Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I don't see how people being too poor to get a loan as a problem. If someone can't afford a brand new car no one bends over backwards for them.

I don't feel like typing a report so go do some research, it's not about just giving houses to poor people.

Dvergar /
Quisling

So they're racists then?

No, it's about making banks loan money to people who, based on their income and evidence collected by reporting agencies, are unlikely to pay it back. Artificially flooding the housing market only served to hurt low-income citizens by driving up housing prices, which created a vicious cycle of more bad lending because more money was needed for a purchase. When the bubble burst, it didn't just hurt the people we were trying to help, it hurt everybody. It killed property values, left rents high for those not owning their own residence, and damaged an economy that had become reliant on an artificial and unsustainable market.

Of course, I'm probably just saying that because I hate liberals and brown people or something.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

You're talking about what you think happened, but again that's not the issue. I was talking about problems such a program was intended to solve. I agree that this is a bad idea.

Dvergar /
Quisling

Sub-prime lending was a direct result of government meddling, and led to the housing bubble mess and a recession. If you don't care to admit that, that's fine, but putting your fingers in your ears and yelling LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA and pretending I'm imagining the bear doesn't make the bear any less real or likely to bite off your face, especially now that it looks like Obama's Justice Department has the keys to the bear cage in its hands.



Well, if what I "think" happened, didn't actually happen, then what makes this a bad idea?

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

If what you say is true then there would not need to be any laws against loan sharking or mandating a certain level of bank reserves or restrictions on speculative investment or on derivatives.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

The only government 'meddling' that contributed to this mess was the deregulation of the banking industry. But hey, your buddies in congress are doing everything they can to make sure that, even after a massive recession and all these problem, no new regulations are enacted.

Dvergar /
Quisling

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/palin-snl-pelos.html

Found that amusing. Equally amusing is that out of all the SNL videos you can find on Youtube, that one seems to be singled-out for removal.

I'm not going to say that the Republicans don't screw up deregulation, or that regulation is all bad. There have to be rules to protect all parties. However, when you have people in congress (like Frank) threatening the banking industry with legislation that would be harmful to them if they don't play nice and get on board, shit like this happens, because they get on board.

Edit: Found a copy of the SNL bit:
http://www.msunderestimated.com/SNLBailoutSkit.wmv

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

SNL Skits and Op-Eds, I think I see where your problems lie Jubber.

Dvergar /
Quisling

The biggest mob is the government, and its been that way for ages

I'll just repost what I said in the other thread:

There's no evidence that the CRA had anything to do with the financial crisis that made the bailouts necessary. The vast majority of the subprime loans that caused the crisis were either made to higher income people or by mortgage companies not regulated by the CRA - only about 6% of subprime loans were made by CRA-regulated banks to people in low-income neighbourhoods covered by the CRA, and there's no evidence that loans made under the CRA had higher default rates. As well, the crash affected commercial real estate even more heavily than residential, even though the CRA had nothing to do with commercial real estate.

There may be valid reasons to oppose the CRA, but the risk of causing another financial crisis is not one of them.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

I have a hard time believing there's no evidence of that. I mean its ALL money transactions/interest rates. There IS evidence, just no one has bothered to collect it. If anything, there should either be evidence FOR or evidence AGAINST it. There HAS to be evidence, its all recorded.

Look, either read up on the issues and educate yourself, or take what other people say for gospel truth. Not having any idea what you're talking about and at the same time calling other people out doesn't make a lot of sense.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_ ... ial_crisis That runs counter to what you believe, so instead of just waving it off, follow some of the 20 or so citations and read those as well.

Dvergar /
Quisling

I don't think I need to hear any shit about that on a board where a majority of the people thought Sarah Palin actually spoke the line about being able to see Alaska from her house when it really originated with Tina Fey on SNL.



All I got from the Wiki article is what I'm getting here, which is fiscal conservatives and libertarians believe the CRA was an impetus for this, while others don't. A lot of those arguing that CRA wasn't a contributing factor were/are political appointees, and when you break down what those who made remarks of more substance than "I disagree" had to say, it looks like roughly 50%-60% of the failed residential mortgages were covered by CRA either in whole or in part and there isn't compelling information that would lead to any conclusions regarding CRA's culpability.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste