Obama to banks: make home loans to people with weak credit

[danefan]

Screw that.....less homeowners the better. More potential tenants for investment property owners.....

[kalm]

Aaaaaand right back at ya:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68[/youtube]






http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/busin ... d=all&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So curiously, we have a Republican president and a Democratic president both pushing for policies that increase minority home ownership. My whole point in bringing up the CRA and the industries that benefit from home construction is why? Why does it come from both sides? BDK, Bronco, and nearly the entire right wing of this country harken back to F&F and the CRA, politicizing the issue. And milquetoast conks like Gannon and Leadbolt defend the notion by saying it's all in the past and lets focus on now!

The home construction, real estate, and mortgage industries aren't in the game to do what's best for America in this regard. They want to build, sell, and finance homes. The financial services industry wants deregulation of markets so they can bet on the success of these loans. They all pay for these policies to be implemented, and they pay both sides of the fence.

This is crony capitalism at its finest and it starts with campaign finance. But lets keep wringing our hands about why we're repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Maybe it will change.

C'mon fellas, make some connections...think bigger picture.

You lost me when you said I was a conk. Do tell. Namecalling when you're challenged on a point you make is very unbecoming. I mean, it's standard fare for D1B, but not you.

You're right, I apologize for calling you a conk.

[kalm]

Aaaaaand right back at ya:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68[/youtube]






http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/busin ... d=all&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So curiously, we have a Republican president and a Democratic president both pushing for policies that increase minority home ownership. My whole point in bringing up the CRA and the industries that benefit from home construction is why? Why does it come from both sides? BDK, Bronco, and nearly the entire right wing of this country harken back to F&F and the CRA, politicizing the issue. And milquetoast conks like Gannon and Leadbolt defend the notion by saying it's all in the past and lets focus on now!

The home construction, real estate, and mortgage industries aren't in the game to do what's best for America in this regard. They want to build, sell, and finance homes. The financial services industry wants deregulation of markets so they can bet on the success of these loans. They all pay for these policies to be implemented, and they pay both sides of the fence.

This is crony capitalism at its finest and it starts with campaign finance. But lets keep wringing our hands about why we're repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Maybe it will change.

C'mon fellas, make some connections...think bigger picture.

You're different from the conservatives who say it was the mandated lending... how?



Sent from the center of the universe.

That's what's so funny about this whole thing. I don't believe in a ownership society and I don't like the CRA. But the CRA literally had no teeth. Banks were not required to make high risk loans that could cause them losses. And there was very little oversight. It was a mandate without forced compliance. Banks were not being fined for refusing loans. Besides, its not as if poor minorities were the only people buying beyond their means during the bubble. It was a feeding frenzy for everyone in the industry to push construction, sales, and lending of all types of housing, and they were all doing quite well by the loose money.

I'm just pushing back against the strong meme that lending money to poor people and minorities is what caused the recession. And yes Gannon there are many who still believe that. It's much easier to blame the other side of the political aisle for everything and we all know how those liberals feel sorry for poor people and like redistributing wealth. I've acknowledged all along that there were multiple causes and this was one of them. However, what turned a housing bubble into a world wide recession was the securitization of these loans and lack of regulation in the financial sector.

Ironically, Obama's administration is now trying to facilitate lending to people with poor credit by removing the risk for the banks. The real lesson we're not learning is that banks act stupid when government removes all their risk.

[mainejeff]

Not everyone should own a home. Including many who have good enough credit to qualify.

Not everyone should have children either.

[danefan]

Not everyone should own a home. Including many who have good enough credit to qualify.

Not everyone should have children either.

Not everyone should be able to own a gun either......

[mainejeff]

Not everyone should have children either.

Not everyone should be able to own a gun either......

I think that every man, woman and child should be armed.........will help control the population.

[Ibanez]

Not everyone should own a home. Including many who have good enough credit to qualify.

Not everyone should have children either.

Not everyone should go to college, buy a car, get married, drink on a Saturday night.

[Ibanez]

How many people with excellent ratings defaulted or went bankrupt. We let computers and not the humans make the decision. That is wrong, IMO.

Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?

Yes. I saw it first hand when I was at GMAC and Countrywide. Plenty of people with great credit had overextended themselves and/or lost thier high paying jobs and couldn't afford the $500k house, student loans, car loans, private school, etc... Many walked away. Many went bankrupt. It wasn't just middle class and poor people. I saw the list of distressed homes and accounts in default. I had a neighbor that just walked away from his house. I did his loan and he made plenty of money and have a good 700+ score. But companies went broke and he lost his job. Tell me again how I don't know what I've seen.

[danefan]

Not everyone should have children either.

Not everyone should go to college, buy a car, get married, drink on a Saturday night.

Is that all on a the Saturday night? Or only the drinking part?

[Ibanez]

Not everyone should go to college, buy a car, get married, drink on a Saturday night.

Is that all on a the Saturday night? Or only the drinking part?

No, it's all on a Saturday night.

[danefan]

Is that all on a the Saturday night? Or only the drinking part?

No, it's all on a Saturday night.

Then I agree.

[D1B]

Aaaaaand right back at ya:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68[/youtube]






http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/busin ... d=all&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So curiously, we have a Republican president and a Democratic president both pushing for policies that increase minority home ownership. My whole point in bringing up the CRA and the industries that benefit from home construction is why? Why does it come from both sides? BDK, Bronco, and nearly the entire right wing of this country harken back to F&F and the CRA, politicizing the issue. And milquetoast conks like Gannon and Leadbolt defend the notion by saying it's all in the past and lets focus on now!

The home construction, real estate, and mortgage industries aren't in the game to do what's best for America in this regard. They want to build, sell, and finance homes. The financial services industry wants deregulation of markets so they can bet on the success of these loans. They all pay for these policies to be implemented, and they pay both sides of the fence.

This is crony capitalism at its finest and it starts with campaign finance. But lets keep wringing our hands about why we're repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Maybe it will change.

C'mon fellas, make some connections...think bigger picture.

You lost me when you said I was a conk. Do tell. Namecalling when you're challenged on a point you make is very unbecoming. I mean, it's standard fare for D1B, but not you.

Standard fare for you to cry foul when you're cornered, you conk fuck.



"Quit namecalling!"

[YoUDeeMan]

Yes. I saw it first hand when I was at GMAC and Countrywide. Plenty of people with great credit had overextended themselves...

Stop right there!

You have the words, "Countrywide" and, "great credit" too close to each other. The last time that happened the financial world exploded.

[Ibanez]

Yes. I saw it first hand when I was at GMAC and Countrywide. Plenty of people with great credit had overextended themselves...

Stop right there!

You have the words, "Countrywide" and, "great credit" too close to each other. The last time that happened the financial world exploded.

Your honor, I rest my case.

[GannonFan]

That's what's so funny about this whole thing. I don't believe in a ownership society and I don't like the CRA. But the CRA literally had no teeth. Banks were not required to make high risk loans that could cause them losses. And there was very little oversight. It was a mandate without forced compliance. Banks were not being fined for refusing loans. Besides, its not as if poor minorities were the only people buying beyond their means during the bubble. It was a feeding frenzy for everyone in the industry to push construction, sales, and lending of all types of housing, and they were all doing quite well by the loose money.

I'm just pushing back against the strong meme that lending money to poor people and minorities is what caused the recession. And yes Gannon there are many who still believe that. It's much easier to blame the other side of the political aisle for everything and we all know how those liberals feel sorry for poor people and like redistributing wealth. I've acknowledged all along that there were multiple causes and this was one of them. However, what turned a housing bubble into a world wide recession was the securitization of these loans and lack of regulation in the financial sector.

Ironically, Obama's administration is now trying to facilitate lending to people with poor credit by removing the risk for the banks. The real lesson we're not learning is that banks act stupid when government removes all their risk.

Of course there are people who just want to blame the recession mainly on lending to poor people and people with bad credit. Just like there are people who want to blame the recession mainly on banks being poorly regulated. Partisans from either party tend to gravitate towards either absolute when in reality, it was a combination of those two things, plus at least three or four other things that all worked together to cause the crash.

