Sunday, October 12, 2008

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.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Such Christian Love

4:04 PM, October 13, 2008  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Sometimes to love people, you have to hate what they do. Or as Proverbs says it "part of the reverential fear of the Lord is the hatred of evil."

In my life I have observed that every passionate person hates something. The righteous hate wickedness, and the wicked hate the righteous.

4:40 PM, October 13, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When "pastor" Haggard was rumored to have a homosexual affair, the media was all over it. Yet Haggard never cost me a dime as far as I can tell.

Barney Frank has a trillion dollar tryst, and no one wants to talk about it.

RIP, America. No nation can survive this idiocy.

4:48 PM, October 13, 2008  
Blogger LawHog said...

If you actually believe, as you say, that Frank's homosexuality "is not really [your] business" then why make an issue of it at all?

I understand that, as a Family Council apologist, you are obligated to make an issue of and denounce all things homosexual. I get it - you are totally obsessed with sex (gay sex in particular) - and that's okay. Yay free speech.

Just know that throwing out such useless ad hominem attacks takes away from the point of the story, which, at least in this case, is more or less right on point. Barney Frank is a corrupt slimeball. Who gives a hoot who he's sleeping with at night?

If you insist on using them in the future, however, could I make a suggestion? Please inform us of the sexual preferences of all politicians and public figures whose names appear on the site in the future. For example:

"Heterosexual Congressman John Boozman" or "Homesexual former Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe."

While you're at it, you might try adding other adjectives, especially those regarding moral failings, such as "philanderer and former Senator Tim Hutchinson."

Just some suggestions that might help your readers.

3:02 PM, October 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing about Credit Default Swaps? May be hard for the extremes of either side to comprehend - but there are many causes to this mess - and blame to go around. If you have to pin blame on something, then pin it on Mr. Deregulation.

1. Fannie and Freddie loans weren't the truly egregious ones - they wouldn't touch those horrifically stupid ones made by countrywide etc., those were sold privately to satisfy a need for decent returns (when interest rates were rock botton).

Your characterization of CRA is wrong, as well. It was created to prevent redlining of neighborhoods. ie - same credit, same loan for everybody. CRA compliance in no way obligated any institution to take undue risk. NINJA loans are purely a free-market creation, and were packaged and sold privately.

Fannie and freddie only hold about 1.5 trillion in loans. Not nearly enough to paralyze our system like we've seen.


2. CDS - if you don't know what they are - look them up. That is the real problem here. A 70 trillion dollar, unregulated, quasi-insurance market that wall st. players abused are the real problem.

These are insurance policies you can issue on any security. you didn't have to prove the ability to pay out, and you didn't have to own the security to buy it. An no one knows who owes who how much. These were bought, sold, swapped and hedged, and created enormous profits, and ENORMOUS liability.

Any discussion of the meltdown wihout a mention of CDSs is seriously lacking.

I don't give a damn who Barney Frank is getting it on with. That's not the cause of the problem. It is MUCH bigger, and while you obsess and pin blame, we are all getting royally screwed by the financial alchemists on wall st.

Keep blaming democrats, gays, etc.., and the rich will keep getting richer and our kids will sink further into debt.

11:02 PM, October 14, 2008  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Lawhog. the point I was trying to make to an audience that contains many of the Family Council people (with whom I share core beliefs) was really the same point you were making- let's get upset over his POLICY more than his personal perversion (which you also perceive is a negative trait since you count it as an "attack" to mention his sexual orientation).

I believe, like John Adams, that we cannot be too curious as to the private lives of our public men. And I believe it was Daniel Webster who said something to the effect that you can't expect bad men to pass good laws. Still, here the policies are so wrong that we don't have to dwell on his character to wonder if he is making good law.

This is how I think the point is best made to my audience. It is really the same thing you are saying, from a different angle.

PS-I was not blogging when Tim Hutchinson lost his Senate seat, but I consider adultery to be a disqualifying character trait in public men as well. If their wife cannot trust them, how can we? When their sexual activities are such that they indicate a serious character flaw, I believe they should be reported, otherwise not.

4:07 AM, October 15, 2008  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

anon,

I can't cover every aspect of the problem in every article. I have spoken out about CDS aka "derivatives". The story below this one has a link to a 40 minute audio file where I go into the problem in detail.

You also mentioned "deregulation" and if you are talking about the end of Glass-Steagall I agree with you, and again list it as part of the problem in the more comprehensive audio file.

As for the CRA, we are just going to have to disagree on that one. Your argument is simply a restatement of the claim that CRA "did not require any bank to make bad loans".

Since you simply re-stated the same technically true but practically false claim, I will paste what I already said about that from the article and leave it to you to explain to us how the banks could stay in the banking business and still avoid making risky loans while fulfilling the requirements of CRA...

"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 REASON 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."

4:20 AM, October 15, 2008  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home