[52]

Low interest rates, high home prices, and flipping (or reselling homes to make a profit), effectively created an almost risk-free environment for lenders because risky or defaulted loans could be paid back by flipping homes.

Private lenders pushed subprime mortgages to capitalize on this, aided by greater market power for mortgage originators and less market power for mortgage securitizers.[18] Subprime mortgages amounted to $35 billion (5% of total originations) in 1994,[136] 9% in 1996,[137] $160 billion (13%) in 1999,[136] and $600 billion (20%) in 2006.[137][138][139]

Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In short, the lax lending standards created in response to the CRA had dug a pit that was waiting to get filled when the circumstances were right.
Ah ha! So it wasn’t the CRA that caused the mess. It was everything else!
Of course it wasn’t the CRA that caused everything.
The CRA was a factor in lowering lending standards. This was a necessary, although not sufficient, cause for the mortgage mess.
: Here s How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble s Lax Lending - Business Insider

Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis.
Hey Barney Frank The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis - The Atlantic

Of course they took additional risk. That's why they were heavily regulated, unlike the toxic subprime loans which actually did cause the financial collapse.

No one is disputing they assumed additional risk. What they did not do, was cause the financial collapse. Your link proves that as did my own.

They purchased the subprime mortgages making it possible for banks and mortgage companies to continue issuing them. they are one of the prime culprits responsible.

The claim that banks were responsible is absurd since they were doing exactly what regulators told them to do.

 

[bripat9643]

The opinion was rendered after Obama and a filibuster proof democrat majority in Congress were elected. It wouldn't matter anyway, because the Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and government bureaucrats are never going to blame government for any of the catastrophe's it causes.

Wrong again, dumbfuck. That report was written while Bush was president. Any more imaginary shit you want to invent in your sycophantic rant? Your last one, that Bush appointees drafted a report that excoriated Bush while exonerating Carter and Clinton, was fucking hysterical, dumbfuck!

I said "after they were elected," not after they were in office, numskull. They knew who their future bosses were, and they wouldn't take kindly to blaming Democrats or the government.

Actually, what you said was...

"The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate."​

Nothing about the election. The part about the election is what you changed your position to after I showed what a retard you were for taking the position above. Now, everyone gets to see how stupid you are for attributing it to the election, as though the Federal Reserve answers to the president.

You're on a roll, dumbfuck....

Now what imaginary shit will you invent in your sycophantic rant to keep your delusions alive?

I didn't change my position, numskull. They are political appointees. As such, they are careful not to anger the people they have to answer to.

Of course you changed your position. First you attributed the Board's findings as a defense of the president who appointed them. When that argument failed you, you changed it to them defending the incoming president.

That argument fails you too since they don't answer to the president or the Congress. You're merely lying again when you claim they do.

So now what are you going to change your argument to?

That isn't what I said, but you're too stupid to comprehend the argument, so I won't waste my time explaining it to you.

 

[edthecynic]

They purchased the subprime mortgages making it possible for banks and mortgage companies to continue issuing them.

Under Bush's orders!

 

[Dad2three]

Idiot...

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. (more)

Yeah, right. The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Real objective group there.

EXPLAIN THE WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBLE AND BUST 2000-2007? lol

Bernanke: The CRA Was Not "At The Root Of, Or Otherwise Contributed In Any Substantive Way To, The Current Mortgage Difficulties."

Most Subprime Mortgages Not Issued By Institutions Under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005, "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." (NOT THAT THEY WERE EVEN MADE FOR THOSE GOALS!!!!)

I've already told you that Bernake is a political whore.

Yet ALL you have is the rights wings, "GOV'T DID IT" MEME brought to US by CATO, AEI, Kochs, etc. Weird. Going to explain the world wide credit bubble and bust?

Yeah, all the banks colluded together and inflated the credit market at the same time because they wanted to go bankrupt.

That's credible . . . . NOT!

YOU MEAN WHEN WALL STREET STEPPED IN AND TOOK THE LOANS OFF THEIR HANDS AND THE BANKS HAD NO SKIN IN THE GAME? Weird YOU are NEVER honest Bubba


AGAIN

Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. And then they sold the loan and risk to investors and GSEs clamoring for the loans. Actually banks, pension funds, investment banks and other investors clamored for them. Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to buy an additional $440 billion in mortgages in the secondary market.



The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.




Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES. Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.


I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan. labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.

Are you trying to say that a president's policies don't have an impact AFTER they leave office?

Seriously, is this economics for idiots or what?

the only idiot i see is you; but if you are talking about the "Bush" recesssion that ended in the summer of obama's first year; long before even a tiny fraction of the obama "Stimulus" was spent, That's not a "Faux News" talking point; it's a fact as how recessions and recoveries are measured by economists, by consecutive quarters of GDP increase or decrease. put that in your pipe and smoke it

You mean AFTER the Dubya economy crashed 9%+ the last quarter of 2008, the recession ended because we had 2 quarters of growth? And the economy was OK then? lol

So what the F..K happened before THEN you obviously brainless, short sighted dimwit???

