And it will continue for the whole time he’s in office. It’s how republicans roll.

Right. Has nothing to do with things Obama and his administration have actually done.

Um, Obama doesn't have an administration. They don't take office until Jan 20th.

I wish you republicans would have been a little more interested in this corruption thing from 2000-2008. We might not be up to our necks in economic crisis.

Um, Obama doesn't have an administration. They don't take office until Jan 20th.

…yeah, just wait and see how much more corruption comes with real power. Again, Karen Carpenter's songs rings true "…we've only just begun…"

Hey A Citizen….YOU'RE WRONG:
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/the_cra_…

Same difference.

Contradiction.

Bullshit:

(Noun)

1. The act of whining about corruption in the Republican party while not only overlooking, but DEFENDING Democrat corruption whenever it is discovered.

2. To overexaggerate misdeeds of the opposing party, or to create them out of whole cloth, while sweeping your party's scandals under the rug.

Here are the true facts.
1977: Pres Jimmy Carter signs the CRA into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.
Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.
How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?

Answer:Bill Clinton wanted it that way.

1992:Rep representative Jim Leach (R-IOWA) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few.
1993:Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopolies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. (This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the 2008 collapse of Freddie and Fannie.)
1994:Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways Congress never intended.
1995:Congress, about to change from a Dem majority to Repub, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.
1997 – 1999:Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Developement, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.
With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often "no doc", "no income", requiring no money down and no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Dems. 384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as much as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.
Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.
1999: New Treasury Sec, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.
2000: Sec Summers sent Undersec Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the "special status". Dems raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew how to reward and punish. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets" Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.
2001: Repubs try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Dems blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.
2003:Bush proposes what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago". Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Dems killed reform.
2005:Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk". Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole". Sen.Harry Reid accused the GOP ;of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership" The bill went nowhere.

You can't refute the CEO of Bank of America, Fed Chief Bernanke and a ruling from the Department of Justice with YouTube videos. Sorry, but thanks for trying!

Here's more DATA, not conjecture, about the CRA and subprime loans. You know what DATA is, right? It's based in FACT and not mistaken beliefs:

Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law

Did a 31-year-old law giving poor people a break at the bank accidentally break the bank?

A lot of opinion leaders think so. From the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal to talk shows to the op-ed page of The Register, people are charging that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 forced banks to make bad loans, leading to financial Armageddon.

There's just one problem: It isn't true.

A Register analysis of more than 12 million subprime mortgages worth nearly $2 trillion shows that most of the lenders who made risky subprime loans were exempt from the Community Reinvestment Act. And many of the lenders covered by the law that did make subprime loans came late to that market — after smaller, unregulated players showed there was money to be made.

Among our conclusions:

Nearly $3 of every $4 in subprime loans made from 2004 through 2007 came from lenders who were exempt from the law.

State-regulated mortgage companies such as Irvine-based New Century Financial made just over half of all subprime loans. These companies, which CRA does not cover, controlled more than 60 percent of the market before 2006, when banks jumped in.

See if you can read and comprehend that, A Citizen.

Of course I can refute the CEO of Bank of America. He's the same guy that handed out credit cards and home loans to illegals knowing they would run up a huge debt, never pay it back and he would just increase the interest rates and other banking fees to the customers that were paying their bills so B of A could recover the funds. Being a B of A customer, that too is a fact.

I am interested to hear why, with republicans in control of Congress from 94-2007, they didn't change the CRA or regulate Fannie & Freddie?

Let me say that again: REPUBLICANS WERE IN CONTROL.

More empty conjecture and obfuscation. $$$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ ?

Try and come up with credible sources and facts. C'mon, man. Persuade me.

YouTube videos and right wing nutjob rantings don't count.

Once again: REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED CONGRESS FROM 1994-2007 AND DID NOTHING TO REIN IN BAD LENDING PRACTICES.

IN 500 words or less, EXPLAIN THAT!

It was the Dems in control of Fannie and Freddie. Ask the Queen of Banking, Barney Frank.

