The American Spectator : And You Thought the Housing Crisis Was Over!

Text Size

A Further Perspective

And You Thought the Housing Crisis Was Over!

By William Tucker on 7.27.12 @ 6:09AM

The Community Reinvestment Act is back, as if 2008 never happened.

Do you remember that thing about how the banks wouldn’t lend to blacks and Hispanics because they were racists? And do you remember how they passed the Community Reinvestment Act so that banks were forced to reduce down payments practically to zero and lend to a lot of people they knew were bad credit risks? And do you remember how Wall Street bundled all these risky subprime mortgages and sold them to investors around the world so that when it became clear that those people weren’t going to be able to pay their mortgages banks everywhere were left holding the bag and all five of the Wall Street investment houses either went under or had to be bailed out by the federal government?

And do you remember how, when it was all over, liberals said it was actually the banks’ fault for “deceiving” all those people into thinking they could afford to buy homes and that the banks should be punished for it and some of those people be allowed to keep their homes anyway? And do you remember how all this cost the government close to a trillion dollars and put the whole economy in a hole that we really haven’t begun to dig ourselves out of yet?

Well, get ready because the whole thing is about to happen again.

Yes, believe it or not, the federal government is now starting another initiative to force banks to lend to low-credit-rated blacks and Hispanics — not just anybody but specifically blacks and Hispanics — and is threatening — and already imposing — huge punitive fines if they don’t. Moreover, this time they’re going even further. They’re going to take over the credit rating agencies and force them to change their standards to accommodate blacks and Hispanics so that nobody will have any idea who is a bad credit risk and who is not. In so many words, the government is about impose its will on the whole home-lending market and force another round of bad loans so that the banks are going to be looted once again so that even the federal government may not be able to bail them out this time.

The principle instrument this time is not the Justice Department, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as it was last time, but the brand-new Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, designed by good old Elizabeth “Nobody-Ever-Made-It-On-Their-Own” Warren, which should really be called the Bureau for Bringing Down the Entire Economy. As reported in last Sunday’s New York Post by Hoover Institution Media Fellow Paul Sperry, the CFPB has just announced that it is adopting a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” issues by the Interagency Task force on Fair Lending in 1994 that kicked off Attorney General Janet Reno’s draconic enforcement of the Community Renewal Act. Part of the policy statement reads, “Applying different lending standards or offering different levels of assistance to applicants who are members of a protected [i.e., minority] class is permissible in some circumstances. Providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible if done in response to a court order.” There are already plenty of court orders sitting around.

Just two weeks ago Wells Fargo caved to a Justice Department offensive and paid $175 million for alleged past discriminating against minority borrowers. All this occurred even though the bank received an “outstanding” grade in its most recent Community Reinvestment Act exam. The government did not even bother to prove discrimination in a single instance but relied instead on statistics showing lower rates of homeownership in minority neighborhoods. Thomas Perez, the Justice Department honcho who is spearheading this campaign, says banks discriminate “with a smile” and “fine print” and are “every bit as destructive as the cross burned in a neighborhood.” Nice objective evaluation there.

As in most such cases, Wells Fargo chickened out about going to court and refused to admit any wrongdoing but agreed to all kinds of diversity training and sensitivity counseling. The bank will have to “prominently display” a notice informing minority customers that they cannot be turned down for loans just because they are receiving public assistance such as unemployment benefits, welfare payments or food stamps. (Maybe they can even use food stamps for the down payment.) Wells Fargo must provide minority customers $50 million for down-payment and closing-cost assistance, including “Borrower Assistance Grants” of up to $15,000 per individual. It was also ordered to pay $125 million to as yet unnamed victims of previous discrimination. But get this! If those past victims don’t show up, the money must be handed over to community organizing groups. President Obama, you have a job waiting for you if you lose office this fall.

Almost a dozen banks are under similar investigation and will be soon falling like dominoes unless one of them musters the courage to stand up to the Justice Department in court.

But the real destruction is going to be wrought by CFPB, created by Dodd-Frank and just getting started. Last week Richard Cordray, who is serving as a disputed recess appointee without the consent of the Senate, announced that not only will CFPB be going after banks but will also target the credit rating agencies that evaluate people’s creditworthiness based on past performance in paying debts. They too will be vetted for racial discrimination. In May 2011, the non-partisan Policy and Economic Research Council completed what it described as the first evaluation of Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, the three credit rating agencies. The report concluded that in less than 1 percent of cases was a score changed by more than 25 points after a dispute process and that “consequential inaccuracies are rare.” Moreover, “95 percent of disputing participants were satisfied with the outcomes of their disputes, suggesting widespread satisfaction” with the process. In other words, credit ratings are pretty accurate. Banks rely heavily on them and say that, if anything, the agencies tends to underestimate the rate at which minority buyers will default on mortgages.

So guess what happens next? Under the pretext of “regulating” the agencies, CFPB will hammer away, forcing them to upgrade the scores of blacks and Hispanics. Standards will be diluted or abandoned entirely and within a few years the banks will be flying blind with no reliable information on who is a good credit risk and who isn’t. Does that sound like the formula for another mortgage meltdown? It sure does to me.

At this point in my story, it is customary for the journalist to proclaim that he isn’t trying to protect the lenders but is really concerned with those unfortunate minority individuals who will end up with bad loans. Sperry follows this pattern by declaring, “In the end, it will be the minorities Obama and [Eric] Holder are trying to help who will be hurt most.”

I think I’m going to have to depart from the tradition. I think what we are witnessing is the looting of America on behalf of minorities in a way that better end soon or we are going to bring the whole system down upon our heads.

With the current administration in power, the perception is growing among minorities that everything in the economy can be had for free and that President Obama and his administration are going to provide it for them. For instance, there is a scam going on around the country right now where con artists call up homeowners and tell them that President Obama has a new program where he is going to pay their electrical bills. All the homeowner has to do is provide his Social Security number and other personal information. The con game started in Michigan among minority populations in depressed cities such as Flint and Grand Rapids. It has now spread as far as far as Florida and Mississippi. More than 2,300 people in Michigan were bilked out of $1 million, another 10,000 have been swindled in New Jersey.

What is amazing is that all these people actually believe that President Obama is ready to pay their electrical bills. It is symptomatic of a rising tide of dependency and the growing sense that nobody has to be responsible for anything anymore and we can all live off “the rich.” If we don’t get these people out of office soon, there isn’t going to be much left to pick over in the American economy.

About the Author

William Tucker is news editor for RealClearEnergy.org.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (239) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Intelligent Design| 7.27.12 @ 7:08AM

Repeal Dodd-Frank.

chuck| 7.27.12 @ 7:33AM

And the destruction of the housing business and the economy continues.

These leftist asses never learn, they must be defeated.

On second thought, it must be a willful act to destroy the economy so President Sorry Ass can "fundamentally change" this country.

chuck| 7.27.12 @ 7:37AM

Oh, and I like the swindle aimed at the stupid Obama voters. It's probably some rich guy just trying to get some of his money back. You know, the money stolen from him by the Feds, and given to the "unfortunate" to buy their votes.

I love it.

Kwan| 7.27.12 @ 7:47PM

This is another version of the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Only instead of overloading the welfare rolls in order to collapse the economy, we make mortgage loans to unqualified minorities so that the banking system and economy can collapse. Then Obama can get on national television and declare that free enterprise/capitalism has failed the American people, and that he is forced to nationalize the economy and implement a Command Economy (what they had in the Soviet Union) in order to save the Republic.

TLP| 7.28.12 @ 2:36PM

You win a prize, Mr. Kwan.

EVERYTHING The Muslim does, is Cloward and Piven.

If only we had a Media that Honoured their Sacred Job of WATCHING OUT and REPORTING on all of this Sh*t.

Especially when there's a Lying Scumbag with a D next to his name.

Kwan| 7.29.12 @ 7:26PM

If you read between the lines of what these Democrat Politicians are saying it's basically that our economic system doesn't work, it's flawed because it doesn't guarantee equal results for one and all. Therefore they want to dismantle our free enterprise/ capitalist system and replace it with a system that makes everyone "equal", in other words communism. History shows us that communism works well for the rulers but not so well for the oppressed worker-serfs who end up "equally" poor and "equally" without freedom.

TLP| 7.27.12 @ 7:49AM

So.

The New York Yankees and my New York Giants, are taking over the Umpiring and the Refereeing in their respective Sports.

From now on, Team Officials will oversee (DECIDE) Balls and Strikes, Holding and Pass Interference Calls, Fair and Foul Balls, and did he get One foot in bounds or Two.

How's that? Does that sound pretty much like what's going on with CRIME INC over at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?

If at first you're Credit Rating is Downgraded, with another one surely coming before November, what do you do?

No, Susie. You do not get your Sh*t together or your Financial Ship in order. Go to the back of the room.

You take over the Rating Agency, throw out the REAL people that work there, and put Your Own People in.

People like Jay Carney Goebbels, who REFUSES to answer the simple question - "What is the Capitol of Israel?" Ya wanna bet he doesn't answer - How is it that John Corzine is not only NOT in Prison, but he's on El Presidente's PAYROLL Bundling Money? And is any of that Money the $1.6 Billion "Missing" MF GLOBAL Money?

Are we now a First, or a Third World Country.

Are we closer to a South American Banana Republic or an African Hellhole? Cause this isn't the United States. And, it hasn't been, since the African Muslim put on his Crown.

America's Cities are starting to get HOT.

Oakland and Anaheim. Chicago and Philly.

Black and Brown will Burn Them Down.

Methinks that the Ccksckr's CHICKENS are coming home to ROOST, and they're bringing Molotov Cocktails.

James Mc Coy| 7.27.12 @ 3:11PM

let the burning commence!

C'mon Man!| 7.27.12 @ 6:00PM

I tend to agree, like the Chicago thugs, let them kill/destroy themselves. Many bible stories have massive armies destroying themselves that way. OK by me!

