Bill Clinton caused housing crisis and 9/11 debate

haha thanks for taking my post!

 

go to the national corruption index....i dont feel like it

google: national corruption index...

type in bill clinton

 

You would think that since they spend all their time sending each other chain e-mails, wingnuts would actually be better at technology and new media, where instead they get gang-probed by the Kos etc.

I guess when your message is that unattractive it doesn't matter.

 

Let us also not forget the time Sudan had Osama and wanted us to come get him and we wanted nothing to do with him when they kicked him out.

We had plenty of chances to not waste what we're wasting now on Afghanistan but our lovely old dem Billy Clinton was being paid big money by someone to let him go TWICE!

 

Why the Housing boom is Clinton's Fault and not GWB

The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law that requires banks and savings and loan associations to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as "redlining." The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to underserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses. It has been subjected to important regulatory revisions.

The CRA was passed into law by the 95th United States Congress in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community. The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions.

The bill encouraged the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, to enable mortgage companies, savings and loans, commercial banks, credit unions, and state and local housing finance agencies to lend to home buyers. It also encouraged the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, to buy mortgages on the secondary market and sell them as mortgage-backed securities on the open market.

Enter Bill Clinton

In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs.

These revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision.

Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.

Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market. Thus leading us to the problems of today.

Just like all other administrations, the effect of a presidency often isn't felt until after he leaves office. Clinton reaped the benefits of the Reagan/Bush era, and George W. Bush, is having to deal with the problems created by his predecessor and are now coming to fruition.

 

Let us not forgot Bill Clinton was the President who signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a bank deregulation bill that swept away a Depression-era law known as Glass-Steagall, into law.

17 year olds these days are quite bright.

 

and the straw to break the back of all democrats and supporters of the worthless in society.....

The problem with the CRA goes all the way back to the Carter Administration and a lending practice known as redlining. Lenders used to refuse to make loans to persons living in low income areas where experience had shown them that they faced a significant risk of not being paid back. Cater introduced legislation that forced them to loan to people in these areas. Loan losses went up immediately. When the CRA came along it compounded the problem. Fannie and Freddie were created as a convenient garbage dump for all this junk paper. Isn't Congress great! Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are up front this time as well. By the way both of them have taken hundreds of thousands from the very lenders they are supposed to oversee.

 

While Bill Clinton oversaw bank deregulation and the 1995 changes to the CRA, in 2002 Bush took it to yet another level.

Clinton and Bush both had their hands in this.

 

Dude, Clutch asks that you provide a link when you copy and paste material from another site. Unless you're claiming this is your original work.

 

How about you just admit Im right, I have all these links saved in my favorites Ill go through and find it. You liberals just can never admit when we're right, you have to bring up what Clutch says now. I apologize to clutch.Do some research on the CRA and you will see democrats are all thats wrong with this country but you are the broke majority so we have to deal with it.

 

Again, while the Dems have their hands in this too, they had Republican help in all of this.

I voted for Bush. I voted for McCain. Ask anybody around the BBS...I am not a liberal. I am, however, an attorney that represents mortgage servicers. I know a little bit about this problem.

You state that nobody wants to admit when you are right. In this instance, you are half right.

 

Not really. You dont know squat. But I know you think you do. When I was 17 I thought I knew everything.

 

Bill Clinton told T-Mac that he needed surgery.

 

m not actually 17, Im over 30 but a few people the other day said I was a teen.

 

For starters, knowingly assassinating another country's defense minister would probably be taken as an act of war against the UAE and by extension most of the radical Arab world. Osama bin Ladin is the figure head, but he wasn't even the person most responsible for planning the 9/11 attacks. Obviously, it would have greatly hurt al Queda for their leader to be killed, but just like Saddam's capture in Iraq did nothing to end the struggle, I doubt we can end the conflict with al Queda by killing one man, he would become a martyr and probably help their cause in death as much as in life.

In regards to the housing crisis blame game, there was a Republican Congress in power at the time, so both sides have their hands deep in the cookie jar. So since both sides caused the problem, how about we try and get both sides to cooperate and fix it?

 

It is really Monica Lewinski's Fault . ..

Rocket River

 

Since you're not going to bother, I'll provide it for you. You cut & pasted out of some random dude's blog and used that as your "facts":

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?memberId=412718&articleId=281474977461051&nav=Namespace

You really should research exactly how and why the housing crisis started. Hint: it wasn't the poor people that got these CRA loans that started this. In the future, you should probably actually research things yourself instead of cutting & pasting out of an ignorant right-wing blog, who among other things thought that McCain suspending his campaign was "genius" and claimed that the financial bailout bill passed would benefit McCain. The guy is a right-wing hack who doesn't care about facts. That you use that as a source (and don't link it to hide that fact) is disturbing at the very least. It doesn't give you a lot of credibility in anything else you say.