How many times must you dumb f...ks be reminded of THESE EVENTS THAT have NEVER occurred in any other presidency !

May I remind you as it appears IDIOTS like you have NO MEMORY!!!!

How about these events...was there ANY AFFECT on the economy?
Recession
1) Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!

Source: USATODAY.com - It s official 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss
2) Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in losses?
Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year! $5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble How to lose 5 trillion Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
3)Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives, $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets. Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade
Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

4) $1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001 132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008 138,056,000 people working..

IN spite of recession, dot.com bust, 9/11, worst hurricanes.... MORE people were working... more tax revenue was collected. GDP grew!

Yep, Dubya's credit bubble he cheered on, AS he gutted regulators creatyed a great ponzi scheme, AS he gutted federal revenues AND put EVERYTHING on the credit card as he exploded spending. Weird you don't get that?

HINT, DUBYA'S FINAL F/Y BUDGET STARTED OCT 1, 2008. The deficit was projected at $1.2+ trillion 13 days BEFORE Obama

Jan 7, 2009 - The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of gross domestic product

CBO projects record 1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7 2009

16% in 8 years? lol

Your numbers are right wing fiction BTW...

Ignoring Dubya IGNORED warnings about 9/11, Katrina, Clinton's recession? lol, basically it was done and settled within 2 months of Dubya entering office,m the big NASDAQ markdowns were under Clinton Bubba

United States lost 653,000 private-sector jobs on Bush's watch.


Economist s View Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs Bush and Obama

 

[Dad2three]

Idiot...

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. (more)

Yeah, right. The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Real objective group there.

EXPLAIN THE WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBLE AND BUST 2000-2007? lol

Bernanke: The CRA Was Not "At The Root Of, Or Otherwise Contributed In Any Substantive Way To, The Current Mortgage Difficulties."

Most Subprime Mortgages Not Issued By Institutions Under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005, "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." (NOT THAT THEY WERE EVEN MADE FOR THOSE GOALS!!!!)

I've already told you that Bernake is a political whore.

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF) found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity. Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. Our analysis found that only six percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas.


FRB Did the Community Reinvestment Act CRA contribute to foreclosures and the financial crisis And is the CRA being reformed


No, Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis

Despite the multiple times the right wing’s arguments have been debunked, they are once again repeating the false narrative that the financial crisis was caused by government policy and lending to low-income borrowers

The argument that CRA and the affordable housing goals caused the crisis have been debunked time and time (and time and time and time and time and time) again. The CRA has been in place since 1977, while subprime lending only skyrocketed in the 2000s. Even if one concentrates on the changes in enforcement of the act in 1995 (as Gramm does), the Act does nothing to explain the massive uptick in subprime lending concentrated from 2004 to 2006. What’s more, most subprime lenders weren’t banks and therefore weren’t even subject to CRA. That’s why only 6 percent of the high-cost mortgages at the time (a proxy for subprime) could even potentially qualify for CRA credit.

Similarly, for most of the housing boom, Fannie and Freddie were on the sidelines due to their fairly strict underwriting requirements.

No Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis ThinkProgress

ONCE again you ASSUME like most idiots there had to be ONE SINGLE CAUSE!
THERE WERE MANY causes and house-flipping, ignorant people who couldn't make the payment on one house were given
additional loans.
SUBPRIME loans "Skyrocketed" after this lawsuit was dropped you dumb f...k!

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.
[RELATED: Learn about the 186 class action plaintiffs]

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

Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago blacks The Daily Caller

LOL, SERIOUSLY? Grow a fukking brain Bubba, Banks didn't get forced to loan, and your right wing spin on Obama is BS

Shocking

The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors.




Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.

 

[Dad2three]

Idiot...

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. (more)

Yeah, right. The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Real objective group there.

EXPLAIN THE WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBLE AND BUST 2000-2007? lol

Bernanke: The CRA Was Not "At The Root Of, Or Otherwise Contributed In Any Substantive Way To, The Current Mortgage Difficulties."

Most Subprime Mortgages Not Issued By Institutions Under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005, "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." (NOT THAT THEY WERE EVEN MADE FOR THOSE GOALS!!!!)

I've already told you that Bernake is a political whore.

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF) found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity. Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. Our analysis found that only six percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas.


FRB Did the Community Reinvestment Act CRA contribute to foreclosures and the financial crisis And is the CRA being reformed


No, Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis

Despite the multiple times the right wing’s arguments have been debunked, they are once again repeating the false narrative that the financial crisis was caused by government policy and lending to low-income borrowers

The argument that CRA and the affordable housing goals caused the crisis have been debunked time and time (and time and time and time and time and time) again. The CRA has been in place since 1977, while subprime lending only skyrocketed in the 2000s. Even if one concentrates on the changes in enforcement of the act in 1995 (as Gramm does), the Act does nothing to explain the massive uptick in subprime lending concentrated from 2004 to 2006. What’s more, most subprime lenders weren’t banks and therefore weren’t even subject to CRA. That’s why only 6 percent of the high-cost mortgages at the time (a proxy for subprime) could even potentially qualify for CRA credit.

