downwardspiral 0 #26 September 17, 2009 QuoteI can't really find a major fiscal issue that Dems have fucked up over the last 30 years, can you? The Republicans are horrific with money. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776518094909023.htmlwww.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #27 September 17, 2009 QuoteYes, which is claiming one side is worse than the other. Uh, fiscally for sure, do you want to argue who jacks up the debt and offloads money to the rich via tax cuts? Fiscally, make no bones about it, the right has been the villian for 30 years with the exception of GHWB. Quote100% pure partisan crap. I love absolutists. QuotePlease show where you went off on Dems????? Anyone? Again, your ACTIONS speak much louder than your words. So what if I didn't, when are we going from your feelings being hurt over me finding an old post of yours insulting people, to me being the devil for allegedly being partisan? Quote"And the fools think" "Boobs will claim" "old diapers Ronnie" "You must be unAmerican" "the devil known as Nixon. " "the idiots sit on the right side of the isle" "altho they usually spew hateful vile, you can't dismiss future idiotic things they might say based upon a mountain of previous idiotic things they've said" "The right is an ideology that is an inflexible state of being, the left is a very flexible set of ideals that can be molded." All lame insults, ALL aimed at one party. Put them in context. Furthermore, they aren't aimed at 1 person here. Making fun of a political party is not the same as directing it at a person. Not to mention if I didn't have a life I could go the thread you closed down and draw more instances of you saying similar things to forum members. QuoteLike I said, you may try to claim that you are not partisan, but your ACTIONS all over this forum prove otherwise. I'm generally partisan, as are you, but I'm not absolutely partisan. I voted for Dole, I'm still registered Republican, and I might votethat way again if they find their way back. I think Eisenhower and GHWB were 2 of the greatest presidents we've had in the last 50 years. QuoteReally, the best thing you can do is drop it. Explain why it's best. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #28 September 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteI can't really find a major fiscal issue that Dems have fucked up over the last 30 years, can you? The Republicans are horrific with money. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776518094909023.html If you have anything to say, I would love to respond. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #29 September 17, 2009 More prime examples: Quotethen both you and he must break down and cry Face it, you just can't help doing it. QuotePut them in context. They *are* in context... you HAVE to insult people for some reason... Quote I'm generally partisan, as are you, but I'm not absolutely partisan. Again your ACTIONS do not match your words. QuoteI can't really find a major fiscal issue that Dems have fucked up over the last 30 years, can you? Community Reinvestment Act Clinton signed NAFTA Quotedo you want to argue who jacks up the debt Sure http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Notice it is still going negative? Check the attachment... Notice it has jumped up like a rocket under Obama? And from CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5209497.shtml QuoteSo rapid is the pace of deficit spending by the federal government, that the National Debt has increased over a trillion dollars since President Obama took office. QuoteThe budget numbers issued by the Administration in May project the deficit in the current fiscal year will top $1.8-trillion dollars. But an updated report is due this month, and an even larger deficit is expected to be announced for the current fiscal year, which began October 1st – 3 ½ months before Mr. Obama was sworn in. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #30 September 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI can't really find a major fiscal issue that Dems have fucked up over the last 30 years, can you? The Republicans are horrific with money. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776518094909023.html If you have anything to say, I would love to respond. Oh I thought the link said it all. my bad. OK here goes.... You think the Republicans are horrific with money yet you see no problem with Obama's budget...is this correct?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #31 September 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteI can't really find a major fiscal issue that Dems have fucked up over the last 30 years, can you? Community Reinvestment Act Why do you consider the Community Reinvestment Act a fiscal mistake? Evidence suggests "that without the CRA, the subprime crisis and related spike in foreclosures might have negatively impacted even more borrowers and neighborhoods." CRA Banks were substantially less likely than other lenders to make the kinds of risky home purchase loans that helped fuel the foreclosure crisis. … CRA Banks were significantly less likely than other lenders to make a high cost loan; The average APR on high cost loans originated by CRA Banks was appreciably lower than the average APR on high cost loans originated by other lenders; CRA Banks were more than twice as likely as other lenders to retain originated loans in their portfolio; and Foreclosure rates were lower in [metropolitan statistical areas] with greater concentrations of bank branches. … There is a very high statistical correlation (0.816) between the proportion of lending that is high cost and the foreclosure rate in the MSAs analyzed. … Overall, CRA Banks were 66 percent less likely than other lenders to originate a high cost loan. … Overall, CRA Banks were 58 percent less likely than other lenders to originate high cost loans to [Low- and Moderate-Income Borrowers] borrowers. … Overall, the