Bush's Place in History.

[GearJammer]

post removed by poster

[GearJammer]

post removed by poster

[GearJammer]

post removed by poster

[mkemse]

I also wonder if Obama is getting the "Grief" he is nott because the is doing what he i doing,but if anyone is playing the "Race Card" because he is our First Afican American Prsident" and I do not remember any other President in history who has recieived so much flack, and critism after beinging office for just 4-5 weeks, nobody did this to Either Bush's Or Clinton, Or Carter ect ect after they were only in office for 4-5 weeks, maybe after thier 1 years but cetaibly not with their first 100 days, if anythin there wer critisized for not have done anything

we need to concetrate more on getting thins done and worry less about who's fault it is
up til 2006 The Republicans Controlled Congres and the White House and even when the Democrats took control in 2006 they still had a Conversative President who had veto rights over their actions

as someone in washington said the other day "The Repulicans drove us into this ditch, and now theyare complaiing about the size of the tow truck to pull us out" this is NOT MY PERSONAL OPINON but simpy lwhat I heard on the Radio
No Bush is not responsble for the Sub Prime Crisis, the Banks are, if a person wants to buy a house and only earns $2,000 a month, you don't sell them a house who's mortage will be $1.500, they need money for goods and other nescessaties, so to me most of the blame for this goes to the Banks not the goverment, and outside of FDIC insurance the Goverment does not own most banks unless the bank failed and was taken over. Banks are unregulated and they use terrible judgment is making loans even credit card
I have a 14 month old Guiness PIg, yes guinea pig, he recieved a Gold Visa Card from Citibank the other day,not a pre apprved appication but the acutal card itself his name ect was on it I called the bank told them the card was issued to a 14 mont old guinea pig,, their reply was "Oh, guess we made a mistake"
This is the reason our Banks are in trouble, for sending a college kid a via or Master card WHILE they are still in school with a $5,000 on it, and the kid did not even apply for it, it was just sent to him, he does not have the abilit to pay one off, yes he can and did throw it out,the point is this shows how incredably reckless banks are on extending credit to people who can't afford it, not to mention to a Guinea Pig of all things, this is why are banks are in the mess today that they are in, reckless extention of credit to those who they know can't afford to pay back, the need to run credit chaecks on people before they send cards out, if they had done that with my Guinea Pig he never would have gotten a Gold Vsa with a $10,000 line of Credit

[DuncanONeil]

"Bush is not responsble for the Sub Prime Crisis, the Banks are,"

Sorry I can not agree that the fault lies with the banks. I must lay the blame on the Democrat Congress that required banks to set aside sound loan practices and lend money to people that were a poor risk for paying the loan off.
Then there are the people that took advantage of attractive rates to refinance their home to put money in their pocket. Being "underwater" in a home is not the same as other things. Underwater in a car you are on the wrong side of a liability. A home is an asset.

[Belgarold]

"Bush is not responsble for the Sub Prime Crisis, the Banks are,"

Sorry I can not agree that the fault lies with the banks. I must lay the blame on the Democrat Congress that required banks to set aside sound loan practices and lend money to people that were a poor risk for paying the loan off.
Then there are the people that took advantage of attractive rates to refinance their home to put money in their pocket. Being "underwater" in a home is not the same as other things. Underwater in a car you are on the wrong side of a liability. A home is an asset.

um, The Congress was decidedly Republican when the regulations were stripped from the banking industry. And No laws REQUIRED lenders to lend to poor risk lenders.

The poor risk lending was made by unscrupulous lenders wishing to make a fast book over making loans to ignorant lendees.

Your information here is COMPLETELY false.

[denuseri]

One of my friends sent me this little excert with a picture of the people involved. If I could figure out how to post pics in the forums here I would have attached it. lol


"A doctor had his tv on in his office when the news of the military base shootings came on. The husband of one of his employees was stationed there.

He called her into his office and as he told her what had happened, she got a text message from her husband saying, "I am okay." Her cell phone rang right after she read the message. It was an ER nurse,"I'm the one who just sent you a text, not your husband. I thought it would be comforting but I was mistaken in doing so. I am sorry to tell you this, but your husband has been shot 4 times and he is in surgery."

The soldier's wife left Southern Clinic in Dothan and drove all night to Ft.Hood. When she arrived, she found out her husband was out of surgery and would be OK. She rushed to his room and found that he already had visitors there to confort him. He was just waking up and found his wife and the visitors by his side The nurse took a picture.

It was George W. Bush!

He had heard about Fort Hood, got in his car without any escort, apparently they did not have time to react, and drove to Fort Hood. He was stopped at the gate and the guard could not believe who he had just stopped.. Bush only ask for directions to the hospital then drove on. The gate guard called that "The president Is on Fort Hood and driving to the hospital." The base went bananas looking for Obama. When they found it was Bush they immediately offered escort and Bush simply told them to shut up and let him visit the wounded and the dependents of the dead. He stayed at Fort Hood for over six hours and was finally asked to leave by a message from the White House.. Obama flew in days later and held a "photo " session in a gym and did not even go to the hospital. "

[steelish]

I didn't agree with most of Bush's policies while he was in office, but I think he's a much better PERSON than Obama is.

[MMI]

Call me a cynic, but I cannot believe even Bush did not understanad that political capital would be made out of his visit. Pity he didn't react like that on 9/11 or when Hurricane Katrina struck. So just how good a person is he really?

Which would you bet on: did he take the opportunity to comfort the people injured in the shooting, or did he take the opportunity to get there before Obama?

[denuseri]

I believe that if he was there for a photo op, he would have came in with the reporters running hilly nilly in his wake if not there before him.

[Seroquel]

Bush will be insignificant as history goes, he's not popular enough to be worth remembering, he started to be seen as a joke by a majority. After this generation no one will remember him, Obama at least has potential. If nothing else he'll be remembered as the first black president, much as Thatcher (for those who don't know, practically everyone in the north of England and most of the rest of Britain despises her) will be remembered as the first female Prime Minister.

I don't think it's fair to judge a leader on how they respond to disasters, in my opinion letting politicians "help" usually ends up being a waste of time and manpower that can be put to better use elsewhere. Not much of what Obama has done has reached me over here but from what I've heard he seems to be working to change the "people are poor because they don't work as hard as me" mentality some Americans have.

[DuncanONeil]

There are two governing laws:

• The Fair Housing Act of 1968
• The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The make up in both of the Congresses of the time was majority Democrat in both houses! By ratios even higher than today;

• 90th Congress
  
  • Senate -- 64(D) 36(R)
  • House -- 247 (D) 187 (R)
• 95th Congress
  
  • Senate -- 61(D) 39(R)
  • House -- 292(D) 143(R)

So to try to blame this on the Republican party does not comport with the facts.

Further, to make it a violation of law to not give loans to persons in a certain area or certain type, without regard to any reason, is exactly the same as saying; "you must lend even if they look like a bad risk. Fail to do so at your own peril! Do not forget we control your existence as a business!"

um, The Congress was decidedly Republican when the regulations were stripped from the banking industry. And No laws REQUIRED lenders to lend to poor risk lenders.

The poor risk lending was made by unscrupulous lenders wishing to make a fast book over making loans to ignorant lendees.

Your information here is COMPLETELY false.

[DuncanONeil]

So then which is the compassionate man?

One of my friends sent me this little excert with a picture of the people involved. If I could figure out how to post pics in the forums here I would have attached it. lol


"A doctor had his tv on in his office when the news of the military base shootings came on. The husband of one of his employees was stationed there.

He called her into his office and as he told her what had happened, she got a text message from her husband saying, "I am okay." Her cell phone rang right after she read the message. It was an ER nurse,"I'm the one who just sent you a text, not your husband. I thought it would be comforting but I was mistaken in doing so. I am sorry to tell you this, but your husband has been shot 4 times and he is in surgery."

The soldier's wife left Southern Clinic in Dothan and drove all night to Ft.Hood. When she arrived, she found out her husband was out of surgery and would be OK. She rushed to his room and found that he already had visitors there to confort him. He was just waking up and found his wife and the visitors by his side The nurse took a picture.

It was George W. Bush!

He had heard about Fort Hood, got in his car without any escort, apparently they did not have time to react, and drove to Fort Hood. He was stopped at the gate and the guard could not believe who he had just stopped.. Bush only ask for directions to the hospital then drove on. The gate guard called that "The president Is on Fort Hood and driving to the hospital." The base went bananas looking for Obama. When they found it was Bush they immediately offered escort and Bush simply told them to shut up and let him visit the wounded and the dependents of the dead. He stayed at Fort Hood for over six hours and was finally asked to leave by a message from the White House.. Obama flew in days later and held a "photo " session in a gym and did not even go to the hospital. "

[DuncanONeil]

Perhaps not cynical, but merely somewhat biased!

Call me a cynic, but I cannot believe even Bush did not understanad that political capital would be made out of his visit. Pity he didn't react like that on 9/11 or when Hurricane Katrina struck. So just how good a person is he really?

Which would you bet on: did he take the opportunity to comfort the people injured in the shooting, or did he take the opportunity to get there before Obama?

[DuncanONeil]

It appears that you are of the opinion that the "poor" can be eliminated as a category of people.

Just how do you propose that this happen if they do not have to work hard to not be poor?

Just how do you define "poor", in concrete terms?

Bush will be insignificant as history goes, he's not popular enough to be worth remembering, he started to be seen as a joke by a majority. After this generation no one will remember him, Obama at least has potential. If nothing else he'll be remembered as the first black president, much as Thatcher (for those who don't know, practically everyone in the north of England and most of the rest of Britain despises her) will be remembered as the first female Prime Minister.

I don't think it's fair to judge a leader on how they respond to disasters, in my opinion letting politicians "help" usually ends up being a waste of time and manpower that can be put to better use elsewhere. Not much of what Obama has done has reached me over here but from what I've heard he seems to be working to change the "people are poor because they don't work as hard as me" mentality some Americans have.

[SadisticNature]

There are two governing laws:

• The Fair Housing Act of 1968
• The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The make up in both of the Congresses of the time was majority Democrat in both houses! By ratios even higher than today;

• 90th Congress
  
  • Senate -- 64(D) 36(R)
  • House -- 247 (D) 187 (R)
• 95th Congress
  
  • Senate -- 61(D) 39(R)
  • House -- 292(D) 143(R)

So to try to blame this on the Republican party does not comport with the facts.

Further, to make it a violation of law to not give loans to persons in a certain area or certain type, without regard to any reason, is exactly the same as saying; "you must lend even if they look like a bad risk. Fail to do so at your own peril! Do not forget we control your existence as a business!"

http://seekingalpha.com/article/7126...tion-gone-wild

This is a partial list of some of the policies that led to the too big to fail situation that caused the bailouts.

It starts with the 1982 Garn -St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.

As the eighties wore on the economy appeared to grow. Interest rates continued to go up as well as real estate speculation. The real estate market was in what is known as a "boom" mode. Many S&L's took advantage of the lack of supervision and regulations to make highly speculative investments, in many cases loaning more money then they really should. Not because they were required to, but motivated by profits.

When the real estate market crashed, and it did so in dramatic fashion, the S&L's were crushed. They now owned properties that they had paid enormous amounts of money for but weren't worth a fraction of what they paid. Many went bankrupt, losing their depositors money. This was known as the S&L Crisis. In 1980 the US had 4,600 thrifts, by 1988 mergers and bankruptcies left 3000. By the mid 1990's less than 2000 survived.

The S&L crisis cost about 600 Billion dollars in "bailouts." This is 1500 dollars from every man woman and child in the US. This was the February 1989 bailout under the first Bush.

Despite this deregulation causing a huge crash and bailout, the process of deregulation was continued leading to the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act by 1998 (After 25 attempts and $300 million in lobbying).

In the spring of 1987, the Federal Reserve Board votes 3-2 in favor of easing regulations under Glass-Steagall Act, overriding the opposition of Chairman Paul Volcker. Thomas Theobald, then vice chairman of Citicorp, argues that three "outside checks" on corporate misbehavior had emerged since 1933: "a very effective" SEC; knowledgeable investors, and "very sophisticated" rating agencies. Volcker is unconvinced, and expresses his fear that lenders will recklessly lower loan standards in pursuit of lucrative securities offerings and market bad loans to the public. For many critics, it boiled down to the issue of two different cultures - a culture of risk which was the securities business, and a culture of protection of deposits which was the culture of banking.

Volcker had it right, but this opposition led to him being replaced by Alan Greenspan.

The problem was the banks owned too much property. Why? Because people removed the regulations preventing it. It's not one or two property acts that are trying to limit discrimination that caused the problems.

If the banks were giving out loans they knew in advance were bad, they never would have appealed to have more and more restrictions reduced. They were giving out loans they thought they could make money on, and were leveraged beyond belief. Yet the record shows the continuously appealed to the government to let them leverage more and more.

It's no surprise that the first to go was Bear Stearns, one of the first to lobby for and get limits removed.

http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=c...ngency-fee.txt

CHICAGO -- In a CNSNews (www.CNSNews.com) nationally-syndicated story published on Monday, Illinois Republican National Committeeman Bob Kjellander once again defended the $800,000 contingency fee he received earlier this year from Bear Stearns, the bond house that handled Governor Rod Blagojevich's $10 billion mortgage to balance Illinois' FY 2004 budget.

It's also a matter of fact that the lobbyists for Bear Stearns and the deregulation involved in the matter were active republican party members.

So yes, it does correspond to the facts to blame the republican party for this. It just doesn't correspond to your personal world view.

[mkemse]

His place in History will probably not be known for years

[DuncanONeil]

You absolutely refuse to consider the fact that Congressional action REQUIRING banks to lend in areas where the residents could not meet the standard of being an acceptable risk.
This categorical refusal to consider a proximate cause and only deal with the after effects is disingenuous at best.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/7126...tion-gone-wild

This is a partial list of some of the policies that led to the too big to fail situation that caused the bailouts.

It starts with the 1982 Garn -St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.

As the eighties wore on the economy appeared to grow. Interest rates continued to go up as well as real estate speculation. The real estate market was in what is known as a "boom" mode. Many S&L's took advantage of the lack of supervision and regulations to make highly speculative investments, in many cases loaning more money then they really should. Not because they were required to, but motivated by profits.

When the real estate market crashed, and it did so in dramatic fashion, the S&L's were crushed. They now owned properties that they had paid enormous amounts of money for but weren't worth a fraction of what they paid. Many went bankrupt, losing their depositors money. This was known as the S&L Crisis. In 1980 the US had 4,600 thrifts, by 1988 mergers and bankruptcies left 3000. By the mid 1990's less than 2000 survived.

The S&L crisis cost about 600 Billion dollars in "bailouts." This is 1500 dollars from every man woman and child in the US. This was the February 1989 bailout under the first Bush.

Despite this deregulation causing a huge crash and bailout, the process of deregulation was continued leading to the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act by 1998 (After 25 attempts and $300 million in lobbying).

In the spring of 1987, the Federal Reserve Board votes 3-2 in favor of easing regulations under Glass-Steagall Act, overriding the opposition of Chairman Paul Volcker. Thomas Theobald, then vice chairman of Citicorp, argues that three "outside checks" on corporate misbehavior had emerged since 1933: "a very effective" SEC; knowledgeable investors, and "very sophisticated" rating agencies. Volcker is unconvinced, and expresses his fear that lenders will recklessly lower loan standards in pursuit of lucrative securities offerings and market bad loans to the public. For many critics, it boiled down to the issue of two different cultures - a culture of risk which was the securities business, and a culture of protection of deposits which was the culture of banking.

Volcker had it right, but this opposition led to him being replaced by Alan Greenspan.

The problem was the banks owned too much property. Why? Because people removed the regulations preventing it. It's not one or two property acts that are trying to limit discrimination that caused the problems.

If the banks were giving out loans they knew in advance were bad, they never would have appealed to have more and more restrictions reduced. They were giving out loans they thought they could make money on, and were leveraged beyond belief. Yet the record shows the continuously appealed to the government to let them leverage more and more.

It's no surprise that the first to go was Bear Stearns, one of the first to lobby for and get limits removed.

http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=c...ngency-fee.txt

CHICAGO -- In a CNSNews (www.CNSNews.com) nationally-syndicated story published on Monday, Illinois Republican National Committeeman Bob Kjellander once again defended the $800,000 contingency fee he received earlier this year from Bear Stearns, the bond house that handled Governor Rod Blagojevich's $10 billion mortgage to balance Illinois' FY 2004 budget.

It's also a matter of fact that the lobbyists for Bear Stearns and the deregulation involved in the matter were active republican party members.

So yes, it does correspond to the facts to blame the republican party for this. It just doesn't correspond to your personal world view.

[DuncanONeil]

No matter to whom; "His place" refers, the sentiment is absolutely correct!

His place in History will probably not be known for years

[SadisticNature]

You absolutely refuse to consider the fact that Congressional action REQUIRING banks to lend in areas where the residents could not meet the standard of being an acceptable risk.
This categorical refusal to consider a proximate cause and only deal with the after effects is disingenuous at best.

You categorically refuse to consider the fact that the institutions that failed were trying to make more of these high risk lousy loans to the point where they were lobbying to have lending limits repealed.

You blame government for businesses making bad loans when the entirety of the evidence on record says those businesses wanted to make those loans, to the point of spending $300 million on lobbying to repeal regulations preventing them from making risky loans.

I've also addressed the evidence you and others have presented on this point repeatedly. The only categorical denial occurring here is the one you are making.

[SadisticNature]

You might want to actually read these laws before you cry foul.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights.cfm

The conditions of the fair housing act merely say you can't refuse a loan based on race. This means if a bank extends a loan to a white person who has a certain risk factor you can't refuse to extend the same loan to a black person with the same risk factor.

There is a difference between refusing a loan BASED on race, and refusing a loan to a minority.

The community reinvestment act of 1977 is more complicated, and there are some potential concerns here. That being said, the assets resulting from such practices were graded AAA, and sold around the financial world like hotcakes.

I have a specific questions for you Duncan, so stop the dodging and try and give them honest answers:

1) If these assets were as toxic as you describe why were banks trying to buy them from each other, well beyond their legal obligations to any act?

2)Why were they lobbying (successfully) to get their credit limits increased and then buying up more and more of these assets?

The only answer I've found that's consistent with the facts is this one:

Subprime loans were so profitable, that they were aggressively marketed in low-and moderate-income communities, even over the objections and warnings of housing advocacy groups like ACORN.

Which you can find either here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

or

http://www.innercitypress.com/cra1bailout092808.html


Even more telling is this:

There's a major factual problem, though: with a single exception, no bank sought CRA credit for its subprime loans. And the investment banks which were purchasing, bundling and securitizing the loans were not covered by CRA.

There are two governing


laws:

• The Fair Housing Act of 1968
• The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The make up in both of the Congresses of the time was majority Democrat in both houses! By ratios even higher than today;

• 90th Congress
  
  • Senate -- 64(D) 36(R)
  • House -- 247 (D) 187 (R)
• 95th Congress
  
  • Senate -- 61(D) 39(R)
  • House -- 292(D) 143(R)

So to try to blame this on the Republican party does not comport with the facts.

Further, to make it a violation of law to not give loans to persons in a certain area or certain type, without regard to any reason, is exactly the same as saying; "you must lend even if they look like a bad risk. Fail to do so at your own peril! Do not forget we control your existence as a business!"

[DuncanONeil]

Were it true that lenders "wanted to make those loans" there would have been no need for legislation to require lenders to grant loans to those they had determined were high risk! Because it happened after said legislation has no bearing on how it came about!

Your choice to refuse to consider the underlying legislation is troubling. Seems as if you, like others, are inclined to demonize a specific entity for some specific purpose.

The head of GMAC (controlled by the Government) received a compensation package exactly the same as, I believe, head of Smith Varney. Yet The head of Smith Varney was excoriated for his salary. Not one word about the head of GMAC, even though it is hemoraging money in the smae fashion!

You categorically refuse to consider the fact that the institutions that failed were trying to make more of these high risk lousy loans to the point where they were lobbying to have lending limits repealed.

You blame government for businesses making bad loans when the entirety of the evidence on record says those businesses wanted to make those loans, to the point of spending $300 million on lobbying to repeal regulations preventing them from making risky loans.

I've also addressed the evidence you and others have presented on this point repeatedly. The only categorical denial occurring here is the one you are making.

[DuncanONeil]

You might want to actually read these laws before you cry foul.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights.cfm

The conditions of the fair housing act merely say you can't refuse a loan based on race. This means if a bank extends a loan to a white person who has a certain risk factor you can't refuse to extend the same loan to a black person with the same risk factor.

That is not quite accurate. The requirement was to grant loans in specific neighborhoods that were determined to be underserved at the same rate as the neighborhoods that were deemed appropriately served.

By the way your citation is not the law!

There is a difference between refusing a loan BASED on race, and refusing a loan to a minority.

The community reinvestment act of 1977 is more complicated, and there are some potential concerns here. That being said, the assets resulting from such practices were graded AAA, and sold around the financial world like hotcakes.

I have a specific questions for you Duncan, so stop the dodging and try and give them honest answers:

1) If these assets were as toxic as you describe why were banks trying to buy them from each other, well beyond their legal obligations to any act?

2)Why were they lobbying (successfully) to get their credit limits increased and then buying up more and more of these assets?

The only answer I've found that's consistent with the facts is this one:

Subprime loans were so profitable, that they were aggressively marketed in low-and moderate-income communities, even over the objections and warnings of housing advocacy groups like ACORN.

Which you can find either here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

or

http://www.innercitypress.com/cra1bailout092808.html


Even more telling is this:

There's a major factual problem, though: with a single exception, no bank sought CRA credit for its subprime loans. And the investment banks which were purchasing, bundling and securitizing the loans were not covered by CRA.

[SadisticNature]

Again, more dodging the question and inaccuracies. I don't refuse to consider the underlying legislation, I have read and addressed your concerns. You refuse to consider any arguments why these legislations aren't relevant to the issue.

In particular, you ignore evidence that the CRA is not at fault. Namely subprime mortgages were almost entirely driven by investment banks NOT SUBJECT TO THE CRA.

In 1977 it might have been true that the lenders were not making these loans at appropriate rates. However, by 2007 the situation was largely changed. I consider the most important information here to be:

(I) The 1968 Fair Housing Act is not actually relevant to the situation.

(II) The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act does not actually cover investment banks who were by far the largest dealers in subprime mortgages.

Your coverage of these laws is highly inaccurate. Nothing says anything about refusing an individual loan without regard to reason. Furthermore, conditions of the CRA are only a condition for mergers and takeovers. The CRA does not have any enforcement powers except when the bank is trying to reduce competition in the marketplace. I personally believe it is not unreasonable to test whether a community is being served adequately when considering reducing competition in a market. Particularly one with such limited competition as the banking sector.

Were it true that lenders "wanted to make those loans" there would have been no need for legislation to require lenders to grant loans to those they had determined were high risk! Because it happened after said legislation has no bearing on how it came about!

Your choice to refuse to consider the underlying legislation is troubling. Seems as if you, like others, are inclined to demonize a specific entity for some specific purpose.

The head of GMAC (controlled by the Government) received a compensation package exactly the same as, I believe, head of Smith Varney. Yet The head of Smith Varney was excoriated for his salary. Not one word about the head of GMAC, even though it is hemoraging money in the smae fashion!

[SadisticNature]

You absolutely refuse to consider the fact that Congressional action REQUIRING banks to lend in areas where the residents could not meet the standard of being an acceptable risk.
This categorical refusal to consider a proximate cause and only deal with the after effects is disingenuous at best.

This statement is outright false. I have addressed why those legislations are not the problem. Your attempt to blame select legislation on flimsy and inaccurate evidence so that you can avoid the actual source of blame is disingenuous at best. The fact is deregulation caused these problems, not specific regulations you point to, which don't even apply to INVESTMENT BANKS, the actual organizations pushing subprime mortgages.

You refuse to even address any of the issues I raised as relevant to the cause. I'd suggest taking a long hard look at the quality of your sources.

Relying on information presented by the only "NEWS" organization to win a Whistleblower case (on appeal) on the basis of "falsifying the news is not a crime" is problematic at best.

[mkemse]

And I doubt hisreal place in History wil even be know durig our live times, just too soon it wil takes years and year to determine that

[DuncanONeil]

Investment banks are not prime generators of notes. They deal in the secondary markets enabling the lenders to have their capital at hand.

Again, more dodging the question and inaccuracies. I don't refuse to consider the underlying legislation, I have read and addressed your concerns. You refuse to consider any arguments why these legislations aren't relevant to the issue.

In particular, you ignore evidence that the CRA is not at fault. Namely subprime mortgages were almost entirely driven by investment banks NOT SUBJECT TO THE CRA.

In 1977 it might have been true that the lenders were not making these loans at appropriate rates. However, by 2007 the situation was largely changed. I consider the most important information here to be:

(I) The 1968 Fair Housing Act is not actually relevant to the situation.

(II) The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act does not actually cover investment banks who were by far the largest dealers in subprime mortgages.

Your coverage of these laws is highly inaccurate. Nothing says anything about refusing an individual loan without regard to reason. Furthermore, conditions of the CRA are only a condition for mergers and takeovers. The CRA does not have any enforcement powers except when the bank is trying to reduce competition in the marketplace. I personally believe it is not unreasonable to test whether a community is being served adequately when considering reducing competition in a market. Particularly one with such limited competition as the banking sector.

[SadisticNature]

Investment banks bought up all the subprime loans, even if they weren't the prime generators of the notes, they did create the market for them.

The point about the CRA still stands, as only one bank applied for CRA credit for their subprime mortgage loans. If the CRA was driving these loans more banks would have applied for CRA credit as a result of making subprime loans.

Also secondary markets can easily drive primary markets. It's fair to say the investment banks were the main players in the subprime crisis because they were the ones buying up bad loans at incredible rates.

The reasons the initial lenders didn't care about making bad loans is they knew they could sell the toxic capital at a profit. As long as they aren't left holding toxic assets and made money at some point along the process they would continue to make these loans.

In summary, initial lenders made bad loans because there was a market for them, not because they had to under some policy. These loans were sold at a profit to investment banks, who believed these instruments to be profitable (which they were until the housing prices underwent cascade failure).

The problem was the investment banks were allowed to leverage exorbitantly. Previous caps of 5 to 1 leveraging under regulation were replaced by exemptions allowing 50 to 1 leveraging. This meant a hugely profitable company that forms a critical part of the banking sector could be instantly bankrupt due to a small price drop in the housing market (If one is leveraged 50 to 1 on an asset that drops 5% one is bankrupt twice over).

This leveraging process allowed the investment banks to continue to "free up capital" to buy excessive amounts of subprime loans, and with the market for loans available, banks continued to make them. Bundled instruments ended up preventing a lot of examining of the quality of individual loans by investors, and as such the initial lenders got away with having frighteningly bad standards for loans. Again, this was a sound business practice because they were able to sell these loans at a profit easily, not dealing with the consequences of them being bad loans.

Investment banks are not prime generators of notes. They deal in the secondary markets enabling the lenders to have their capital at hand.

[DuncanONeil]

I think your logic is flawed!

Investment banks bought up all the subprime loans, even if they weren't the prime generators of the notes, they did create the market for them.

The point about the CRA still stands, as only one bank applied for CRA credit for their subprime mortgage loans. If the CRA was driving these loans more banks would have applied for CRA credit as a result of making subprime loans.

Also secondary markets can easily drive primary markets. It's fair to say the investment banks were the main players in the subprime crisis because they were the ones buying up bad loans at incredible rates.

The reasons the initial lenders didn't care about making bad loans is they knew they could sell the toxic capital at a profit. As long as they aren't left holding toxic assets and made money at some point along the process they would continue to make these loans.

In summary, initial lenders made bad loans because there was a market for them, not because they had to under some policy. These loans were sold at a profit to investment banks, who believed these instruments to be profitable (which they were until the housing prices underwent cascade failure).

The problem was the investment banks were allowed to leverage exorbitantly. Previous caps of 5 to 1 leveraging under regulation were replaced by exemptions allowing 50 to 1 leveraging. This meant a hugely profitable company that forms a critical part of the banking sector could be instantly bankrupt due to a small price drop in the housing market (If one is leveraged 50 to 1 on an asset that drops 5% one is bankrupt twice over).

This leveraging process allowed the investment banks to continue to "free up capital" to buy excessive amounts of subprime loans, and with the market for loans available, banks continued to make them. Bundled instruments ended up preventing a lot of examining of the quality of individual loans by investors, and as such the initial lenders got away with having frighteningly bad standards for loans. Again, this was a sound business practice because they were able to sell these loans at a profit easily, not dealing with the consequences of them being bad loans.

[SadisticNature]

I think your logic is flawed!

When I point out flaws in your logic, I bother to provide details.

You are making a vague statement that avoids the question by not making any specific criticism, but instead a fuzzy generality that can't be debated in any meaningful way.

And you continue to refuse to answer questions that are asked of you, or even express why you think those questions are bad.

Before you accuse someone of committing a "categorical refusal to consider a proximate cause and only deal with the after effects" you really ought to consider some serious introspection.