I agree, though, with your point that government taking the risk out of the market tends to make markets take on even more risk. That clearly happened in the recession as people felt confident, and they were justified afterwards, that the US government would step in and bail out housing backed securities, to a large part. And since then, I don't think anything we've done (Dodd Frank for instance) would do anything to change that perception or even put the risk back into the market that the government is now covering. So yes, ironically, we don't seem to have learned a thing and want to go back to business as usual. Super.

[kalm]

That's what's so funny about this whole thing. I don't believe in a ownership society and I don't like the CRA. But the CRA literally had no teeth. Banks were not required to make high risk loans that could cause them losses. And there was very little oversight. It was a mandate without forced compliance. Banks were not being fined for refusing loans. Besides, its not as if poor minorities were the only people buying beyond their means during the bubble. It was a feeding frenzy for everyone in the industry to push construction, sales, and lending of all types of housing, and they were all doing quite well by the loose money.

I'm just pushing back against the strong meme that lending money to poor people and minorities is what caused the recession. And yes Gannon there are many who still believe that. It's much easier to blame the other side of the political aisle for everything and we all know how those liberals feel sorry for poor people and like redistributing wealth. I've acknowledged all along that there were multiple causes and this was one of them. However, what turned a housing bubble into a world wide recession was the securitization of these loans and lack of regulation in the financial sector.

Ironically, Obama's administration is now trying to facilitate lending to people with poor credit by removing the risk for the banks. The real lesson we're not learning is that banks act stupid when government removes all their risk.

Of course there are people who just want to blame the recession mainly on lending to poor people and people with bad credit. Just like there are people who want to blame the recession mainly on banks being poorly regulated. Partisans from either party tend to gravitate towards either absolute when in reality, it was a combination of those two things, plus at least three or four other things that all worked together to cause the crash.

I agree, though, with your point that government taking the risk out of the market tends to make markets take on even more risk. That clearly happened in the recession as people felt confident, and they were justified afterwards, that the US government would step in and bail out housing backed securities, to a large part. And since then, I don't think anything we've done (Dodd Frank for instance) would do anything to change that perception or even put the risk back into the market that the government is now covering. So yes, ironically, we don't seem to have learned a thing and want to go back to business as usual. Super.

Wall Street spent billions with both parties to deregulate. Government promotion of lending to the poor had no teeth and specifically stated that banks did not have to make loans that would end in losses. The CRA played a role in the U.S. housing bubble, deregulation of financial services and securitization of mortgages created a world wide economic downturn.

The two aren't equivalent. The answer isn't always in the middle (although there are a number of conservative economic pundits and non-partisan industry insiders who blame the banks too.).

[YoUDeeMan]

Wall Street spent billions with both parties to deregulate. Government promotion of lending to the poor had no teeth and specifically stated that banks did not have to make loans that would end in losses. The CRA played a role in the U.S. housing bubble, deregulation of financial services and securitization of mortgages created a world wide economic downturn.

The two aren't equivalent. The answer isn't always in the middle (although there are a number of conservative economic pundits and non-partisan industry insiders who blame the banks too.).

kalm down.

You have no idea of the pressure on banks to lend to minorities and people with bad credit. I have several family members in banking and I was in the industry as well. Any bank in an urban area was routinely threatened with lawsuits to force them to lend in poor areas. Cripes, one of our local banks made up a position where the person went into bad neighborhoods and solicited people to take loans...no money down, poor credit, you name it...those clowns got the loans and it was hailed as a community success. However, we all KNEW those loans would go belly up. They sure did.

But, the bank did not want to risk a public relations nightmare and be accused of racism, so they pretty much wrote those loans and counted them as losses. However, like any program for parasites, once word got out about the small program, it was pressured to become bigger. the people behind the loans got louder and louder that such success should be expanded...poor people just need a chance. What a joke. It also became a problem with morale as there was a whole lot of resentment from those who were trying to make normal loans.