Petronius| 7.27.12 @ 8:19AM

Somewhere the ghost of Huey Long is smiling. The only way for the banks to thwart this is to end all consumer lending. The Levelers are in power. Welcome to the 17th century everybody.

Louis Jenkins| 7.27.12 @ 8:46AM

Why have the banks been slow to lend to blacks and hispanics? They don't have the money for a down payment. WE're in for repeated Community Investment Acts until there is nothing left! But that's Obama's way of doing things.

mike 3/505| 7.27.12 @ 8:52AM

The only way to preclude this type of behavior by the Federal government towards the banks, is to develop an alternate(s) currency. The Feds control the money supply, so the banks must toe their line. If varios states would coin money, as they are authorized to, the banks would have somewhere else to turn and would be less vulnerable to these strong-arm tactics

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 8:53AM

What a joke. As if the CRA forced banks or anyone to lend money to anyone. That is a 30 year lie repeated so often you don't even question it anymore. Greed and the promise of quick profits is what pushed mortgage brokers and banks to lower their lending standards, along with lax regulation that allowed that to happen - all driven by Wall Street's buying up the mortgages, slicing and dicing them into "security instruments" for sale that are so complex no one knows who owns what. THAT is what caused the crash. Not the poor schmuck that just wanted to own his own home, but the LACK of government oversight and the greed and unscrupulous behavior of Wall Streeters and their minions. Sheila Bair, Chairman of the FDIC, noted in 2008 "Where in the CRA does it say : 'make loans to people who can't afford to repay'? Nowhere, desire for market share and revenue growth were the driving forces toward the crisis.
But, enjoy your right wing spinmeisters as once again, they have hoodwinked you.

Petronius| 7.27.12 @ 9:29AM

A law is diktat on a piece of paper. Official enforcement and Abuse of power is something else entirely. When property no longer has any value along with all other financial assets due to wanton willful destruction by this pack of cultural vandals in Washington depression and civil war will follow. Then we'll see who survives. There's not one economically illiterate superannuated spoiled brat that deserves to draw another breath.

Jack London| 7.27.12 @ 10:09AM

Well said Purp. And the shocking thing is that discriminatory lending still goes on - recent studies have shown that minorities on higher salaries are often only offered higher rats than whites. I'm sure that Wells Fargo fine was well deserved.

You can only conclude one of two things - our far right friends either believe our society is now perfectly fair so such things don't actually happen or that minorities deserve to be exploited.

Drunken Sailor| 7.27.12 @ 11:18AM

Jack, Jack, Jack. Just because "Minorities on higher salaries" are charged higher rates does not mean discrimination. I know you won't agree with this but isn't it just possible those higher rates are based on credit scores?

TLP| 7.27.12 @ 3:58PM

Don't confuse him with FACTS.

He doesn't like that.

Curtis Rasmussen| 7.27.12 @ 12:39PM

I know from personal experience with Wells Fargo that you are a Jackass. If you have a study, then cite it.

My sister also works at Wells Fargo. She uses credit scores to determine if an individual qualifies just like everyone else was trained to do. She is an outspoken liberal who would never work for a company if there was a hint of impropriety.

Pull your head out of your ass, Jack and get some personal experience in life beyond reading blogs in your mom's basement.

Jack London| 7.27.12 @ 3:55PM

Sure - the next time I want $175 million I'll just ask Wells Fargo. They'll pay up because they are that sort of bank.

TLP| 7.27.12 @ 3:59PM

Again.

Don't confuse him with the FACTS.

JD| 7.27.12 @ 12:43PM

Straw man yet again. We don't believe society is perfect. We believe your ideas make it worse.

The only people who think mortgage lending was discriminatory are people who know nothing about it. The fact that your "studies" considered only salaries is a deliberate half-truth - there are many factors in an application.

You people just need to see racism everywhere. Real businessmen see only customers. Besides, with lawsuit-happy leeches like you around, everyone's terrified to even present the possible appearance of racism.

Albertus Magnus| 7.27.12 @ 2:41PM

Purp and Jack London are tiresome, dim-witted fools. They espouse an expertise in economics they do not possess, they are arrogant and condescending, and quite frankly, not very bright, despite their rudeness. Economics does not work from a government-centric model, it never has and it never will, despite their protestations. All government-centric economic models of the past have only functioned as engines of plunder, based as they are on confiscating (i.e. STEALING) the wealth of other people and other nations to spend on public projects and thus buy votes for themselves. Politicians who enact and enforce such economic policies are narcissistic, ego-centric thieves who praise and worship themselves, and their supporters are nothing more than masses of fools, toadies, and lackies who lack any character whatsoever and even the most basic level of self reliance and dignity. It is a waste of time to respond to these cretinous fools and I will no longer bother.

Jack London| 7.27.12 @ 3:52PM

Albertus - don't worry, the nice men in white coats are only here to help you.

TLP| 7.27.12 @ 4:01PM

That's what they tell Jack, right before they give him a needle, and strap on the straight jacket.

Albertus Magnus| 7.27.12 @ 4:25PM

Government is supposed to work in the background. It is there to provide a legal framework wherein people can conduct their business. Government is the "referee" if you will, but people are the players. If the referee decides who wins, the game is not fair and people will cry "Foul!" Giving credit for a prosperous economy to government is like giving credit for the Super Bowl victory to the referees. Essentially, this is what is happening in our economy under the Bozo regime, the referees are deciding who wins and who loses, and the truth is, we all lose.

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 7:28PM

I agree with you - so along with not giving credit, you cannot blame the government either. Why we are all losing is the poor performance of the private sector while that government framework was allowed to shred, resulting in distrust in the economic engine. What we are suffering is the distrust of the American people to spend money on goods and services, investing and growing businesses with the ultimate result of hurting us all.
Government looked the other way under Bush, and the private sector ran amok .. and we are paying for our folly now.
We can blame Bush for not keeping his eye on the ball and allowing trust in the system to occur - but we cannot blame Obama for our distrust and pulling back from the system - market of goods, services, investment and business.
Until trust is restored, we will continue to limp along. Republicans in Congress have done a good job keeping trust from returning.

Albertus Magnus| 7.27.12 @ 4:26PM

Every post you make only proves my point.

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 7:29PM

Al - your approval is neither required nor desired, so you matter not at all. Go somewhere that cares about your opinions.

Albertus Magnus| 7.27.12 @ 8:16PM

Your "approval" is irrelevant. Your opinion is laughable. Whether you "care" or not is meaningless. And you are STILL a tiresome, dim-witted fool. What you think you know is mostly wrong. Get an education. I did and I know better.

By the way, "trust" in government is a fool's enterprise.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 9:10AM

Of course Al, you're are so clueless you don't know that the system does not = the government. The system is all of our institutions, private and public that have lost our trust.
You could never equal the amount of education I have, but what you do have is steeped in fantasy, revisionism and theory.
You are clueless enough to not realize it and like a pig in shit that loves his shit, you enjoy your position and plan to stay there.
Sadly for you, but it makes my point. I have not called you names directly - that is a sign of unmitigated low intelligence, and so you have proven that point once again.
I extended no approval to you, I refused to request yours, and you got it all backwards - another clear sign of your downfall.
Enjoy your pig heaven, for it is all you will ever have.

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 7:22PM

No one espouses a government-centric economic model - you constantly want that bogieman to attack, but it is of your own making. We don't bring it up, so you must.
Ad hominem attacks is also your prime focus.
You concentrate on the government STEALING from you - but you never say how you would run the government without taxation. Your buddies in Republicanland are always walking the tightrope of telling you what you want to hear, when they full well know that they have to have funds to run the government.
Interestingly, the Red States pull more funds from that government than they give to it, and yet you all are biting the hand that feeds you. Isn't that rich?
I will refrain from calling you names - that is the sign of a weak intelligence and a man with no argument - and so you are characterized by your behavior.
Go vote for Mitt the Twit (Rupert Murdoch's words, not mine) , it is your right to be as dumb as possible.

Albertus Magnus| 7.27.12 @ 8:13PM

You do. Don't you read your own posts? And you are the master of ad hominem attacks. That is your stock and trade, at least as far as I have seen for most of this year. You also use the "straw man" argument, ascribing things to people that they did not say. You are doing it now. No one said "no government." But your government takes the wealth of productive citizens and gives it to non-productive voters in order to buy votes. This is the government centric model since Rome, 2000 years ago. You know nothing of history, nothing of economics, and you are a rude jackass.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 9:27AM

Poor Al - you make my point for me and you don't even know it.
You don't realize our government shares many of the same basic ideas that you ascribe to Rome. In fact, we even called one of our chambers of Congress the Senate (ring a bell oh brilliant one? ) Let me give you a clue. Roman REPUBLIC, Roman SENATE, Roman EXECUTIVE.
Now, this is opposed to the Greek democracy, which truly was closer to a real democracy than our system is today.
Too bad you don't understand these overarching themes.
Please tell me, what funds did George Washington use to quell the Whiskey Rebellion while he was President? What funds did Thomas Jefferson use to buy the Louisiana Purchase? You did hear of those 2 didn't you?
But I'll give you a chance - what is a non-government-centric economic model? Where in the world have you seen your theory in real operation, ever?
Space is short here, but I await with bated breath your answers - if you have any.... Ha.

Jack London| 7.27.12 @ 3:59PM

You're an awfully naive person, aren't you. It's quite touching to see such innocence.

Ryan| 7.27.12 @ 10:27AM

You're missing an essential step (which the OWS crowd erred). There are also the implicit and explicit (at times) government guarantees via Freddie, Fannie, etc which allow the banks to "privatize the profits and socialize the risks." Without the guarantees, banks tend to perform good business and make better loans - though not as many.

Of course, in a consumerist, materialist society, money is made via credit and not equity.

Such measures are NOT conservative, and NOT free-market solutions.

JoeJazz2000| 7.27.12 @ 12:52PM

No matter how you slice up the loans in the securities packages, if the loans default, the securities will default. Loans made to people that can't pay them back will default. CRA encouraged lending to those that couldn't pay. The default of the securities, CAUSED THE COLLAPSE. If you think otherwise you are a fool.

