Channman 2 #26 February 24, 2009 QuoteI guess asking again for any evidence or links to back up your position would be a waste of bandwidth? I thought so. Well I tried to post some evidence in post 23. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #27 February 24, 2009 >I guess asking again for any evidence . . . Evidence is for ivory tower elitist intellectuals! Ask your gut. That's where you can find the real truthy answers. It was all those Fannie and Freddie loans that caused this, no matter what the evidence says. It just FEELS right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #28 February 24, 2009 I'll assume you meant post 21, since post 23 wasn't by you. You posted a brief summary of a (settled) class action lawsuit which claimed: QuotePlaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. (emphasis added) Sorry, but that's not evidence that companies were forced to lower their lending standards. The lawsuit alleged racial preference in lending ("redlining") not that lending standards were too high. Also, even if I grant you that that lawsuit was an attempt to lower lending standards for certain people (and I'm only granting that for the sake of the present argument), your evidence says nothing about the long term impact of those lowered standards on the housing market, or the economy in general. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #29 February 24, 2009 QuoteYou've posted this same thing about a dozen times. I've yet to see any supporting evidence. Care to share? Start with these two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo Pay particular attention starting at 1:27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=relatedChuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 0 #30 February 25, 2009 Quote Quote Sometimes it takes somebody with the courage to say the boat is sinking and that -maybe- we might want to do something about it. Saying the boat isn't sinking when it clearly is, is just stupid. Courage like when the Bush administration urged congress to stop the insane home lending practices forced upon lenders through legislation created by the dems before it buried the economy? That boat was sinking, but the dems insisted everyone deserved "affordable housing". It was brought up well before that! (see attached) Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #31 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou've posted this same thing about a dozen times. I've yet to see any supporting evidence. Care to share? Start with these two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo Pay particular attention starting at 1:27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related Fascinating, but not proof in any sense at all of what you have been claiming as the CAUSE of the current situation. Try again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 0 #32 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou've posted this same thing about a dozen times. I've yet to see any supporting evidence. Care to share? Start with these two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo Pay particular attention starting at 1:27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related Fascinating, but not proof in any sense at all of what you have been claiming as the CAUSE of the current situation. Try again. Did you read the article from 1999 that I posted above? That about sums it up.Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 0 #33 February 25, 2009 QuoteI guess asking again for any evidence or links to back up your position would be a waste of bandwidth? I thought so. Not sure what you consider evidence but this article gets right at the issue...Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 0 #34 February 25, 2009 QuoteI'll assume you meant post 21, since post 23 wasn't by you. You posted a brief summary of a (settled) class action lawsuit which claimed: QuotePlaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. (emphasis added) Sorry, but that's not evidence that companies were forced to lower their lending standards. The lawsuit alleged racial preference in lending ("redlining") not that lending standards were too high. Also, even if I grant you that that lawsuit was an attempt to lower lending standards for certain people (and I'm only granting that for the sake of the present argument), your evidence says nothing about the long term impact of those lowered standards on the housing market, or the economy in general. http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/02/feds_reimpose_loan_standards_t.htmlGently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 0 #35 February 25, 2009 QuoteI'll assume you meant post 21, since post 23 wasn't by you. You posted a brief summary of a (settled) class action lawsuit which claimed: QuotePlaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. (emphasis added) Sorry, but that's not evidence that companies were forced to lower their lending standards. The lawsuit alleged racial preference in lending ("redlining") not that lending standards were too high. Also, even if I grant you that that lawsuit was an attempt to lower lending standards for certain people (and I'm only granting that for the sake of the present argument), your evidence says nothing about the long term impact of those lowered standards on the housing market, or the economy in general. the evidence is on every news station today! hello?Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #36 February 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote >Courage like when the Bush administration urged congress to stop >the insane home lending practices forced upon lenders through >legislation created by the dems before it buried the economy? Actually, that's been debunked about a dozen times here. CRA loans have a lower rate of default instead of a higher rate. In other words, if Congress had covered more people by the CRA program the economy would now be in better shape. Try again! The CRA was Carters deal. I'm referring to laws made in the 80/90's brought to us by Chris Dodd (who got a special "friends only" deal on his own mortgage from who else...Countrywide), Barney Frank, and their underlings in congress. These laws dictated dramatically reduced home lending standards, including such lunacy as no proof of income required, no down payment (can you say default risk?), and financing for more than 100% of the homes' value. It was an orchestrated housing bubble. In the name of "affordable housing", standards were lowered to moronic levels, lenders were "encouraged" to make the loans, and were strong-armed by ACORN and others if they tried to pass on loans they could clearly see were destined for failure. Then the government backed Fannie and Freddie with mine and some other Americans tax money to encourage lenders to continue the practice. Now Frank and Dodd blame predatory lenders for issuing the loans. Aren't they a laugh a minute? You have a remarkable talent for sticking to your theories in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are incorrect. Not one lender was FORCED to lower lending standards. They did that all by themselves, in the hope of making a big profit. Not one investor was FORCED to buy over leveraged crap. They chose to do that all by themselves in the hope of making a big profit. The lender (think investor) was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose lending standards were lowered by Franklin Raines and his ilk in cooperation with Dodd and Frank in the name of "affordable housing".. Fannie and Freddie don't make decisions abpout whether or not a given individual is credit worthy. That is entirely up to the bank. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #37 February 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Sometimes it takes somebody with the courage to say the boat is sinking and that -maybe- we might want to do something about it. Saying the boat isn't sinking when it clearly is, is just stupid. Courage like when the Bush administration urged congress to stop the insane home lending practices forced upon lenders through legislation created by the dems before it buried the economy? That boat was sinking, but the dems insisted everyone deserved "affordable housing". It was brought up well before that! (see attached) That says absolutely NOTHING about the decisions made by banks and mortgage brokers, who are the people that select or reject borrowers. You guys must be desperate, because you've been trying the same tactic for months now, and get debunked every time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #38 February 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote >Courage like when the Bush administration urged congress to stop >the insane home lending practices forced upon lenders through >legislation created by the dems before it buried the economy? Actually, that's been debunked about a dozen times here. CRA loans have a lower rate of default instead of a higher rate. In other words, if Congress had covered more people by the CRA program the economy would now be in better shape. Try again! The CRA was Carters deal. I'm referring to laws made in the 80/90's brought to us by Chris Dodd (who got a special "friends only" deal on his own mortgage from who else...Countrywide), Barney Frank, and their underlings in congress. These laws dictated dramatically reduced home lending standards, including such lunacy as no proof of income required, no down payment (can you say default risk?), and financing for more than 100% of the homes' value. It was an orchestrated housing bubble. In the name of "affordable housing", standards were lowered to moronic levels, lenders were "encouraged" to make the loans, and were strong-armed by ACORN and others if they tried to pass on loans they could clearly see were destined for failure. Then the government backed Fannie and Freddie with mine and some other Americans tax money to encourage lenders to continue the practice. Now Frank and Dodd blame predatory lenders for issuing the loans. Aren't they a laugh a minute? You have a remarkable talent for sticking to your theories in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are incorrect. Not one lender was FORCED to lower lending standards. They did that all by themselves, in the hope of making a big profit. Not one investor was FORCED to buy over leveraged crap. They chose to do that all by themselves in the hope of making a big profit. The lender (think investor) was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose lending standards were lowered by Franklin Raines and his ilk in cooperation with Dodd and Frank in the name of "affordable housing".. Fannie and Freddie don't make decisions abpout whether or not a given individual is credit worthy. That is entirely up to the bank. Fannie and Freddie dictate the minimum lending standards for any loan they will buy (and they currently own 90% of all mortgages in the U.S). What you say is true ONLY when the bank is the lender (instead of a mortgage company) and the loan is conventional only. All VA, FHA, and other government program loans use Freddie and Fannie standards whether made by a mortgage broker or bank.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #39 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou've posted this same thing about a dozen times. I've yet to see any supporting evidence. Care to share? Start with these two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo Pay particular attention starting at 1:27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related Fascinating, but not proof in any sense at all of what you have been claiming as the CAUSE of the current situation. Try again. Did you read the article from 1999 that I posted above? That about sums it up. No it does not. The ONLY congressional action influencing how banks loan money for housing to individual borrowers was CRA, and that has been shown definitively not be a cause of the financial shitstorm. Clicky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #40 February 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote >Courage like when the Bush administration urged congress to stop >the insane home lending practices forced upon lenders through >legislation created by the dems before it buried the economy? Actually, that's been debunked about a dozen times here. CRA loans have a lower rate of default instead of a higher rate. In other words, if Congress had covered more people by the CRA program the economy would now be in better shape. Try again! The CRA was Carters deal. I'm referring to laws made in the 80/90's brought to us by Chris Dodd (who got a special "friends only" deal on his own mortgage from who else...Countrywide), Barney Frank, and their underlings in congress. These laws dictated dramatically reduced home lending standards, including such lunacy as no proof of income required, no down payment (can you say default risk?), and financing for more than 100% of the homes' value. It was an orchestrated housing bubble. In the name of "affordable housing", standards were lowered to moronic levels, lenders were "encouraged" to make the loans, and were strong-armed by ACORN and others if they tried to pass on loans they could clearly see were destined for failure. Then the government backed Fannie and Freddie with mine and some other Americans tax money to encourage lenders to continue the practice. Now Frank and Dodd blame predatory lenders for issuing the loans. Aren't they a laugh a minute? You have a remarkable talent for sticking to your theories in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are incorrect. Not one lender was FORCED to lower lending standards. They did that all by themselves, in the hope of making a big profit. Not one investor was FORCED to buy over leveraged crap. They chose to do that all by themselves in the hope of making a big profit. The lender (think investor) was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose lending standards were lowered by Franklin Raines and his ilk in cooperation with Dodd and Frank in the name of "affordable housing".. Fannie and Freddie don't make decisions abpout whether or not a given individual is credit worthy. That is entirely up to the bank. Fannie and Freddie dictate the minimum lending standards for any loan they will buy (and they currently own 90% of all mortgages in the U.S). What you say is true ONLY when the bank is the lender (instead of a mortgage company) and the loan is conventional only. All VA, FHA, and other government program loans use Freddie and Fannie standards whether made by a mortgage broker or bank. Show us the data that VA, FHA etc. loans were the cause of the problems. I do not see anything in Fannie/Freddie standards that forces banks to make NINJA loans. Nor do I see anything that forces investment banks to buy securitized mortgages. Nor do I see anything that forces Moodys to rate them AAA. Nor do I see anything forcing anyone to engage in Credit Default Swaps. Try again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #41 February 25, 2009 Quote> Not one lender was FORCED to lower lending standards. The following lawsuit was brought to you by ACORN Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-banks loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995). THEN THEY SETTLED! That was about racial redlining, not about lowering standards. Try again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #42 February 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteI'll assume you meant post 21, since post 23 wasn't by you. You posted a brief summary of a (settled) class action lawsuit which claimed: QuotePlaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. (emphasis added) Sorry, but that's not evidence that companies were forced to lower their lending standards. The lawsuit alleged racial preference in lending ("redlining") not that lending standards were too high. Also, even if I grant you that that lawsuit was an attempt to lower lending standards for certain people (and I'm only granting that for the sake of the present argument), your evidence says nothing about the long term impact of those lowered standards on the housing market, or the economy in general. http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/02/feds_reimpose_loan_standards_t.html An opinion piece from a right winger does not constitute proof either.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #43 February 26, 2009 QuoteQuote> Not one lender was FORCED to lower lending standards. The following lawsuit was brought to you by ACORN Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-banks loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995). THEN THEY SETTLED! That was about racial redlining, not about lowering standards. ***Try again. Sorry dude, I didn't realize you worked for ACORN The Key word for you is alleged, typical wording for a group of people looking to extort money from a bank. It would be nice to hear Citi Bank's response to get both sides. But, maybe its just class envy on your part, you might not be able to see that a group of people might be trying to play the system for their own benefit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #44 February 26, 2009 Quote Quote Quote > Not one lender was FORCED to lower lending standards. The following lawsuit was brought to you by ACORN Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-banks loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995). THEN THEY SETTLED! That was about racial redlining, not about lowering standards. ***Try again. Sorry dude, I didn't realize you worked for ACORN The Key word for you is alleged, typical wording for a group of people looking to extort money from a bank. It would be nice to hear Citi Bank's response to get both sides. But, maybe its just class envy on your part, you might not be able to see that a group of people might be trying to play the system for their own benefit. A megabank settles with a community action group in a redlining suit after being forced by a judge to reveal its lending practices. THAT was Citi's response. You have not provided one iota of proof that ACORN forced any lender to change its lending standards. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