Similarly, for most of the housing boom, Fannie and Freddie were on the sidelines due to their fairly strict underwriting requirements.

No Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis ThinkProgress

ONCE again you ASSUME like most idiots there had to be ONE SINGLE CAUSE!
THERE WERE MANY causes and house-flipping, ignorant people who couldn't make the payment on one house were given
additional loans.
SUBPRIME loans "Skyrocketed" after this lawsuit was dropped you dumb f...k!

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.
[RELATED: Learn about the 186 class action plaintiffs]

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

Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago blacks The Daily Caller

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1+ which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street.



Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble


He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down


WEIRD, WE ELECT GUYS LIKE REAGAN (S&L) AND DUBYA, THEN ARE SHOCKED THEY IGNORE REGULATOR WARNINGS, AND "BELIEVE IN" IN THE "FREE MARKETS JUST WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 1880'S AND 1920'S!!!



Why can't conservative learn from their past mistakes? Why do they have to keep doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results?

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

Idiot...

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. (more)

Yeah, right. The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Real objective group there.

Riiiight ... because Bush wanted to exonerate Carter and Clinton.

Proving once again what a dumbfuck you are.

The opinion was rendered after Obama and a filibuster proof democrat majority in Congress were elected. It wouldn't matter anyway, because the Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and government bureaucrats are never going to blame government for any of the catastrophe's it causes.

Wrong again, dumbfuck. That report was written while Bush was president. Any more imaginary shit you want to invent in your sycophantic rant? Your last one, that Bush appointees drafted a report that excoriated Bush while exonerating Carter and Clinton, was fucking hysterical, dumbfuck!

Yea and this report was written AFTER the Federal Reserve white wash of CRA!!!

The below quote comes from Page xvii showing where Federal Reserve is an example of FAILURE...
... So again how can anyone believe their report!!!!

The prime example is the Federal Reserve’s pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages, which it could have done by setting prudent mortgage-lending standards.
The Federal Reserve was the one entity empowered to do so and it did not.
The record of our examination is replete with evidence of other failures:
financial institutions made, bought, and sold mortgage securities they never examined,
did not care to examine, or knew to be defective;
firms depended on tens of billions of dollars of borrowing that had to be renewed each and every night,
secured by subprime mortgage securities; and major firms and investors blindly relied on credit rating agencies as their arbiters of risk.
What else could one expect on a highway where there were neither speed limits nor neatly painted lines?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
These were the people that made up the report:

View attachment 47450

CRA AROUND FOR DECADES CAUSED THE SUBPRIME BUBBLE AND WORLD WIDE HOUSING BOOM AND BUST? lol

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

Idiot...

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. (more)

Yeah, right. The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Real objective group there.

Riiiight ... because Bush wanted to exonerate Carter and Clinton.

Proving once again what a dumbfuck you are.

The opinion was rendered after Obama and a filibuster proof democrat majority in Congress were elected. It wouldn't matter anyway, because the Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and government bureaucrats are never going to blame government for any of the catastrophe's it causes.

Wrong again, dumbfuck. That report was written while Bush was president. Any more imaginary shit you want to invent in your sycophantic rant? Your last one, that Bush appointees drafted a report that excoriated Bush while exonerating Carter and Clinton, was fucking hysterical, dumbfuck!

The report which is found here:http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf
STATED:
It is also possible that the remaining share of higher-priced lower-income lending may be indirectly attributable to CRA to some degree due to the incentives under the CRA investment test.
Specifically, banking institutions may have received “CRA credit” for purchases of higher-priced loans or mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that subsequently affect the credit supply in the mortgage market.

The report that shows that the FEDERAL RESERVE was also culpable was done
Submitted by THE FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY COMMISSION Pursuant to Public Law 111-21 January 2011
And their finding was the same idiots that wrote YOUR report showing NO responsibility... WERE one of the many parties INCLUDING
CRA responsible:

The prime example is the Federal Reserve’s pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages,
which it could have done by setting prudent mortgage-lending standards.
The Federal Reserve was the one entity empowered to do so and it did not.
The record of our examination is replete with evidence of other failures: financial institutions made, bought, and sold mortgage securities they never examined, did not care to examine, or knew to be defective; firms depended on tens of billions of dollars of borrowing that had to be renewed each and every night, secured by subprime mortgage securities; and major firms and investors blindly relied on credit rating agencies as their arbiters of risk.