TLP| 7.27.12 @ 4:02PM

He's a Fool.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 9:33AM

How idiotic... you don't know that these unregulated securities transferred the risk to the owners, but the sellers kept the profits?
That's was the problem and what froze the credit markets when the unsustainable housing bubble, ignored by Bush and Greenspan alike, started to unravel. No one knew who owned what and who owed whom. And, BOOM - Stop everything, freeze.
No bank having ownership of a mortgage that could foreclose on any bad loan would have created that mess. Had any bank extended those loans and have had to support the defaults of risky loans - well, they wouldn't have done it in the first place.
The moral hazard was created by the easy peasy way they could transfer the risks of poor loans to someone else ... they reaped the profits, road the gravy train, and the government under Bush couldn't care less. Free Enterprise you know.
OMG you people are clueless.

Suzyqpie| 7.28.12 @ 11:18AM

Hi Purp, OMG - Obama Must Go? If that's what you mean, I agree totally.

TLP| 7.28.12 @ 2:38PM

Also, a Fool.

TrueBlue | 7.27.12 @ 1:03PM

Since a lot of local banks were closed and forced to sell out to the larger banks that got bailed out BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T MEET GOVERNMENT QUOTAS that kind of points to banks being forced, doesn't it? Also, can't imagine why Wells Fargo was targetted first, given the fact that they were the only major bank that DIDN'T take government bailout funds...

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 9:36AM

Who forced the banks True? How? What Quotas? Wells Fargo is an independent banking institution - they didn't go anywhere.

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 1:25PM

That's lying bullexcrement and anyone with half a brain know such. The CRA of 1977 initiated the real estate/credit crisis that is now occurring as this author truthfully explains. You liberal all lie, and the truth is an impossibility with any of you pigs!!!!!!!!!!!

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 9:37AM

Is that all you can ever say? A one trick pony. Wrong, but persistent - like a boil that just won't go away.

George S| 7.27.12 @ 1:55PM

Okay, let's play your game:

Where in the federal regulations does it permit banks to lower their lending standards?

Why did "greed and promise of quick profits" all of a sudden appeared after HUD started bringing law suits after a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants were turned down for mortgage loans? What federal regulation demanded that... CRA as interpreted by Janet Reno maybe?

What was Janet Reno referring to when she said: "no loan is exempt, no bank is immune. For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement". I thought there was lax regulation enforcement?

If greed was the factor, then why did it take till the mid 1990's to appear? Wall Street was obviously around long before that. But only after HUD and Reno did they act. Why?

DRed| 7.27.12 @ 2:21PM

The subprime housing bubble didn't start under the Clinton Administration. Why are you talking about Janet Reno?

JP| 7.27.12 @ 2:31PM

The Bubble began in 1994 when then AG Reno made it public that her DOJ would begin investigating mortage lenders for discrimination. In 1994 banks got the hint and begana quota system. But, Wall St being Wall St saw an oppurtunity it could not ignore. But, the Beltway being the Beltway encouraged quasi government owned entities (Fannie and Freddie) to grow their minority mortgage portfolios. By 1998 Wall St and the Beltway had a great thing going. After 9/11, with the equity's market in free-fall, real estate was where it was at. The bubble peaked between 2003-2006. The genesis of it was Janet Reno.

DRed| 7.27.12 @ 3:56PM

You claim nobody would have figured out that they could make money through subprime lending without Janet Reno? How do you explain the fact that most subprime lending was done by institutions not covered by teh CRA?

TLP| 7.27.12 @ 4:07PM

The Bubble began when, then AG, Super Bulldyke - Janet Reno - who Burned all of those people in Waco, to Death, made it public that Her/His DOJ would begin Investigating Mortgage Lenders for Discrimination.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 9:49AM

OMG - how ignorant. I'll just say one thing - demise of the Glass-Stegal act in 1999. Another clue - Bush elected in 2000. Need another - Ownership Society. Another - Greenspan in 2005 " A bubble in home prices for the nation as a whole does not appear likely" and more. Need more- Section 802(b) of the CRA. One more - no penalties for non-compliance in the CRA.
TADA, the right-wing myth buster does it again!
One question for you. If greed is good, according to Ayn Rand, why don't you defend it. Fear and greed are by far the greatest human motivators. Both can move millions against their better judgement.
If you love the Founders so much, why don't you realize that our entire governmental system of checks and balances was put together by our FOUNDERS out of the FEAR of human GREED, and it's penchant for corruption and abuse. We experienced both when our Republican Controlled Bush government let it all happen by removing the checks and balances and Party took precedence.

Suzyqpie| 7.28.12 @ 11:23AM

OMG - Obama Must Go, you keep posting that but you sound like an 0bama guy.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 5:52PM

Ruh-roh, another genius.

TLP| 7.28.12 @ 2:41PM

The RAPIST - Bill Clinton - signed the Bill that got rid of Glass Steagal.

The RAPIST - Bill Clinton.

The Ccksckr - Bill Clinton.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 5:54PM

Bill Clinton signed it, yep, he did. So what? It all fell apart under BUSH - just like Bush let 9/11 happen while he vacationed. Yep, Clinton signed it and it was a mistake. Next. Again with the expletives. Are you 16?

TLP| 7.29.12 @ 12:50PM

The guy writing "ruh-roh" is actually questioning MY Maturity.

The Rapist signed it. That makes it HIS.

It fell apart, because it was ALWAYS gonna fall apart. That's why Glass Steagal was there in the first place.

To keep the Barney Franks, the Chris Dodds, the Franklin Raineses, the Jamie Garelicks, and the Gun Running Eric Holders, from setting up a Safehouse, for all of their Big Buck Bank Contributors, at Fannie and Freddie, where they could OFFLOAD their Worthless Paper, on to the SUCKERS who Pay all the Taxes.

That was the Plan.

Your Bogeyman, had nothing to do with it.

derekcrane | 7.28.12 @ 10:06AM

Purp, you have obviously never read the act, nor know anything about it. Banks are required by the CRA to " help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered." In other words, give loans to people of certain communities regardless of their qualifications for these loans. Banks would not make these loans if greed was their motivation. Stats indicate that these loans are paid back at a lower rate. Banks need the loans to be repaid to be profitable in the long run.

However, if they fail to make these loans their CRA score will not be high enough to charter another bank, receive deposit insurance, establish a branch, relocate a branch or office or merge with another bank. Banks cannot run their business without a healthy CRA score, a score that can only be given when a sufficient number of loans are given in "underserved communities."

Ask yourself: Why do banks have CRA offices if they are not forced to do make these loans?

Your hero, Sheila Blair, obviously has not read the act, either.

For those interested in reading the CRA:

http://www.fdic.gov/regulation.....00hcda1977

TLP| 7.28.12 @ 2:42PM

You're confusing him, again.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 5:59PM

Not compelled, incented. There is a BIG difference. There is no mandate.
And, yes I have read it. See Section 802 (b). Under-served does not mean indigent, now does it?
And, it's Sheila Bair, not Blair. What else did you get wrong, hmmm?
Don't you find it interesting that bankers that RUN banks don't say what you say? Why is that? And, do you really think that it took 8 years after Clinton left office for mortgages to go bad? You must really believe Bush forced banks too? I think so, but it's up to you.

derekcrane | 7.29.12 @ 9:51AM

...yes and paying federal income taxes is "voluntary."

TW in SC| 7.28.12 @ 4:10PM

How does this "discrimination" occur? Every time I ever applied for a loan, "Race" is not one of the entries on the form. Then, one must assume that there has to be some sort of code affixed to the applications via sticky note or paper-clipped to it. Maybe there's a secret watermark on the form they use.

Honestly, When I was in the USAF...and we all used the local credit union, guys bought cars and they were black, white, hispanic, asian...and we compared notes. We all got pretty much the same deal on the interest rates and payment terms.
Predatory lending is a fool's notion. The banks were pressured by the Clinton Administration to make loans or Reno and her gang of enforcers were going to publicly flail them as racists.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 6:03PM

Not a sticky note. 1=white, 2=black, 3=hispanic somewhere on an application, for a job, a mortgage, whatever.
I was appalled when I found that out, after I became a manager in a corporation.
Amazingly, to your point though, if so many bad loans were made, how were the bad loan owners able to make payments for I don't know 10 years or more until the crash under Bush? You really believe that a person who can't pay can keep it going for that long? Even a very lenient bank will foreclose within 2 years. Using simple arithmetic , how could that happen?
It could only happen if Bush policies did the same thing until the run up to the crash in 2007-8. Do you believe that?

derekcrane | 7.29.12 @ 10:16AM

What are you trolling for this time, purp? The banks have two choices under CRA: give loans to the undeserved "underserved" or go out of business. It is a mandate anyway you look at it. Ask any banker who experienced a CRA audit.

rjh| 7.27.12 @ 8:54AM

Who will be stupid enough to buy the subprime mortgages this time? Oops, I forgot, we still have Fannie and Freddie.

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 9:09AM

Fannie and Freddie is another red herring - they didn't force anyone either. They also didn't cause the worst of the worst. The "shadow" banking market made up of mortgage brokers and Wall Streeters did however. Think - who made the most money during the lead up to the crisis - it wasn't Fannie and Freddie, now was it? Billions for Wall Street, none for F&F.
You wanna know where the problem is - follow the money. It always points to the culprit.

Ryan| 7.27.12 @ 10:29AM

Like I said above, wrong focus. If Fannie and Freddie weren't there, the big banks wouldn't have someone to sell their bad loans to - and therefore would make less of them.

Freddie and Fannie allow the losses to be borne by the American taxpayer, instead of the banks.

It's not a free-market practice.

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 10:58AM

If you believe the housing market has ever been free in modern American history, I have a bridge for you to buy. Along I-35 through Minneapolis.

