What caused the eonomic meltdown?

[edthecynic]

Bullshit!

"Under served applicants" were QUALIFIED MINORITIES, as you well know, but to RACISTS no minority is ever qualified, they are all "deadbeats" with bad credit. If you remember the banks got "stung" when a newspaper sent minority couples to banks for a loan, who were rejected, and then sent white couples with the EXACT SAME PAPERWORK with only the name changed and every white couple got the loan.

Again people with bad credit were not allowed no downpayment loans until Bush's ADDI was passed in Dec 2003. Bush owns the housing market crash.

Wrong, they weren't qualified. The banks already gave mortgages to qualified applicants. To meet the requirements imposed on them by the regulators, banks had to give mortgages to people with bad credit. that's the meaning of the term "under served applicant." Anyone who denies it is simply a damn liar.

Their "lack of qualification" was their skin color, not their creditworthiness.

Again that's bullshit, as the newspaper sting proved. They sent black couples and white couples to the same bank to buy the same house in a white neighborhood with the exact same paperwork and none of the black couples got the loan and every white couple got the loan.

Prove it.

As if you ever prove anything you post.

What We Know About Mortgage Lending Discrimination in America | HUD USER

Discrimination can begin at the early stages of the mortgage lending process, including pre-application inquiries by would-be borrowers. The Urban Institute findings were based in part on "paired testing" that was carried out by people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds in a sample of cities. Each group of testers - including one white and one or more minorities - told lenders they had similar credit histories, incomes and financial histories, and had the same type of mortgage needs. The testing found that overall, minorities were less likely to receive information about loan products, received less time and information from loan officers, and were quoted higher interest rates in most of the cities where tests were conducted.
At later stages of the process, racial disparities in loan denial rates cannot be "explained away" by differences in creditworthiness or by technical factors affecting the analyses of denial rates.

 

[Zack240]

The other economical factor are the cause of it. but also the banking policy also affected it much.....

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Wrong, they weren't qualified. The banks already gave mortgages to qualified applicants. To meet the requirements imposed on them by the regulators, banks had to give mortgages to people with bad credit. that's the meaning of the term "under served applicant." Anyone who denies it is simply a damn liar.

Their "lack of qualification" was their skin color, not their creditworthiness.

Again that's bullshit, as the newspaper sting proved. They sent black couples and white couples to the same bank to buy the same house in a white neighborhood with the exact same paperwork and none of the black couples got the loan and every white couple got the loan.

Prove it.

As if you ever prove anything you post.

What We Know About Mortgage Lending Discrimination in America | HUD USER

Discrimination can begin at the early stages of the mortgage lending process, including pre-application inquiries by would-be borrowers. The Urban Institute findings were based in part on "paired testing" that was carried out by people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds in a sample of cities. Each group of testers - including one white and one or more minorities - told lenders they had similar credit histories, incomes and financial histories, and had the same type of mortgage needs. The testing found that overall, minorities were less likely to receive information about loan products, received less time and information from loan officers, and were quoted higher interest rates in most of the cities where tests were conducted.
At later stages of the process, racial disparities in loan denial rates cannot be "explained away" by differences in creditworthiness or by technical factors affecting the analyses of denial rates.

From your link. Which the report must be bought.:

Discrimination can begin at the early stages of the mortgage lending process, including pre-application inquiries by would-be borrowers. The Urban Institute findings were based in part on "paired testing" that was carried out by people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds in a sample of cities. Each group of testers - including one white and one or more minorities - told lenders they had similar credit histories, incomes and financial histories, and had the same type of mortgage needs. The testing found that overall, minorities were less likely to receive information about loan products, received less time and information from loan officers, and were quoted higher interest rates in most of the cities where tests were conducted.

OK, and did they? As if a loan officer isn't going to find this out. It looks like a cooked study to me.

 

[American Horse]

Wrong, they weren't qualified. The banks already gave mortgages to qualified applicants. To meet the requirements imposed on them by the regulators, banks had to give mortgages to people with bad credit. that's the meaning of the term "under served applicant." Anyone who denies it is simply a damn liar.

Their "lack of qualification" was their skin color, not their creditworthiness.

Again that's bullshit, as the newspaper sting proved. They sent black couples and white couples to the same bank to buy the same house in a white neighborhood with the exact same paperwork and none of the black couples got the loan and every white couple got the loan.

Prove it.

As if you ever prove anything you post.