What else could one expect on a highway where there were neither speed limits nor neatly painted lines?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf

So The Federal Reserve report was written WHILE the bubble crisis occurred... pretty easy to do AT THAT TIME!!!
But after several years of closer scrutiny by the above commission The Federal Reserve Along with CRA, along with mortgage banks,etc.
were ALL to blame!
And to repeat what was being asked by the Bush administration....
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank s Fannie and Freddie Muddle - US News

So the blame for the housing bubble was all inclusive...including Bush for those of you who are not willing to accept that the CRA with it's attorney Obama forcing the issue will gasp! Yes Bush was partially to blame as he was also involved in some other issues...LIKE
1) Recession that started under Clinton
2) Dot.com bust that lost $5 trillion and therefore caused stock loss write offs against tax payments...as well as 400,000+ jobs!
3) A minor event known as 9/11... costing $1 trillion, plus 3,000 lives,etc.
4) Worst hurricane SEASONS ever in any presidency again $250 billion losses, over 2,500 lives... businesses gone...
All the above events and you idiots blaming Bush ONLY for the housing collapse!
Idiots! Bush was kind of busy and depended on Congress which let him down by NOT paying attention as Frank and Dodds attest!

BUSH WAS BUSY? Oh right FORCING FANNIE/FREDDIE TO BUY $440 BILLION IN MBS'S TO "MEET HIS GOALS"

LOL

Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah, right. The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Real objective group there.

Riiiight ... because Bush wanted to exonerate Carter and Clinton.

Proving once again what a dumbfuck you are.

The opinion was rendered after Obama and a filibuster proof democrat majority in Congress were elected. It wouldn't matter anyway, because the Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and government bureaucrats are never going to blame government for any of the catastrophe's it causes.

Wrong again, dumbfuck. That report was written while Bush was president. Any more imaginary shit you want to invent in your sycophantic rant? Your last one, that Bush appointees drafted a report that excoriated Bush while exonerating Carter and Clinton, was fucking hysterical, dumbfuck!

The report which is found here:http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf
STATED:
It is also possible that the remaining share of higher-priced lower-income lending may be indirectly attributable to CRA to some degree due to the incentives under the CRA investment test.
Specifically, banking institutions may have received “CRA credit” for purchases of higher-priced loans or mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that subsequently affect the credit supply in the mortgage market.

The report that shows that the FEDERAL RESERVE was also culpable was done
Submitted by THE FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY COMMISSION Pursuant to Public Law 111-21 January 2011
And their finding was the same idiots that wrote YOUR report showing NO responsibility... WERE one of the many parties INCLUDING
CRA responsible:

The prime example is the Federal Reserve’s pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages,
which it could have done by setting prudent mortgage-lending standards.
The Federal Reserve was the one entity empowered to do so and it did not.
The record of our examination is replete with evidence of other failures: financial institutions made, bought, and sold mortgage securities they never examined, did not care to examine, or knew to be defective; firms depended on tens of billions of dollars of borrowing that had to be renewed each and every night, secured by subprime mortgage securities; and major firms and investors blindly relied on credit rating agencies as their arbiters of risk.

What else could one expect on a highway where there were neither speed limits nor neatly painted lines?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf

So The Federal Reserve report was written WHILE the bubble crisis occurred... pretty easy to do AT THAT TIME!!!
But after several years of closer scrutiny by the above commission The Federal Reserve Along with CRA, along with mortgage banks,etc.
were ALL to blame!
And to repeat what was being asked by the Bush administration....
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank s Fannie and Freddie Muddle - US News

So the blame for the housing bubble was all inclusive...including Bush for those of you who are not willing to accept that the CRA with it's attorney Obama forcing the issue will gasp! Yes Bush was partially to blame as he was also involved in some other issues...LIKE
1) Recession that started under Clinton
2) Dot.com bust that lost $5 trillion and therefore caused stock loss write offs against tax payments...as well as 400,000+ jobs!
3) A minor event known as 9/11... costing $1 trillion, plus 3,000 lives,etc.
4) Worst hurricane SEASONS ever in any presidency again $250 billion losses, over 2,500 lives... businesses gone...
All the above events and you idiots blaming Bush ONLY for the housing collapse!
Idiots! Bush was kind of busy and depended on Congress which let him down by NOT paying attention as Frank and Dodds attest!

Yes, Bush's requests of Congress went unheeded by Congress for six years. And who controlled Congress over those 6 years? 4.5 years, Republicans controlled the Senate; and Republicans controlled the House all 6 years.

Thanks for playin'!

The problem is Dubya didn't REALLY want to "reform F/F, he did the opposite, forcing them to up their "affordable housing" goals, required them to buy $440 billion in MBS's and allow them to include sbprimes in their goals, something Clinton stopped!

Dubya could get 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts, 2 UNFUNDED wars, UNFUNDED Medicare expansion (that stopped the Gov't from negotiating drug prices), but couldn't get Dems to support a stronger and reformed F/F? lol

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

The opinion was rendered after Obama and a filibuster proof democrat majority in Congress were elected. It wouldn't matter anyway, because the Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and government bureaucrats are never going to blame government for any of the catastrophe's it causes.

Wrong again, dumbfuck. That report was written while Bush was president. Any more imaginary shit you want to invent in your sycophantic rant? Your last one, that Bush appointees drafted a report that excoriated Bush while exonerating Carter and Clinton, was fucking hysterical, dumbfuck!

Yea and this report was written AFTER the Federal Reserve white wash of CRA!!!

The below quote comes from Page xvii showing where Federal Reserve is an example of FAILURE...
... So again how can anyone believe their report!!!!