Ryan| 7.27.12 @ 12:06PM

There is a point regarding redlining in the past. However, allowing banks to make bad loans - and then pawn the losses off on the American public - is not the answer.

You didn't really refute my point.

TLP| 7.27.12 @ 4:08PM

That's because he can't.

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 1:40PM

It hasn't been free wince 1977 because of the CRA that Democrats and the government forced upon banks!!!!!!!!

JoeJazz2000| 7.27.12 @ 1:41PM

No never really shut up do you? You're wrong on nearly everything you've said and you're still here, biting ankles.

JP| 7.27.12 @ 2:33PM

Who ever said it was free?

rjh| 7.27.12 @ 11:03AM

Responding to purp is a waste of time.

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 11:11AM

You have no real arguments, no facts, just faith in what you believe. So I get it, you give up. Good.

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 1:41PM

You can't argue with a GD LIAR by the name of PURP!!!!!!!!!!

TLP| 7.27.12 @ 4:09PM

Which is why everybody should just ignore this POS.

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 7:30PM

Potty mouth.

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 7:31PM

TLP and Old - expletives simply show your intelligence. Thank you for showing us what you don't have.

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 10:46PM

PURP, your "intelligence" ran down your old man's leg after being sexually active!!!!!

TLP| 7.28.12 @ 2:44PM

You're a Fckng Puke.

What are we supposed to write?

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 5:52PM

Write whatever you like - it's a FREE Country, and so will I. Nothing wrong with any of it.

TLP| 7.29.12 @ 12:54PM

That's the problem.

You write whatever you like.

Maybe if you tried writing the things that you Don't Like?

You know.....................................................................

THE TRUTH.

DRed| 7.27.12 @ 11:55AM

First, the banks sold subprime securities to a host of customers that weren't Fanny & Freddie. Mutual funds, other banks, AIG-the list is long. GSE participation in the market certainly exacerbated the crisis-I think that's a valid criticism, but they came late to the party. And while the costs of bailing them out are born by us, you may have also noticed that the banks got themselves a rather nice bailout as well.

Ryan| 7.27.12 @ 12:07PM

A lot of those funds did wind up with similar situations, however, and the government, through one vehicle or another, wound up guaranteeing those loans...or bailing out those who made them in some fashion.

If banks know they won't have access to taxpayer money, they are less likely to make bad loans.

DRed| 7.27.12 @ 12:13PM

That is probably partly true. But it's also true that many of the large investment banks seemed to not understand how much risk they were carrying at the time. So, even if they had known there was no way they were going to get bailed out, I don't think they would have behaved differently.

TrueBlue | 7.27.12 @ 1:06PM

And then they would have gone out of business. Things would have been bad, but now we're just making them worse. There is no such thing as "too big to fail" except when the government deems it so. If a company makes huge risks that don't pan out and they go under, they SHOULD go under. That's capitalism, rather than this crony crud we've been playing the last 40 years.

DRed| 7.27.12 @ 1:47PM

Or it would have been the second coming of the great depression. Which would have been much, much worse than things are now.

Ryan| 7.27.12 @ 3:09PM

Not necessarily. Public funds would not have been used to bail out companies, and it's not like their assets would have vanished. It's why we have orderly bankruptcy laws. The system also needs a radical upheaval - which will be painful. There's no way around it, but the bad players need to be removed from the economy.

Ryan| 7.27.12 @ 12:08PM

If banks know they won't have access to taxpayer money, they are less likely to make bad loans.

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 12:45PM

Republicans won't allow that to happen. Democrats tried with Dodd-Frank, and R's stopped it.

TrueBlue | 7.27.12 @ 1:07PM

And Dodd-Frank is making it happen again... funny that.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 9:51AM

True - because REPUBLICANS wouldn't allow the D's to put real TEETH into Dodd-Frank. Go bitch at them, they didn't want real reform- their campaign donors would be mad. When you suck on the teat of banking, you can't exactly bite it off, now can you? Republicans are whores for the banking industry, pure and simple.

Suzyqpie| 7.28.12 @ 11:30AM

DoddFrank, I love the Washingtonian irony of naming the reform after the architects of the disaster. See any irony in that?

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 1:42PM

Go away.....the NYT has a blog....go use it!!!!!

Ryan| 7.27.12 @ 3:11PM

Bull. Fannie and Freddie are still operating as corpses. Conservatives were the ones pushing against TARP, stimulus, bailouts, etc. The left was going along - they have always been in bed with the large investment firms. The left pushed for bailing out Chevy and Chrysler - who went under anyway - and defrauded the bondholders in the process.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 9:55AM

Oh, my - did you not know that TARP was signed by BUSH? Promulgated by Henry Paulsen, his Treasury Secretary? OMG. And you are debating?
"The left was going along - they have always been in bed with the large investment firms." - now that 's comical. WHO is garnering the most campaign donations from Wall Street, hmmmm? Mitt the Twit of course.
Chevy and Chrysler - I think you mean GM and Chrysler, don't you?
Your little piece is so filled with mistakes, I can't know where to begin to straighten you out. So I won't.

Ryan| 7.30.12 @ 8:20AM

Bush was no conservative.

Investment firms - like Goldman Sachs - leaned left the last two elections, and supported Bush, who was no fiscal conservative (rather, he was corporatist).

http://www.opensecrets.org/ind.....hp?ind=F07

GM, Chevy, whatever, the point still stands. Bailed out.

TLP| 7.27.12 @ 4:12PM

They stopped Dodd/Frank?

Really?

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 10:50PM

Nah, he meant to say that the Democrats tried to stop BARNEY-FRANK from coming out of his closet but failed miserably to do so!!!!!!!!!!

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 9:57AM

TLP - how ignorant - they didn't stop it's passage, but gutted it enough to be less effective. Ya know the old filibuster bullshit that Old Turtleface McConnell uses like he is a King over all of us. They are to blame if you don't like Dodd-Frank. They stopped breaking up the Big Banks. And we all suffer for it. Even Sandy Weil says the Big Banks should go - and he created the first.

TLP| 7.28.12 @ 2:47PM

They couldn't do anything.

It was passed while Your Muslim buddy had Super Majorities in Both Houses.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 5:49PM

Incorrecto. The D's only had 60 Senate votes when Norm Coleman conceded in May 2009 until Scott Brown was sworn in Jan 2010 to replace Ted Kennedy after he died. That was a little over 6 months.
Another right-wing myth busted!!! Isn't this fun?

TLP| 7.29.12 @ 12:56PM

The Dems had SUPERMAJORITIES for 2 YEARS.

WTF is wrong with your head?

JP| 7.27.12 @ 2:34PM

The Federal Government created the moral hazard. There is no way around that.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 9:59AM

By not regulating properly - yes. Left on our own, all people are tempted to abuse and corrupt themselves.
The Founders knew it and so the architecture of checks and balances was firmly placed on our government.
They would be aghast at the filibuster usage by the Republicans, however, and how money is corrupting our system today - going to the highest Billionaire bidder.

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 1:37PM

YOU LIE [and everyone knows it]!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 1:38PM

You're a liar!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 1:39PM

That a damned lie!!!!

C'mon Man!| 7.27.12 @ 6:15PM

Fannie and Freddie CEO's made how much? Nothing? Hmm, facts trip up the liberal loser again. And again, and again and........

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 10:02AM

C'mon - I'll put what they made up against Goldman-Sachs or Morgan-Stanley CEOs who made far, far more money (although I agree F&F had problems, just like every other profit seeking, market share seeking private entity. Once not regulated by Bush, all hell was allowed to break loose, even greater than under Clinton and the whole thing collapsed in a pile of abuse and corruption. Good job, reducing regulation, huh?

TLP| 7.28.12 @ 2:49PM

Franklin Raines pocketed $90 Million, in what the GAO described as COOKING THE BOOKS to get Bonuses.

I'd tell you to LOOK IT UP, but we both know that you have no desire for The Truth.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 10:07PM

No doubt, TLP - but you really don't know how much Goldman-Sachs executives pocketed, do you? 90 million is a pittance by comparison.
I'd tell you to LOOK IT UP, but we both know that you have no desire for The Truth.

TLP| 7.29.12 @ 1:01PM

Then why don't you just tell me the Number that you Made Up, and the Made Up Web Site where you say you found it, that we might go and see your Made Up Number for ourselves?

I gave you my Number, and we both know that You Know, that it's right on.

I know I speak for everyone, when I say: We'll wait for your Corroboration.

Houdini| 7.27.12 @ 10:39AM

Welcome to Venezuela.

Truth to Power| 7.27.12 @ 10:40AM

Progressives return to their errors like a dog to its vomit. Forcing lending institutions into bad loans is what got us here. It is time for change before we end up like Greece.

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 11:02AM

Nothing was forced. That's the BIG LIE.
If you're worried about becoming Greece, stop voting for "Supply side" Economic Ideology. Without demand, supply doesn't matter. It's that simple.
Austerity in Europe squelched demand, and voila - we have Greece, Spain, Britain and Italy in trouble. We pushed demand and are much better off.
The time for deficit spending is now to increase demand, not to buy bullets, bombs and bull during the Reagan and 2 Bush administrations. That's why the debt is any concern. 10 Trillion added to the debt by them.

Truncheon| 7.27.12 @ 12:04PM

Kindly describe the timeline of "demand" for pet rocks, that led to the production of pet rocks....

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 12:14PM

You expect an economy to built on fads?
Nevertheless, someone felt there was a market (=demand) for a pet rock, and so filled that "demand". I'll take bets he didn't produce millions of them to start with.
Ever hear of a book run of millions from an unknown author (market risk = low DEMAND) as opposed to Stephen King (market leader = high DEMAND)?
Why do we pay farmers NOT to grow something? Ever here of sugar or milk or corn price supports (= DEMAND)
Why is the housing market depressed? No buyers (= low DEMAND); there is plenty of supply, now isn't there?
Get out of the right wing philosophical ideology and learn some economic facts.
No one produces anything unless they think they can sell it. At least not for long they won't.
Sure, you need capital investment, you need supporting functions for business, but without customers (=DEMAND), there won't be a business for long, now will there?
Do you know what is meant, by "Corporation X lost 1.5 Billion dollars last year" ? Do you know why they "lost" it?

dherion| 7.27.12 @ 1:39PM

The housing market is depressed because prices are still way to high. Let housing prices fall to the level of current demand and the market will begin to recover. Or do you think we should just print a couple trillion dollars and give/lend it to people to buy houses to satisfy demand?

