JLS, You asked if now I'm trying to blame Fannie, Freddie. That's another reason it's like talking to a brick wall debating you. I clearly showed they were brought into the game in a low income program mirroring CRA and that CRA was a catchall term for low income programs and the reason why studies showing CRA was a low percentage was flawed.
And as for sentences not in the article, Just look for the quotation marks to indicate it's a quote from the article.
The real question should be how would the mortgage problem occur just based on the 1970's rule? If there was no toxic bundle? If the brokerage firms didn't play a huge role in cashing in on the housing boom? How much over-leverage was there if you dissect the problem into bank exposure. The CRA had valid reasons for its enactment. I do not believe we would have a world wide debt default solely on the CRA rule. It was an excuse. Is anyone suggesting banks and insurers weren't driven based on greed to look the other way and allow lax requirements? The mantra of the day was housing prices always goes up. How many times did we have to bail out big banks before? In the 70's, way before the CRA was enacted banks had to be bailed out.
Just plain old greed being allowed to build until someone came up with the mother of all trading vehicles. The other factor was the mindset change since the start of the 80's. This was a decade where we replaced cash with credit and as the decades progressed assumed credit and cash were synonymous.
excellent you whooped him good!!! As soon as the insults and the "you are on ignore" comments come out from the conservatives they LOST!!! They are good at that!!
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
