# Occupy Wallstreet **URL:** \ **Category:** Shift518 Off Topic\ **Created:** [September 29, 2011, 12:57pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/occupy-wallstreet/260647 "2011-09-29T12:57:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 143
**Author:** ![Boxersix](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/boxersix/32/6327_2.png) [@Boxersix](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Boxersix)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 2:42pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/occupy-wallstreet/260647/143 "2011-10-16T14:42:12Z")
> [@On another topic](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/45894/2): > > So full of stupid I cant even believe I am replying… ever hear of the Community Reinvestment Act? > A Law > A Statue > Basically if banks didnt start to give money to the poor among us, they would face stiff resistance and regulatory issues.Thank Carter and Clinton! > > “The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions (Section 804.)[6]” > > The banks werent forced? > > The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination? > > According to one enforcement agency, “discrimination exists when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants.” Note that these “arbitrary or outdated criteria” include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history–the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring. > Fuck, uninformed people shouldnt talk through their ass cause it sounds good or some liberal parent or teacher told them so. > > Motto for some in here should be … Go live life some and learn something from experience. > > Edit…ok, that was harsh, some things you said ring true about some lenders, no doubt… but most did it with the law… but still knew it was robbery deep down. Of course there are hundreds of examples of downright thieves that robbed the systemand took advantage… but in the end, it was the act that caused and allowed for it. > [@would you use this rubber?](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/would-you-use-this-rubber/45893/9): > > All this overlooks a crucial fact: There has been no free market in housing or finance. Government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets–including its creation of Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE - news - people ) (which have now amassed $5 trillion in liabilities)–leading to many of the problems being blamed on the free market today. > > Consider the low lending standards that were a significant component of the mortgage crisis. Lenders made millions of loans to borrowers who, under normal market conditions, weren’t able to pay them off. These decisions have cost lenders, especially leading financial institutions, tens of billions of dollars. > > It is popular to take low lending standards as proof that the free market has failed, that the system that is supposed to reward productive behavior and punish unproductive behavior has failed to do so. Yet this claim ignores that for years irrational lending standards have been forced on lenders by the federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and rewarded (at taxpayers’ expense) by multiple government bodies. > > The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination? > > According to one enforcement agency, “discrimination exists when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants.” Note that these “arbitrary or outdated criteria” include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history–the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring. > > The government has promoted bad loans not just through the stick of the CRA but through the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which purchase, securitize and guarantee loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. This setup created an easy, artificial profit opportunity for lenders to wrap up bundles of subprime loans and sell them to a government-backed buyer whose primary mandate was to “promote homeownership,” not to apply sound lending standards. > [@so i was workin on a car at work...](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-workin-on-a-car-at-work/45917/16): > > Yeah, this was a win win for banks… really really? Really! Over 500 banks have closed and the bail out was bullshit, but this was NOT a WIN WIN for banks… Really? Wow > > Wait, the CRA was there to right hundreds of years of wrongs??? Really? That was the solution? Give people with no money…mortgages… yup, liberal solution. Started with carter, pushed on and mandated with Clinton. REALLY? Houses are considered an asset that will never depreciate (that type of thinking helped get us here…who says that as if its a guarantee)… I suppose you would say that about Gold too. Its an investment. Know the risks. > > Of course whites origionated most loans… they were more likely to be educated enough to become a loan officer or in banking unfortunately, and, umm, there are more whites. > > Your closing statement shows your utter ignorance on the subject. Predatory lending was not the cause of the failure. Sub-Prime lending was probably the leading cause. It was there, it was wrong, but without it, there still would have been the crash. Many people were given loans that shouldnt have had them. But, ummm, the LAW said they must or pay the consequences. The LIBERAL driven bill and Law. This wasnt a suggestion. Given loans by non-predators. Only a small percentage were unscrupilous in the big picture. It sucks there are misinformed loudmouths that just continue to talk the liberal talking points. > > In the future I suggest your form your opines from experience rather than teachers, parents or left wing commentary. Read the bills, laws, talk to business owners (u must hate them). > > Lets be real, the securities market robbed america by packaging shit mortgages and selling them for big money, knowing they may well fail. The government backed the loans so the win was to securities markets. Look to a few key packagers for the move… but do not blame this on anyone but the government that not only allowed this, but nearly forced it on banks. The government needed to stay the fuck out of regulating private banking practices. Gov’t has no business in business when it comes to how they should choose their customers. > > BLAME 1: Liberal Gov’t > Blame 2 : People over extending, the art of personal responsability > Blame 3; The securities market (I. E. Saks), for scheeming up a way to give Government, and therefor the people, back the bag of shit that they ammassed. Wifey and I love you Jason :tongue [ame][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGoPFRUdc[/ame]](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGoPFRUdc%5B/ame%5D) --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/occupy-wallstreet/260647)._