Is Bank of america giving special loans to minorities? (No)

#26
#26
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1997 and the repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999 caused it. Yes, greed was the underlying root cause but without both of those actions being signed by Bill Clinton the crash of 2009 doesn't happen.

And here I would’ve thought as a Republican that you would applaud the deregulation of markets. You surprise me all the time hog.

But on your points I agree that reforming the CRA and repealing Glass Steagall, along with the lack of regulation for credit default swaps, played a role.


Edit: just for clarification, this response is meant to be lighthearted. It’s game day.
 
#27
#27
Irresponsible banking practices caused the crisis, not a Democrat or Republican. Investment banks and hedge funds were wildly unregulated so unless you mean that Clinton didn’t regulate them enough? Otherwise, your blame is in the wrong place.

Greed caused it. Banks were using sub-prime lending to qualify more people than could get qualified under regular terms which led to predatory lending. Was not caused by a POTUS or government policy (unless again you’re speaking to the lack of policy).
Don't have time to go back and research the details, but I believe relaxation of underwriting standards by FannieMae and FreddieMac starting in the mid-90s got the ball rolling and it took off around 2003-2004, which is when I was seeing it in Atlanta.
 
#28
#28
And here I would’ve thought as a Republican that you would applaud the deregulation of markets. You surprise me all the time hog.

But on your points I agree that reforming the CRA and repealing Glass Steagall, along with the lack of regulation for credit default swaps, played a role.


Edit: just for clarification, this response is meant to be lighthearted. It’s game day.
Wasn't the government involved through FannieMae and FreddieMac backing the loans?
 
#29
#29
Irresponsible banking practices caused the crisis, not a Democrat or Republican. Investment banks and hedge funds were wildly unregulated so unless you mean that Clinton didn’t regulate them enough? Otherwise, your blame is in the wrong place.

Greed caused it. Banks were using sub-prime lending to qualify more people than could get qualified under regular terms which led to predatory lending. Was not caused by a POTUS or government policy (unless again you’re speaking to the lack of policy).
They knew they would get bailed out. Make them suffer when a chunk of their mortgages default and watch the predatory lending go away on it's own.

Bad loans only make sense to them if they know they have someone backing backing them up. Whether that's a bail out in housing, or guarenteed loans in college.
 
#31
#31
Wasn't the government involved through FannieMae and FreddieMac backing the loans?

The Clinton HUD department decided to prioritize an increase in minority home ownership. With the help of Jamie Gorelick and Franklin Raines they cooked the **** out of the books and approved thousands of loans for people today who would generously be described as a credit risk. Large investment firms including BOA packaged these loans to unsuspecting investors and 8-10 years later the inevitable happened. Millions lost their houses and thousands lost their investments. The taxpayers bailed out the billionaires and the two crooks kept their Ill gotten bonuses. In order to make the situation right,BOA hired a call center full of drug addicts in East Tennessee to handle the deluge of short sales as a 3rd party contractor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#33
#33
And here I would’ve thought as a Republican that you would applaud the deregulation of markets. You surprise me all the time hog.

But on your points I agree that reforming the CRA and repealing Glass Steagall, along with the lack of regulation for credit default swaps, played a role.


Edit: just for clarification, this response is meant to be lighthearted. It’s game day.

Glass Steagall was good legislation and if you are going to have the backing of the US taxpayer, regulation is needed as we have seen. Do away with FDIC and other protections banks have then fine, let them run like the wild west.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#34
#34
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1997 and the repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999 caused it. Yes, greed was the underlying root cause but without both of those actions being signed by Bill Clinton the crash of 2009 doesn't happen.
Someone didn’t sleep during how this all went down class from the 90’s.
 
#36
#36
Glass Steagall was good legislation and if you are going to have the backing of the US taxpayer, regulation is needed as we have seen. Do away with FDIC and other protections banks have then fine, let them run like the wild west.
Banks are actually not required to be FDIC insured, nor under their regulations. However, they are then completely open to a bank run, as are their depositors.
 
#37
#37
Irresponsible banking practices caused the crisis, not a Democrat or Republican. Investment banks and hedge funds were wildly unregulated so unless you mean that Clinton didn’t regulate them enough? Otherwise, your blame is in the wrong place.

Greed caused it. Banks were using sub-prime lending to qualify more people than could get qualified under regular terms which led to predatory lending. Was not caused by a POTUS or government policy (unless again you’re speaking to the lack of policy).
Of course the banks were lending to anyone - the Federal Government was backing them.
 
#38
#38
It’s like some of y’all forgot what happened with Fannie & Freddie
 
#40
#40
“Homeownership strengthens our communities and can help individuals and families to build wealth over time,”

This ^^^ is exactly the kind of misguided thinking that got us All in trouble last time.
 
#43
#43
Banks are actually not required to be FDIC insured, nor under their regulations. However, they are then completely open to a bank run, as are their depositors.

True. GS separated the investment banks (firms) from consumer banks and with it's repeal (replacement) we are all on the hook when they screw the pooch.
 
#44
#44
True. GS separated the investment banks (firms) from consumer banks and with it's repeal (replacement) we are all on the hook when they screw the pooch.
Yep. Too big to fail is what they call it, right?

I'm still pissed about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#46
#46
Wasn't the govt threatening the banks at one time with fines if they didn't change their loan standards?
The Federal government didn’t have to tell the banks anything.

The Feds had told Fannie & Freddie that they were buying the loans. And the banks went wild.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#47
#47
The Federal government didn’t have to tell the banks anything.

The Feds had told Fannie & Freddie that they were buying the loans. And the banks went wild.
I'm thinking in the Clinton admin time.

Behind all the complex financial processes that reached to Wall Street and beyond, there is one fundamental fact: many people stopped making their mortgage payments.
Why did that happen? Because mortgage loans were made to people who did not meet the long-established qualification standards for getting a mortgage loan. And why did that happen? Because the Clinton administration threatened lawsuits against lenders who did not approve mortgage loans to minority applicants as often as to white applicants.

Attorney General Janet Reno said that lenders who “closely examine their lending practices and make necessary changes to eliminate discrimination” would “fare better in this department’s stepped-up enforcement effort than those who do not.” She said: “Do not wait for the Justice Department to come knocking.”

Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development had similar racial-quota policies and began taking legal actions against banks that turned down more minority applicants than HUD thought they should.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, for example, issued guidelines for “non-discriminatory” lending which warned lenders against “unreasonable measures of creditworthiness.” Lenders should have standards “appropriate to the economic culture of urban lower-income and nontraditional consumers” and consider “extenuating circumstances.”
In other words, when some people don’t come up to the lending standards, then the lending standards should be brought down to them.

Clinton's policies got us in trouble
 
#48
#48
Fighting racism with more racism. What could go wrong? Guess I need to get the spray cans out of storage.
 

VN Store



Back
Top