wf3h wrote:
On Sep 24, 11:32 am, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:41 am, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:
you mean
I mean that it isn't wrong. CRA isn't the whole story, but it is the
first chapter of the whole story.-
no moreso than the letter 'a' is the entire dictionary.
No, *much* more so. CRA was just the first step toward the catastrophe,
but it decidedly was such a step.

uh no.

Uh...YES


the first step was greed on the part of wall street.

"Greed" - ha ha ha ha ha! When you and the ACORN deadbeats want more,
you "objectively" deserve it; but when your betters want more, it's
"greed". HA HA HA HA HA!


The Clinton complicity in 1994 was
directly based on it.

well...no.

Yes.


The politically motivated destruction of
underwriting standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was specifically to
get them to buy CRA mortgages,

well...no.

Yes.


the 62 TRILLION dollars in CDO's

You keep saying that as if it has some meaning. It doesn't.


had nothing whatsoever to
do with fannie mae and freddie mac. nothing.

*EVERYTHING* to do with it, dummy. The "CDOs" - my, how you like
bandying about terms you think make you sound sophisticated - *are* to a
very great extent the mortgages that were made under the collapsed
lending standards.


but once the standards were eliminated,
there was an explosion in other non-CRA subprime lending. But CRA
started it, and accelerated it in 1994.

ah. so the problem was wall street greed.

No, the problem was the collapse in lending standards that began with
CRA, in which the federal government brought intense pressure to bear on
banks to lend to uncreditworthy deadbeats in ghettos.


you were wrong in attributing this to CRA.

I am right, of course.