If corporations are people?

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:26:27 -0400, Sancho Panza
> wrote in misc.transport.road:

>On 10/30/2011 9:21 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:07:32 -0400, Sancho Panza
>> > wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>
>>> On 10/30/2011 7:55 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Remember that Barney Franks required banks to make loans to people who
>>>>> had no ability whatsoever to repay them.
>>>>
>>>> Something that we all know did not happen, but the right-wing crazies
>>>> keep repeating that lie as if it were true. Why is that? Where do you
>>>> get this nonsense from?
>>>
>>> "The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the
>>> Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 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 help meet the needs of
>>> borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and
>>> moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977
>>> to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income
>>> neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]
>>
>> I know what the CRA is,
>
>But you were just too shy to mention it.
>
>> but, of course, we all know that the CRA never
>> required any banks to make loans to people who had no ability whatsoever
>> to repay them. Remember that this was law a quarter of a century before
>> the banks decided to play games with mortgages.
>
>Under pressure from Frank and H.U.D.

That's the lie the right-wingers tell. The evidence does not support
their reactionary claims, but facts never stopped right-wingers from
making unsupportable claims before.

>> The CRA stopped discrimination against neighborhoods. It never forced a
>> single loan to be made that was irresponsible. The equities markets
>> never had a problem with it. Some right-wing clowns started to make
>> excuses for the the absurd loans being made that were not consistent
>> with safe and sound operation and falsely blamed the CRA for the casino
>> mentality that bankers had from 2004-2008.
>
>So you want to say now that Frank and H.U.D. did not review banks'
>participation in such loans and did not exert pressure to expand such
>operations. Another revision and cleansing of unpleasant but real
>history. No surprise there!

They never exerted pressure on them to make loans that were not
consistent with safe and sound operations. You have no evidence to calim
otherwise.

On 10/30/2011 9:34 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:26:27 -0400, Sancho Panza
> > wrote in misc.transport.road:
>
>> On 10/30/2011 9:21 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:07:32 -0400, Sancho Panza
>>> > wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>>
>>>> On 10/30/2011 7:55 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Remember that Barney Franks required banks to make loans to people who
>>>>>> had no ability whatsoever to repay them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something that we all know did not happen, but the right-wing crazies
>>>>> keep repeating that lie as if it were true. Why is that? Where do you
>>>>> get this nonsense from?
>>>>
>>>> "The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the
>>>> Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 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 help meet the needs of
>>>> borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and
>>>> moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977
>>>> to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income
>>>> neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]
>>>
>>> I know what the CRA is,
>>
>> But you were just too shy to mention it.
>>
>>> but, of course, we all know that the CRA never
>>> required any banks to make loans to people who had no ability whatsoever
>>> to repay them. Remember that this was law a quarter of a century before
>>> the banks decided to play games with mortgages.
>>
>> Under pressure from Frank and H.U.D.
>
> That's the lie the right-wingers tell. The evidence does not support
> their reactionary claims, but facts never stopped right-wingers from
> making unsupportable claims before.

The Boston Globe, by no means a conservative foe of Frank and big
government, explains it for even the most obtuse:

"While the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of
private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just
how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the
ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points
notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding
to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make
ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the
truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and
demanding that they do so - or else.
The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was
when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began
accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks
were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.
The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with
weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community
Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to
"meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed
neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting
standards and making increasingly shoddy loans.

The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more
"flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for
home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among
minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound
business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of
Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense.
"Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the
Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare
payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify
for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was
good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial
whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean
when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked
in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving
risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs .
.. . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city,
which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and
regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and
time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good
shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration
proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant
that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any
kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk
for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank
complained that the administration was more concerned about financial
safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to
all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this
mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and
private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the
political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a
culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror."

>> So you want to say now that Frank and H.U.D. did not review banks'
>> participation in such loans and did not exert pressure to expand such
>> operations. Another revision and cleansing of unpleasant but real
>> history. No surprise there!
>
> They never exerted pressure on them to make loans that were not
> consistent with safe and sound operations. You have no evidence to calim
> otherwise.

SSSuuuurreee. Banks eagerly extend loans that are bound to lose money.
That's some sound economic logic. Ha!

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:44:07 -0400, Sancho Panza
> wrote in misc.transport.road:

>On 10/30/2011 9:34 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:26:27 -0400, Sancho Panza
>> > wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>
>>> On 10/30/2011 9:21 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:07:32 -0400, Sancho Panza
>>>> > wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/30/2011 7:55 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remember that Barney Franks required banks to make loans to people who
>>>>>>> had no ability whatsoever to repay them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something that we all know did not happen, but the right-wing crazies
>>>>>> keep repeating that lie as if it were true. Why is that? Where do you
>>>>>> get this nonsense from?
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the
>>>>> Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 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 help meet the needs of
>>>>> borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and
>>>>> moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977
>>>>> to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income
>>>>> neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]
>>>>
>>>> I know what the CRA is,
>>>
>>> But you were just too shy to mention it.
>>>
>>>> but, of course, we all know that the CRA never
>>>> required any banks to make loans to people who had no ability whatsoever
>>>> to repay them. Remember that this was law a quarter of a century before
>>>> the banks decided to play games with mortgages.
>>>
>>> Under pressure from Frank and H.U.D.
>>
>> That's the lie the right-wingers tell. The evidence does not support
>> their reactionary claims, but facts never stopped right-wingers from
>> making unsupportable claims before.
>
>The Boston Globe, by no means a conservative foe of Frank and big
>government, explains it for even the most obtuse:
>
>"While the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of
>private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just
>how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the
>ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points
>notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding
>to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make
>ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the
>truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and
>demanding that they do so - or else.
>The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was
>when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began
>accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks
>were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.
>The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with
>weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community
>Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to
>"meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed
>neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting
>standards and making increasingly shoddy loans.
>
>The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and
>Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more
>"flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for
>home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.
>
>All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among
>minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound
>business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of
>Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense.
>"Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the
>Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare
>payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify
>for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.
>
>As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was
>good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial
>whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean
>when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked
>in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving
>risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs .
>. . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city,
>which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and
>regulators plans to take the credit?"
>
>Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and
>time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good
>shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration
>proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant
>that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any
>kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk
>for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank
>complained that the administration was more concerned about financial
>safety than about housing.
>
>Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to
>all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this
>mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and
>private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the
>political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a
>culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror."

So, how did Frank persuade the banks to junk their standards for the big
bubble while the GOP ran Washington? Sorry, but that accusation is still
indefensible. Jeff Jacoby has no idea because he doesn't care. He has a
story, not facts.

>>> So you want to say now that Frank and H.U.D. did not review banks'
>>> participation in such loans and did not exert pressure to expand such
>>> operations. Another revision and cleansing of unpleasant but real
>>> history. No surprise there!
>>
>> They never exerted pressure on them to make loans that were not
>> consistent with safe and sound operations. You have no evidence to calim
>> otherwise.
>
>SSSuuuurreee. Banks eagerly extend loans that are bound to lose money.
>That's some sound economic logic. Ha!

Once again, until you provide evidence to back up your claim, your
argument shows that your claim is not valid. No banks were forced to
intentionally write bad loans just to comply with the CRA.

Remember that this is an opinion column by Jeff Jacoby, not actual
reporting. Jeff was wrong on Sept. 28, 2008, and if he stands by that
column, he is still wrong today.

Of course he has no facts. Republicans don't believe in facts: only lies,
bull**** and rhetoric

On 10/30/2011 9:55 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:44:07 -0400, Sancho Panza
> > wrote in misc.transport.road:
>
>> On 10/30/2011 9:34 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:26:27 -0400, Sancho Panza
>>> > wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>>
>>>> On 10/30/2011 9:21 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:07:32 -0400, Sancho Panza
>>>>> > wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/30/2011 7:55 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember that Barney Franks required banks to make loans to people who
>>>>>>>> had no ability whatsoever to repay them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Something that we all know did not happen, but the right-wing crazies
>>>>>>> keep repeating that lie as if it were true. Why is that? Where do you
>>>>>>> get this nonsense from?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the
>>>>>> Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 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 help meet the needs of
>>>>>> borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and
>>>>>> moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977
>>>>>> to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income
>>>>>> neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]
>>>>>
>>>>> I know what the CRA is,
>>>>
>>>> But you were just too shy to mention it.
>>>>
>>>>> but, of course, we all know that the CRA never
>>>>> required any banks to make loans to people who had no ability whatsoever
>>>>> to repay them. Remember that this was law a quarter of a century before
>>>>> the banks decided to play games with mortgages.
>>>>
>>>> Under pressure from Frank and H.U.D.
>>>
>>> That's the lie the right-wingers tell. The evidence does not support
>>> their reactionary claims, but facts never stopped right-wingers from
>>> making unsupportable claims before.
>>
>> The Boston Globe, by no means a conservative foe of Frank and big
>> government, explains it for even the most obtuse:
>>
>> "While the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of
>> private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just
>> how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the
>> ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points
>> notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding
>> to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make
>> ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the
>> truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and
>> demanding that they do so - or else.

>> The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was
>> when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began
>> accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks
>> were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.
>> The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with
>> weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community
>> Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to
>> "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed
>> neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting
>> standards and making increasingly shoddy loans.
>>
>> The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and
>> Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more
>> "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for
>> home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.
>>
>> All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among
>> minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound
>> business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of
>> Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense.
>> "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the
>> Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare
>> payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify
>> for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.
>>
>> As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was
>> good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial
>> whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean
>> when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked
>> in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving
>> risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs .
>> . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city,
>> which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and
>> regulators plans to take the credit?"
>>
>> Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and
>> time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good
>> shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration
>> proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant
>> that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any
>> kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk
>> for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank
>> complained that the administration was more concerned about financial
>> safety than about housing.
>>
>> Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to
>> all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this
>> mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and
>> private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the
>> political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a
>> culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror."
>
> So, how did Frank persuade the banks to junk their standards for the big
> bubble while the GOP ran Washington? Sorry, but that accusation is still
> indefensible. Jeff Jacoby has no idea because he doesn't care. He has a
> story, not facts.
>
>>>> So you want to say now that Frank and H.U.D. did not review banks'
>>>> participation in such loans and did not exert pressure to expand such
>>>> operations. Another revision and cleansing of unpleasant but real
>>>> history. No surprise there!
>>>
>>> They never exerted pressure on them to make loans that were not
>>> consistent with safe and sound operations. You have no evidence to calim
>>> otherwise.
>>
>> SSSuuuurreee. Banks eagerly extend loans that are bound to lose money.
>> That's some sound economic logic. Ha!
>
> Once again, until you provide evidence to back up your claim, your
> argument shows that your claim is not valid. No banks were forced to
> intentionally write bad loans just to comply with the CRA.