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 10:04AM

dh - have you tried to get a housing loan lately?
In most places, housing prices are pre-1995, before the bubble.
You don't know what you're talking about.

Ryan| 7.27.12 @ 12:10PM

Demand has to have supply. Right now, the demand isn't making companies in the US produce more.

Give people the freedom to keep what they earn through their own innovation, and they will spend it. Tell them that it will be taken away and given to those who do not produce, spend well, or otherwise, and it is wasted.

Greece, and much of Europe, were actively practicing demand-side economics, and were failing miserably.

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 12:20PM

"Wasted" ? On whom? Social Security Seniors? Handicapped Veterans? Children whose father died?
From your premise of everyone keeping what they earn, there should be no taxes, everyone keep every dime they make. That's your idea of an economy? A civilization? Seriously? No Government?
How do you protect the U.S., external and internal?
How do you enforce laws? Try lawbreakers?
How do you run a foreign policy in the world?
How do you provide for the least among us? For those that paid into insurance programs all their lives?
How do you respond to any emergencies?
How do you educate the children, clean the streets, even have streets?
Think about what your saying.
Demand begets supply, make it and they will come does not work - you have a need, someone will find a way to fill or supply it. THAT is capitalism. THAT is market force.

TrueBlue | 7.27.12 @ 1:09PM

And there you go with the standard liberal tactic of taking it to the extreme again. There's a thing called balance, might want to try and understand it.

JP| 7.27.12 @ 2:39PM

The US government spends $3.8 trillion now, of which $1.2 trillion is borrowed. Only a decade ago, the US spent $1.8 trillion, of which none was borrowed. How did the US ever survive on a paltry $1.8 trillion?

Ryan| 7.27.12 @ 3:16PM

Massive overstatement. Scale it back and maybe we have a debate to go on.

Companies in the US which get to keep their profits - particularly small businesses which have employers who are between several thresholds and get messed over by not making either enough and not making too little - would provide the ability for their employees to purchase from other companies in the same vein.

For example - a tax system which is simple removes overhead from figuring out taxes, an extra expense which adds no real value to an economy. If small businesses, which are more heavily burdened by the actual labor of doing taxes, got to spend less on actually doing taxes, it would lead to higher profits and probably more employees who actually add value.

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 11:00PM

How do you protect the U.S.[WITH NON ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS BY ICE]
How do you enforce laws? [WITH ERIC'S CORRUPT DOJ]
How do you run a foreign policy in the world?[WITH HILLYBILLY AND MUSLIM-BROTHERHOOD HUMA]
How do you provide for the least among us? For those that paid into insurance programs all their lives?[IF NOT FORCED TO PAY IN, WE'D BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE BEST HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE AVAILABLE]
How do you respond to any emergencies?[CALL ICE OR D OF J ONLY IF YOU'RE A MINORITY]
How do you educate the children, clean the streets, even have streets?[THEY'RE UNEDUCATED NOW THANKS TO LABOR UNIONS' NON-TEACHERS; GET WELFARE RECIPIENTS TO CLEAN STREETS]!!!!!

Truth to Power| 7.27.12 @ 12:34PM

It was forced. In the classic progressive style, the threats were made. Something bad will happen if you don't get in line. This is the Soprano style of government that you think is so normal.

http://hotair.com/archives/201.....the-banks/

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 12:47PM

Argue with Sheila Bair, Chairman of the FDIC, not forced is not forced. I propose she knows vastly more about what's going on with banking than you or I do.

Truth to Power| 7.27.12 @ 2:11PM

You argue with her. She thinks the big O is a disaster.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 10:05AM

She categorically states that the CRA didn't force anyone to do anything, period.
Another right-wing myth busted.

Truth to Power| 7.28.12 @ 12:48PM

She categorically states that the big O is a disaster.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 5:46PM

Where?

Truth to Power| 7.28.12 @ 11:36PM

You can't even to an internet search? Do they just mail you talking points and you just spew them out? My goodness you are pathetic.

Ryan| 7.30.12 @ 8:23AM

Backing Purp here - in regular rules of debate, it is always on the back of someone making a claim to present the evidence.

Craigpurcell| 7.28.12 @ 8:09PM

Plutocracy rules! Let the Middle Class pay more taxes as the Banksters socialize losses and privatize gains.

Go Mitt Go!

Barry has sold us out with Timmy G. And Wall Street a long time ago and we all know it.

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 1:44PM

Go tell it to MOOCHEL & CO!!!!!!!!

dherion| 7.27.12 @ 1:44PM

Deficit spending...we've tacked on 5 trillion dollars in deficit spending the last four years. How has that worked out for you? Oh I get it, we should have spend 15 trillion dollars. No, 20 trillion. No, a quadrillion dollars. What comes after quadrillion? A Bazillion?

C'mon Man!| 7.27.12 @ 7:47PM

An Obamillion, apparently...

JP| 7.27.12 @ 2:37PM

There is no austerity in Europe. Not sure where you get that info other than the Koz. Greece,Italy, Spain and France ares still borrowing huge sums of money. In the US, we've borrowed $5 trillion since Jan 2009,or the equivalent of $2 million for each job created since June 2009. In short, no wealth was created; the Housing Market is even in worse shape, and we are about to go into another recession.

Jack London| 7.27.12 @ 2:46PM

"There is no austerity in Europe."

You really haven't got the faintest idea of reality, have you.

Ryan| 7.27.12 @ 3:17PM

You really don't read AmSpec or other conservative sources, do you? Much of the "austerity" is actually a reduction in the rate of growth in some places.

And European "austerity" can make us look like tightwads at times.

Jack London| 7.27.12 @ 3:25PM

I guess you not seen the food queues in Greece and people begging for cancer drugs. In Spain, more than half of young people are unemployed.

Truth to Power| 7.27.12 @ 10:45PM

This is what happens to leftist governments in the end. The game is over for the progressive movement. Food queues and unemployment is a progressive's idea of fairness. It is time for a change. The big O has to go, he is unsustainable.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 5:46PM

So what is happening in Britain, pray tell, where austerity is killing them? Under a conservative regime.

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 11:07PM

That is the result of endless decades of Europeon socialism, and now it't time to pay the piper for past sins. Excessive governmental salaries, pensions, benefits etc for decades without the taxiation to cover same has now resulted in forced reductions of governmental spending. Oh, and tell your socialism speal to the politicians of those countries, and to the Germans whose taxes are now having to pay for the excesses of those countries!!!!!!!

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 10:14PM

Farty Boy - Did you forget about the Iron Lady - Margaret Thatcher? Not decades buddy in Britain, and yet austerity isn't working. Whoops. Conservatism fails.

Gary B| 7.27.12 @ 11:43AM

Truth: As long as other people's money is out there, they will go after it. It's only fair, right?

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 10:07AM

So how would you fund the government? Any government? Hmmmm?

Gary B| 7.29.12 @ 5:12PM

Short answer: I would link it to spending and I'd tie spending to results.

ebonystone| 7.27.12 @ 12:06PM

Criminals returning to the scene of the crime.

fmm| 7.27.12 @ 11:24AM

What do you expect when you elect a racist government?

Gary B| 7.27.12 @ 12:07PM

Whites need not apply. It says so.

To you liberals here... When a white person dies is he still guilty? Did you pause for a few seconds before thinking of an answer? Will you wait for the government to furnish you with a 20-page answer?

DRed| 7.27.12 @ 12:08PM

It's mind boggling to me that some people can actually believe the global economy almost collapsed because banks were forced to lend money to poor black people in America. Not only is it not true, it makes no sense logically. Look at the scale of the housing market collapse. How many urban poor people do you think were buying houses? I don't know if Mr. Tucker is wearing his pretty scarf too tight this week, but this article is a wildly ignorant racist fantasy. 'Those people' didn't repay pay their loans and therefore the housing market in suburban Arizona collapsed? 'Those people' defaulted on their loans at a lower than average rate. How dumb of a bigot do you have to be to blame them?

Gary B| 7.27.12 @ 12:14PM

About as dumb as the bigotry bouncing around inside the Justice Department.

George S| 7.27.12 @ 1:29PM

Clever argument, but wrong. It is not about the loans not being paid back, never has been. It is the fact that those loans were made. Once the money was made available to those who previously did not qualify, the pool of buyers increased -- that is, demand for houses increased. That caused an increase in price. The increase in price increased the demand further, which further increased the price, further increasing the demand, further....

... a Bubble is Born. And repaying loans -- or the ability to repay -- is not a factor.

This explains -- does it not? -- why housing prices jumped seven times the rate of inflation after Janet Reno said: "no loan is exempt, no bank is immune. For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement".

I cannot see what actions Wall Street could possibly take to increase the pre-qualified buyer housing market so they can cobble together mortgage securities to trade amongst themselves, make a ton of money, and then laugh as the last buyer is left holding a worthless bag of paper.

It is because the CRA created buyers. It is because the CRA created buyers. It is because the CRA created buyers. It is because the CRA created buyers. It is because the CRA created buyers.

Nothing to do with loan defaults.

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 1:55PM

Oh, I see, DEMAND created all this economic activity. Excellent point. Do ya think Bush's "Ownership Society" push had just, oh, maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, a shred to do with the crash on his watch?
Nevertheless, once Wall Street figured out an unregulated way and was able to pull mortgages into sliced and diced "security instruments" for sale, the DEMAND curve for more mortgages was set, and less and less criteria were used to find buyers, until just fogging a mirror would get you a house loan.