Listen…I hear Chavez calling your name.

Salaries….

Listen….it's Hugo, he wants your advice.

I actually admire Chavez. I would like to travel to Venezuela.

You, on the other hand, are still dead wrong about:

The CRA
Freddie Mac
Fannie Mae

There are sources for everything I posted.

Of course there's sources. And Obama says he hasn't done anything wrong. Case closed.
Listen….they just called your flight!!

Dino.
Is it really your position that we who pay taxes should be obligated to buy houses for the poor? Besides growing their food and paying for their medical care and buying their fuel oil for heating and paying for their transportation? And then we should still feel guilty because we "haven't done enough"?

Dino the Marxist,
The time line I posted earlier was from the Investor's Business Daily explaining "What Caused the Loan Crisis": Sorry if you didn't agree with the experts. But you being a lefty socialist Marxist, I'm not surprised. I'm also sorry it took a while to get back to you but I had gotten several emails from people on this site thanking me for exposing you as an enemy of the United States. It seems that when you stated that you admired Hugo Chavez and wanted to go to his country, you also tied yourself into other enemies of the United States. Including, but not limited to, the Castros, Ahmadinajhad, Putin and the others that I'm sure you know by first name. Have a good new year, I for one won't be responding back to you. Enjoy your enemy status. Ok folks, here is where the loyal Communist sympathizer bad mouths me.

Typical conservative who wants to shut off debate as if that will make him correct. If your post was from IBD, why only the YouTube links? If it was in IBD it was an opinion piece, not the DATA links I posted.

Congratulations that others wrote to praise your efforts. I'm sure the support was validating in a perverse sort of way. Reinforcing each others' ignorance is, I'm sure, comforting. Odd that they couldn't refute my DATA either, though.

Putin? He's bush's buddy!

Besides, I realize how much you people relish having enemies. The fear is like catnip for you.

Dino, question please. Does that A on your little comic dude stand for Asshole? I have a feeling it does…

Does that A on your little comic dude stand for Asshole? I have a feeling it does…

Actually, it's the "catcher" from a cartoon off of Saturday Night Live.
He & his "partner" are the Ambigiously Gay Duo.
They are a crime fighting "couple"

No wonder Dino loves Barney Frank. Another mystery solved!!!

And, A Citizen, my sexuality doesn't negate the DATA and FACTS I posted that completely TORCHED your assertions about the CRA, Freddie or Fannie.

While you may be "flaming", you've not torched anything.

HA!

ACitizen
I figgered that.
And for the record, I am completely opposite of dino on the CRA & the Fan/Fred fiasco.

Also looks like Morgan Stanley has a subprime problem of their own. A $3.6 BILLION problem:

Subprime Litigation Wave Hits Morgan Stanley

Q: What were Morgan Stanley's 4Q 07 results?

A: Maybe Forbes has that answer?

Everyone expected Morgan Stanley to take a hit. But few expected the troubled investment firm to announce more than $9 billion in write-downs for its fourth quarter. On Wednesday, the company said it lost 3.6 billion, or $3.61 a share, versus a profit of $2.0 billion, or $1.87 a share, a year earlier. It also announced it was turning to China to help shore up its balance sheet.

Think that has anything to do with Mr Cole's opinions?

Do Enjoy!

Here are the true facts.
1977: Pres Jimmy Carter signs the CRA into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.
Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.
How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?

Answer:Bill Clinton wanted it that way.

1992:Rep representative Jim Leach (R-IOWA) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few.
1993:Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopolies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. (This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the 2008 collapse of Freddie and Fannie.)
1994:Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways Congress never intended.
1995:Congress, about to change from a Dem majority to Repub, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.
1997 – 1999:Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Developement, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.
With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often "no doc", "no income", requiring no money down and no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Dems. 384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as much as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.
Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.
1999: New Treasury Sec, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.
2000: Sec Summers sent Undersec Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the "special status". Dems raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew how to reward and punish. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets" Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.
2001: Repubs try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Dems blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.
2003:Bush proposes what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago". Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Dems killed reform.
2005:Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk". Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole". Sen.Harry Reid accused the GOP ;of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership" The bill went nowhere.