average high cost loan made by CRA Banks was priced 68 basis points lower than the average high cost loan originated by other lenders. … Overall, high cost loans made by CRA Banks to LMI borrowers were priced 74 basis points lower than high cost loans originated to LMI borrowers by other lenders. … CRA Banks were more than twice as likely as other lenders to retain originated loans in their portfolio. … Foreclosure rates are obviously impacted by a range of economic and demographic factors, including, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, housing prices and unemployment rates. However, the negative correlation between bank branch concentration and foreclosure rate was substantially higher in absolute value than the correlation between foreclosure rate and unemployment rate (0.574) and slightly higher in absolute value than the negative correlation between foreclosure rate and change in housing prices (-0.721). A bank’s CRA responsibilities to a community emanate from the presence of a branch there and, as noted above, a bank’s record of serving the credit needs of LMI borrowers in its community is arguably the most important facet of CRA compliance. In addition, CRA examinations assess a bank’s distribution of branches and its "record of opening and closing branches, particularly branches located in LMI geographies or primarily serving LMI individuals." … The CRA’s mandate to serve local communities may, albeit indirectly, encourage CRA Banks to more closely scrutinize the creditworthiness of borrowers who submit loan applications at their assessment area branches. The more loans a CRA Bank makes in its assessment area, especially to LMI borrowers, the greater the likelihood that examiners will conclude it is fulfilling its CRA obligations. Therefore, in order to compete with other lenders in their CRA assessment area, CRA Banks may price loans more aggressively there. Heightened scrutiny of a borrower’s creditworthiness minimizes the likelihood of mistaking a person with good credit as a poor credit risk. It may also have the collateral effect of reducing the likelihood that a CRA Bank would inadvertently offer higher cost loans to prospective borrowers who actually qualify for less expensive loans. The lower loan rates, and the fact that creditworthiness has been thoroughly investigated before the loan is approved, may also contribute to the lower foreclosure rates associated with these loans. SourceMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #32 September 18, 2009 JCD thanks for bringing an interesting discussion... This is really not the place for it but: CRA encouraged "predatory lending." http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=uconn_wps Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy noted that : 1. banks could receive CRA credit by lending or brokering loans in lower-income areas that would be considered a risk for ordinary lending practices. 2. CRA regulated banks may also inadvertently facilitate these lending practices by financing lenders. 3. CRA regulations, as then administered and carried out by Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC, did not penalize banks that engaged in these lending practices. Ron Paul who is on the United States House Committee on Financial Services said that it was forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks. Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton said that CRA banks made one out of every four subprime mortgages. Check out this: http://www.occ.treas.gov/cra/excel.htm It mentions "Innovative Lending Products"... Such as: "The Hawley bank started selling residential real estate mortgages to the secondary market earlier than most community banks and their 30-year loans are underwritten to Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) standards. However, the bank also offers and retains residential loans with flexible terms, including three-year and five-year balloons and adjustable-rate mortgages." More so the CRS helped create the demand for low income mortgages... CountryWide marketed its loans directly to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations. Theres more of course... To meet their goals, the two mortgage giants enlisted large lenders—including nonbanks, which weren’t covered by the CRA—into the effort. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income Tell the SanFran Fed that it had nothing to do with it... "To re-iterate: the San Francisco Fed is explaining how the changes to the CRA and its enforcement increased low income lending. Much of that increase was accomplished by lowering lending standards." http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-fed-explains-why-the-cra-became-much-more-dangerous-2009-6"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lost_n_confuzd 0 #33 September 18, 2009 In no particular order... 1. Driving slow in the fast lane. 2. Tailgating in the slow lane. 3. Foreigners that don't speak conversational english working the drive-thru window. 4. Crying babies in the cinema! Shut your kid up or leave. 5. Concession stand prices at the cinema. 6. Slow cars in the HOV lane. 7. Fox news 8. Auburn during the Iron-Bowl. 9. The idiot who tells me I can't bring snacks or drinks in to the cinema (see #5). 