George S| 7.27.12 @ 2:14PM

Excellent point indeed. Without demand for scarcities there is no economic activity. The only thing plentiful is the air we breathe, that's why Wall Street does not trade in it.

Bush's Ownership Society was an election year stunt, first posited in 2004. 'Shred' may be to generous of an adjective.

Once Wall Street figured out an unregulated way... can you be more specific? Such as what regulations were dropped, amended or instituted that caused the mess? If the Demand for mortgages is not there, why would Wall Street act? How can they make money trading mortgages without prospective house buyers? By offering them mortgages that they cannot pay back? With YOUR deposits? I think there is -- and always has been - a law against that! Or else why would there be a CRA?

I show you sound economic basis and you respond with generalities.

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 3:42PM

I'm sure you know that CDOs and CDSs were not regulated at all. I'm also sure you know by slicing and dicing and selling off the instruments made out of mortgages, especially when insured by Freddie and Fannie, the risk has been removed from the bank, and the Wall Street firm to the point that they all see it as privatizing the profits, but socializing the risks. Everything to gain (greed) and nothing to lose (safe).

JP| 7.27.12 @ 2:46PM

You seem blissfully unaware that someone needs a return on their risk. Someone has to cover a 30 year $400,000 mortgage (spread over 30 years) for a person with a credit score of 350 and a rap sheet a mile long. Mortgage securities are a way to spread risk of bad loans. As long as everyone (or mostly everyone) is paying his/her monthly mortgage payments, the securities produced a very nice revenue stream (actuallyt they were incredable). Demand for these finance instruments surged from 2003-2006. And Greenspan's cuts in interest rates in 2002 made them even more profitable.

Again, there has to be a rational reason why a bank or individual would risk such large sums of cash. The Pay-Day Loan shops are a lender of last resort for people whose credit is so poor that cannot even open up a checking account. Mortgage Securities are no different.

And the Congress created the moral hazard with the CRA.

Ryan| 7.27.12 @ 3:19PM

And by guaranteeing many of those loans. People keep leaving that part out. Large corps were relying on some sort of government backing on those securities.

DRed| 7.27.12 @ 3:34PM

The problem is that mortgage backed securities weren't just used to spread the risk of default. They were used to hide the risk of default. In the mid-2000s investment banks were selling AAA rated securities backed by really shitty mortgages. That's why it was rational to lend some bozos with no credit and poorly documented income money to buy a house. One, people legitimately (and foolishly) believed housing prices were going to keep going up. Two, the mortgage originator knew that they could sell the mortgage to a bank, and the bank knew they could securitize it and sell it to someone else. I'm not sure what the Community Reinvestment Act has to do with any of that.

DRed| 7.27.12 @ 3:39PM

Also, I'm not sure what moral hazard the CRA created. Can you explain that to me?

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 3:49PM

Oh, please. Normally, you are correct. But when I, as the mortgage lender, can sell the mortgage, I am relieved of that risk. When I, as the buyer of the mortgage, can slice and dice it and combine it with other mortgages into securitized instruments, and pass on the risk to the investors in my securities - I also gain the profit without the downside risk. But, because mortgages are mixed and matched, who owns what part of what risk is completely lost in the complexities. When Bear Stearns and then Lehman Bros. failed, everyone ran for cover and wanted their gains realized - but no one could tell what anything was worth, so the whole system collapsed - leaving Uncle Sam to rescue the charlatans that caused it and pointing the finger to the regulators that ignored or even encouraged it - 2003-2006 - and who was in charge then? Republicans in all branches of government.
Very oversimplified, but there's the story of the collapse in a nutshell.
Follow who made the money, and you know who the culprits are. Not the poor schmo that just wanted to own his own house. Wall Street is doing fine, Main Street is not.

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 11:15PM

Tell the truth. The CRA created the Un-Affordable Homes and Creative Financing from the privates as the only way to pay for the governmental dictates under CRA. MBS were then created in order to spread the decrepit mortgages from the indigent mortgage applicants out. Eventually it all came crashing down upon the repsponsibility of the taxpayers. CRA was a governmental housing welfare scheme of the Franks, Dodds Democrats which is now bankrupting America, and the corrupt Chicago community organizers are now trying to bring about CRA II for blacks and illegals [which will further destroy this country. Tell the GD truth!!!!

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 10:10AM

You are clueless, but you parrot Fox News and John Stossel, that airhead, pretty well.

Oldefarte| 7.28.12 @ 11:08AM

And you parrot the cosmetic old bag, Nancy Pilosi!!!!!!!!!!

DRed| 7.27.12 @ 2:01PM

First of all, of course it's about loans being repaid. The bubble burst because people were defaulting on their loans. A security made up of loans that are in repayment is valuable. A security made up of loans that are defaulting at a massive rate is not. Second, the CRA has been on the books since the 1970s. Housing prices didn't start accelerating rapidly until the 2000s. Third, increasing the demand for houses in urban inner cities wouldn't cause an increase in housing prices in suburban Arizona. The was a massive, national increase in subprime lending, lead by lending institutions to which the CRA did not even apply. No bank may have been immune from the CRA, but a non-bank mortgage originator certainly would have been.

Subprime mortgage originators fund their own lending operations by borrowing money from wall street. Wall street could (and did) increase the size of the market by increasing the money they were willing to lend to subprime mortgage originators. Wall street can also increase the size of the market by coming up with creative ways to securitize subprime loans. If you can create a market for subprime mortgage securities, you will have more money to fund subprime mortgage lending.

George S| 7.27.12 @ 2:39PM

I am not disagreeing with you on the mechanics of the collapse, but the bubble burst because housing prices got too expensive -- the ONLY reason a house cannot be sold.

But I cannot understand how you cannot assign blame to the underlying cause. The CRA was a decent act, IMO. It encouraged banks to take into consideration other factors so as to increase minority participation in housing purchases. If the applicant has a job and can pay a mortgage, then maybe the bank can overlook a late car payment or the fact that he did not have a credit card because he was jailed or unemployed or whatever. Nothing wrong with that at all; however the ability to pay cannot be waived whatsoever. The bank owes a fiduciary responsibility to its depositors and the FDIC. But is also is the economic life blood of the community of its depositors.

When Clinton took office, he saw the CRA as a vehicle for reelection. He did not, IMO, scheme to use the CRA to redistribute wealth. No, the underlying basis for HUD and Reno to strong arm the banks in showing more minority loans was short term political: his reelection in 1996. That's it.

The rest is the unintended consequences of government's good intentions -- everything you say starts here and not before.

Jack London| 7.27.12 @ 3:13PM

I know it suits your bias to retrofit government blame to the crash but you're looking in the wrong place. Yes, deregulation has played a big part and that's the government's fault. But CRA loans - which were better managed in any case - were only a small part of the post-2000 build up, which was fuelled by low interest rates and the aggressive and greedy packaging of risky loans to get better returns. We're also now seeing a lot of delinquent commercial real estate loans that have nothing to do with housing.

I'm sure George that you don't pretend that capitalism only crashes through government meddling. In this case the vultures of Wall Street picked millions clean and then flew off for their bail-outs - it's not really any more complicated than that, although you can blame government for not meddling enough.

And by the way from yesterday - politics is also about class struggle and competing interest groups. That's why we have political parties.

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 11:19PM

You're a bigger liar than Purp, but no doubt your payroll checks come from the same place. CRA was pure governmental housing welfare that is now destoying this country and its taxpayers. Well managed, my ars. Tell the GD truth!!!!!!!!

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 10:13AM

You really are incomprehensible.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 5:44PM

Fart - you should try telling the truth sometime. It would set you free!

JP| 7.28.12 @ 10:22AM

You must be joking, Jack. Freddie and Fannie wrote so many loans to minorities that even Wall St couldn't keep up. And all you have to do is listen to the politicans who performed oversight of them (the list is long - Shiela Jackson, Kitt Bond, Gonzalez. Dodd, Corzine, Frank, etc..). They bragged repeatedly about how federal programs lead to such lagress. And those programs were geared towards pushing mortgage lenders to make loand based on race and poverty.

DRed| 7.28.12 @ 5:37PM

Fannie and Freddie wrote so many loans to minorities? That's weird, because they don't write loans to anyone.

DRed| 7.27.12 @ 3:19PM

It's very simple, Geroge, I don't think the CRA was an underlying (much less THE) cause of the subprime mortgage crisis, because I see no evidence that it was. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the CRA ever required banks to make loans to people with no ability to repay. I'll repeat this, because you keep ignoring it-CRA loans have proven to be profitable. CRA loans defaulted at lower than average rates during the housing crisis. Banks were not lending money to people who could not repay it because of the CRA. That's a totally unsubstantiated claim.

As for Clinton, CRA lenders’ portfolios’ share of home purchase loans to low income neighborhoods was the same in 1997 as in 1993. If Clinton and Janet Reno were strong arming banks to lend money to unqualified black people in the lead up to the 1996 election, wouldn't we have expected that number to rise?

JP| 7.28.12 @ 10:16AM

Of course you don't see any evidence, for you refuse to see the facts.

rjh| 7.27.12 @ 12:18PM

Why do people here respond to purp?

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 12:24PM

What fun is it to talk to people that violently agree with you?
Maybe you're insecure and just need approval for your crazy beliefs, but most of us are secure in our knowledge and understanding. Some express points better than others, but it's a debate.
But you apparently just want to be petted "that's a good boy" by like- minded ideologues.

Curtis Rasmussen| 7.27.12 @ 1:20PM

You want to talk crazy, Perp? How about making sock puppet imaginary blog troll allies to agree with yourself like you appear to do?

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 1:50PM

You totally missed the point - as usual.

Curtis Rasmussen| 7.27.12 @ 2:57PM

Ignore him.