What We Know About Mortgage Lending Discrimination in America | HUD USER

Discrimination can begin at the early stages of the mortgage lending process, including pre-application inquiries by would-be borrowers. The Urban Institute findings were based in part on "paired testing" that was carried out by people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds in a sample of cities. Each group of testers - including one white and one or more minorities - told lenders they had similar credit histories, incomes and financial histories, and had the same type of mortgage needs. The testing found that overall, minorities were less likely to receive information about loan products, received less time and information from loan officers, and were quoted higher interest rates in most of the cities where tests were conducted.
At later stages of the process, racial disparities in loan denial rates cannot be "explained away" by differences in creditworthiness or by technical factors affecting the analyses of denial rates.

Applicants with lower creidit scores were charged higher interest rates because of increased risk of repayment of the principle. That's why the remedy failed. Everybody, regardless of credit history/rate got the lowest rates creating much higher likelihood of defaults.

 

[Sallow]

Getting rid of Glass-Steagall.
Deregulation of banking and finance.
Tax cuts.

George Bush and his policies..however..created the perfect storm.

 

[Sallow]

Horseshit. Banks were already making loans to all qualified applicants. Under Clinton, regulators threatened banks if they didn't grant mortgages to "under served applicants."
That's code for "deadbeats," people with bad credit.

How is it "racist" to point out actual government policy?

Bullshit!

"Under served applicants" were QUALIFIED MINORITIES, as you well know, but to RACISTS no minority is ever qualified, they are all "deadbeats" with bad credit. If you remember the banks got "stung" when a newspaper sent minority couples to banks for a loan, who were rejected, and then sent white couples with the EXACT SAME PAPERWORK with only the name changed and every white couple got the loan.

Again people with bad credit were not allowed no downpayment loans until Bush's ADDI was passed in Dec 2003. Bush owns the housing market crash.

Wrong, they weren't qualified. The banks already gave mortgages to qualified applicants. To meet the requirements imposed on them by the regulators, banks had to give mortgages to people with bad credit. that's the meaning of the term "under served applicant." Anyone who denies it is simply a damn liar.

That's not what happened. No one imposed any requirements to give people loans. The CRA was about getting rid of "Red Lining". Which means that loans can't be denied because building was going on in blighted areas. It had nothing to do with indivduals.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

WTF do tax cuts have to do with a real estate bubble?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Bullshit!

"Under served applicants" were QUALIFIED MINORITIES, as you well know, but to RACISTS no minority is ever qualified, they are all "deadbeats" with bad credit. If you remember the banks got "stung" when a newspaper sent minority couples to banks for a loan, who were rejected, and then sent white couples with the EXACT SAME PAPERWORK with only the name changed and every white couple got the loan.

Again people with bad credit were not allowed no downpayment loans until Bush's ADDI was passed in Dec 2003. Bush owns the housing market crash.

Wrong, they weren't qualified. The banks already gave mortgages to qualified applicants. To meet the requirements imposed on them by the regulators, banks had to give mortgages to people with bad credit. that's the meaning of the term "under served applicant." Anyone who denies it is simply a damn liar.

That's not what happened. No one imposed any requirements to give people loans. The CRA was about getting rid of "Red Lining". Which means that loans can't be denied because building was going on in blighted areas. It had nothing to do with indivduals.

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that purchase mortgages, buy and sell mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and guarantee nearly half of the mortgages in the U.S.[dubious – discuss] A variety of political and competitive pressures resulted in the GSE taking on additional risk, beginning in the mid-1990s and continuing throughout the crisis and their government takeover in September, 2008.[36][37]

HUD loosened mortgage restrictions in the mid-1990s so first-time buyers could qualify for loans that they could never get before.[38] In 1995, the GSE began receiving affordable housing credit for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. This resulted in the agencies purchasing subprime securities.[39] In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. In addition, HUD required Freddie and Fannie to provide 12% of their portfolio to “special affordable” loans. Those are loans to borrowers with less than 60% of their area’s median income. These targets increased over the years, with a 2008 target of 28%.[40]

And that's from dumb downed wikipedia. You're wrong. You're welcome.

 

[Sallow]

Wrong, they weren't qualified. The banks already gave mortgages to qualified applicants. To meet the requirements imposed on them by the regulators, banks had to give mortgages to people with bad credit. that's the meaning of the term "under served applicant." Anyone who denies it is simply a damn liar.

That's not what happened. No one imposed any requirements to give people loans. The CRA was about getting rid of "Red Lining". Which means that loans can't be denied because building was going on in blighted areas. It had nothing to do with indivduals.

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that purchase mortgages, buy and sell mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and guarantee nearly half of the mortgages in the U.S.[dubious – discuss] A variety of political and competitive pressures resulted in the GSE taking on additional risk, beginning in the mid-1990s and continuing throughout the crisis and their government takeover in September, 2008.[36][37]

HUD loosened mortgage restrictions in the mid-1990s so first-time buyers could qualify for loans that they could never get before.[38] In 1995, the GSE began receiving affordable housing credit for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. This resulted in the agencies purchasing subprime securities.[39] In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. In addition, HUD required Freddie and Fannie to provide 12% of their portfolio to “special affordable” loans. Those are loans to borrowers with less than 60% of their area’s median income. These targets increased over the years, with a 2008 target of 28%.[40]

And that's from dumb downed wikipedia. You're wrong. You're welcome.