The prime example is the Federal Reserve’s pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages, which it could have done by setting prudent mortgage-lending standards.
The Federal Reserve was the one entity empowered to do so and it did not.
The record of our examination is replete with evidence of other failures:
financial institutions made, bought, and sold mortgage securities they never examined,
did not care to examine, or knew to be defective;
firms depended on tens of billions of dollars of borrowing that had to be renewed each and every night,
secured by subprime mortgage securities; and major firms and investors blindly relied on credit rating agencies as their arbiters of risk.
What else could one expect on a highway where there were neither speed limits nor neatly painted lines?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
These were the people that made up the report:

View attachment 47450

A lot of Republicans on that commission!

And what did they find ... ?

The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis.​

Nonetheless, economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that banks undergoing CRA-related regulatory exams took additional mortgage lending risk. The authors of a study entitled "Did the Community Reinvestment Act Lead to Risky Lending?" compared "the lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month (the treatment group) to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that did not face these exams (the control group). This comparison clearly indicates that adherence to the CRA led to riskier lending by banks." They concluded:
"The evidence shows that around CRA examinations, when incentives to conform to CRA standards are particularly high, banks not only increase lending rates but also appear to originate loans that are markedly riskier."
Loan delinquency averaged 15% higher in the treatment group than the control group one year after mortgage origination.[52]

Low interest rates, high home prices, and flipping (or reselling homes to make a profit), effectively created an almost risk-free environment for lenders because risky or defaulted loans could be paid back by flipping homes.

Private lenders pushed subprime mortgages to capitalize on this, aided by greater market power for mortgage originators and less market power for mortgage securitizers.[18] Subprime mortgages amounted to $35 billion (5% of total originations) in 1994,[136] 9% in 1996,[137] $160 billion (13%) in 1999,[136] and $600 billion (20%) in 2006.[137][138][139]

Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In short, the lax lending standards created in response to the CRA had dug a pit that was waiting to get filled when the circumstances were right.
Ah ha! So it wasn’t the CRA that caused the mess. It was everything else!
Of course it wasn’t the CRA that caused everything.
The CRA was a factor in lowering lending standards. This was a necessary, although not sufficient, cause for the mortgage mess.
: Here s How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble s Lax Lending - Business Insider

Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis.
Hey Barney Frank The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis - The Atlantic

LOL,GET A FUKKIN BRAIN BUBS, GET OFF ED PINTO AND CATO-AEI-KOCH TALKING POINTS!

YOUR LINK TO PETER WALLISON, ED PINTO/AEI TALKING HEAD IS HILARIOUS THOUGH

Using Ed Pinto's numbers as they are supposed to be taken seriously? lol


No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)


1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom:
2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis:
4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now



AEI'S Peter Wallison in 2004: “In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.”

Hey Mayor Bloomberg No the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown but thats just according to the data The Big Picture


No, government did not cause the housing crisis

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post




Fed Study Debunks Conservative Myth That Affordable Housing Policies Caused Subprime Crisis

Fed Study Debunks Conservative Myth That Affordable Housing Policies Caused Subprime Crisis ThinkProgress

 

[Dad2three]

Yea and this report was written AFTER the Federal Reserve white wash of CRA!!!

The below quote comes from Page xvii showing where Federal Reserve is an example of FAILURE...
... So again how can anyone believe their report!!!!

The prime example is the Federal Reserve’s pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages, which it could have done by setting prudent mortgage-lending standards.
The Federal Reserve was the one entity empowered to do so and it did not.
The record of our examination is replete with evidence of other failures:
financial institutions made, bought, and sold mortgage securities they never examined,
did not care to examine, or knew to be defective;
firms depended on tens of billions of dollars of borrowing that had to be renewed each and every night,
secured by subprime mortgage securities; and major firms and investors blindly relied on credit rating agencies as their arbiters of risk.
What else could one expect on a highway where there were neither speed limits nor neatly painted lines?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
These were the people that made up the report:

View attachment 47450

A lot of Republicans on that commission!

And what did they find ... ?

The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis.​

Nonetheless, economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that banks undergoing CRA-related regulatory exams took additional mortgage lending risk. The authors of a study entitled "Did the Community Reinvestment Act Lead to Risky Lending?" compared "the lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month (the treatment group) to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that did not face these exams (the control group). This comparison clearly indicates that adherence to the CRA led to riskier lending by banks." They concluded:
"The evidence shows that around CRA examinations, when incentives to conform to CRA standards are particularly high, banks not only increase lending rates but also appear to originate loans that are markedly riskier."
Loan delinquency averaged 15% higher in the treatment group than the control group one year after mortgage origination.[52]

Low interest rates, high home prices, and flipping (or reselling homes to make a profit), effectively created an almost risk-free environment for lenders because risky or defaulted loans could be paid back by flipping homes.