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 1:44PM

Go tell your BS to Hitler Axelrod!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.28.12 @ 11:07AM

Apparently you've been unable to repell/resist the liberal brainwashing/propaganda within the MSM, public schools etc; since you express the same asinine political arguments pur forth by Axelrod, Obama, Pilosi, CBS,NBC, NYT etc. Take you liberalistic point of un-view and go blog elsewhere [the NYT has a blog mechanism within their newspaper]!!!!!!!!

Suzyqpie| 7.28.12 @ 11:49AM

Psychodrama is entertaining.

WalkingHorse | 7.27.12 @ 12:37PM

The CRA was / is indeed coercion of private lending institutions. Protests by such free market paragons as ACORN and LaRaza, employing provisions of the CRA that prevented lenders from adding new branches, resulted in the capitulation of most lenders. It is not accidental that ACORN and LaRaza were listed as lending "associates" on the public web sites of institutions such as BoA. Nobody in their right mind would tolerate such a thing unless the muzzle of a gun was placed against her head.

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 1:05PM

No force, no coercion, just greed run amok. the CRA was signed in 1977 but we crashed during Bush's term... and you want to blame a 30 yr old program?

dherion| 7.27.12 @ 1:35PM

The CRA was ignored until the 90s when Clinton used it as a weapon to compel banks to make loans to people with poor credit. And now those very same people are in worse shape due to progressive liberal policies. Just like welfarism, public education, etc.

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 1:38PM

Narrative yes, truth no.

JP| 7.28.12 @ 10:14AM

See, Clinton's HUD Sec Ciscernos. He used his position to hammer at mortgage lenders, and his corruption was so great that he was indicted.

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 1:46PM

Yes DA...it took that long for the CRA's effect to finally cause this real estate crisis of today. You can't give indigents houses and not expect the economy to eventually crash!!!!!!!!

Purp| 7.27.12 @ 1:49PM

Wrong DA - you can if Wall Street is willing to buy up all the crap and slice and dice it into "security instruments" and sell to the highest bidder. THAT is what crashed the economy, DA. Stop blaming the little guy that just wanted to own his own home.

Oldefarte| 7.27.12 @ 11:24PM

You stupid jerk, the "little guy who just wanted to own his own home" were the FINANCIAL INDIGENTS WITH NO INCOME, NO JOB ETC TO PAY FOR THOSE MORTGAGES. Bankers use to REDLINE indigent neighborhoods since they knew that granting mortgages within same would be unprofitable, since the worthless indigents wanting to buy inside same were worthess financially and could not pay for mortgages over 3o year terms like responsible homeowners always do. Lying BS artist-Democrat!!!!!!!!!!

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 10:15AM

Why were most mortgage defaults not Subprime mortgages? You're wrong as usual.
It's an interesting narrative you keep repeating incessantly, but that dog don't hunt. The facts refute your myth.
Another right-wing myth busted! Ya!

JP| 7.28.12 @ 10:24AM

The subprime losses occured after minorities walked away from their obligations on a massive scale.

Oldefarte| 7.28.12 @ 11:26AM

Yes they were subprime [since they were the ones with ballooning interest rates that the indigents could not pay and walked away from same] mortgages that were/are in default. Financially stable homeowners take pride in paying for their homes and their mortgages historically. It's the worthless indigents that never should have been allowed to own/buy houses [and instead should have been living in rental property] in the first place, but the socialist Democrats have insisted on providing taxpayer-funded subsidized mortgages to these indigents who never should have been allowed to take out mortgages since their income/assets were inadequate. You've been listening to Chris Dodd and Anthony Mazullo too much as is typical with you liberal idiots. Again, TELL THE GD TRUTH!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.28.12 @ 11:38AM

[from Wikipedia]. I shouldn't have to waste my time on this but you idiots need to be outed for the BS artists that you are:
".....The immediate cause or trigger of the crisis was the bursting of the United States housing bubble which peaked in approximately 2005–2006.[6][7] High default rates on "subprime" and adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), began to increase quickly thereafter. Lenders began originating large numbers of high risk mortgages from around 2004 to 2007, and loans from those vintage years exhibited higher default rates than loans made either before or after.[1]...."

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 5:31PM

Fart - First off - Wikipedia is hardly a sancrosanct source - anyone can update Wikipedia.
Second, even if true, follow the money - who cashed in on the subprime mortgages? That's the culprits that tried to privatize profits and socialize risk. It blew up in there face and left Uncle Sam holding the bag. Who cashed in? Wall Street, Big Banks, Hedge fund managers, private equity firms - not anyone on main street.
Nevertheless, you never say why the lenders were "stupid" and lent to questionable owners. And don't bother with the CRA bs, that's been debunked over and over. There is no force involved. It was greed pure and simple. Sure the owner isn't blameless, but we should be able to trust the institutions that tell us we can or cannot afford a house loan. Without regulation and oversight, bankers will sell you a bridge, and since they thought that risk was passed on to someone else, they didn't give a crap. Until EVERYONE wanted their money. Then the system shut down and froze. So get it straight will you?

Oldefarte| 7.29.12 @ 11:55PM

You're a complet DA! What purpose do bankers lend money for....to make a GD profit. Look up REDLINING. Bankers only made loans to indigents because they were forced to by the GD government who could facilitate their socialistic agenda by creating their Affordable Housing BS; the loans to these indigents were money losers in the long run since the probability of default made them unprofitable; the Democrats initiated this housing welfare with their CRA of 1977 and continued it with Fannie/Freddie/HUD etc; instead of renovating federal housing projects in inner-city locations, they constructed homes on purchased suburban land to facilitate integration in white neighborhoods and further this Affordable Housing crap, forcing bankers to grant mortgages to indigent minorities that any idiot would know would not be able to repay the loans; everyone knew these loans were worthless since indigents have inadequate income and job security prospects long term; the result is as predictable--the indigents defaulted and the taxpayers are being forced to pay for same. It was the Dodds, Franks, Kennedys, Schumers, Durbins, Kerrys etc that caused this subprime mortgage housing collapse that snowballed downhill and eventually effected all homeowners, destroying their housing values. If the indigents would not have been granted loans and the bankers forced to grant those loans, this economy wouldn't have crashed from imploding real estate valuations. Its all housing welfare that cause it!!!!

Curtis Rasmussen| 7.27.12 @ 2:52PM

What is wrecking the real estate, healthcare, and small businesses in the USA? Government intervention does from excessive taxation, litigation, regulation, federal (read taxpayer) loans targeted at losers (Solyndra and other failed green companies), uncertainty concerning the future business environment, and unsustainable long term entitlement debt.

It's that simple.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 5:32PM

Who's creating the uncertainty? A bunch of moronic Republicans who just want to win control, and couldn't care less about us all.

Curtis Rasmussen| 7.28.12 @ 11:25PM

Liar. Log in as one of your sock puppets and agree with yourself.

Dimond| 7.29.12 @ 10:21PM

Well, I'm not one of pulp's "sock puppets", but I can agree. The only thing the Republicans can focus on is getting "that nigger" out of the whitehouse. It's pretty obvious they could give a crap about anyone except the upper class. Out buddy Mitt is only concerned with turning this country into a cross between a theocracy and a corporatocracy. Repubs *used* to believe in limited government until the TeaBaggers took over and just want to push their delusional superstition down everyone's throats.

BTW, I am NOT a liberal, I consider myself a conservative republican. I just don't believe in fairy tales.

JP| 7.27.12 @ 2:54PM

See Clinton and his DOJ circa 1993-94. See how his appointees at Treasury and HUD and DOJ made it clear that they would be conducting witch hunts in the mortgage lending industry. Lenders took note and acted accordingly. Normal mortgage underwriting practices were thrown out. And the only way the boards of these institutions would allow such corrupt practices is if the federal government forced it upon them. Besides, most of these banks were run by Democrats, who rotated from Wall St to the Beltway (See Rubin, Summers, Corzine, Paulson, etc..)

DRed| 7.27.12 @ 9:17PM

CRA lenders’ portfolios’ share of home purchase loans to low income neighborhoods was the same in 1997 as in 1993.

So they acted accordingly by doing nothing? Nice narrative, but it's not supported by evidence.

JP| 7.28.12 @ 10:12AM

There are no such things as CRA lenders; the distinction between a bank such as Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac are useless, when all the lenders are under DOJ audit for mortgage discrimination. For they all could be sued by the federal government. When it was all said and done, nearly half of all high risk mortgages in California were underwritten by the funds made available for minority borrowers. By 2009 over half of the foreclosed properties in California, Nevada and Florida were from borrowers who fell under federal minority guidelines. A third of foreclosed properties in California alone were owned by illegal aliens.

DRed, people like you are so full of it, you don't realize how ridiculous you sound. The data, the losses, and the sorrow the entire CRA program caused is so great that not even spin doctors like you can ignore.

DRed| 7.28.12 @ 1:51PM

I love how you accuse me of ignoring facts and then turn around and say it doesn't matter that there is no evidence that CRA lenders were forced to increase the amount of lending they were doing in low income neighborhoods.

And if you don't think there's a difference between a bank and Freddie Mac, then I don't know how to help you.

FedUpWithObama| 7.28.12 @ 10:48PM

Read the notice that Wells Fargo has been forced to post in their banks. Do you really believe that a person on unemployment, federal assistance and food stamps should qualify for a home loan? This time though the federal government is not going to be able to save the banks like they did the last time. We are going to see the destruction of our economy. HOME OWNERSHIP IS NOT A RIGHT!
A lender has to be able to use common sense guidelines to qualify a person for a home loan not OK the loan based on the color of their skin!! You are not doing minorities any good by putting them into a home that they cannot afford only to see their selves out on the street later.
WHEN DOES COMMON SENSE TAKE OVER BEFORE THESE PEOPLE DESTROY OUR COUNTRY??

JP| 7.28.12 @ 10:13AM

A multi-million discrimination suit is coercion enough.

derekcrane | 7.27.12 @ 1:11PM

Everything this administration does involves affirmative action, quotas, redistribution of wealth and laws detrimental to the doers in this country.

KittyAmerica| 7.27.12 @ 1:39PM

But sadly it's not this admin; George II forged ahead with minority home ownership in 2002.

KittyAmerica| 7.27.12 @ 1:41PM

I meant "just" this admin

Dimond| 7.29.12 @ 10:38PM

You got that right, Kitty. We are and have been sadly lacking in any decent leadership in this country for a couple of decades. Putting a blatant bold-faced liar like Romney in office won't do us any good, though. Why the republicans think they have to go as far Right as possible is truly mind boggling. Doesn't anyone recognize the term "United We Stand, Divided We Fall"? Voting for morons that only know how to argue and block the government from doing anything except make government even more inept than it already is just isn't the answer. Striping people's liberties away just because you disagree with their “lifestyle” or because you think being left-handed is against some imaginary sky-fairy’s "moral standards" and then turning around and claiming that someone who wants all Americans to have health insurance is "fascist" is about as hypocritical as you can get. What ever happened to “the most good for the most people”? What ever happened to “keep out of my f’ing business”? Neither the Dems or the Repubs will do either of those things, but, hey, at least the Dems are honest about it. The current set of Repubs will all lie to our faces and make up any bat-shit crazy claims they need to in order to stab us in the back. It’s pretty depressing.

bopberrigan| 7.28.12 @ 5:26AM

I'm sure the Democrats and the financial market would agree that the best solution to this problem would be for the Federal government to simply buy the blacks their houses.

Gary B| 7.28.12 @ 7:05AM

Kinda' like we (the government) are buying health care for millions and millions of illegals. Other people's money at work.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 10:17AM

Most people using "free healthcare" we all pay for are white.
Just thought you ought to know, since you obviously don't.

JP| 7.28.12 @ 10:25AM

The President himself sold ObamaCare as "Free HealthCare".

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 5:33PM

You have that recorded? If not, it's useless commentary.

Oldefarte| 7.28.12 @ 11:03AM

Wrong/false/bullexcrement! The only true "free healthcare" is MEDICAID [Medicare is NOT FREE]; and you need to check the racial makeup enrollees of Medicaid within every state's nursing homes before you make an asinine statement like you just did, okay?????

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 5:39PM

Fart,fart, fart - do you ever deal in facts?
"In 2004, 11% of the 1.3 million nursing home residents aged 65 and over in the United States were black." It took 30 seconds to find that statement by the CDC in Atlanta.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db25.htm
So check your facts before you open your pie hole and bull excrement flows out.
All your screaming is over 1.3 million people of which 11% are black? Are you ill? That's not even 1 % of the population.
Most people on Medicaid are hard working, but low paid workers. And white. Get a clue, will ya?

Oldefarte| 7.29.12 @ 11:13PM

Purp, you're a dumbars MF :
"...The analysis in Health Affairs also found that:
•Blacks were nearly three times as likely as whites to be in nursing homes that predominantly cared for Medicaid patients.
•Blacks were twice as likely to be located in homes that had provided such poor care that they were subsequently kicked out of Medicaid and Medicare.
•Blacks were nearly 1½ times as likely as whites to be in homes that had been cited for deficiencies that could cause immediate harm......."

FedUpWithObama| 7.28.12 @ 11:18PM

Where do you pull these factoids from Purp? Do you realize that we are now spending over $80 Billion dollars for food stamps & that you do not even have to be a citizen to qualify. Foreign nationals are able to get food stamps, a free education for their children & free healthcare. Show me any other country in the World that does this. Many Americans are fed up with working ourselves to death in order to support our own families & the new generation of people that the Federal Government has created who believe it is up to us to pay for them to sit on their ass and not pay their fair share of the taxes. Go get a job, pay your taxes & benefit otherwise you may just find yourself out on the street without a dime in your pocket. Maybe then you will realize that life is not free & that you will go out and get a job.

Madhatter15 | 8.4.12 @ 3:45AM

Thats fine , they are out of work, is it just for the blacks and the mexicans? I see nothign but mexicans in my husbands Doctors office using medicaid. I don't think it makes much difference who uses it, we all pay for it.

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 5:42PM

Red Herring, useless comment.

Suzyqpie| 7.28.12 @ 11:56AM

This has been a truly educational read. The one part of the financial mess that escapes me is why with all the Wall Street malfeasance, why has there been no indictments? And why with all of the "reforms" in place, did MF Global repeat the malfeasance?

Purp| 7.28.12 @ 5:41PM

Wall Street has both parties by the you-know-what. Add to that the Republicans in Congress actively trying to sabotage anything that would restrict banking or investment houses from doing what they want, and you have the mess we're in. They won't explain it that way, but the result is that. Dems aren't blameless but at if they had a willing partner on the R side, they could do more.

FedUpWithObama| 7.28.12 @ 11:08PM

Purp, do you really believe what you are spouting off? Wall Street had nothing to do with the housing bubble crash? It was the Federal Government forcing banks to make loans to people not on their ability to repay the loan but on the color of their skin. Who is attacking Wells Fargo, it is the Federal Government that has threatened criminal action & Wells Fargo can not afford to spend years and millions of dollars to fight the damn liberals in our government who think that blacks and hispanics have a right to a home. THEY DON'T, WHITES DON'T, NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO A HOME. YOU MUST WORK, PAY YOUR BILLS TO EARN A GOOD CREDIT RATING & MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR THE HOME!! I am white & lived in rental property for years because I could not afford a house. It did not kill me, it only challenged me to do all I could to better myself. I had to save up for years in order to qualify for a home loan. It required years of working 70 to 80 hours a week along with my wife working too.

Craigpurcell| 7.28.12 @ 8:04PM

MF Global's Corzine is a crony of Holder and he slips the noose.

GORDON| 7.28.12 @ 7:33PM

Great article a real eye-opener. Does anyone have a link to the .gov site which addresses this "program"?

Craigpurcell| 7.28.12 @ 8:03PM

When will the fraudulent Banksters spend some time in the slammer for things like LIBOR?

EDBinOKC| 7.28.12 @ 8:08PM

Want to see a bank officer cry? Apply for a mortgage loan with over 20% down and mark the race document as white. This just happened to me when getting a new mortgage. When signing the loan paper work the lender sheepishly looked at me when the document about race was presented for signature. Regrettably for her that although I look half Hispanic, I really am just dark completed caucasian (White Boy), not even 1/32 Elizabeth Warren in me. I wondered when Dodd Frank would start it's saddness in the financial world. Now I know. When I marked that question as white, I made a loan officer sod, whimper and weep.

FedUpWithObama| 7.28.12 @ 10:38PM

Everyday I think that I have seen Obama & his lemmings at their worst trying to kill our country. Where has common sense gone? Do they honestly believe that if you do the same thing that you will come up with a different result? I feel like I am hopeless against this dictator like approach that they are forcing down our throats.

WaffenSS| 7.29.12 @ 9:57AM

This is very good news indeed. The system is so broken, the liberals have so polarized the public forum, starting over is the only option. The liberals know this and try to hoist gun control and the gun control debate on the national petard. It has taken thirty plus years of downward spiral to achieve the present conditions. I voted for the present idiot only so to hasten the end. Nitwit Mitt will only prolong the agony. And also behind both of these present dirt eaters is the almighty corporations that are feeding animals to each other in the name of profits.

SgtBob | 7.29.12 @ 10:02AM

Watch the banks fall into line.
sgtbobittai.blogspot.com

Dimond| 7.29.12 @ 10:07PM

Boy, it's a good thing the Republicans weren't the ones that started pushing our tax dollars down the banks' throats. I bet Bush would be so embarrassed... oh, wait, who was in office when the "bailouts" started? Who was in office when the economy started taking a nose dive? Oh, right! The economy started it's nose dive the day W took office and just went down hill from there. Well, at least people were smart enough to vote W out of office after his first term before the economy got REALLY bad. Wait, how long was W in office? What we are experiencing now must be Obama's fault because the economy was in such great shape when Bush left office. Wait...

Can you just taste the sarcasm?

Seek| 7.30.12 @ 11:56AM

This is a shakedown under the guise of "social justice." Why more free-market types don't see the racial hustle is beyond me. As for the banks, not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they need to grow a pair.

Madhatter15 | 8.4.12 @ 3:42AM

I have no doubt that we will be sharing the wealth once again with minorities if Obama has anything to say aob ut it but after the election, he won't have anything to say about it. There are not enough regular banks ot do this, Federal banks right now are also not doing much business with mortgages and Russia ahas just said they will "save us" I don't know if thats a good thing or not but Russia promises ot get rid of the banking cartel with China and Turkey, I believe them. The first batch of mortgages that were sold were sold to the Chinese, when they discovered they were not fggoing ot get paid by the foreclosed homeowners they demanded their money back, we didn't have it, they said they would come here and take over the homes themselves, they did osme of that but eventually we gave them all of th eproperty that had been foreclosed, they own more property than we do and they keep buying it up, whole cities, they just bought the rust belt here in Chicago and waterfront property. They will be the new land barons in the USA. This is our Government protecting Americans. I hope no American buys a home they know they can't afford, don't give them any ammo to take over more homes , China will own too muc h of this country then .

Jacobite| 8.4.12 @ 7:23PM

Sorry, amigo, the time for getting 'these people' out of office is long gone. They will remain, literally, everywhere except in office. Including career govt jobs, Hill staff, MSM, Hollywood, foundations, higher education, political law firms and the courts, etc.

TonyBaker| 8.5.12 @ 1:03PM

Their will be blood in the streets when the American people learn about this....

Latest Headlines

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer|6 comments

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|132 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|143 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|60 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|18 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|25 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|41 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|16 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

Good Luck Quin

Aaron Goldstein | 12:13AM

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 5.23.13

Lois Lerner Now on Administrative Leave

Kaylin Bugos | 5.23.13

Crisis Looms, and Kevin Williamson Can Hardly Wait

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.23.13

Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds

Ross Kaminsky | 5.23.13

Bill Would Ban All Abortions After 20 Weeks

Jordan Gonzalez | 5.23.13

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 5.23.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?