And?

That still had nothing to do with the financial calamity.

Freddie and Fannie Mae were still doing due diligence on borrowers.

They were taken out of the equation, actually, when big financial firms started guaranteeing loans..

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, they were not. And HUD REQUIRED them to lend to below the median, all the way until the federal government effectively nationalized these two institutions on taxpayer dollars. I think you might be a out of your league on finance, govt. policy and monetary policy.

Again, what do tax cuts have to do with a real estate bubble?

 

[edthecynic]

Wrong, they weren't qualified. The banks already gave mortgages to qualified applicants. To meet the requirements imposed on them by the regulators, banks had to give mortgages to people with bad credit. that's the meaning of the term "under served applicant." Anyone who denies it is simply a damn liar.

That's not what happened. No one imposed any requirements to give people loans. The CRA was about getting rid of "Red Lining". Which means that loans can't be denied because building was going on in blighted areas. It had nothing to do with indivduals.

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that purchase mortgages, buy and sell mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and guarantee nearly half of the mortgages in the U.S.[dubious – discuss] A variety of political and competitive pressures resulted in the GSE taking on additional risk, beginning in the mid-1990s and continuing throughout the crisis and their government takeover in September, 2008.[36][37]

HUD loosened mortgage restrictions in the mid-1990s so first-time buyers could qualify for loans that they could never get before.[38] In 1995, the GSE began receiving affordable housing credit for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. This resulted in the agencies purchasing subprime securities.[39] In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. In addition, HUD required Freddie and Fannie to provide 12% of their portfolio to “special affordable” loans. Those are loans to borrowers with less than 60% of their area’s median income. These targets increased over the years, with a 2008 target of 28%.[40]

And that's from dumb downed wikipedia. You're wrong. You're welcome.

Since it is wikipedia, YOU could have posted that there!
Try again.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

OK, Ed the retard, how about the cite source from the link. You babbling brook of incompetence.

How Government Stoked the Mania - WSJ.com

There are other sources for thsi information. If you want to do research, go do it. You'll find the same information.

Not that facts will stand in the way of belief with you useful idiots.

 

[edthecynic]

No, they were not. And HUD REQUIRED them to lend to below the median, all the way until the federal government effectively nationalized these two institutions on taxpayer dollars. I think you might be a out of your league on finance, govt. policy and monetary policy.

Again, what do tax cuts have to do with a real estate bubble?

Again that was Bush's ADDI that required them to lend to those with bad credit who were AT LEAST 20% below the standard of living for the neighborhood they were buying into. This is standard practice for the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood, to muddy the waters by accusing others of doing what thay do.

American Dream Downpayment Initiative - Affordable Housing - CPD - HUD
American Dream Downpayment Initiative
Summary

The American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was signed into law on December 16, 2003. The American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act authorizes up to $200 million annually for fiscal years 2004 - 2007. ADDI will provide funds to all fifty states and to local participating jurisdictions that have a population of at least 150,000 or will receive an allocation of at least $50,000 under the ADDI formula. ADDI will be administered as a part of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, a formula grant program.

Purpose

ADDI aims to increase the homeownership rate, especially among lower income and minority households, and to revitalize and stabilize communities. ADDI will help first-time homebuyers with the biggest hurdle to homeownership: downpayment and closing costs. The program was created to assist low-income first-time homebuyers in purchasing single-family homes by providing funds for downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation carried out in conjunction with the assisted home purchase.

Type of Assistance

ADDI will provide downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation assistance to eligible individuals. The amount of ADDI assistance provided may not exceed $10,000 or six percent of the purchase price of the home, whichever is greater. The rehabilitation must be completed within one year of the home purchase. Rehabilitation may include, but is not limited to, the reduction of lead paint hazards and the remediation of other home health hazards.

Eligible Customers

To be eligible for ADDI assistance, individuals must be first-time homebuyers interested in purchasing single family housing. A first-time homebuyer is defined as an individual and his or her spouse who have not owned a home during the three-year period prior to the purchase of a home with ADDI assistance. ADDI funds may be used to purchase one- to four- family housing, condominium unit, cooperative unit, or manufactured housing. Additionally, individuals who qualify for ADDI assistance must have incomes not exceeding 80% of area median income.

 

[edthecynic]

OK, Ed the retard, how about the cite source from the link. You babbling brook of incompetence.