No, that was opinion from the VP of an organization that lost BILLIONS making and buying bad loans NOT SUBJECT to the CRA. Maybe next you can find a quote from Bear Stearns or Merril Lynch that blames poor people for their losses!

The facts are here:

From the CEO of Bank of America:

I've seen a disturbing trend among some market observers, who are trying to lay primary blame for our current troubles on CRA. I think it's fair to say that in many cases CRA lending standards fell victim to the same market pressures and overconfidence we saw in other sectors of the mortgage markets. In that regard, political pressure to expand homeownership did become one of many contributing factors as the housing bubble grew. But the charge that CRA lending was the primary or foundational cause of our housing crisis is not only unfair, it's not true.

Some quick history. CRA was passed in 1977 to require banks to make loans in the same neighborhoods where they collected deposits, including low-to-moderate income neighborhoods. There's no mandate to make risky loans, or to abandon sound lending principles.

From Ben Bernanke, Fed Chief:

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The federal law encouraging banks to lend to low- and moderate-income customers is not to blame for the current housing crisis, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a recent letter to a member of Congress.

Bernanke, responding to a letter from Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said the Fed's experience with 1977's Community Reinvestment Act – including data on the subprime loan market – "runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."

Bernanke, continuing in the Nov. 25 letter to Menendez, said declining home values, inadequate risk management of complex financial instruments, and lending models that favored quantity over quality all contributed to the current problems.

"The available evidence to date, however, does not lend support to the argument that CRA is to blame for causing the subprime loan crisis," Bernanke wrote.

From a ruling by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, US Dept of Justice stating that banks were not REQUIRED to make any loans and that there are NO FINANCIAL PENALTIES for not making loans:

By its terms, the CRA provides only that the agencies must evaluate an institution's record of meeting the credit needs of the community, that the agencies must take that record into account when considering an institution's application for permission to merge or expand, and that the agencies must prepare a written record of their evaluations for public dissemination. Nowhere does the CRA expressly impose any obligation on financial institutions themselves. The statute's references to financial institutions are couched in precatory rather than mandatory terms. In the statement of purpose provision of the CRA, Congress stated that it is the purpose of this chapter to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority . . . to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of [their] communities . . . . 12 U.S.C. 2901(b) (emphasis added). The CRA does not instruct the agencies to require institutions to meet community credit needs. Moreover, although the CRA directs the agencies to take an institution's record of meeting credit needs into account when evaluating the institution's application for a deposit facility, 12 U.S.C. 2903, it does not require the agencies to deny applications from institutions with questionable records.

More obfuscation from the guy who can't support his own beliefs with actual, real DATA. Opinion doesn't suffice. Particularly when it's from a guy who was up to his neck in the buying and selling of bad loans (from a non-CRA regulated institution) to the tune of $3.6 BILLION and counting!

You're so factually challenged it's no wonder you're a conservative. The survival of conservatism is predicated on the existence of people ignorant enough to believe in its faulty logic and outright lies.

Cross-posted for your enjoyment; see 28Dec08 post.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/when_community_o…

Finally tracking down a few facts hidden in bureaucratic language like this:
"Distressed or underserved" middle-income rural areas, not just LMI rural areas, are now eligible for community development activity

Reference: roundtablepresentation1.ppt

And here from the Office of the Comptroller and Currency:

Alternatively, if a security, such as [ ]'s security, is held, accounted for, and reported for CRA purposes by the financial institution as a loan, the institution may have it considered under the CRA regulations' lending test.5

(the 5 being a footnote follows below)
Reference: http://www.occ.treas.gov/interp/sep97/cra798.pdf
Under the lending test,
examiners consider an institution's originations and purchases of loans, including community development loans

Reference: http://occ.gov/interp/may/cra723.pdf

Getting close to decoding: Section 711—
I

mportantly, section 711 applies only to written agreements that are "made
pursuant to, or in connection with, the fulfillment of the Community Reinvestment Act."
Section 711 defines "fulfillment" of the CRA as a "list of factors" that the appropriate
agency determines have a material impact on the agency's decision to approve or
disapprove an application for a deposit facility under the CRA or to assign a CRA
examination rating.

and now from same, (my emphasis)

The Act and proposed rule also do not apply to any specific contract or commitment for any type of loan or extension of credit to individuals, businesses, farms or other entities if the funds are loaned at rates that are not substantially below market rates and the purpose of the loan or extension of credit does not include any re-lending of the borrowed funds to third parties.

finally, the words— credit history!
For example, should the agencies provide that the
relevant market rate for a loan is the rate that would be charged on a comparable transaction (e.g., a construction loan, permanent financing, a small business loan, or an
unsecured consumer loan) with a comparable person (e.g., a person with similar financial
resources and credit history) that is not a party to the agreement?

and now we read a similar sentence (what the definition of is is !! In this case, factor!

The agencies request comment on this reading of section 711 and on whether
the list of factors properly identifies the "factors" that are material to a CRA evaluation.

Punishment for non-compliance: Ten Years.

Prohibit the individual from being a party to any covered agreement for a period not to exceed 10 years.

and all this just part of a 110 page attachment! http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/boa…

US government rules of engagement. Any questions?

Gee Chief, perhaps you could get to a point in there. What is your point? Do you even have one?

Here is what I posted for another stubborn, "let's blame the poor again" conservative:

It's my position that if a bank located in an area takes deposits from people in that area the bank should be encouraged to loan money back to said people if said people present the right qualifications for getting loans as set up by the bank and in keeping with the bank's loan practices. That is all the CRA does. If I had my way, they would not only be encouraged to loan money to people who met the correct qualifications for getting the loan, they would be REQUIRED.

There are NO FINANCIAL PENALTIES for non-compliance with the CRA. The only enforcement tool bank regulators have is to downgrade the institution for non-compliance.

Theoretically, if a bank has a poor CRA record, an outside community organization or advocacy group can challenge a merger. In reality, though, bank mergers are never slowed down, much less paused, because of CRA ratings or a challenge from an outside group. Bank regulators use a performance evaluation system to measure CRA compliance, yet few banks receive anything lower than "outstanding" or "satisfactory" ratings, rendering the process useless. Source

You cannot and will not win this one, Chief. (You either "Z" Citizen.) I have posted reputable statements, even written statements made to Congress by Fed Chief Bernanke ( a real Chief), that the CRA is NOT the reason for the economic crisis. You people claimed that banks were under pressure due to threat of financial penalty and I even proved that wrong! I gave you a study showing that 80% of the institutions making subprime loans weren't even subject to the CRA and even the 20% doesn't mean that ANY loans made were due to the CRA, that is undetermined.

You can keep posting things you pull out of your orifices, interspersed with your own delusional rantings (as above), but the facts will not change.

THE FACTS, SUPPORTED BY DATA, DO NOT INDICATE THAT THE CRA WAS THE CAUSE OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS. As Bernanke put it in his letter to Congress:

Bernanke, continuing in the Nov. 25 letter to Menendez, said declining home values, inadequate risk management of complex financial instruments, and lending models that favored quantity over quality all contributed to the current problems.

In other words, WALL STREET, IN BED WITH THE BANKS and DRUNK WITH GREED, led us to this crisis.

That anti-communist thing rings hollow considering how much American investment has gone to communist countries like China and Vietnam. See, America likes communists that allow their people to be exploited but hates communists like Cuba that won't kowtow to American hegemony.

Makes you look like a relic, Chief.

Couldn't formulate a point then?

Good job, Chief. Not one JAP or high school girl reference. You're making good progress.

Ah, rbb! Always the master baiter!