When will the US financial baillout occur?

[Steve]

'Racialist' reasons. lol. So, was the Civil Rights Act enacted for 'racialist' reasons then? If you agree it was an act worth putting on the books (do you?) then a 'racialist' reason is not a bad thing then or is that not so?

 

Why can't the reasons for any act be to help AMERICANS?

 

 

[Steve]

WTF!

 

Fed to provide as much as $900B in loans to banks

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/fed_credit_crisis

[rogueyam]

Today, there are some people who would like to go back to those good all days.

 

Bullshit.

[rogueyam]

'Racialist' reasons. lol. So, was the Civil Rights Act enacted for 'racialist' reasons then?

 

We were talking about the Community Reinvestnment Act.

 

You keep changing the subject because you have no substantive response to the points I make about the current subject.

[Bangkoktraveler]

Today' date=' there are some people who would like to go back to those good all days. [/quote']

 

Bullshit.

 

 

 

 

Some of your comments toward blacks and other minorities has made me speculate that you of all people would love to go back to those good old days when a black man could not get a loan from a bank, had to attend a black only school, use a black only bathroom, and surely, never venture into a white only community. At least that is the image of yourself that you portray to me.

 

[Steve]

I agree with this but Obama, ACORN, and chocolat steve say that this approach is all racis' an' shit.

You posted a link to a politically biased site. Where is the proof that banks were forced to make bad loans? I have posted proof of predatory lending. I have posted stats about subprime loans offered to high income applicants.

 

These banks may in fact have been forced to but I haven't seen the stats as yet.

 

There is statistics that suggest that QUALIFIED homeowners in certain areas were NOT offered loans but their counterparts in other areas were. I have seen that the government asked these banks to offer the SAME loans to applicannts in all areas.

 

There is a supposition that by telling the banks to treat all lenders the same, then to some, by definition that if the lender is poor or of a certain group then the loan is 'bad loan'.

 

I see a lot of links to right wing talking heads who say this was happening but I don't see any independent documentation to support it.

 

Again, maybe there are. You're better at googling than I am.

 

 

 

 

[Steve]

'Racialist' reasons. lol. So' date=' was the Civil Rights Act enacted for 'racialist' reasons then? [/quote']

 

We were talking about the Community Reinvestnment Act.

 

You keep changing the subject because you have no substantive response to the points I make about the current subject.

 

I'm not changing the subject. This is what Wiki says about the act:

The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2] The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation.

 

Where are any references to race made? I am doing what you do and being intellectually dishonest. It was perceived housing injusticies to minorities that prompted the act.

 

You used the term 'racialist', not me. You inferred the act was made because of racial reasons and YOU called it racialist. I am also bringing into question another act that was founded on race based reasons. The civil rights act. Its a fair comparison. Either BOTH are 'racialist' or they aren't since BOTH are based PRIMARILY but not totally on injusticies to a specific racial or ethnic group.

 

Lets start with defining the term 'Racialist'. Can you offer your own definition please?

 

The CRA helps ALL communities. If there are poor white communities in West Virginia or the backwoods in Kentucky it helps them as well. If their local banks are not serving their community in the same fashion as banks in minority areas they can they can use the CRA get fair banking needs as well.

 

Just as the voting rights act helps ALL americans. There are many non black groups that have successfuly used the civil rights act and the voting rights act for justice.

 

These and all acts are for the use of ALL americans.

[mongon]

So we still havenâ??t figured out who to blame for the current state of the U.S. economy.

 

Betty Realtor shows a $300,000 home to the Lowrent family that she knows can only afford a $100,000 home. Betty knows a good mortgage broker so she can make this deal work. And get a bigger commission. Betty is not applying professional judgment.

 

The Lowrent family knows they should not be looking at the $300k house. They have no money for a down-payment and limited income. But when they see the big house with the big yard they fall in love with it (falling in love with material objects is the same as greed). So they buy into Bettyâ??s line about how the market is on the rise, initial interest is low and you can dump the loan in two years and get a new one and that is why you can live a life of luxury in a house you really canâ??t afford.

 

So far the realtors and the low rents are to blame. Greed overcame good judgment.

 

The lenders are the only ones who did nothing wrong.

 

Just kidding. Since Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee one half of the entire U.S. residential mortgage market, Iâ??ll talk about them. Its simple. They did not want to be regulated. They wanted to get more and more market share. So FF funded and lobbied Congress to persuade it that FF did not need to be regulated. They lowered lending standards so they could get more and more loans into their portfolio. Low income housing proponents in Congress were ideal partners for FF. The Congressmen kept asserting that it was the role of the federal government to help people own a home. This notion would be preposterous if people understood the original purpose of creating a federal government. But too many Americans donâ??t have a clue about that. Chalk it up to federalized (non)education and a socialist NEA.

 

Naturally, Congress decided that we donâ??t need to strictly regulate FF. They said FF really needed to stop being so strict about down payments and debt ratios. And the FF campaign contributions kept flowing to those Congressmen. And FF got big. Really big. And housing prices went sky high because of the easy credit.

 

FF CEOs are to blame for pursuing reckless lending to increase their loan books and earn bonuses. And Congressmen who know their re-election depends on shoving unqualified homeowners into high risk lending schemes and satisfying the socialist housing groups are to blame.

 

Securitization of that whole defective lending process is another wave of stupidity.

 

I still hear the Dems yelling that it was Republican deregulation that caused the whole thing. Sorry, when it comes to FF that wonâ??t fly. The push to circumvent market forces in the housing market was and still is very strong. If you really think the Rs did not want to regulate FF, have a look at this:

 

Link

[mongon]

Here is a quote from that Wiki site regarding the CRA:

 

[color:blue]Howard Husock, vice-president of the market-oriented conservative Manhattan Institute and author of a book on American housing policy, writes that once in effect, the new rules substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. The Senate Banking Committee estimated that as of 2000, as a result of CRA, such groups had received $9.5 billion in services and salaries. As of that time such groups also had received tens of billions of dollars in multi-year commitments from banks to loan to local communities, including the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) housing advocacy organization $760 million; Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America $3 billion; a New Jersey Citizen Action-led coalition $13 billion; the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance $220 million..[23][/color]

 

Sounds like trouble to me. Jimmy Carter enacted the CRA to service low income neighborhoods. Interference with the markets, such as trying to provide homeownership to everyone, leads to the banks getting clogged up with these mortgages, or MBSs derived from them. The groups named above are very political and use the money they receive to get a death grip on a block of Congressmen and the existence of both the Congressmen and the groups becomes perpetual. Even in this crisis environment, you will hear them talking about the need to build more affordable housing which is nuts considering the bloated housing inventory.

 

A government on a social mission can be a big factor in precipitating problems in the market.

[shygye]

Lots of discussions about the banks but what role does the borrower play in this?

 

Plenty

 

Can anyone honestly say that most of the defaulters didn't borrow out of their ability to pay the loans in the first place.

 

We all talk about the bank's greed but what about the greed of Mr & Mrs "White Picket Fence"

 

It is the banks that did NOT check the applicants, which they did do in the 20th century. It is the banks that paid HIGHER COMMISSIONS to mortgage brokers to push these ARMs with teaser rates. It is the banks that came up with these interest only loans with a back end bomb.