How Government Stoked the Mania - WSJ.com

There are other sources for thsi information. If you want to do research, go do it. You'll find the same information.

Not that facts will stand in the way of belief with you useful idiots.

Murdoch's WSJ is even less credible than wikipedia.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, they were not. And HUD REQUIRED them to lend to below the median, all the way until the federal government effectively nationalized these two institutions on taxpayer dollars. I think you might be a out of your league on finance, govt. policy and monetary policy.

Again, what do tax cuts have to do with a real estate bubble?

Again that was Bush's ADDI that required them to lend to those with bad credit who were AT LEAST 20% below the standard of living for the neighborhood they were buying into. This is standard practice for the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood to muddy the waters by accusing others of diong what that do.

American Dream Downpayment Initiative - Affordable Housing - CPD - HUD
American Dream Downpayment Initiative
Summary

The American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was signed into law on December 16, 2003. The American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act authorizes up to $200 million annually for fiscal years 2004 - 2007. ADDI will provide funds to all fifty states and to local participating jurisdictions that have a population of at least 150,000 or will receive an allocation of at least $50,000 under the ADDI formula. ADDI will be administered as a part of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, a formula grant program.

Purpose

ADDI aims to increase the homeownership rate, especially among lower income and minority households, and to revitalize and stabilize communities. ADDI will help first-time homebuyers with the biggest hurdle to homeownership: downpayment and closing costs. The program was created to assist low-income first-time homebuyers in purchasing single-family homes by providing funds for downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation carried out in conjunction with the assisted home purchase.

Type of Assistance

ADDI will provide downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation assistance to eligible individuals. The amount of ADDI assistance provided may not exceed $10,000 or six percent of the purchase price of the home, whichever is greater. The rehabilitation must be completed within one year of the home purchase. Rehabilitation may include, but is not limited to, the reduction of lead paint hazards and the remediation of other home health hazards.

Eligible Customers

To be eligible for ADDI assistance, individuals must be first-time homebuyers interested in purchasing single family housing. A first-time homebuyer is defined as an individual and his or her spouse who have not owned a home during the three-year period prior to the purchase of a home with ADDI assistance. ADDI funds may be used to purchase one- to four- family housing, condominium unit, cooperative unit, or manufactured housing. Additionally, individuals who qualify for ADDI assistance must have incomes not exceeding 80% of area median income.

Ed, you incompetent fool. That act came way after the 1993 legislation that put the GSEs on requirement to make loans to lesss than the median income borrows. It's all in what I posted above, that you didnt' like the source.

The dream act didn't help, but it didn't CAUSE the problem either.

You're batting partisan shit on a non-partisan issue.

Bring your knee pads next time.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

OK, Ed the retard, how about the cite source from the link. You babbling brook of incompetence.

How Government Stoked the Mania - WSJ.com

There are other sources for thsi information. If you want to do research, go do it. You'll find the same information.

Not that facts will stand in the way of belief with you useful idiots.

Murdoch's WSJ is even less credible than wikipedia.

Then go do your homework if you don't like the sources, you fool. I'm not playing "I dont like your sources", so I'll change the argument to your cite sources.

Fucking toolshed.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The author of the Wall St. Journal piece:

Mr. Roberts is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a scholar at the Mercatus Center. His latest book is a novel on how markets work, "The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity" (Princeton University Press, 2008).

But I'm sure he just wanted to make things up to make a LOLberal scream.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Again, what do tax cuts have to do with a real estate bubble?

 

[edthecynic]

OK, Ed the retard, how about the cite source from the link. You babbling brook of incompetence.

How Government Stoked the Mania - WSJ.com

There are other sources for thsi information. If you want to do research, go do it. You'll find the same information.

Not that facts will stand in the way of belief with you useful idiots.

Murdoch's WSJ is even less credible than wikipedia.

Then go do your homework if you don't like the sources, you fool. I'm not playing "I dont like your sources", so I'll change the argument to your cite sources.

Fucking toolshed.

The reason WSJ is an unreliable source is because they use the most professional way to lie: Tell just enough truth and then shut up, - or more commonly called: lying to the level of ignorance of your victim.

For example, from your WSJ link blaming the CRA, "The Fed did its part, too. In 2003, the federal-funds rate hit 40-year lows of 1.25%. That pushed the rates on adjustable loans to historic lows as well, helping to fuel the housing boom."

What WSJ dishonestly leaves out is while CRA loans had adjustable rates thus making them subprime loans, CRA loans adjusted DOWN not up like the loans that caused the housing crash. If a CRA borrower made his payments on time for 2 years their rate went DOWN to prime!!!!! the 2% over prime CRA loans were not the high interest high rish high profit loans that fed the greed that caused the crash.

 

[TakeAStepBack]