Latest Deceptions on Bailout and CRA

Homosexual Congressman Barney Frank (center) and Friends. Frank is a big defender of the polices that helped bring about the financial crisis.
***************************************************
I have noticed the PC-crowd, led by belligerent Congressman Barney Frank, are making some new misleading claims to deflect the just blame for the banking crisis away from the awful "Community Re-investment Act".

Frank, whose homosexual lover sat on the board of Fannie Mae even as Frank falsely insisted that the now-failed organization was sound, claimed that the Community Re-investment Act was not a factor in the crisis and that any intimations that it was were simply attempts to "scape-goat the poor".

No Congressman, the blame goes to YOU and your socialist PC cronies (in both dominant parties) who foisted this disaster on us. And the reason we blame you is because you are responsible. You held power during this time, you made the rules. And despite the clear evidence that those rules are flawed, you are clinging to them and trying to solve the problem not by making more sensible rules, but by promising the future earnings of our children to the bankers.

There are two main deceptive tacks these cretins who defend CRA take. One is to quote a statistic which says something like "84% of sub-prime mortgages were not even made by institutions subject to the CRA". Have you heard that one? It is an insidious distortion on two levels. One level is that the sub-prime loans may not have been ORIGINATED by institutions subject to the CRA, but they were ACQUIRED by such institutions in order for their home loan portfolios to look the way the CRA said they should look. The sub-prime loans may have been made by fly-by-night operators, but such operators knew they would not have to keep these crummy loans. They would just package them and sell them to more reputable lending institutions who needed loans from the "right" kind of neighborhood in order to comply with the CRA.

The other point is that investment banks may not have been subject to the CRA, but once they wanted to merge with other types of banks (after the unfortunate ending of Glass-Stegall) they were subject to the same kind of pressure. In other words, the mergers were being held up because the merged institution did not have the right home-loan "diversity".

Those two-factors together means that even though the vast majority of sub-prime loans were originated by financial institutions that were not covered under the CRA, the CRA was still driving those kinds of loans. They still wound up in the portfolios of either banks covered by the act or banks who wanted to merge with those who were.

The other main deception that you hear from CRA defenders is that "I have talked to a banker and he says there is no federal regulation requiring banks to make bad loans". I see this buzz-phrase repeated on many boards, so I think it is a talking-point that they are instructing their minions to disseminate. Like the first statement about loan percentages, it is technically narrowly true but in actual effect it is false- in other words, it is a Clintonazation.

The regulation does not tell banks "30% of your loans have to be bad or high-risk loans". Rather, it specifies that 30% of a financial institution's mortgage loans have to be in "underserved areas". The reasons those areas are "underserved" is that there in an under SUPPLY of credit-worthy people in those areas to make loans to. Most of these areas are populated by minorities, and in many cases filled with illegal aliens. Because of that, it is not politically correct to be rational and point out the financial mayhem that the loan-quota has caused. The act does not specify the loans have to be bad loans, but by specifying the loans must come from a bad area the effect is the same. All of the credit-worthy people in those areas got loans long ago. The only ones left to give money to were the riskier customers.

Barney Frank is a practicing, in-your-face homosexual. I don't approve of his life-style, but that is not really my business. He is also an arrogant control freak who is mis-representing harmful government policies as beneficial. As chairman of the House Banking Committee he should know what the truth is, but he instead is using his position to ridicule and hide the truth. The harm he will do to my family and children as a result of his refusal to face economic reality is far worse than the harm that will come to us through his deviant personal life-style choices.

Barney Frank is a deceiver. The CRA is a huge factor in the financial crisis- don't let wicked men like Frank use Clintonized stats to tell you otherwise.