10. Spam calling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #34 September 18, 2009 QuoteJCD thanks for bringing an interesting discussion... This is really not the place for it but: CRA encouraged "predatory lending." From the study I previously linked too. "Compared to other lenders in their assessment areas, CRA Banks were less likely to make a high cost loan, charged less for the high cost loans that were made, and were substantially more likely to eschew the secondary market and hold high cost and other loans in portfolio. Moreover, branch availability is a key element of CRA compliance, and foreclosure rates were lower in metropolitan areas with proportionately greater numbers of bank branches." From Traigler & Hinkley's 2009 report (emphasis mine): Critics of the CRA claim that the law compels banks to downgrade their credit standards in order to make mortgage loans to unqualified LMI borrowers. We hypothesized that if this was true, lending data from 2007, a time of tightened underwriting standards and regulatory emphasis on safety and soundness, would show significantly diminished lending to LMI borrowers by CRA-subject banks. Instead, our analysis of 2007 data indicates that the percentage of LMI applications that were originated by CRA-subject banks remained stable even in the climate of heightened scrutiny and wariness that prevailed. This finding contradicts the notion that compliance with the CRA is dependent on imprudent lending. Thus, we conclude that the CRA cannot be rationally blamed for current problems in the mortgage market, much less for the U.S. financial crisis. That CRA-subject banks continue to make mortgage loans to LMI borrowers while simultaneously strengthening their underwriting standards not only contradicts the claims of critics who blame the CRA for our present crisis, but also suggests that without the 32-year-old law, the home mortgage market might be in even worse condition. This suggestion is reinforced by our 2008 study, which showed CRA-subject banks were substantially less likely than other lenders to engage in the risky lending practices that helped fuel the foreclosure crisis. Moreover, a recent Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco review of LMI lending found “the CRA, and particularly its emphasis on loans made within a lender’s assessment area, helped to ensure responsible lending, even during a period of overall declines in underwriting standards.”8 Finally, critics have chosen a particularly inauspicious time to attack the CRA. We are currently in the midst of a crisis that has Congress and the Executive Branch, including the Treasury Department and banking regulators, working to stimulate the economy and free-up credit. Right now, the CRA, a law that has spurred responsible lending to underserved borrowers, looks like a particularly wise and inspired piece of legislation. Indeed, policy makers should consider looking to the CRA for guidance on how the government can spur responsible lending to other qualified borrowers. No one is suggesting that CRA banks were immune from foreclosures. But the fact remains that the CRA banks made loans that contributed to those foreclosures at a much lower rate than non-CRA lenders. CRA is a [I]good thing. CRA banks practiced more conservative underwriting than non-CRA lenders in part because they kept more of the mortgages that they approved in their own portfolios; they were concerned about borrowers being able to make payments for longer than a few months.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #35 September 18, 2009 Quote From the study I previously linked too. From the links I provided: http://www.occ.treas.gov/cra/excel.htm It mentions "Innovative Lending Products"... Such as: "The Hawley bank started selling residential real estate mortgages to the secondary market earlier than most community banks and their 30-year loans are underwritten to Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) standards. However, the bank also offers and retains residential loans with flexible terms, including three-year and five-year balloons and adjustable-rate mortgages." And the CRS created a demand for higher risk loans... Countrywide and others used the CRA to sell these higher risk loans to banks. Loan demand went up and banks created crazy methods to finance people... to include ARMS and lowering requirements. The SanFran Fed seems to think that the CRA created a demand for low income lending and helped create the crazy lending options.... I'll side with the Fed, no offense."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #36 September 18, 2009 QuoteAnd the CRS created a demand for higher risk loans... Countrywide and others used the CRA to sell these higher risk loans to banks. The CRA didn't create the demand for higher risk loans. That was done by the insatiable demand of mortgage backed securities flooding the market with an overabundant supply of higher risk (e.g. stated income, NINA) loans. CRA banks were, overall, less likely to resell their mortgages than non-CRA lenders, which ensured that they were more careful in their underwriting, as evidenced by their lower foreclosure rates. That may not be what the San Fran Fed said, but that's what the data says. I'll believe real data over the Fed's editorializing comments anytime.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #37 September 18, 2009 QuoteThe CRA didn't create the demand for higher risk loans. Before the CRA those loans did not exist."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #38 September 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe CRA didn't create the demand for higher risk loans. Before the CRA those loans did not exist. That doesn't mean that the demand for MBS's didn't drive the market for them. CRA banks had a lower rate of foreclosures than non-CRA banks. At the end of the day, that is the most important consideration.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #39 September 18, 2009 QuoteThat doesn't mean that the demand for MBS's didn't drive the market for them. But the fact they didn't exist before the CRA DOES say something. QuoteCRA banks had a lower rate of foreclosures than non-CRA banks. At the end of the day, that is the most important consideration. I think that the very fact that they were created after the CRA *IS* important. You can disagree... I guess this discussion is done."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #40 September 18, 2009 QuoteYou can disagree. I do. The data doesn't lie. CRA was/is a good thing.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #41 September 18, 2009 QuoteIn no particular order... 