Comments for The Fed Did Indeed Cause the Housing Bubble »
Posted By berkeley 9 months, 1 week ago in Political NewsAlan Greenspan is a liar. The Federal Reserve and its long standing partner, the US Treasury, engineered the housing bubble, including the fraudulent inducement of America as part of a financial coup d’etat. Our bankruptcy was not an accident. It was engineered at the highest levels.
Your publication of Greenspan’s breezy and bogus history of the housing bubble insults your readership.
Read Full Story at solari.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 64
-
86%
hyperbola9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
Reply
.... One of the dirty little secrets behind the housing bubble is the long standing partnership of narcotics trafficking and mortgage fraud and the use of the two in combination to target and destroy minority and poor communities with highly profitable economic warfare. This model is global. It is operating in counties throughout the world as well as in US communities.
Of all the actions that the Federal Reserve took to engineer this housing bubble, the one that I would note is Mr. Greenspan’s efforts to pacify Congresswoman Waters regarding allegations of government sponsored narcotics trafficking at a time when open Congressional hearings would have contributed to an important discussion of the operations engaging in mortgage fraud in minority communities. See, “Financial Coup d’Etat,” Chapter 16, Dillon Read & the Aristocracy of Stock Profits which was written in 2005 and published in April 2006, drawing from an article I first published in May 1999....
Catherine Austin Fitts
Assistant Secretary of Housing - Federal Housing Commissioner, Bush I-
11%
GLee9 months, 1 week ago
-
91%
Will13139 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
well if that all you have to say.. then your uninformed or an idiot...
Reply
here's what the FEDERAL RESERVE HAD TO SAY....
n conclusion, I believe the CRA is an important model for designing incentives that motivate private-sector involvement to help meet community needs. The CRA has, in fact, been helpful in alleviating the financial isolation of many areas of concentrated poverty, but as our report illustrates, there is much more that could be done in these communities. Contrary to the assertions of critics, the evidence does not support the view that the CRA contributed in any substantial way to the crisis in the subprime mortgage market. Today's discussion is an important first step in the process of identifying other initiatives and areas of cooperation between government and the private sector that will effectively address the continuing challenge of poverty in the United States.
well separate this sentence for you study it and learn..
Contrary to the assertions of critics, the evidence does not support the view that the CRA contributed in any substantial way to the crisis in the subprime mortgage market.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kr...
note not from some looney tune blog.. from the FEDERAL RESERVE.. ..-
0%
GLee9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SoRRY Will but you are an uninformed idiot.......
Reply
"The CRA was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. It was passed as a result of national pressure to address the deteriorating conditions of American cities—particularly lower-income and minority neighborhoods. Community activists, such as Gale Cincotta of the National People's Action in Chicago, had led the national fight to pass, and later led the way to enforce the Act through goverment intervention. Regulators brought the Act in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities". The CRA has served as a catalyst, forcing banks to enter under-served markets that they might otherwise have ignored". A 2002 study exploring the relationship between the CRA and lending looked at as predatory, Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy noted that banks could receive CRA credit by lending or brokering loans in lower-income areas that would be a risk for ordinary lending practices. Most economists, politicians and other commentators have noted that the CRA contributed largely to the 2008 financial crisis by forcing banks to make unsafe loans."
IDIOT!
HEHE......-
100%
ybdogsct9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
GLEE:
Reply
" MOST economists, politicians and other commentators have noted that the CRA contributed largely to the 2008 financial crisis by forcing banks to make unsafe loans. IDIOT!"
It's odd that you would alter the Wikipedia quote to fabricate support for your own argument.
Actually, the Wikipedia entry you PLAGIARIZED says that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestmen...
" SOME economists, politicians and other commentators have charged that the CRA contributed in part to the 2008 financial crisis by encouraging banks to make unsafe loans."
In addition, you conveniently ignore the following sentences, which state:
"The Federal Reserve and the FDIC holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis.
Others dispute the involvement of the CRA in the subprime crisis. San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank Governor Randall Kroszner has stated that the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim. In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust," relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event. Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan, Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress, Robert Gordon of the American Prospect, Daniel Gross of Slate, and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.
Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton, stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight"."
I don't know if you were trying to be intentionally deceitful, or if you simply thought we wouldn't bother to check your own link.
But maybe you should be a little more careful about accusing others of being "idiots."
"HEHE." -
100%
Will13139 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
really ..
Reply
post one creditable link..
I POSTED A LINK FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE GOVENOR TESTIMONY before congress...
CRA is not mentioned in the top 25 in the time magizine list..
# 1.. Phil Gramm..
#2... Alan Greenspan..
I certainly don't mind being called an IDIOT by someone of your ilk...
in fact tis a badge of honor..-
100%
lfergie8129 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Phil Gramm was chairman of the Senate Banking Committee when he and the Republicans pushed the 1999 deregulation bill through congress that would have overrode a veto by Clinton so a deal was cut.
Reply
It was funny how Greenspan stayed on the job for 20 years and ran like hell when the Titanic hit the iceberg.
The percentage of foreclosures of CRA loans was unchanged for nearly 30 years so it wasn't the problem and it's just red herring talking points to try to divert people from the real cause which was sub-prime loans which the low income didn't get.
-
-
-
prophyporcritesComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned5 Replies
-
-
-
-
100%
GWHayduke9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I made this comment a couple of days ago:
Reply
The U.S. Federal Reserve’s “easy money” policies during the first part of this decade didn’t cause the housing bubble, former Chairman Alan Greenspan wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
A surge in growth in China and other emerging markets led to an excess of savings that pushed global long-term interest rates down between early 2000 and 2005, Greenspan wrote in an article. That caused mortgage rates and the benchmark Fed-funds rate to diverge after moving “in lockstep” from 1971 to 2002, he said.
The article is part of the former Fed chief’s defense against charges in books such as “Greenspan’s Bubbles” by William A. Fleckenstein that his policy of keeping rates too low for too long inflated the housing bubble. The collapse in the U.S. subprime-mortgage market led to about $1.2 trillion in writedowns and the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
“Given the decoupling of monetary policy from long-term mortgage rates, accelerating the path of monetary tightening that the Fed pursued in 2004-2005 could not have prevented the housing bubble,” Greenspan said
In essence, the bubble was carrying the economy. Greenspan, a Monetarist supported fake housing capital to keep the boat afloat
This article tends to support the assertion.-
17%
jimdoze9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Read it again, GW. The fed operates at the short end of the market. Mortgages are the long end of the credit markets. The economy rolled along with in inverted yield curve for a long time due to the liquidity Greenspan was talking about. The only way to bring down the housing bubble was with a crash... and that, eventually, is what we got.
Reply-
100%
tadair9199 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
jim -- you are forgetting that booms and busts are impossible in a sound money system. the credit you lend is actually the money you have to lend out.
Reply
the federal reserve oversees the issuance of money and expanding credit. this fiat money system always lends itself to enormous booms and busts.
watch a documentary called "Money Masters" on google video to better understand fractional-reserve lending.-
Neutral
jimdoze9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, Tadair. They are not impossible in a "sound money" economy. Booms and busts have been part of the human condition since long before fractional-reserve lending was created. Old testament Jews practiced a form of 50 -year debt forgiveness, which roughly corresponds to the Kondratieff Wave Cycle.
Reply
-
-
-
-
86%
4thchance9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a little question for you people to ponder over.
Reply
I'd like to see ANYONE answer this question/s, with an intelligent answer that makes good clear sense.
WHY,
Why did most all the banks in the country hand out loans (Totaling hundreds of billions of dollars) to people that could not pay the loans back? Since when does anyone in banking do such a stupid, dumb thing. Even the $8.00 an hour employee at the drive through bank window knows not to loan money to someone who can't pay it back, so why did they do it? Some claim the banks were forced to relax their standards and loan gobs of money to just about anyone and everyone who asked for a loan, if that's true, then WHO FORCED THEM to do it and WHY?
I do know one thing for sure. The CEO's and such at these banks had to have known, if they loan money to people who can not pay the loans back, then that would be the end of their banks. So, why did every bank in the country do the exact thing that they knew would destroy their own business? It was INSANE for them to do this, and they knew it would be the end of them if they did do it, so WHY DID THEY DO IT?????
I'll be waiting for someone to try to answer this....good luck!-
-
100%
Leemck029 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
4thchance, this is a profound question. This is like asking why can't we see the forest for the trees? I feel a little stupid for not putting this obvious inconsistency at the top of questions to ask. Did we get dumbed down to this point not to comprehend the magnitude where the current crisis was not by chance? You messed me up, I have to go out and rethink everything on the issue. Thanks!
Reply-
Neutral
4thchance9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think alot of people should start thinking about what I posted and should start to wonder just what the hell is going on. Something about all this is not adding up, is it? I TRULY doubt that (the current crisis was by chance) I say there's little chance if it all was simply by chance. NO, I beleive it has all been orchestrated. I know that sounds a bit fruity, but, could it be a HUGE Conspiracy?
Reply
If yes, then that REALLY starts bringing up endless questions about all this doesn't?
If the banks were forced to give loans to people who could not pay the loans back, then why were they forced and by whom? What is the goal of it all, Hmmm?????
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/obama-s...
Oooooppppsss... I posted that whacky link by mistake, sorry :-)
After all, that was done a few years ago, so it doesn't count now, RIGHT?-
100%
Will13139 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ACTUALLY IT DOESN'T COUNT... the suit was never about forcing anyone to lend to anybody that could not afford to pay.. and Obama billed 2 hours 50 minutes at 165 per hour.... and was never in court....
Reply
Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.
"I don't recall him ever standing up and giving an impassioned speech -- it was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff," said Fay Clayton, the lead lawyer on the case.
"He was the very junior lawyer in that case," said attorney Robert Kriss. "He had just graduated from law school. I don't recall him being in court at any time I was there. I was the lead lawyer for Citibank and he was not very visible to me."
Kriss, Clayton and every other co-counsel and opposing counsel interviewed for this story praised Obama's legal ability, temperament and everything about his courtroom demeanor, even though, they agree, he didn't say much in the courtroom. Many are now donors to his campaign.
On Feb. 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client, and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank -- which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees -- $467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165.
Miner commanded the higher rate of $285 an hour. During his appearance before the judge, Obama said he would need more time to file a response to a motion, and the judge agreed. That was all Obama said during the half-hour hearing.
His final bill on the case was 138 hours, or $23,000.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499...-
Neutral
Leemck029 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Will1313, 4thchance post shows the issue is greater than a single case, no matter the attorney or the company. What policy was so shaky to a allow this cross the board debacle? Now if you can explain the legitimizing of "Gaming Laws" for banks to speculate, or insuring sure loser derivatives, or all the banks packaging loans so no one knows where the notes are, then you have something. Shame on Obama if he done all that . . . but I don't think so.
Reply
The housing bubble certainly tipped an economy that was leaning toward collapse. Who do you know, that is credible, will say and can defend the facts that minority housing lending caused this calamity? That notion has been put out there but clearly shot down. The sub-prime is bad, but this goes to prime lending and the culture of Top-Down greed and a government that did nothing right for the middle class. -
-
-
-
-
-
all2funComment removed: Hard Banned
-
83%
wtagg9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The first fact that breaks your hypothesis is that all the banks did not fail equally. In fact, only a small portion of banks and financial institutions failed. Many large banks, like Key Corp, have done just fine. So, why did they all not fail? You are pushing toward CRA here and if all banks had to comply equally, then why did all banks not fail equally?
Reply
Because CRA is not a major factor in the failures. Could CRA have some influence on an institution that was in huge trouble to begin with? Certainly. Is it the major factor in failings? Hardly.
Now, if you want to make a case that institutions, like CountryWide, were attempting to gain market share at any cost, then I think you might be onto something. They became the favorite of many who pursued non-traditional lending, like house-flippers. House-flippers would fit perfectly into your *can't afford* category, but there certainly was no government pressure to lend to such individuals.-
-
Neutral
wtagg9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is simple cause and effect. If a group of entities are faced with the same cause (CRA legislation), then the effect that cause has upon the group should be relatively uniform (typical bell curve with standard deviation).