You report that you are unable to read pertinent passages like "Time and
>> time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good
>> shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration
>> proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant
>> that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any
>> kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk
>> for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank
>> complained that the administration was more concerned about financial
>> safety than about housing.

But you have no problem putting words in others' mouths. No one said
"forced intentionally." But Frank, as the Congressional point man on
housing, was "empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet
the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed
neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting
standards and making increasingly shoddy loans.


>
> Remember that this is an opinion column by Jeff Jacoby, not actual
> reporting. Jeff was wrong on Sept. 28, 2008, and if he stands by that
> column, he is still wrong today.

It's too bad that you are abjectly unable to refute or even dispute a
single point in the quoted piece. But what is at best intellectual
laziness was always expected.

On 10/30/2011 10:09 PM, US 71 wrote:
> Of course he has no facts. Republicans don't believe in facts: only lies,
> bull**** and rhetoric
>
>
Another expert whose limited capacity extends only to wild-eyed
presumptions and who is unable to deal with a single point in the
discussion. No surprise there, either!

"Sancho Panza" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/30/2011 10:09 PM, US 71 wrote:
>> Of course he has no facts. Republicans don't believe in facts: only lies,
>> bull**** and rhetoric
>>
>>
> Another expert whose limited capacity extends only to wild-eyed presumptions
> and who is unable to deal with a single point in the discussion. No surprise
> there, either!


I don't see any evidence, bupkis. Only your bull****.

Thanks for proving me correct.

On Oct 30, 6:48*pm, The Real Bev > wrote:

> > Unions today are virtually extinct. *They represent only a miniscule
> > number of workers today.
>
> All of them government employees

What are you talking about?


> Remember that Barney Franks required banks to make loans to people who
> had no ability whatsoever to repay them. *

He did? Must be a major story in the New York Times, could you advise
the date?

On Oct 30, 10:18*pm, Sancho Panza > wrote:
> On 10/30/2011 9:55 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:44:07 -0400, Sancho Panza
> > > *wrote in misc.transport.road:
>
> >> On 10/30/2011 9:34 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:26:27 -0400, Sancho Panza
> >>> > * wrote in misc.transport.road:
>
> >>>> On 10/30/2011 9:21 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:07:32 -0400, Sancho Panza
> >>>>> > * *wrote in misc.transport.road:
>
> >>>>>> On 10/30/2011 7:55 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Remember that Barney Franks required banks to make loans to people who
> >>>>>>>> had no ability whatsoever to repay them.
>
> >>>>>>> Something that we all know did not happen, but the right-wing crazies
> >>>>>>> keep repeating that lie as if it were true. Why is that? Where do you
> >>>>>>> get this nonsense from?
>
> >>>>>> "The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the
> >>>>>> Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 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 help meet the needs of
> >>>>>> borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and
> >>>>>> moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977
> >>>>>> to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income
> >>>>>> neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]
>
> >>>>> I know what the CRA is,
>
> >>>> But you were just too shy to mention it.
>
> >>>>> but, of course, we all know that the CRA never
> >>>>> required any banks to make loans to people who had no ability whatsoever
> >>>>> to repay them. Remember that this was law a quarter of a century before
> >>>>> the banks decided to play games with mortgages.
>
> >>>> Under pressure from Frank and H.U.D.
>
> >>> That's the lie the right-wingers tell. The evidence does not support
> >>> their reactionary claims, but facts never stopped right-wingers from
> >>> making unsupportable claims before.
>
> >> The Boston Globe, by no means a conservative foe of Frank and big
> >> government, explains it for even the most obtuse:
>
> >> "While the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of
> >> private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just
> >> how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the
> >> ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points
> >> notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding
> >> to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make
> >> ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the
> >> truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and
> >> demanding that they do so - or else.
> >> The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was
> >> when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began
> >> accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks
> >> were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.
> >> The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with
> >> weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community
> >> Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to
> >> "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed
> >> neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting
> >> standards and making increasingly shoddy loans.
>
> >> The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and
> >> Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more
> >> "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for
> >> home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.
>
> >> All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among
> >> minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound
> >> business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of
> >> Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense.
> >> "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the
> >> Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare
> >> payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify
> >> for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.
>
> >> As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was
> >> good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial
> >> whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean
> >> when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked
> >> in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving
> >> risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs

In article >, US 71 says...
>
>Of course he has no facts. Liberals don't believe in facts: only lies,
>bull**** and rhetoric

FIFY.


--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictorplate"