"I am astonished that the media continues to look past the REAL problem that led to this crisis"
That is because you still don't understand what happened.
This is a perfect example.
"It was the bad loans, made to persons who were totally unqualified, with insufficient equity in the property to assure payment, essentially REQUIRED by CRA under the '96 Clinton regulations."
This has only a tangential relationship with reality. The CRA loans had a lower default rate than the average. While there is some truth to the first part of your statement, the second is totally bogus. While it is true that a lot of loans were made to people who shouldn't have gotten them, the CRA had nothing to do with it. They were done because the lenders could package them into other securities and sell them off to investors. So, there was no risk to them to give out loans to unqualified borrowers. In fact, there was lots of incentives to make risky loans because they could always, and often did, take out a CDS on those shaky loans. This is why Goldman Sachs is now in hot water.
"As far as I can see, this is an attack on the wrong people."
Given that you show no understanding of what happened, you would feel that way.
"I realize you're a partisan hack and would NEVER, EVER be intellectually honest (even if you were intellectually CAPABLE) about it."
There is that projection thingy again, i-node. Given how often the reality of the situation has been pointed out to you, yet you still persist in hanging on to your overly simplistic fable, your intellectual honesty is in obvious short supply. |