Reply
It demonstrates that CRA legislation's cause did not produce a uniform effect. It isn't the dominate issue with the financial/banking markets.
-
-
-
100%
spkguy9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"WHY,
Reply
Why did most all the banks in the country hand out loans (Totaling hundreds of billions of dollars) to people that could not pay the loans back?
Because they could get insurance on that paper, from "Guess Who?"
"The contracts were flying out of AIG Financial Products. Hardly anyone outside Wall Street had ever heard of credit-default swaps, but by early 2005 investment banks were snapping them up to insure all kinds of deals in case of default, fueling one of the great financial booms in U.S. history.
During twice-monthly conference calls that originated from the company's headquarters in Wilton, Conn., President Joseph Cassano would listen as marketing executive Alan Frost listed the latest swap transactions in the firm's offices in London, Paris and Tokyo.
Once a small part of the firm's business, the increasingly popular contracts had helped boost the company's profit to record levels. But they also exposed Financial Products and its parent, American International Group, the global insurance titan, to billions of dollars in possible losses.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/02/business/f... -
100%
Ratskii9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This may be the wrong question, 4th.
Reply
I would guess, though I don't have the figures at hand, that most people who received mortgages during the bubble period were able to make payments at the time they took out mortgages. A layoff here, a medical emergency there -- a lot of situations changed.
This was exacerbated by the banks and other financial institutions aggressively borrowing money to buy mortgage related securities (which looked like a good investment at the time). Unfortunately, given that these institutions were over extended, it didn't take much to make their mortgage related securities lose value.
Hence the bubble burst and created even more layoffs and individual hardships which made it impossible for even more people to pay their mortgages. Hence the cycle continued.
The question I would ask was why were the financial institutions so shortsighted as to overextend themselves. I saw the economic downturn coming back in 2004, and I'm no expert.-
Neutral
willottica9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think the answer to your question is likely short-term vision on the part of shareholders, boards, and Executives. Executives were rewarded extravagantly for producing short-term profits, which led to many of them making decisions which would pay off immediately but would have the chance to backfire later on. Since the reward was for immediate payoff, it was safe to make these, and be out of the way, or suffering at most a job loss, if they eventually did backfire.
Reply
It's a very close parallel to the products they were selling: cash-back mortgages, or mortgages with dirt-cheap promotional rates provided instant gratification, then a slow burn (or a rapid shock).
-
-
Neutral
lfergie8129 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
4thchance
Reply
Want to watch a little video of what happened?
http://www.vimeo.com/3261363?pg=embed&sec -
Neutral
reallypsst9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The government pushed those type of loans and they backed them through fannie and freddy mac,also the bankers kept selling the notes of homes over and over.Have you ever heard of a scam were multiple deposits were taken for the same home.
Reply -
-
-
-
90%
cowboygrandpa9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
“On December 18, 1997, the CIA Inspector General delivered Volume I of their report to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding charges that the CIA was complicit in narcotics trafficking in South Central Los Angeles. Washington, D.C. ’s response was compatible with attracting the continued flow of an estimated $500 billion–$1 trillion a year of money laundering into the U.S. financial system. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in January 1998 visited Los Angeles with Congresswoman Maxine Waters — who had been a vocal critic of the government’s involvement in narcotics trafficking — with news reports that he had pledged billions to come to her district. In February Al Gore announced that Water’s district in Los Angeles had been awarded Empowerment Zone status by HUD (under Secretary Cuomo’s leadership) and made eligible for $300 million in federal grants and tax benefits.”
Reply
Alan Greenspan is a liar. The Federal Reserve and its long standing partner, the US Treasury, engineered the housing bubble, including the fraudulent inducement of America as part of a financial coup d’etat. Our bankruptcy was not an accident. It was engineered at the highest levels.
Your publication of Greenspan’s breezy and bogus history of the housing bubble insults your readership.
