(OT) How Did It Happen?

This video gives some interesting information on the current financial crisis.

Watch closely, the audio doesn't matter.

I won't comment on it, you decide for yourself
U Tube Video Link Here

Where's Phil Gramm's name in all this and what is the actual percentage of these CRA loans to the overall market?
A 99% white, rich, congress passed all the laws with total overhaul of CRA in 2002. Why didn't they just stop it under Bush's rule?

Bush did try to stop it, or establish a regulatory agency to oversee it. Both sides share the blame, but this video lines up with what my research has shown.

Nice music!The rest,while somebody spent lots of time,was kind of one sided.While everybody knows the people in Washington DC are crooks,I fail to see the good guys in this story.I have yet to see things go the way the video depicted.I guess what I am saying is this,maybe it looked the way shown,but in reality was something different.I dont think any of the named politicians gives a hoot about any of us,only what it "looks like"to the followers,people,citizens,and how many votes it gets them.My opinion is this,there are plenty of ways out of this without throwing people out of their houses and taxpayers spending one single penny.Its crooks from the beginning to end,and when you put what else they did with it,its really disgusting,especially those mentioned politicians.Doesnt change my mind at all.Politicians are crooks,and the same ones are still messing up the country,plus about to make it worse instead of better.You have to include sending the jobs overseas,devalueing the dollar,and the higher energy prices,plus the war,Nafta,Cafta,Enron,and lots of other things,mostly while nnalert ran the show.I just dont see them fixing anything except all of them seem to be lots richer now.Just my 2 cents worth.

Sometimes, usually about 2 or 3 in the AM, lying in bed, looking up at the ceiling, I think how nice it would be to live in a simple, clear world, where every thing and person was either all bad or all good; I could join the good group (if I wasn't already part of it) and be free of all those nagging little grey areas...
But then, reason returns, and I think of Rummy's comment, and realize I have to live in the world I've got, not the world I might wish to have.

i think that the regulations that were stripped away in '95 need to be reinstated, and that this 700 billion dollar bail out is really a 700 billion dollar buy back.

from what the add said, while only bringing up external_link, is that if a bank did not give out these sub-prime loans, they could get sued.

basically it almost sounds like the banks were forced into giving out these subprime loans, or get sued.... dammed if you do and dammed if you dont.

we can not only blame the govt, we also have to blame ourselves.

i am sure that there were not only nnalert who thought that the housing industry needed to be overhualed, like some others said, it is kinda one sided.

jared

Both sides are actually one side in this age. It is the age of psychological warfare and in reality it is the government against the people. When africans were enslaved they went home and ate at night and didn't owe a penny,just had to do it the next day and so on. Nowadays we go to work,get home,buy our food if we can afford it and go in the hole and end up owing at the end of every day. How are we not slaves to the government which regulated everything? Flame on but it's true!

Keating Five McCain

According to the standard he is holding the SEC commissioner to (who ??) he should have resigned back then.

The way I read this from Wikipedia is:

1. The Mortgage companies decided on their own to be extra lean on CRA lending.

2. 1/2 of the banks had no obligation to lend to CRA.

3. CRA banks were less likely to sell risky mortgages onto the secondary market.

You think these banks didn't know what they were doing, they would just do like any business and reinvent themselves to not be a CRA bank if they didn't want to be. They were using that to get rich somehow too, probably funneling money to congress people. Somebody posted the other day about some community leader bragging that he got billions, well he didn't get them to stick in his pocket.




"Some economists have claimed that the CRA encouraged risky lending[12][13] and contributed to the development of the subprime debacle.[citation needed] However, this is disputed; for instance, Robert Gordon has pointed out that approximately half of the loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and thus had no government obligation to offer credit to minorities. In the later part of the crisis, these mortgage companies made subprime loans at twice the rate of CRA banks. Another third of the major subprime lenders were regulated, but had very little CRA involvement.[14][15] Gordon also makes the argument that the weakening of the CRA in 2004 was followed by intensified subprime lending.[14]

Congressman and 2008 nnalert presidential candidate Ron Paul has partially attributed the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis to legislation such as the CRA.[16] Economist Stan Liebowitz has also expressed his opinion that banks were forced to loan to un-credit worthy consumers with "no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment." However, the chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the nation's largest mortgage lender, is said to have "bragged" that to approve minority applications "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit", suggesting that Countrywide was responsible for relaxing its standards rather than the other way around.[17]

Ellen Seidman, the former director of the US Office of Thrift Supervision,[1] has stated her belief that the CRA did not have an effect on the United States housing bubble. She observes that CRA banks were particularly warned to make responsible investments, citing a speech by herself as an example.[2] She notes that if unregulated independent mortgage companies do make subprime loans, affiliated CRA banks should not be able to count them for CRA purposes, although she does not indicate whether this practice currently occurs. An analysis by attorneys Traiger and Hinckley concluded that CRA banks were less likely to sell risky mortgages onto the secondary market, and likely mitigated the effect of the subprime crisis.[18]"

1. The Mortgage companies decided on their own to be extra lean on CRA lending.

Suppose to say that the Mortgage companies decided to less-in the restrictions on CRA loans themselves.

I agree with that, everything the congress does is just a show for the public. How many votes have you seen with just one deciding vote. I think they just go around and pass out lists of how they're suppose to vote.

One thing to remember - Wiki is written by anyone with a computer and time. Trusting their information without checking the documentation is like reading the national enquirer and thinking you are einformed.

1.99 cents overvalued, Maybe by Obammy's boys at fanny mae And freddy mac!

What you say makes more sense than anything anyone else is saying. Why don't you run for office and help change things?