[jeffkrol]

I am not blaming any minority. I am however blaming those that forced banks to lower their lending standards. Just because it happened with ACORN, Clinton and to some extent Carter is not a minorities fault.

P.S. I don't think I am right, but the facts usually prove it so.

Not today I'm afraid....................
Actually Clintons lame duck pass was not good...... but had nothing to do w/ what you think:

Clinton didn't stop there. In a subsequent ABC News interview, he said that when it came to 1990s-era financial deregulation that so harmed today's economy, "I think [my advisors] were wrong, and I think I was wrong."

Bill Clinton regrets | Arkansas Blog

Speaking with ABC’s Jake Tapper on This Week, former President Bill Clinton — during whose tenure the government decided against regulating derivatives and allowed the repeal of some of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, allowing the creation of megabanks — said he was wrong.

I think [Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers] were wrong and I think I was wrong to take [to take their advice], because the argument on derivatives was that these things are expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of investors will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection, and any extra transparency. The money they’re putting up guarantees them transparency. And the flaw in that argument was that first of all sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it without transparency.

Clinton’s admission underscores the basic importance of financial regulation; during the boom and bust, derivatives, worth at least $4.5 trillion notionally, went entirely unregulated.

http://washingtonindependent.com/82632/clinton-faults-himself-for-financial-...y-deregulation
The "small people" were "FLUFF" compared to the banks............
At least I understand where you find your errr... STUPID advice from...........

Since the 1970s ACORN, which has 400,000 low- and moderate-income "member families" in more than 100 cities in forty states, has been warning Congress to protect borrowers from the banking industry's irresponsible, risky and predatory practices--subprime loans, racial discrimination (called "redlining") and rip-off fees. ACORN has persistently called for stronger regulations on banks, private mortgage companies, mortgage brokers and rating agencies. For years, ACORN has alerted public officials that the industry was hoodwinking many families into taking out risky loans they couldn't afford and whose fine print they couldn't understand.

Now John McCain and his fellow conservatives are accusing ACORN of strong-arming Congress and big Wall Street banks into making subprime loans to poor families who couldn't afford them, thus causing the economic disaster. McCain's campaign is running a one-and-a-half-minute video that claims Barack Obama once worked for ACORN, repeats the accusation that ACORN is responsible for widespread voter registration fraud and accuses ACORN of "bullying banks, intimidation tactics, and disruption of business." The ad claims that ACORN "forced banks to issue risky home loans--the same types of loans that caused the financial crisis we're in today."

http://www.thenation.com/article/gops-blame-acorn-game

It is true that ACORN has led demonstrations on a number of issues nationwide – predatory lending, immigration reform, neighborhood violence, utilities shut-offs, minimum wage increases. Sometimes the group's tactics are confrontational, veering into civil disobedience. For instance, in the late 1980s, ACORN activists in a number of cities, including Chicago, seized abandoned houses and encouraged "squatting" by homeless people, in an attempt to force local governments to salvage abandoned properties and convert them into low-income housing. The targets of ACORN's protests sometimes describe the activists as intractable or even aggressive. Other ACORN protests are less confrontational; Sen. McCain himself spoke at an ACORN rally on illegal immigration in 2006.

It stretches the facts, however, to say that ACORN "forced" banks to make risky loans, though it has certainly applied pressure on banks to make loans to minority and low-income borrowers. ACORN also has worked directly with banks in a joint effort to increase such lending. In Chicago these efforts date back at least to 1992, after a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston showed that minorities in that city were two to three times as likely to be denied mortgage loans as white applicants, and that high-income minorities were more likely to be turned down than low-income whites. Chicago ACORN then started a mortgage assistance program, in cooperation with five local banks, to help minority and low-income borrowers get mortgage loans.

The mortgages that ACORN worked out with the banks did have lower underwriting standards than were customary. They allowed a higher percentage of a family's income to go to debt repayment, and counted rent and utility payments, not just credit card payments, as evidence of ability to pay back a loan. The loans were also more forgiving of past credit problems, as long as the recipient was making a proven effort to address them. But ACORN provided loan deals only to people who went through counseling on budget and credit issues. In 1992, First Nationwide Bank Vice President Neal Halleran told the Chicago Tribune: "Transaction by transaction, [loans from the ACORN program] would appear to be performing no worse than our portfolio overall." According to the Tribune, First Nationwide had contacted ACORN to initiate the lending program.

It is true that ACORN has led demonstrations on a number of issues nationwide – predatory lending, immigration reform, neighborhood violence, utilities shut-offs, minimum wage increases. Sometimes the group's tactics are confrontational, veering into civil disobedience. For instance, in the late 1980s, ACORN activists in a number of cities, including Chicago, seized abandoned houses and encouraged "squatting" by homeless people, in an attempt to force local governments to salvage abandoned properties and convert them into low-income housing. The targets of ACORN's protests sometimes describe the activists as intractable or even aggressive. Other ACORN protests are less confrontational; Sen. McCain himself spoke at an ACORN rally on illegal immigration in 2006.

It stretches the facts, however, to say that ACORN "forced" banks to make risky loans, though it has certainly applied pressure on banks to make loans to minority and low-income borrowers. ACORN also has worked directly with banks in a joint effort to increase such lending. In Chicago these efforts date back at least to 1992, after a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston showed that minorities in that city were two to three times as likely to be denied mortgage loans as white applicants, and that high-income minorities were more likely to be turned down than low-income whites. Chicago ACORN then started a mortgage assistance program, in cooperation with five local banks, to help minority and low-income borrowers get mortgage loans.

The mortgages that ACORN worked out with the banks did have lower underwriting standards than were customary. They allowed a higher percentage of a family's income to go to debt repayment, and counted rent and utility payments, not just credit card payments, as evidence of ability to pay back a loan. The loans were also more forgiving of past credit problems, as long as the recipient was making a proven effort to address them. But ACORN provided loan deals only to people who went through counseling on budget and credit issues. In 1992, First Nationwide Bank Vice President Neal Halleran told the Chicago Tribune: "Transaction by transaction, [loans from the ACORN program] would appear to be performing no worse than our portfolio overall." According to the Tribune, First Nationwide had contacted ACORN to initiate the lending program.

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 01-31-2011 at 02:53 PM.

[jeffkrol]

Pass the word..
Where's the Note? | Time to Investigate
Back to the banks...........

Analyst Warns Of 2015 Bank Crisis (C, BAC, JPM, FAZ) | Benzinga.com
FT.com / Companies - Regulators and banks in cat-and-mouse game

The president of Goldman Sachs raised a few hackles at Davos last week when he claimed that tight regulation of the banks would drive risk off into hedge funds. He may have been dead wrong in his diagnosis but right on the wider issue.

Hedge funds are not a systemic problem if they simply lose their investors’ money. The real problem is leverage, which the banks supply............

It follows, Wyman argues, that regulators should not be too hard on the banks. The result would be to drive risk out of sight and thus render it more systemically dangerous.

For society as a whole, that might seem a counsel of despair: don’t stop muggers robbing us in the street, since they will only rob us more violently in a back alley........................................

That might seem unconscionable. If the reality, however, is that the mice are smarter and more agile than the cats – and in some respects more powerful – all that can be hoped for is some form of compromise.

In the end, there are only two ways of restoring sanity to a mad system. The first is that banks and their shareholders come to accept that the banking supercycle really is over; that the old returns are no longer achievable, and cranking up the risk is ultimately futile.

The second way, of course, is another and bigger crash. Fingers crossed, everyone.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Is-Another-Financial-Cr...ars-Away-6792/

[GeneV]

It stretches the facts, however, to say that ACORN "forced" banks to make risky loans, though it has certainly applied pressure on banks to make loans to minority and low-income borrowers. ACORN also has worked directly with banks in a joint effort to increase such lending. In Chicago these efforts date back at least to 1992, after a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston showed that minorities in that city were two to three times as likely to be denied mortgage loans as white applicants, and that high-income minorities were more likely to be turned down than low-income whites. Chicago ACORN then started a mortgage assistance program, in cooperation with five local banks, to help minority and low-income borrowers get mortgage loans..

It more than stretches the facts to say that ACORN forced banks to make bad loans. The banks weren't grudgingly squeezing out funds to satisfy a foe. They were enthusiastically diving into this bubble and making a ton of money at it. Anyone who has sat through a board meeting at a bank or other corporation concerning the requirements of a regulator or the desires of a community action group can't seriously believe the banks jumped into this just to please them. They go into a market on this scale for one reason only--to make money.

[jeffkrol]

[Tom S.]

Sure ACORN had nothing to do with it. Looking at your profile you're a retired auto worker. To me that means union. Stop drinking the Obama Kool-Aid.

I see by your profile, you never post anything camera related. Do you even own a Pentax, or did you just join the forum to argue with folks and paint them with broad paint brushes? Not all autoworkers endorsed Obama or voted for him. I know that may be difficult for you to understand, but I worked with many autoworkers who were/are staunch republicans.

[GeneV]

I see by your profile, you never post anything camera related. Do you even own a Pentax, or did you just join the forum to argue with folks and paint them with broad paint brushes? Not all autoworkers endorsed Obama or voted for him. I know that may be difficult for you to understand, but I worked with many autoworkers who were/are staunch republicans.

I've often advocated on this and other boards that one should have a certain number of on-topic posts before you can make off-topic (politics, etc.) post. There is a certain bonding that happens when you talk about a subject of common interest that cuts down on the nastiness. I suppose such a thing just isn't practical because it hasn't happened anywhere.

[Parallax]

............There is a certain bonding that happens when you talk about a subject of common interest that cuts down on the nastiness. .......

Apparently you haven't looked at the K5 forum lately.

[Tom S.]

Apparently you haven't looked at the K5 forum lately.

Touche'!!!

[GeneV]

Apparently you haven't looked at the K5 forum lately.

No I haven't. I suppose people can find reasons to get testy about any subject, but Politics and Religion are known for it.

[Parallax]

........... I suppose people can find reasons to get testy about any subject, ..............

And just what do mean by that!!!!?

[shooz]

For my part?
It's OK. I take it in stride. I'm used to it.
Let's me know where they're coming from.
This is the internet after all.

Parallax and I have had disagreements on the subject, but we kept it respectable.
He never attacked me because I was union member. I never attacked him because he wasn't.
We just tried to back up our opinions.
I doubt we really changed each others minds, but i do respect his position.

RESPECT
On the internet?
Who would have thought..........