Best Regards,
Catherine Austin Fitts
Assistant Secretary of Housing - Federal Housing Commissioner, Bush I
Well I see some damage control being attempted here. Yeah It all happened on Clinton's watch. George Bush had nothing to do with it. Hahhahahahahahhahaha
One question who started the drug trafficking, if I remember correctly that was done under the Reagan administration, With Noriega and that bunch. To pay for the dirty little coups down in South America.
I mean yeah I'm not saying that Clinton wasn't involved in this crap. But lets get right down to it. I seem to recall Opium and Heroin being smuggled during the Nam war as well for the CIA to pay for its dirty little tricks.
The bottom line is both parties are screwing us and blaming the other party.-
-
100%
Leemck029 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cowboygranpa, I guess once a bad habit is learned, its hard to shake. I was privy to a conversation by a person who said he was involved with the Contra Guns for Drugs. He could have been lying but the story sounded credible. So yes, I believe this sort of thing goes on for real. Secondly, the media that never reported pass the obvious cover up where Ollie and Pondexter never went to jail, really, and Ollie even had a talk show. Talking about landing on your feet.
Reply -
-
Neutral
lfergie8129 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
By the way this article was written, it seems as though she is not blaming either side except to point out her experience with a senior Clinton administration official without a name. It appears that she is blaming those that control the money which is out of the reach of either party. That brings about the other question, "Who the hell is running this country?"
Reply
The video I post above gives an idea of what happened and it seems to coincide with Greenspan's idea of low interest in 2002 - 2005. People were given sub-prime mortgages that allowed them to buy a house more expensive than they could afford until the interest rate changed after 2 to 5 years.
http://www.foreclosuredataonline.com/blog/foreclos...
"These loans, usually adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) were known as subprime mortgages. They typically cost two or three points above those with less-risky credit reports and carry interest rate structures with low ‘teaser rates’ for the first couple of years, followed by a reset to much higher rates. This reset or jump, frequently resulted in raising the borrower’s monthly payment by as much as 100% and thereby making it financially impossible for him to handle."
-
-
-
18%
Endoscopy9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WOW!!! Another great conspiracy theory. Ignoring the laws created and changed. Fannie and other CSE's were allowed to give Mortgaged backed securities out at the value of the sale price og the property. CRA created under Carter to help the poor blacks get into houses. Obama sued Citibank for ACORN to push them into giving those loans. Fannie and Freddy were not accepting loans under 10% down so they ended up lobbying for changes. 1992 the changes were created under Clinton. 0% down now allowed, low starting ARMs, no principle for some years, and no check of ability to pay for the poor. Democrat compassion in mortgages. HUD forced banks to give a per cent of their loans as CRA loans. These went into effect in 1995. Later under Clinton the laws were loosened up for banking by the Republicans. Up went the housing bubble starting in 1996. Problems were noted by Republicans in the 2003-6 years. While in power the Republicans allowed the Democrats to browbeat them into doing nothing. 2006 the bubble burst and down came housing and the finance market invested in those Mortgage backed securities.
Reply
Both parties can truthfully point to each other but the Democrats have a major portion. Of course they will never admit it. Currently under Obama HUD has raised the CRA loan to 31% of the loans a bank should make. More enforced compassion in mortgages by the Democrats. Thus proving they do not care about the poor after their mortgage goes into foreclosure.-
-
-
100%
Ratskii9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Talk about conspiracy histories. I've never seen any of you on the right try to back this up with facts and figures from credible sources. It just seems like the ol, "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes a widely accepted truth," method.
Reply -
-
100%
wtagg9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you stating that the majority of all banks failed? Prove it.
Reply
Key Corp and National City Banks - Both headquartered in Cleveland. One thrived, one collapsed. Why? If CRA is the reason and both banks complied with the regulation and serviced the same area/region, then why didn't the same result occur for both institutions.
Because CRA wasn't the deciding factor. Can you even demonstrate that more CRA loans failed than non-CRA loans?
-
-
0%
Endoscopy9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why would they fail. They were offloading the loans to Freddy and Fannie. That was what caused ACORN to lobby congress. Fannie and Freddy were not taking loans from the banks unless they were 10% down.
Reply
Tell me wise guy, what happened to Fannie and Freddy? We bailed them out and took them over at great cost to the taxpayer. All investors in them lost everything. Kind hearted Democrats forcing compassion in mortgages.. -
-
-
86%
Will13139 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
there you are with the lie again...
Reply
from the FEDERAL RESERVE.....
n conclusion, I believe the CRA is an important model for designing incentives that motivate private-sector involvement to help meet community needs. The CRA has, in fact, been helpful in alleviating the financial isolation of many areas of concentrated poverty, but as our report illustrates, there is much more that could be done in these communities. Contrary to the assertions of critics, the evidence does not support the view that the CRA contributed in any substantial way to the crisis in the subprime mortgage market. Today's discussion is an important first step in the process of identifying other initiatives and areas of cooperation between government and the private sector that will effectively address the continuing challenge of poverty in the United States.
POST A LINK THAT REFUTES THAT .. WHY DO YOU CONSTANTLY LIE AND BLAME POOR BLACK FOLK .. BECAUSE YOU'RE A BIGOT.....-
-
100%
cowboygrandpa9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
GLee:
Reply
I mostly blame the greedy from both parties, and the lies they spread to cover their greed. Hahhahhahaahhahaaaaa
I won't call ya an idiot because I have seen some sensible posts. I'll just say you seem to be a conservative like many others who believe they are right. If being a conservative was so right ??? Why did Jesus warn the Pharisees about their love of money, and their hypocrisy ???-
100%
GLee9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm cool with other opinions as well cowboy. I think we have a total 'mess' as far as leadership in DC and yes, that goes with both parties. It has gotten to a point that it is shameful. Yes, I am a conservative and am dead against a socialist, goverment intervention Washington although I do believe we must have some regulation of some businesses to stop the greed. Guess you could call me 'taint'....... hehe. I want what is best for this country and I have my own vision of what that is just like everyone else. I am willing to read and listen to other opinions as long as they are respectful.
Reply
I hate to call anyone an idiot and that was in response to some young p*nk. I was just spreading his good will which isn't much like me.
Take care........
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poor willie can't understand what CRA is all about. Under Carter it was about poor blacks but under Clinton it was to get all poor into houses. The Obama government currently under HUD upped forcing banks to give 31% of their loans under CRA or the banking regulators will not allow them to merge or add branches.
Reply
That item you quote says what the liberal line is. It did help the poor get into houses. But then the ARM increases, the principal payments start and oops. Foreclosure. Such compassion to allow some of the poor to think for a few years they really had a house to keep. The housing bubble burst because there were more houses on the market than the market would take without dropping the prices. It did not take a huge amount to burst that bubble. Those bad loans burst the bubble. Ignoring that is blindness. But that is what liberals do best.
They think this is such a good program that they are upping the ante. I guess they want to see more failures.
As far as your silly name calling you need to look at what you and other liberals have been ranting about Bush. That horrible DEFICIT. Obama wants to spend in 1 year a deficit that is bigger than the entire Bush deficit. And what do liberals like willie do. Look the other way. HYPOCRITE WILLIE. Want to trade more foolish names. At least mine are founded in fact.-
100%
Will13139 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you keep coming back with the same lies.. I understand fully what CRA is all about.. tis you
Reply
post a link.. more creditable than the FEDERAL RESERVE..
LINK OR LIE...
you know more than a FEDERAL RESERVE governor..
i knew you were a liar.. and a racial bigot.. but I didn't know you were also totally NUTS...
but I will crown you the KING OF THE PROPELLER LIARS...-
Neutral
Endoscopy9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You will ignore this because it is from the right. The author is a former congressman who was on the Appropriations and the Homeland Security committees and was in the House for 14 years. He is part of the Heritage Foundation which Liberal hate.
Reply
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29009 -
-
-
-
-
-
60%
jimdoze9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In response to 4thChance...
Reply
Warren Buffett 03/09/09 on CNBC:
BECKY: And still, this is the worst-case scenario from what you had imagined. What went wrong? Why did we wind up in that worst-case scenario?
BUFFETT: Well, we went wrong originally because we had a belief that--and everybody had the belief. I had it, the government had it, mortgage lenders had it, borrowers had it, media had it, everybody thought house prices could go nothing but up and--or at least they couldn't go down a lot. And once you had that belief--and it was nationwide--it didn't make any difference what you lent on the house because if the guy couldn't pay, you'd sell it at a profit anyway or you wouldn't lose much money. So you had 11 trillion of residential mortgage debt built on this theory that who was borrowing it, what their income was really wasn't that important because the house itself had to go up in price.
ALL MARKETS are an equilibrium of greed and fear. Increasing government intervention in the mortgage/real estate markets over the last half century reduced and eventually removed fear from that equation. Thus the meme, "Home prices always appreciate", became the totem to which every element of the market bowed... from individual home buyers to mortgage brokers to investment banks to commercial banks to rating agencies to risk modelers to professional investors and back to the individual investor. There is always greed in every market, but when fear is artificially reduced, greed overwhelms. Thus, bubbles are born. Eventually, every market will reassert an equilibrium, right over the top of the artificial suppression of fear.
Think about why GNMA, FNMA, FHLMC were created. Was it not to take away the fear of lending to vast sectors of mortgagees that would otherwise have not occurred? Over time that distorts the market. It cushions the corrections and enhances the upturns. Eventually, even the deepest part of the correction phase remains above the trend line of inflation and that of most other asset classes. The reinforced lesson, for everyone, is that real estate doesn't go down. It has upside with very little risk, just as Buffett said. Everyone believed it and acted accordingly.-
75%
4thchance9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In response to jimdoze,
Reply
"Well, we went wrong originally because we had a belief that--and everybody had the belief. I had it, the government had it, mortgage lenders had it, borrowers had it, media had it, everybody thought house prices could go nothing but up and--or at least they couldn't go down a lot."
That all sounds like damage control, curve ball, cover up to me.
I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing ANYONE actually though that the housing prices would not go down...or not much. Even I, who knows very little about all this type of stuff, was wondering how the prices could go up and up so far and so fast. I wondered quite often if my house would actually hold the value that it had. I feared it would not, simply because it went up so far and so fast. It all seemed to me to be "TO GOOD TO BE TRUE!" You know what they say about things that are (to good to be true!?)
I was hoping my home would hold it's value, but I figured it would not. And I was right. So, me being mostly ignorant about these types things, am I the only one who figured the value wasn't going to hold. I really doubt I'm much alone on that one!-
67%
jimdoze9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You may have had a nagging sense of that, 4th. But, a careful analysis of the numbers would have shown your risk to be minimal... unless, that is, you could have truly envisioned a collapse of the system. Not too many people can do that and still function on a day to day basis. It is not in human nature.
Reply
If someone in position of authority could have envisioned that... I would say... oh, about ten years ago... they could have acted to place a brake on the system. That brake would have been to adjust the down payment requirements at Fannie, Freddie and Ginny. But, that someone would have been inviting political suicide. It would have induced recession and it would have meant that the spectrum of more needy not getting into homes would have expanded up the income scale. Only someone heartless would do that, right?-
Neutral
4thchance9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, I didn't "envisioned a collapse of the system" I wish I did have talent like that. Me and my crystal ball would have played the markets if I did! I guess in the back of my mind, I was simply wondering how things could go up in value so far and so fast. Like I said, I think I was feeling that it all was just to good to be true. My home practically doubled in value in just a few years. I was loving that fact, but had my doubts about it holding that value. TO GOOD TO BE TRUE!
Reply
-
-
-
-
jwinstonComment removed: Spammer
-
50%
Bucotch9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Bilderberg Group planned the whole thing. Wall Street runs this country. The Republican and Democratic parties are the same as professional wrestling. They put on a show of beating each other up and at the end of the day, they all are in it for the same thing. This whole mess was meant to happen. The last real president we had was JFK and we know how they dealt with him, same as Lincoln.
Reply
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=1947
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.