3rdnlng Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I just had Fox News on in the background and heard Jesse jackson claim that one of the biggest problems with blacks is that they were targeted by banks to take out loans for homes they couldn't afford. So, per Jesse it's the CRA's fault. Good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 He stopped mattering in 1984. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 The loan targeting was socio-economic, so that would include alot of minorities, as well as lower class whites. Technically he is correct, but then again, he is telling a selective part of the story... Blacks had equal chance to NOT sign contracts they did not understand as anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Jesse should know all about ripping off black people. And speaking of ripping, is he still busy "ripping Obama's nuts off"? I thought he'd gone back into his hole after that bit was caught on tape. Maybe he's popping out to see if there's a shadow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I just had Fox News on in the background and heard Jesse jackson claim that one of the biggest problems with blacks is that they were targeted by banks to take out loans for homes they couldn't afford. So, per Jesse it's the CRA's fault. Good stuff. Jesse Jackson is a self-aggrandizing stooge. Really, he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Jesse Jackson is a self-aggrandizing stooge. Really, he is. No, he's just a blowhard. You're confusing him with Al Sharpton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 No, he's just a blowhard. You're confusing him with Al Sharpton. Are you saying he thinks they look alike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Are you saying he thinks they look alike? No. That would be confusing Al Sharpton and Don King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 No. That would be confusing Al Sharpton and Don King. Not so much anymore. The Rev is starting to look like one of the barbers in Coming to America Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Subprime loan push = Obama's big government "Fairness" model in action Yet last night, Obama again lied when he stated the "failed" policies of the Bush administration were the reason for the economic collapse. It's sad that not even Fox News seems to call him out on this anymore. Bush played his part by not pressing the issue, but the boulder began rolling down the hill with years of the democrats pushing subprime loans. Whoever the GOP nominee eventually is will need to set the record straight once and for all in the general election. It's so annoying that he's gotten away with this line of attack when it was his crowd of Dodd, Frank and Raines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 Subprime loan push = Obama's big government "Fairness" model in action Yet last night, Obama again lied when he stated the "failed" policies of the Bush administration were the reason for the economic collapse. It's sad that not even Fox News seems to call him out on this anymore. Bush played his part by not pressing the issue, but the boulder began rolling down the hill with years of the democrats pushing subprime loans. Whoever the GOP nominee eventually is will need to set the record straight once and for all in the general election. It's so annoying that he's gotten away with this line of attack when it was his crowd of Dodd, Frank and Raines. How can these libtards try to get away with their blatant lies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM How can these libtards try to get away with their blatant lies? It was Bush's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Subprime loan push = Obama's big government "Fairness" model in action Yet last night, Obama again lied when he stated the "failed" policies of the Bush administration were the reason for the economic collapse. It's sad that not even Fox News seems to call him out on this anymore. Bush played his part by not pressing the issue, but the boulder began rolling down the hill with years of the democrats pushing subprime loans. Whoever the GOP nominee eventually is will need to set the record straight once and for all in the general election. It's so annoying that he's gotten away with this line of attack when it was his crowd of Dodd, Frank and Raines. So let me get this straight, the economic collapse was only tangentially related to Bush....because he didn't "press the issue"? In reality, the economic recession is a result of "democrats pushing subprime loans"? Let me guess, the genesis of the 2008 recession was the 1977 CRA right? Just looking for clarification with respect to your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 So let me get this straight, the economic collapse was only tangentially related to Bush....because he didn't "press the issue"? In reality, the economic recession is a result of "democrats pushing subprime loans"? Let me guess, the genesis of the 2008 recession was the 1977 CRA right? Just looking for clarification with respect to your position. Pretty much. Although the cause of the economic recession is traced back to the pushing of subprime loans by democrats, wallstreet's bundling practices also had played a big part. I know that dems like to publicly link the GOP with wallstreet, but that's a big lie. Obama had a bunch of wallstreet connections. John "I don't know what happened to a billion dollars" Corzine was one of Obama's biggest fiscal advisors. Lie after lie after lie. Both the dems and the GOP are linked to wallstreet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) So let me get this straight, the economic collapse was only tangentially related to Bush....because he didn't "press the issue"? In reality, the economic recession is a result of "democrats pushing subprime loans"? Let me guess, the genesis of the 2008 recession was the 1977 CRA right? Just looking for clarification with respect to your position. Here is a little history of the CRA. To say it was enacted in 1977 and there were no other amendments or laws affecting it is disingenuous. The housing collapse was the catalyst for the recession. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act Edited January 26, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Pretty much. Although the cause of the economic recession is traced back to the pushing of subprime loans by democrats, wallstreet's bundling practices also had played a big part. I know that dems like to publicly link the GOP with wallstreet, but that's a big lie. Obama had a bunch of wallstreet connections. John "I don't know what happened to a billion dollars" Corzine was one of Obama's biggest fiscal advisors. Lie after lie after lie. Both the dems and the GOP are linked to wallstreet. I just don't agree. In fact, I think that your argument is fundamentally wrong but not in the way that you might think. My disagreement with you is with respect to the impetus for bank lending practices. CRA just didn't have the teeth to facilitate those practices and the consequent meltdown. Seriously. The genesis did begin with the Dems. The legislation that Clinton signed into law back in 99 that repealed portions of Glass-Steagall is where things got nasty. Bush was too vapid and disillusioned, and Congress, too "juiced in," to see how badly things were getting out of control. Bush was a pathetic leader. Lenders were paying good lobbying money to keep regulations calm and auditors at bay - and not because of concern about innactivity and CRA compliance. Just the opposite actually. Dodd (D),the insufferable hypocrite, was monitoring all this, accepting lobbying money, and all while chairing the Senate Banking Committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 I just don't agree. In fact, I think that your argument is fundamentally wrong but not in the way that you might think. My disagreement with you is with respect to the impetus for bank lending practices. CRA just didn't have the teeth to facilitate those practices and the consequent meltdown. Seriously. The genesis did begin with the Dems. The legislation that Clinton signed into law back in 99 that repealed portions of Glass-Steagall is where things got nasty. Bush was too vapid and disillusioned, and Congress, too "juiced in," to see how badly things were getting out of control. Bush was a pathetic leader. Lenders were paying good lobbying money to keep regulations calm and auditors at bay - and not because of concern about innactivity and CRA compliance. Just the opposite actually. Dodd (D),the insufferable hypocrite, was monitoring all this, accepting lobbying money, and all while chairing the Senate Banking Committee. View the video in Post # 11 of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) Here is a little history of the CRA. To say it was enacted in 1977 and there were no other amendments or laws affecting it is disingenuous. The housing collapse was the catalyst for the recession. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act You assumed my point though. It wouldn't matter if it was the 2008 CRA enacted one week before the first sub-prime loan was issued. My point is that the CRA just doesn't have the teeth to facilitate the behavior. The meltdown was the result of affirmative behavior, not responsive behavior. All that other crap is subterfuge. People like throwing "CRA" around as if it represents some convenient explanation for bad lending practices. That would be true, if every loan denied to a member of protected classification were scrutinized, or if they could be subjected to disparate impact claims 82-352 style, or if CRA mandated lending criteria for traditionally under-represented communities, ****...even if there were finable offenses. You know what CRA gets ya, some bureaucratic scrutiny around merger time, and a few frivolous ACORN class-action suits that will be met with a directed verdict and a Rule 11 ass-whoopin. If only people knew the law... Edited January 26, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 And GG, this is not an erudite conversation either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 You assumed my point though. It wouldn't matter if it was the 2008 CRA enacted one week before the first sub-prime loan was issued. My point is that the CRA just doesn't have the teeth to facilitate the behavior. The meltdown was the result of affirmative behavior, not responsive behavior. All that other crap is subterfuge. People like throwing "CRA" around as if it represents some convenient explanation for bad lending practices. That would be true, if every loan denied to a member of protected classification were scrutinized, or if they could be subjected to disparate impact claims 82-352 style, or if CRA mandated lending criteria for traditionally under-represented communities, ****...even if there were finable offenses. You know what CRA gets ya, some bureaucratic scrutiny around merger time, and a few frivolous ACORN class-action suits that will be met with a directed verdict and a Rule 11 ass-whoopin. If only people knew the law... Would you agree that the housing collapse was the catalyst for the recession? Would you agree that lenders were lending to people who never should have gotten a loan? I'm not just talking low income but speculators. Did you view the video from post 11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts