Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (139587)	10/1/2008 6:40:06 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"Protecting minorities from discrimination" is one thing. Coercing institutions to make loans to bad credit risks in order to boost minority loans is another. Its the difference between non-discrimination in employment and affirmative action quotas. The CRA essentially boiled down to affirmative action quotas for mortgage lending. The subprime mortgage mess was caused by a lack of regulations and oversight to prevent predatory lending practices. The subprime mortgage mess was caused by the changes to the CRA the Clinton adm made: In 1992 the United States Congress passed a housing law requiring the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing. This in part, contributed to increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pooling and selling of such loans as securities, (i.e. securitization), and expanded the secondary market for those loans.[2] In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[6] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.[3][5] According to Howard Husock, vice-president of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a right-wing think tank, these new rules greatly increased CRA lending. He writes that the new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Banks set up CRA departments, a CRA consultant industry was created and new financial-services firms helped banks invest in packaged portfolios of CRA loans to ensure compliance. Established and new community groups began marketing such mortgages. The Senate Banking Committee estimated that as of 2000, as a result of CRA, such groups had received $9.5 billion in services and salaries. As of that time such groups also had received tens of billions of dollars in multi-year commitments from banks, including ACORN Housing $760 million; Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America $3 billion; a New Jersey Citizen Action-led coalition $13 billion; the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance $220 million.[3] The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998. Other loans increased by only 17 percent.[7][8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act Notice the above pointed out that securitization of subprime mortgages began shortly after the Clinton adm changes to the CRA: "This in part, contributed to increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pooling and selling of such loans as securities, (i.e. securitization), and expanded the secondary market for those loans." where predatory lenders targeted minorities with bogus loans and promises of the American dream Some of those predatory lenders are "community groups" like ACORN, which Obama has long worked for. ACORN, La Raza and similar groups have made a lot of money by getting into the mortgage business - did you see the part above on: "allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks."

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (139587)	10/1/2008 8:13:01 AM
From: JeffA	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

You guys are so stupid in your attempts to spin to blame Bush. So transparent. Idiotic. I bet your friends HATE you and your seemingly endless ignorance.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (139587)	10/1/2008 10:26:10 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 173976

EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi paid husband with PAC funds $99,000 for rent, utilities, accounting fees Jennifer Haberkorn (Contact) Wednesday, October 1, 2008 so much for cleaning out the swamp EXCLUSIVE: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm over the past decade, a practice of paying a spouse with political donations that she supported banning last year. Financial Leasing Services Inc. (FLS), owned by Paul F. Pelosi, has received $99,000 in rent, utilities and accounting fees from the speaker's "PAC to the Future" over the PAC's nine-year history. The payments have quadrupled since Mr. Pelosi took over as treasurer of his wife's committee in 2007, Federal Election Commission records show. FLS is on track to take in $48,000 in payments this year alone - eight times as much as it received annually from 2000 to 2005, when the committee was run by another treasurer. Lawmakers' frequent use of campaign donations to pay relatives emerged as an issue in the 2006 election campaigns, when the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal gave Democrats fodder to criticize Republicans such as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and Rep. John T. Doolittle of California for putting their wives on their campaign and PAC payrolls for fundraising work. washingtontimes.com