1. Driving slow in the fast lane. 2. Tailgating in the slow lane. 3. Foreigners that don't speak conversational english working the drive-thru window. 4. Crying babies in the cinema! Shut your kid up or leave. 5. Concession stand prices at the cinema. 6. Slow cars in the HOV lane. 7. Fox news 8. Auburn during the Iron-Bowl. 9. The idiot who tells me I can't bring snacks or drinks in to the cinema (see #5). 10. Spam calling. 9 out of 10 (depending on who reads it 8/10 or 9/10 or 10/10 as 3 or 7 could be twisted as political pap - and yes, I'm sure a couple here could politicize all 10 without trying) that aren't totally partisan angry freakazoid demented political left/right obsessive crap - I have to assume that your post will short out 95% of the posters' brains for a brief moment. I hope it doesn't hurt too much ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #42 September 18, 2009 QuoteI do. The data doesn't lie. No, but your interpretation of the data is incomplete IMO. The CRA allowed the higher risk loans. That is a fact. No CRA, no high risk loans. QuoteCRA was/is a good thing. Your opinion, others disagree Including the SanFran Fed."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #43 September 18, 2009 Quote9. The idiot who tells me I can't bring snacks or drinks in to the cinema (see #5). That's why you bring a chick with you who has a really big purse. Then you might score after the movie too, for being such a nice guy and buying her a movie. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #44 September 18, 2009 QuoteThe CRA allowed the higher risk loans. That is a fact. ehhhhh... Ron: you may want to double check the definition of demand and supply. With or without CRA, the demand for these loans exists.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #45 September 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI can't really find a major fiscal issue that Dems have fucked up over the last 30 years, can you? The Republicans are horrific with money. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776518094909023.html If you have anything to say, I would love to respond. Oh I thought the link said it all. my bad. OK here goes.... You think the Republicans are horrific with money yet you see no problem with Obama's budget...is this correct? Yes, but let's be real, we can't tally things up until after time has elapsed and we see the outcome. For instance, you hate his budgte and all of his stimulus, but do you realize the GDP turnaround? http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm So after that, from -6.4 to -1.0 in one quarter, is his budget excessive? Are you going to pretend that Obama inherited a sorta stumbling economy or THE WORST ECONOMY SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION? I think your side underestimates the severity of the mess that Obama inherited. That turnaround is insanely awesome and next quarter serves to be well into the black, probably +2 or +3. So when you ask me abiut Obama's budget I am pleased, first he's going to fix the mess he inherited, then as he does that he's going to make America more humanistic and ensure we all have medical coverage while he gets us back to work, then he'll focus on debt / deficit issues. He's doing what Clinton did but in a much more efficient and proactive process after iheriting a REAL MESS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #46 September 18, 2009 QuoteNo CRA, no high risk loans. With what do you support that opinion? Where in the CRA are high risk loans required? The market was flooded with high risk loans because their was an insatiable demand for mortgage backed securities. They would have existed without the CRA. In fact, the data suggests they would have been worse. The data refute the claims of the SanFran Fed. Let me know if you'd like some unbiased information sources on why the mortgage crisis really occurred. Blaming it on CRA, while conveniently partisan, isn't accurate.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #47 September 18, 2009 It was why I have been libertarian since my teens - my own rebellion. +1 but I didn't see the light until my mid twenties when I realized Dems are liars, delusional, only look for more power, and love to take my money and that republicans are liars, delusional, only look for more power, and love to take my money speaking of the actual politicians of course Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #48 September 18, 2009 Quoteehhhhh... Ron: you may want to double check the definition of demand and supply. With or without CRA, the demand for these loans exists. I know the definition.... But even with demand, without the CRA they WOULD not have existed. You can want all day, but until the product is available you can't get it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #49 September 18, 2009 QuoteWith what do you support that opinion? Where in the CRA are high risk loans required? The requirement was to give loans in areas. Those areas could not get regular loans hence the CRA in the first place. QuoteThey would have existed without the CRA. Since they didn't exist, the data says you are wrong. QuoteThe data refute the claims of the SanFran Fed. No, actually it does not. QuoteLet me know if you'd like some unbiased information sources on why the mortgage crisis really occurred. Sure, PM them to me.... QuoteBlaming it on CRA, while conveniently partisan, isn't accurate. Denying it was a factor is conveniently partisan, but isn't accurate either."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #50 September 18, 2009 QuoteBut even with demand, without the CRA they WOULD not have existed. That's like saying that without the telegraph, the automobile would have never been invented. You're assuming that because the CRA came first, that it is the cause the high risk loans. Where is your data supporting that assertion?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