Private lenders pushed subprime mortgages to capitalize on this, aided by greater market power for mortgage originators and less market power for mortgage securitizers.[18] Subprime mortgages amounted to $35 billion (5% of total originations) in 1994,[136] 9% in 1996,[137] $160 billion (13%) in 1999,[136] and $600 billion (20%) in 2006.[137][138][139]

Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In short, the lax lending standards created in response to the CRA had dug a pit that was waiting to get filled when the circumstances were right.
Ah ha! So it wasn’t the CRA that caused the mess. It was everything else!
Of course it wasn’t the CRA that caused everything.
The CRA was a factor in lowering lending standards. This was a necessary, although not sufficient, cause for the mortgage mess.
: Here s How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble s Lax Lending - Business Insider

Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis.
Hey Barney Frank The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis - The Atlantic

Of course they took additional risk. That's why they were heavily regulated, unlike the toxic subprime loans which actually did cause the financial collapse.

No one is disputing they assumed additional risk. What they did not do, was cause the financial collapse. Your link proves that as did my own.

They purchased the subprime mortgages making it possible for banks and mortgage companies to continue issuing them. they are one of the prime culprits responsible.

The claim that banks were responsible is absurd since they were doing exactly what regulators told them to do.

NAME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED WALL STREET TO GET INTO THIS? WHY DID ALL 5 W/S INVESTMENT BANKS FOLD AGAIN? lol

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.

No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!

Yep, whose pulling who out.

The GOP has had the House for five years. And the senate for one.

Try again.

If the GOP were half competent...people like you would move to Canada.

 

[Dad2three]

Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.

No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!

Yep, whose pulling who out.

The GOP has had the House for five years. And the senate for one.

Try again.

If the GOP were half competent...people like you would move to Canada.

Yep, Dubya/GOP dug a DEEP hole right?

 

[Faun]

Yea and this report was written AFTER the Federal Reserve white wash of CRA!!!

The below quote comes from Page xvii showing where Federal Reserve is an example of FAILURE...
... So again how can anyone believe their report!!!!

The prime example is the Federal Reserve’s pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages, which it could have done by setting prudent mortgage-lending standards.
The Federal Reserve was the one entity empowered to do so and it did not.
The record of our examination is replete with evidence of other failures:
financial institutions made, bought, and sold mortgage securities they never examined,
did not care to examine, or knew to be defective;
firms depended on tens of billions of dollars of borrowing that had to be renewed each and every night,
secured by subprime mortgage securities; and major firms and investors blindly relied on credit rating agencies as their arbiters of risk.
What else could one expect on a highway where there were neither speed limits nor neatly painted lines?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
These were the people that made up the report:

View attachment 47450

A lot of Republicans on that commission!

And what did they find ... ?

The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis.​

Nonetheless, economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that banks undergoing CRA-related regulatory exams took additional mortgage lending risk. The authors of a study entitled "Did the Community Reinvestment Act Lead to Risky Lending?" compared "the lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month (the treatment group) to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that did not face these exams (the control group). This comparison clearly indicates that adherence to the CRA led to riskier lending by banks." They concluded:
"The evidence shows that around CRA examinations, when incentives to conform to CRA standards are particularly high, banks not only increase lending rates but also appear to originate loans that are markedly riskier."
Loan delinquency averaged 15% higher in the treatment group than the control group one year after mortgage origination.[52]

Low interest rates, high home prices, and flipping (or reselling homes to make a profit), effectively created an almost risk-free environment for lenders because risky or defaulted loans could be paid back by flipping homes.

Private lenders pushed subprime mortgages to capitalize on this, aided by greater market power for mortgage originators and less market power for mortgage securitizers.[18] Subprime mortgages amounted to $35 billion (5% of total originations) in 1994,[136] 9% in 1996,[137] $160 billion (13%) in 1999,[136] and $600 billion (20%) in 2006.[137][138][139]

Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In short, the lax lending standards created in response to the CRA had dug a pit that was waiting to get filled when the circumstances were right.
Ah ha! So it wasn’t the CRA that caused the mess. It was everything else!
Of course it wasn’t the CRA that caused everything.
The CRA was a factor in lowering lending standards. This was a necessary, although not sufficient, cause for the mortgage mess.
: Here s How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble s Lax Lending - Business Insider

Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis.
Hey Barney Frank The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis - The Atlantic

Of course they took additional risk. That's why they were heavily regulated, unlike the toxic subprime loans which actually did cause the financial collapse.

No one is disputing they assumed additional risk. What they did not do, was cause the financial collapse. Your link proves that as did my own.

They purchased the subprime mortgages making it possible for banks and mortgage companies to continue issuing them. they are one of the prime culprits responsible.

The claim that banks were responsible is absurd since they were doing exactly what regulators told them to do.

I see your insanity still runs rampant. Most of the banks writing the toxic loans weren't even participating with the CRA. Almost all of the toxic loans were written by banks voluntarily because they had nothing to lose; not because "regulators told them to do so." You are so insane, you don't even know what you're saying. Even after being shown two indepent sources which concluded CRA loans were not responsible for the financial collapse, your dementia refuses to let go of its death grip of your hallucinations.

 

[Faun]

Wrong again, dumbfuck. That report was written while Bush was president. Any more imaginary shit you want to invent in your sycophantic rant? Your last one, that Bush appointees drafted a report that excoriated Bush while exonerating Carter and Clinton, was fucking hysterical, dumbfuck!

I said "after they were elected," not after they were in office, numskull. They knew who their future bosses were, and they wouldn't take kindly to blaming Democrats or the government.

Actually, what you said was...

"The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate."​

Nothing about the election. The part about the election is what you changed your position to after I showed what a retard you were for taking the position above. Now, everyone gets to see how stupid you are for attributing it to the election, as though the Federal Reserve answers to the president.

You're on a roll, dumbfuck....

Now what imaginary shit will you invent in your sycophantic rant to keep your delusions alive?

I didn't change my position, numskull. They are political appointees. As such, they are careful not to anger the people they have to answer to.

Of course you changed your position. First you attributed the Board's findings as a defense of the president who appointed them. When that argument failed you, you changed it to them defending the incoming president.

That argument fails you too since they don't answer to the president or the Congress. You're merely lying again when you claim they do.

So now what are you going to change your argument to?

That isn't what I said, but you're too stupid to comprehend the argument, so I won't waste my time explaining it to you.

The hell you didn't. I even quoted you. Just how demented are you to deny your own quotes???

Your original stupid defense to me showing you that CRA loans were not responsible for the financial collapse was a failed attempt to dismiss a report from the Federal Reserve board because they are appointed by the president...

"Yeah, right. The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Real objective group there."​

After I pointed out your stupidity of Bush appointees trying to exonorate Carter and Clinton, you then changed your idiocy from "the Federal Reserve board [members] appointed by the president" to them covering for the president elect, who had not appointed them...

"The opinion was rendered after Obama and a filibuster proof democrat majority in Congress were elected."​

Your defense was so fragile, you had to change it. And then, for the record, even what you changed your moronic argument too easily fell apart as you were shown a second report from another source, echoing the same sentiments as the first.

In truth, you never had a chance because as we've all seen here, you have no fucking clue about that of which you speak. YOu actually thought you could formulate a defense by merely making shit up on the fly and then alter it as needed. Boi, were you ever wrong.

 

[Faun]

Yeah, right. The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Real objective group there.

Riiiight ... because Bush wanted to exonerate Carter and Clinton.

Proving once again what a dumbfuck you are.

The opinion was rendered after Obama and a filibuster proof democrat majority in Congress were elected. It wouldn't matter anyway, because the Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and government bureaucrats are never going to blame government for any of the catastrophe's it causes.

Wrong again, dumbfuck. That report was written while Bush was president. Any more imaginary shit you want to invent in your sycophantic rant? Your last one, that Bush appointees drafted a report that excoriated Bush while exonerating Carter and Clinton, was fucking hysterical, dumbfuck!

The report which is found here:http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf
STATED:
It is also possible that the remaining share of higher-priced lower-income lending may be indirectly attributable to CRA to some degree due to the incentives under the CRA investment test.
Specifically, banking institutions may have received “CRA credit” for purchases of higher-priced loans or mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that subsequently affect the credit supply in the mortgage market.

The report that shows that the FEDERAL RESERVE was also culpable was done
Submitted by THE FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY COMMISSION Pursuant to Public Law 111-21 January 2011
And their finding was the same idiots that wrote YOUR report showing NO responsibility... WERE one of the many parties INCLUDING
CRA responsible:

The prime example is the Federal Reserve’s pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages,
which it could have done by setting prudent mortgage-lending standards.
The Federal Reserve was the one entity empowered to do so and it did not.
The record of our examination is replete with evidence of other failures: financial institutions made, bought, and sold mortgage securities they never examined, did not care to examine, or knew to be defective; firms depended on tens of billions of dollars of borrowing that had to be renewed each and every night, secured by subprime mortgage securities; and major firms and investors blindly relied on credit rating agencies as their arbiters of risk.

What else could one expect on a highway where there were neither speed limits nor neatly painted lines?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf

So The Federal Reserve report was written WHILE the bubble crisis occurred... pretty easy to do AT THAT TIME!!!
But after several years of closer scrutiny by the above commission The Federal Reserve Along with CRA, along with mortgage banks,etc.
were ALL to blame!
And to repeat what was being asked by the Bush administration....
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank s Fannie and Freddie Muddle - US News

So the blame for the housing bubble was all inclusive...including Bush for those of you who are not willing to accept that the CRA with it's attorney Obama forcing the issue will gasp! Yes Bush was partially to blame as he was also involved in some other issues...LIKE
1) Recession that started under Clinton
2) Dot.com bust that lost $5 trillion and therefore caused stock loss write offs against tax payments...as well as 400,000+ jobs!
3) A minor event known as 9/11... costing $1 trillion, plus 3,000 lives,etc.
4) Worst hurricane SEASONS ever in any presidency again $250 billion losses, over 2,500 lives... businesses gone...
All the above events and you idiots blaming Bush ONLY for the housing collapse!
Idiots! Bush was kind of busy and depended on Congress which let him down by NOT paying attention as Frank and Dodds attest!

