On Jul 1, 6:12*pm, dizzy wrote:
Long Ranger wrote:
You are using the classic liberal foil.

You're using the typical right-wing pack of lies. *Go you.

Left, Right they are all lying scum trying to control YOU and everyone
else's lives. People like that are an embarassment to the
species...what idjit would WANT to control others? Allowing for people
into B&D.

"Datesfat Chicks" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.

Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

You living under a rock, so that you haven't seen that in the news for the
past year?

"Wayne" wrote in message
...

"Datesfat Chicks" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.

Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

You living under a rock, so that you haven't seen that in the news for the
past year?

You haven't provided any credible evidence that the CRA loans contributed to
the crisis.

From Wikipedia:

BEGIN QUOTE
Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be
safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from
institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing,
law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under
President Clinton,[64][108] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that
affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky.
He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by
independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and
another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries
and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made
"perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most
widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal
oversight".[109] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky
"high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts;
most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans
that have contributed to the current crisis.[110] A 2008 study by Traiger &
Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA
compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make
subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks
were also half as likely to resell the loans.[111] Emre Ergungor of the
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical
difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks,
although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[112]
END QUOTE

The traceability between minorities, the CRA, and the meltdown just hasn't
been made by you or any material you are willing to cite.

Remember, us on the newsgroup have higher standards of proof than your
neo-Nazi colleagues at the trailer park ...

Datesfat.

"Datesfat Chicks" wrote

Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

It was my impression that the issue was racially diverse.

Without that linchpin, you're just quacks blaming minorities for
everything. ("Why is it raining today, daddy? Because of Rosa Parks ...")

So, the changes in policy and worldview that led to the gigantic
increases in mortgage lending to minorities seen over the last decade
(with total mortgage dollars written per year increasing [6] 691% for
Hispanics and 397% for blacks from 1999 to the peak of the Housing
Bubble in 2006) unsurprisingly led to world-historical levels of mortgage
defaults in 2007-2009. After all, blacks and Hispanics were still defaulting
at very high levels when they weren't getting as much mortgage lending.
The law of diminishing marginal returns suggests that throwing more
mortgage money at them wasn't going to improve their credit worthiness.

In 2004-2007, minorities received half of subprime mortgage dollars
handed out. A [7] new 2008 Boston Fed study shows minorities in
Massachusetts getting foreclosed on subprime loans at twice the race of
whites, suggesting that minorities accounted for a sizable majority of
subprime dollars defaulted.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives..._fha_mortg.php

"83LowRider" wrote in message
...

"Datesfat Chicks" wrote

Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

It was my impression that the issue was racially diverse.

Without that linchpin, you're just quacks blaming minorities for
everything. ("Why is it raining today, daddy? Because of Rosa Parks
...")

So, the changes in policy and worldview that led to the gigantic
increases in mortgage lending to minorities seen over the last decade
(with total mortgage dollars written per year increasing [6] 691% for
Hispanics and 397% for blacks from 1999 to the peak of the Housing
Bubble in 2006) unsurprisingly led to world-historical levels of mortgage
defaults in 2007-2009. After all, blacks and Hispanics were still
defaulting
at very high levels when they weren't getting as much mortgage lending.
The law of diminishing marginal returns suggests that throwing more
mortgage money at them wasn't going to improve their credit worthiness.

In 2004-2007, minorities received half of subprime mortgage dollars
handed out. A [7] new 2008 Boston Fed study shows minorities in
Massachusetts getting foreclosed on subprime loans at twice the race of
whites, suggesting that minorities accounted for a sizable majority of
subprime dollars defaulted.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives..._fha_mortg.php

American Renaissance is a white supremacist rag. Got a credible source?

Datesfat

"Datesfat Chicks" wrote in message

American Renaissance is a white supremacist rag. Got a credible source?

I've no 'side' on this matter, no agenda. I simply did a google search.

The information given on this site is not their statistics, it's merely
their
article. The statistics come from Forbes, FHA and HUD.

Virtually no one will argue the fact that Dodd and B. Frank pushed
hard for minority loans. Likewise, almost no one would argue that
mostly white guys in suits on Wall Street divided the loans out in
a million directions to pad their own pockets.

Do your own homework if you don't like the results.

83LowRider wrote:

I've no 'side' on this matter, no agenda. I simply did a google search.

"It's on the web. It must be true." What an idiot.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER Coo, down to just five bikes!
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. And RTFM.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

On Jun 30, 7:16 pm, "Datesfat Chicks"
wrote:

And win, because I don't argue unless I know what I'm talking about.

You STILL haven't provided any credible evidence that minorities were
responsible for the financial crisis. Most experts seem to believe they
were not ...

"most experts"? Prove that please!

Most experts I've talked too tell me the issue is quite complex but
certainly government-caused. But there is more than enough blame to go
around to everyone.

To say that the bad loans were "all" from minorities is obviously an
over-simplification for a political agenda. However, minorities did
indeed play a role because they do tend to be disproportionately
represented in the poor segments of society. But the problem wasn't
"minorities" but loans made to persons who could not really afford
them. And part of the reason this was done was regulations encouraging
loans to the poor (of all situations). So banks and others began to
make loans to person who could in no way pay for them. And to cover
the facts of this, they made the loans in such a way that the major
payments and interest did not come due for a time. There was a period
of low payments which only covered interest or less and would step up
to realistic values later. Thus, the poor were lulled into thinking
they could afford that the "dream house" until the hammer fell. In the
mean time, the banks knowing the loans were going to crash and burn
once the real payment schedule kicked in tried to get out from under
the bad loans. They did this by trying to cover these loans with
insurance known as "credit default swaps". Once covered from losses
the loans that were sure to crash and burn one day were packaged into
bundles and sold as quality securities because they were in essence
insured. Wall street seeing huge commissions in the offing jumped in
hyping the whole scheme and making a fortune. And even worse, the
banking regulators changed the rules on how loans were carried on the
bank books. The new rule was that a property had to be carried at it's
"current value" rather than it's value at the time of the loan. It's
complex stuff, but the end result was that as the housing market
crashed the rule meant that the banks "assets" were disappearing,
which meant that it needed to produce the cash difference under
banking rules to stay open. It was money the banks didn't have and
couldn't get. So when the housing "bubble" burst everybody was on the
hook and ready to be taken down. Everybody was too smart for their own
good and were too happy raking in the profits off the bubble to have
made arrangements for the day when it all fell apart. At this point
the government had to step in and of course the private Federal
Reserve made sure that ownership or at least control of all these
banks fell to their stockholders. Money pretty much is coming from
taxpayers and everyone else (including minorities) by the huge
inflation sure to result from trillion or so dollars being 'spent" to
try to keep various outfits afloat.

So did minorities (or more exactly the poor) cause the problem:? Yes
they did. And what they did was to assume that those in power and in
Congress were actually trying to give them a break and a helping hand
so that they might find a way to lift themselves out of the lives
they've had for so long. Needless to say it was all a very clever scam
designed to funnel money and power to the few at the expense of the
many. And that really is what it's all about.

The real problem is that many of you reading this think you are doing
OK, when in fact you are already part of the "poor" but just don't
know it yet! The entire financial structure is a house of cards which
has been once again taped together with duct tape. The question isn't
"will it ever recover?" The Question is "What in hell is STILL keeping
it up?"

In
wrote:

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/ ...

This is a useful site worth forwarding.

If you're a white supremacist of some sort.

Judging by the OP's choice of newsgroups, it helps to be an
inconsiderate boor too.

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/about-npi/

White Americans have been led to believe that “diversity” and
“multiculturalism” are sacred. We’re conditioned to be shy when
it comes to standing up for our own beliefs. But doesn’t every
race, ethnic subculture, and special interest—from left-handers
to lesbians—have all sorts of organizations working for them?
Isn’t it about time someone spoke for us?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

On 30 Jun 2009 21:53:51 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

In
wrote:

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/ ...

This is a useful site worth forwarding.

If you're a white supremacist of some sort.

Judging by the OP's choice of newsgroups, it helps to be an
inconsiderate boor too.

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/about-npi/

White Americans have been led to believe that “diversity” and
“multiculturalism” are sacred. We’re conditioned to be shy when
it comes to standing up for our own beliefs. But doesn’t every
race, ethnic subculture, and special interest—from left-handers
to lesbians—have all sorts of organizations working for them?
Isn’t it about time someone spoke for us?

Judging by your name you are a Jew, one of the most tribalistic of
groups. And yet you decry the message from an organization?
Is free speech only for minorities? What about a White Cacus in the
House?

ted