The bigger the pool of bad loans came with the bigger risk to profits. So yes, banks created new ways to pass off the high risk of such bad loans...and all loans. Seriously, who wouldn't?

Once that hurdle was crossed, it became a rat race, and a profitable one, to make more of any type of loans and to then make even more money passing that risk to others. Of course, every damned person that had a 401K or other type of investment, also wanted double digit growth. How many people told their brokers they wanted a safe, low and slow return on their money..including those municipalities with their big pension plans? And how many people bought houses to use as cash machines?

Face it, almost everyone had a role in the crash. To put the blame for the crash, or even most of it, on the banks is ridiculous. That's similar to a crack addict blaming their dealer.

You said it yourself...a bank exists to make a profit. The bottom line is that banks will try to maximize profits. Any time anyone (government) forces them to run a program that lowers profits and increases risk, they are going to do something to get rid of those risks.

[AZGrizFan]

Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?

Yes. I saw it first hand when I was at GMAC and Countrywide. Plenty of people with great credit had overextended themselves and/or lost thier high paying jobs and couldn't afford the $500k house, student loans, car loans, private school, etc... Many walked away. Many went bankrupt. It wasn't just middle class and poor people. I saw the list of distressed homes and accounts in default. I had a neighbor that just walked away from his house. I did his loan and he made plenty of money and have a good 700+ score. But companies went broke and he lost his job. Tell me again how I don't know what I've seen.

60% of foreclosures in this country during the collapse of the market--SIXTY PERCENT!!!--were voluntary. Meaning they had the MEANS, just not the DESIRE. The actual collapse of the bubble and the SIZE of the collapse and depth of collapse had nothing (or very little) to do with "computers making decisions", and everything to do with the "all about me" mindset of this country and not doing what you agreed to do per a contract. People no longer give a shit about screwing their neighbor, or ALL their neighbors by letting a house go back that they could easily pay for...causing values to decline, causing MORE people to make the same decision, etc., etc., etc.

Sixty percent.

[AZGrizFan]

Wall Street spent billions with both parties to deregulate. Government promotion of lending to the poor had no teeth and specifically stated that banks did not have to make loans that would end in losses. The CRA played a role in the U.S. housing bubble, deregulation of financial services and securitization of mortgages created a world wide economic downturn.

The two aren't equivalent. The answer isn't always in the middle (although there are a number of conservative economic pundits and non-partisan industry insiders who blame the banks too.).

kalm down.

You have no idea of the pressure on banks to lend to minorities and people with bad credit. I have several family members in banking and I was in the industry as well. Any bank in an urban area was routinely threatened with lawsuits to force them to lend in poor areas. Cripes, one of our local banks made up a position where the person went into bad neighborhoods and solicited people to take loans...no money down, poor credit, you name it...those clowns got the loans and it was hailed as a community success. However, we all KNEW those loans would go belly up. They sure did.

But, the bank did not want to risk a public relations nightmare and be accused of racism, so they pretty much wrote those loans and counted them as losses. However, like any program for parasites, once word got out about the small program, it was pressured to become bigger. the people behind the loans got louder and louder that such success should be expanded...poor people just need a chance. What a joke. It also became a problem with morale as there was a whole lot of resentment from those who were trying to make normal loans.

The bigger the pool of bad loans came with the bigger risk to profits. So yes, banks created new ways to pass off the high risk of such bad loans...and all loans. Seriously, who wouldn't?

Once that hurdle was crossed, it became a rat race, and a profitable one, to make more of any type of loans and to then make even more money passing that risk to others. Of course, every damned person that had a 401K or other type of investment, also wanted double digit growth. How many people told their brokers they wanted a safe, low and slow return on their money..including those municipalities with their big pension plans? And how many people bought houses to use as cash machines?

Face it, almost everyone had a role in the crash. To put the blame for the crash, or even most of it, on the banks is ridiculous. That's similar to a crack addict blaming their dealer.

You said it yourself...a bank exists to make a profit. The bottom line is that banks will try to maximize profits. Any time anyone (government) forces them to run a program that lowers profits and increases risk, they are going to do something to get rid of those risks.