BUSH WAS BUSY? Oh right FORCING FANNIE/FREDDIE TO BUY $440 BILLION IN MBS'S TO "MEET HIS GOALS"

LOL

Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Can you believe that shit? Bush was too busy to sign his autograph on a bill. That's possibly the dumbest excuse yet. The reality is that the Republican-led Congress never got a bill to Bush's desk for him to sign. That's the real reason Bush didn't sign a bill on GSE reform until the Democrat-led Congress planted such a bill in front of him.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008

The Republican plan was freedom. The economy was crushed by Bush and 132 liberal programs designed to get people into houses the Republican capitalist free market said they could not afford.

Only a liberal could be stupid enough to say the 132 programs had nothing to do with the folks who could not afford their homes.

Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Even after being shown two indepent sources which concluded CRA loans were not responsible for the financial collapse,

perhaps not 100% responsible but CRA was a typical liberal program
designed to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford.


For the first time, banks were required to show results. One of the five performance criteria in the "lending test" — the most heavily weighted component of the CRA exam — was adopting "flexible lending practices" to address the credit needs of poor borrowers in "predominantly minority neighborhoods." Banks that didn't bend their underwriting rules risked flunking the exam.

Ex-Federal Reserve Board Gov. Lawrence Lindsey, a staunch CRA defender, acknowledges that the changes "did contribute to a downgrading of credit standards."

FICTION: "Many of these (CRA) loans were not very risky," the FCIC report claims.

FACT: Studies show that CRA loans have higher delinquencies and defaults and act as a major drag on bank earnings. In 2008, CRA loans accounted for just 7% of Bank of America's total mortgage lending, but 29% of its losses on home loans. Also, banks with the highest CRA ratings tend to have the lowest safety and soundness ratings.

FICTION: Only 6% of subprime loans were originated by banks subject to the CRA, so the vast majority of risky lending was not tied to the law.

FACT: Among other things, the figure does not count the trillions of dollars in CRA "commitments" that WaMu, BofA, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo and other large banks pledged to radical inner-city groups like Acorn, Greenlining and Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America (NACA) after they used the public comment process to protest bank merger applications on CRA grounds.

All told, they shook down banks for $4.6 trillion in such commitments before the crisis, boasts a report by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, or NCRC, the nation's top CRA lobbyist (which conveniently removed the report from its website during the FCIC hearings).

FICTION: "These loans performed well," the FCIC report maintained.

FACT: Brookings found that the loan commitments were set aside for low-income minorities with "marginal credit scores" and posed a higher risk. They were even riskier than regular CRA loans, because the banks delegated underwriting authority to the nonprofit shakedown groups, which had no experience judging credit risk.

NACA thinks traditional underwriting standards are "patronizing and racist." It advertises that anyone — "regardless of how bad your credit is" — can qualify for the mortgages it's arranged through special deals with banks. Not surprisingly, one study found that its delinquency rates were eight times higher than the national average.

Banks reported delinquency rates ranging from 5% to 50% on loans made pursuant to their merger-related commitments.

Yet the FCIC refused to investigate the more than 300 CRA agreements that banks and community organizers entered into before the subprime bubble burst.

Despite repeated requests by Commissioner Peter Wallison, the panel never examined the performance of the trillions in loan commitments.

Why would Chairman Angelides steer blame away from the CRA? Because he's a big fan of the CRA. And as California state treasurer, from 1999 to 2007, he steered billions in state funds into unsafe CRA mortgages securitized by Freddie Mac.

At the time, Greenlining advised Angelides on where to invest California state funds, even providing him with its own CRA report card on "good" and "bad" banks. He has also personally benefited from CRA projects brokered by his real estate development firms, according to "The Great American Bank Robbery."

As part of the CRA racket, Angelides should have been a witness in the crisis investigation, not its chief inquisitor. With the cover-up complete, he now hopes that CRA critics will go away.

"The debate about the role of the CRA should now be over as evidence presented in the commission's report is clear," Angelides declared earlier this month.

Sorry, sir, but the debate will end when the public has all the facts, not just your cooked report.The CRA certainly did not cause the financial crisis. However, it did contribute to it.

Ironically, the very same people who insisted money be lent to people who could not afford houses are the very same people now bitching about those same "predatory loans".

Forcing banks to lend money is a piss poor idea. Piss poor loans help neither the lender nor the borrower. Yet, those who added fuel to the housing bubble have now whitewashed their role in the affair and beg for still more funds.

President Obama want to expand the CRA. Instead it should be added to the scrap heap of history along with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, HAMP, and thousands of affordable home programs all of which did anything but make homes affordable.

Now that home prices are falling, one might think the affordable home advocates would be happy. They are not. The hypocrites now want to prop up home prices on the belief that falling home prices hurt neighborhoods.

Read more at Mish s Global Economic Trend Analysis How the CRA Fueled the Housing Bubble