I can't be deported from a country I refuse to visit...

Good to see that you speak from a position of being 'in the know'... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I can't be deported from a country I refuse to visit...

Good to see that you speak from a position of being 'in the know'... ;)

I don't have to participate in gay sex or chop my hand off to know I won't like that either.

Sorry for wasting both our time and S@H's resources responding to your irrational jibberish again...

---

Sorry for wasting both our time and S@H's resources responding to your irrational jibberish again...

"Come on! There's no crying in politics, pick yourself up." ~Michael Moore... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Being without debt for decades now, I know it is possible to live within ones income IF it is large enough, and one doesn't use plastic for amounts than can't be paid off when the bill comes.

In the days of my youth the national cards hadn't been invented yet. I operated on cash on the line or a check on my bank account. It is possible and actually beneficial by thinking if the purchase is really necessary.

My military service preceded college with the GI bill paying for much of cost. Reserve pay and free lance work did the rest.

A job then gave me real income. And I got married. We ran a tight ship in the early years to avoid debt other than a house purchase. We still own the house. We saved even in those days. After the house was paid for (early by almost ten years!) we invested the amount of the old payment and adjusted for inflation to this day.

It works for us, if only the federal government was run the same way....

It is to be noted that Bush 2 managed the budget that was financed by almost all borrowed money. It is called talking out of both sides of the mouth to run huge debts while talking fiscal responsibility.


duke

duke

Clinton appointed Janet Reno, term March 11, 1993 – January 20, 2001.
Clinton used the justice department to force companys to make mortgages in the redlined areas under threats of fines if they didn't.
Private companies had to make the bad mortgages.
It had nothing to do with Congress.

Clinton appointed Janet Reno, term March 11, 1993 – January 20, 2001.
Clinton used the justice department to force companys to make mortgages in the redlined areas under threats of fines if they didn't.
Private companies had to make the bad mortgages.
It had nothing to do with Congress.

RichaG
Is there somewhere one can go online to verify this?
I've seen this claim made recently and really question the validity.

I just have a hard time believing that a western government could or would threaten fines to private companies for not lending money to high risk individuals.

Every banker in the country would be standing before a tribunal board answering for their misdeeds if that was the case.

if there is a law that forces them to do so, then it is legal and their duty,
if not, no one can force them to do so.

only suitable people to loan money is person who can prove he don´t need that money

Wikipedia on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA):

“The CRA was passed into law by the 95th United States Congress in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community. Only one banker, Ron Grzywinski from ShoreBank in Chicago, testified in favor of the act The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions. The CRA is enforced by the financial regulators (FDIC, OCC, OTS, and FRB).

“The bill encouraged the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, to enable mortgage companies, savings and loans, commercial banks, credit unions, and state and local housing finance agencies to lend to home buyers. It also encouraged the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, to buy mortgages on the secondary market and sell them as mortgage-backed securities on the open market. Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.

“Clinton Administration Changes of 1995

“In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs.

“These revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision.“Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.

“Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.
Taken from this web page.

I just have a hard time believing that a western government could or would threaten fines to private companies for not lending money to high risk individuals.

What you find hard to believe is of no consequence. The gov'ts directly threaten litigation against corporations that are perceived to be "discriminating" against those that cannot afford mortgages. One example was what the gov't calls, "red lining."

Every banker in the country would be standing before a tribunal board answering for their misdeeds if that was the case.

Of course, that's simply untrue. What they did do is make substandard mortgages to people who could not hope to repay them.

Which, among other things, caused the present "crisis." No one stood before some silly tribunal.

Do you just make this stuff up?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

If you want to listen to a version of what happened from the people involved, This American Life did a nice 55 minute tale. The basic premise is that there was a huge pool of money in the world looking for something to invest in. It found that something in our housing market. But things went a bit crazy.

This American Life producer Alex Blumberg teams up with NPR's Adam Davidson for the entire hour to tell the story—the surprisingly entertaining story—of how the U.S. got itself into a housing crisis. They talk to people who were actually working in the housing, banking, finance and mortgage industries, about what they thought during the boom times, and why the bust happened. And they explain that a lot of it has to do with the giant global pool of money.


This American Life : The Giant Pool of Money

short answer, free market don´t work, it always fail

Did anyone take the time to actually read the site offered as proof by RichaG?

This site actually blames Obama for this meltdown.
It also makes some even more wild accusations about who was to blame for the hurricane Katrina blunders
Holy Cow!

http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=gaynorm&date=080929

as in free market, the force behind it is ignorance and greediness, that is why it did not came as surprise.
anybody should had known that if houses value goes way up, it is just hot air,
all things have some value, and if they rise enough, then they are just not worth of it.
dot con talk about new economy was same kind of idiocy, the money has to be somewhere in first place, it can´t come out of expectations, cause it is money that don´t exist.
hail to free market if you want make money out of somebodies suffering, for me it is not the right way. i have dignity.

This site actually blames Obama for this meltdown.

And highly endorses McCain:

Answer: Don't be insane--VOTE FOR McCAIN!

Stayyyyy theeeee courseeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

hail to free market if you want make money out of somebodies suffering, for me it is not the right way. i have dignity.

aristo
As the vultures circle, looking for ways to aquire even more profit, some of us watch in disgust.
You are not alone

Did anyone take the time to actually read the site offered as proof by RichaG?

This site actually blames Obama for this meltdown.
It also makes some even more wild accusations about who was to blame for the hurricane Katrina blunders
Holy Cow!

http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=gaynorm&date=080929

Acorn was used to pressure corporations with discrimination to make bad loans and Fannie and Freddie purchased them up.
I guess this is Obama's outstanding community organizing.

Obama received large amounts of money from these two corporations.

Because the main stream media is in the tank for Obama, they will not report this.