Spot on.

[kalm]

Wall Street spent billions with both parties to deregulate. Government promotion of lending to the poor had no teeth and specifically stated that banks did not have to make loans that would end in losses. The CRA played a role in the U.S. housing bubble, deregulation of financial services and securitization of mortgages created a world wide economic downturn.

The two aren't equivalent. The answer isn't always in the middle (although there are a number of conservative economic pundits and non-partisan industry insiders who blame the banks too.).

kalm down.

You have no idea of the pressure on banks to lend to minorities and people with bad credit. I have several family members in banking and I was in the industry as well. Any bank in an urban area was routinely threatened with lawsuits to force them to lend in poor areas. Cripes, one of our local banks made up a position where the person went into bad neighborhoods and solicited people to take loans...no money down, poor credit, you name it...those clowns got the loans and it was hailed as a community success. However, we all KNEW those loans would go belly up. They sure did.

But, the bank did not want to risk a public relations nightmare and be accused of racism, so they pretty much wrote those loans and counted them as losses. However, like any program for parasites, once word got out about the small program, it was pressured to become bigger. the people behind the loans got louder and louder that such success should be expanded...poor people just need a chance. What a joke. It also became a problem with morale as there was a whole lot of resentment from those who were trying to make normal loans.

The bigger the pool of bad loans came with the bigger risk to profits. So yes, banks created new ways to pass off the high risk of such bad loans...and all loans. Seriously, who wouldn't?

Once that hurdle was crossed, it became a rat race, and a profitable one, to make more of any type of loans and to then make even more money passing that risk to others. Of course, every damned person that had a 401K or other type of investment, also wanted double digit growth. How many people told their brokers they wanted a safe, low and slow return on their money..including those municipalities with their big pension plans? And how many people bought houses to use as cash machines?

Face it, almost everyone had a role in the crash. To put the blame for the crash, or even most of it, on the banks is ridiculous. That's similar to a crack addict blaming their dealer.

You said it yourself...a bank exists to make a profit. The bottom line is that banks will try to maximize profits. Any time anyone (government) forces them to run a program that lowers profits and increases risk, they are going to do something to get rid of those risks.

Ah yes...blame the global meltdown on the crack heads in the ghettos. They rule the world after all!

I'm not insinuating that your story isn't true. But again, how does that dispute anything I've said about the CRA? Threats of lawsuit are a part of the legal system. But banks plain and simply were not forced by the government to make bad loans. That's a part of the conk meme.

I'll say it again, risky loans to poor people in the projects was not enough to bring the world wide banking system to the brink of collapse. I have close family in the mortgage industry as well. They were also under pressure to underwrite risky loans. And you know what? Many of them weren't to low income people.

Cluck, I know you're cynical enough to get this.

And I will remain...Kalm.

[LeadBolt]

What a tool

[kalm]

What a tool

Lay off the sauce LB...it's unbecoming.

[LeadBolt]

What a tool

Lay off the sauce LB...it's unbecoming.

Once again, jumping to the wrong conclusion. I'm stone cold sober and a registered democrat, but not of your belief pattern so you call me a conk because I am conservative and intimate I'm drunk, when I am neither so again you meet my definition of a tool.

[kalm]

Lay off the sauce LB...it's unbecoming.

Once again, jumping to the wrong conclusion. I'm stone cold sober and a registered democrat, but not of your belief pattern so you call me a conk because I am conservative and intimate I'm drunk, when I am neither so again you meet my definition of a tool.

When you post a statement without further explanation, what do you expect? All I can say is I'm glad I'm not a democrat and i think you're projecting.

[LeadBolt]

Once again, jumping to the wrong conclusion. I'm stone cold sober and a registered democrat, but not of your belief pattern so you call me a conk because I am conservative and intimate I'm drunk, when I am neither so again you meet my definition of a tool.

When you post a statement without further explanation, what do you expect? All I can say is I'm glad I'm not a democrat and i think you're projecting.

Not at all.