Pages: 1 2
What reforms did Clinton make to the HUD and CRA to allow that?usmarine wrote:
yep. yet clinton supported the CRA and HUD rules that pretty much forced banks to give loans to people who banks would never in their right mind gives loans to.
"In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs. These revisions[1] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years."KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
What reforms did Clinton make to the HUD and CRA to allow that?usmarine wrote:
yep. yet clinton supported the CRA and HUD rules that pretty much forced banks to give loans to people who banks would never in their right mind gives loans to.
Did you know that the Wall Street Journal reported that 61% of people with sub-prime loans actually qualified for better loans? Was Clinton or someone from the left forcing the lending industry to offer people high-interest loans too?
So what were the detrimental changes? You quoted wiki mentioning the changes, but what were the actual changes?usmarine wrote:
"In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs. These revisions[1] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years."KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
What reforms did Clinton make to the HUD and CRA to allow that?usmarine wrote:
yep. yet clinton supported the CRA and HUD rules that pretty much forced banks to give loans to people who banks would never in their right mind gives loans to.
Did you know that the Wall Street Journal reported that 61% of people with sub-prime loans actually qualified for better loans? Was Clinton or someone from the left forcing the lending industry to offer people high-interest loans too?
----------------------------------------
Oh, and lots of peoples hero on here...
"Congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has partially attributed the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis to legislation such as the CRA."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
god look it up yourself.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
So what were the detrimental changes? You quoted wiki mentioning the changes, but what were the actual changes?
What were the "extensive changes" to the rules?usmarine wrote:
god look it up yourself.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
So what were the detrimental changes? You quoted wiki mentioning the changes, but what were the actual changes?
"Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans.
Lenders who refused would find themselves castigated publicly as racists. As noted this week in an IBD editorial, no fewer than four federal bank regulators scrutinized financial firms' books to make sure they were in compliance.
Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called "CRA rating" that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was."
somebody rattled them off on CNBC when i was watching it the other day........bud. go find it if you want.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
You want to blame Clinton for the changes to the CRA but you don't even know them. That's my point bud.
Yes, I do.Spearhead wrote:
You obviously have a pretty low opinion of anyone who supports him then... do you really think we're that stupid?Stingray24 wrote:
Oh please, his positions change depending on who is interviewing him.
And you obviously paid good attention, seeing as you can't remember a single one.usmarine wrote:
somebody rattled them off on CNBC when i was watching it the other day........bud. go find it if you want.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
You want to blame Clinton for the changes to the CRA but you don't even know them. That's my point bud.
http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.htmlBefore I turn to potential interventions, I want to make one final point. There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans,16 and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.17 We should not view the current foreclosure trends as justification to abandon the goal of expanding access to credit among low-income households, since access to credit, and the subsequent ability to buy a home, remains one of the most important mechanisms we have to help low-income families build wealth over the long term.18
Tis true i did not commit them to memory because it was kind of shocking to hear tbh. and i could dig thru the interweb, but i just dont feel like it. you can read thru all the legislative lawyer talk if you please. thats what the news is ken. people do research and break it down for you.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
And you obviously paid good attention, seeing as you can't remember a single one.usmarine wrote:
somebody rattled them off on CNBC when i was watching it the other day........bud. go find it if you want.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
You want to blame Clinton for the changes to the CRA but you don't even know them. That's my point bud.
See, the "Clinton was the cause because of his changes to the CRA" is bullshit, plain and simple. All you are doing is proffering the same bile that stupid conservative bloggers and ignorant pundits on FoxNews are spouting - but it's not true, plain and simple.http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.htmlBefore I turn to potential interventions, I want to make one final point. There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans,16 and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.17 We should not view the current foreclosure trends as justification to abandon the goal of expanding access to credit among low-income households, since access to credit, and the subsequent ability to buy a home, remains one of the most important mechanisms we have to help low-income families build wealth over the long term.18
But what would a Federal Reserve banker know?
Last edited by usmarine (2008-09-23 18:57:43)
I've worked on projects that were almost entirely CRA funded, in an attempt to provide affordable housing and help improve property values - in the targeted area (City/redevelopment district). A majority of these (low priced) homes were not the ones that went bust in the bubble.There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.
Robert Gordon has pointed out that approximately half of the loans were made by independent mortgage companies which were not regulated by CRA at all, and thus had no government obligation to offer credit to minorities.
Ellen Seidman, the former director of the US Office of Thrift Supervision,[2] argues that the CRA did not have an effect on the United States housing bubble. She observes that CRA banks were particularly warned to make responsible investments, citing a speech by herself as an example. She notes that if unregulated independent mortgage companies do make subprime loans, affiliated CRA banks should not be able to count them for CRA purposes, although she does not indicate whether this practice currently occurs.
An analysis by attorneys Traiger and Hinckley concluded that CRA banks were less likely to sell risky mortgages onto the secondary market, and likely mitigated the effect of subprime crisis.
...far fewer applicants are denied credit—rather, they are offered credit at higher prices intended to reflect the greater risk posed by these loans.
Home purchase and refinance lending has the largest origination volume by far (of which about 10 percent is CRA-related).
Perhaps the most significant factor driving the current rise in delinquency and foreclosures is declining house values.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-09-23 22:30:51)
It's offensive because:Stingray24 wrote:
I don't think Obama supporters are stupid, I just disagree with the policies of their candidate. I'll leave insulting the intelligence of supporters to you Dems. Obama's a typical tax and spend lib, McCain won't even have try to be better on spending.Spearhead wrote:
You obviously have a pretty low opinion of anyone who supports him then... do you really think we're that stupid? How about post 2 videos from youtube showing him having completely different opinions. As if McCain doesn't do it at all, too.... lolStingray24 wrote:
Oh please, his positions change depending on who is interviewing him.McCains promising an awful lot, too. And you know with Bush and all, increasing the size of government really works well with lowering taxes for the wealthy... trickle down.. hahahahahha.Stingray24 wrote:
Simply take note of the myriad of programs Obama is promising, where else is the money coming from besides the taxpayers?
edit - stingray I was going to make fun of your sig by using it for my sig with some modification. But I couldnt think of anything that offensive. I hope you're kidding, right? If not thats pretty narrow minded of you.
to edit: Why is it offensive? Truth hurts I guess.
I guess I thought you were smarter than to be that narrowminded. I was wrong apparently.Stingray24 wrote:
to edit: Why is it offensive? Truth hurts I guess.
Pages: 1 2