The Obama Administration thread

[SLCPUNK]

The big spending started with Bush and Obama is spending even more.

Where are all you Democrats who were screaming about a balanced budget and deficits now?

You think it sucks now? If they weren't propping up the economy/financial markets, the life you have known would be finished.

You fuckers don't give a shit about spending anyway, you've defended it for eight years. Now all of a sudden you're back to your conservative roots, completely oblivious to the colossal shit storm you just dodged. Who do you think you're kidding anyway?

[C0ma]

Funny, the President who's administration pushed thru changes in the CRA seems to recognize the danger in the way it operates/operated...

Funny, it didn't say jack shit about the CRA. Please tell me what changes they pushed through in regards to the CRA.

Even I'm not stupid enough to believe that the Right is always right...

Yet here you are repeating their lies about the CRA til you are blue in the face.

Regulatory changes 1995
In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.[15] Robert Rubin, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, under President Clinton, explained that this was in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities". Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[13]

In 1995, the CRA regulations were substantially revised to address criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results. The agencies also changed the CRA examination process to incorporate these revisions.[15] Information about banking institutions' CRA ratings were made available via web page for public comment.[13] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also revised its regulations, allowing lenders subject to the CRA to claim community development loan credits for loans made to help finance the environmental cleanup or redevelopment of industrial sites when it was part of an effort to revitalize the low- and moderate-income community where the site was located.[25]

During March 1995 congressional hearings William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized the proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit and micromanagement by regulators, and that there was no assurance that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss. He predicted they would be very costly to the economy and banking system, and that the primary long term effect would be to contract the banking system. He recommended Congress repeal the Act.[26]

Responding to concerns that the CRA would lower bank profitability, a 1997 research paper by economists at the Federal Reserve found that "[CRA] lenders active in lower-income neighborhoods and with lower-income borrowers appear to be as profitable as other mortgage-oriented commercial banks".[27] Speaking in 2007, Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke noted that, "managers of financial institutions found that these loan portfolios, if properly underwritten and managed, could be profitable" and that the loans "usually did not involve disproportionately higher levels of default".[9]

According to a 2000 United States Department of the Treasury study of lending trends in 305 U.S. cities between 1993 and 1998, $467 billion in mortgage credit flowed from CRA-covered lenders to low- and medium-income borrowers and areas. In that period, the total number of loans to poorer Americans by CRA-eligible institutions rose by 39% while loans to wealthier individuals by CRA-covered institutions rose by 17%. The share of total US lending to low and medium income borrowers rose from 25% in 1993 to 28% in 1998 as a consequence. [28]

In October 1997, First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launched the first publicly available securitization of Community Reinvestment Act loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. The securities were guaranteed by Freddie Mac and had an implied "AAA" rating.[29][22] The public offering was several times oversubscribed, predominantly by money managers and insurance companies who were not buying them for CRA credit.[30]


Legislative changes 1999
In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the *Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act," which repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services. The bill was killed in 1998 because Senator Phil Gramm wanted the bill to expand the number of banks which no longer would be covered by the CRA. He also demanded full disclosure of any financial deals which community groups had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion." In 1999 Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer broke another deadlock by forcing a compromise between Gramm and the Clinton administration which wanted to prevent banks from expanding into insurance or securities unless they were compliant with the CRA. In the final compromise, the CRA would cover bank expansions into new lines of business, community groups would have to disclose certain kinds of financial deals with banks, and smaller banks would be reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance.[31][32][33] On signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[34]

*The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999, is an Act of the 106th United States Congress which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited a bank from offering investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

Crucial to the passing of this Act was an amendment made to the GLBA, stating that no merger may go ahead if any of the financial holding institutions, or affiliates thereof, received a "less than satisfactory [sic] rating at its most recent CRA exam", essentially meaning that any merger may only go ahead with the strict approval of the regulatory bodies responsible for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).[10] This was an issue of hot contention, and the Clinton Administration stressed that it "would veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements." [11]

Criticism
President Barack Obama believes that the Act directly helped cause the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.[15] Economists Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have also criticized the Act as contributing to the crisis. They state that while "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made "perfect sense" as a legitimate act of deregulation, under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly".[16]

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has called Senator Phil Gramm "the father of the financial crisis" due to his sponsorship of the Act.[17] Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has also argued that the Act helped to create the crisis.[18] An article in The Nation has made the same argument.[19]

Contrary to Phil Gramm's claim that "GLB didn't deregulate anything" (see Defense), the GLB Act that he co-authored explicitly exempted security-based swap agreements (a derivative financial product based on another security's value or performance) from regulation by the SEC Commission by amending the Securities Act of 1933, Section 2A, and similarly the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 3A, to read, in part:[20] [21]

He pushed for changes and signed changes into law that enabled to securitization of loans as part of the GLB. All of which is tied into the CRA.
This crisis has been slowly brewing before Bush took office. This has the fingerprints of both parties on it... I love how you seem to want to ignore that the left is equally responsible for this. Just keep taking jabs at the right and smugly shrugging off any evidence that doesn't support your agenda.

[Smoking Guns]

Does anyone watch the Mike Huckabee show?  He is such a good person and makes a lot of sense and isn't very political at all.  I enjoy his guests, commentary, and his musical performance at the end of each show.  I think he would make a fine president.

[Jim Bob]

Does anyone watch the Mike Huckabee show?  He is such a good person and makes a lot of sense and isn't very political at all.  I enjoy his guests, commentary, and his musical performance at the end of each show.  I think he would make a fine president.

are you fucking kidding me? 

I mean he's an entertaining and likeable guy, but the thought of that bible thumping wingnut being a world leader is even scarier than Sarah Palin being President.

[C0ma]

Does anyone watch the Mike Huckabee show?  He is such a good person and makes a lot of sense and isn't very political at all.  I enjoy his guests, commentary, and his musical performance at the end of each show.  I think he would make a fine president.

Yes he would make a fine President... of the Little Rock Elks.
To me there was nothing more annnoying than him attempting to hang on for far too long in the race for the nomination. In my opinion he did nothing but hurt his party, if he (who had no real chance at the Presidency) wasn't there, the conservative vote would have gone to Mitt Romney who would have taken down McCain and would have had a stonger chance (IMO) of countering Obama. Also who knows what the election would have looked like in November with Mitt's choice for a VP? Palin was chose to add a conservative presence on the ticket...
Since I'm playing Back to the Future... I would have loved to see Romney's plan for the economy, after all it is tough for anyone to dispute that he had by far the most experience economically of everyone in the race, and certainly more than our current President. Oh well... back to the current universe.

[freedom78]

Does anyone watch the Mike Huckabee show?  He is such a good person and makes a lot of sense and isn't very political at all.  I enjoy his guests, commentary, and his musical performance at the end of each show.  I think he would make a fine president.

Yes he would make a fine President... of the Little Rock Elks.
To me there was nothing more annnoying than him attempting to hang on for far too long in the race for the nomination. In my opinion he did nothing but hurt his party, if he (who had no real chance at the Presidency) wasn't there, the conservative vote would have gone to Mitt Romney who would have taken down McCain and would have had a stonger chance (IMO) of countering Obama. Also who knows what the election would have looked like in November with Mitt's choice for a VP? Palin was chose to add a conservative presence on the ticket...
Since I'm playing Back to the Future... I would have loved to see Romney's plan for the economy, after all it is tough for anyone to dispute that he had by far the most experience economically of everyone in the race, and certainly more than our current President. Oh well... back to the current universe.

  @ "Little Rock Elks"

I've never understood the conservative love for Mitt Romney.  It's as if, in their dislike of John McCain, they just ignored all the socially liberal stuff Romney did.  It seems odd that he can come in with his record and suddenly say "Hey, I'm a real conservative" and people just buy it, hook, line, sinker. 

I remember, the day after Romney dropped out, watching Laura Ingraham at CPAC laud his conservatism while throwing thinly veiled barbs at the GOP nominee that was McCain. 

[C0ma]

The review of Romney's record is not so black and white.

The 2 points instantly picked out are Abortion and Gay Rights.

Abortion:
With abortion he has stated that personally he is against abortion, But has stated "I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.***"... I don't see where that changes his personal views.
*** 1994 campaign against Ted Kennedy

Regarding Gay Rights:

"All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship."
- Romney's 2002 campaign website

"Mitt and Kerry Wish You a Great Pride Weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference"
- A flier handed out at "Gay Pride" by the Romney/Healey Campaign

While that wouldn't make him the most conservative member of the party, I don't see how those ideas in conjunction with his economic views and experience make him a person that most conservatives can't back. Unfortunately for him Mormonism will always be a huge problem for him Nationaly.

Maybe we see him pop back up in 2012... maybe not. I think the party would be better served with him out front than some of the other options floating around.

Again... back to the current universe and not my Dream Land.

[SLCPUNK]

Regulatory changes 1995
In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.[15] Robert Rubin, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, under President Clinton, explained that this was in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities". Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[13]

Where is the link? Why do you guys always leave the link off?

Did you read this part? What's it say? Home ownership in lower income areas would strengthen the community. That's the entire point of the CRA.

In 1995, the CRA regulations were substantially revised to address criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results. The agencies also changed the CRA examination process to incorporate these revisions.[15] Information about banking institutions' CRA ratings were made available via web page for public comment.[13] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also revised its regulations, allowing lenders subject to the CRA to claim community development loan credits for loans made to help finance the environmental cleanup or redevelopment of industrial sites when it was part of an effort to revitalize the low- and moderate-income community where the site was located.[25]

Yea, and?

During March 1995 congressional hearings William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized the proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit and micromanagement by regulators, and that there was no assurance that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss. He predicted they would be very costly to the economy and banking system, and that the primary long term effect would be to contract the banking system. He recommended Congress repeal the Act.[26]

I'm curious what you think this means.

Responding to concerns that the CRA would lower bank profitability, a 1997 research paper by economists at the Federal Reserve found that "[CRA] lenders active in lower-income neighborhoods and with lower-income borrowers appear to be as profitable as other mortgage-oriented commercial banks".[27] Speaking in 2007, Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke noted that, "managers of financial institutions found that these loan portfolios, if properly underwritten and managed, could be profitable" and that the loans "usually did not involve disproportionately higher levels of default".[9]

That's pretty much what I said. Pretty funny you posted it as a means to refute it.

According to a 2000 United States Department of the Treasury study of lending trends in 305 U.S. cities between 1993 and 1998, $467 billion in mortgage credit flowed from CRA-covered lenders to low- and medium-income borrowers and areas. In that period, the total number of loans to poorer Americans by CRA-eligible institutions rose by 39% while loans to wealthier individuals by CRA-covered institutions rose by 17%. The share of total US lending to low and medium income borrowers rose from 25% in 1993 to 28% in 1998 as a consequence. [28]

Yea, so? What were the default rate on those loans? What were the default rate on those in unregulated sub-prime loans? Those with excellent credit? Alt A's?

[SLCPUNK]

In October 1997, First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launched the first publicly available securitization of Community Reinvestment Act loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. The securities were guaranteed by Freddie Mac and had an implied "AAA" rating.[29][22] The public offering was several times oversubscribed, predominantly by money managers and insurance companies who were not buying them for CRA credit.[30]

Pretty much what I said too. Although I would not include CRA as they were not coming from unregulated lending institutions. Again, show me the data on defaults on CRA originated loans. Show me the money.

Legislative changes 1999
In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the *Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act," which repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services. The bill was killed in 1998 because Senator Phil Gramm wanted the bill to expand the number of banks which no longer would be covered by the CRA. He also demanded full disclosure of any financial deals which community groups had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion." In 1999 Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer broke another deadlock by forcing a compromise between Gramm and the Clinton administration which wanted to prevent banks from expanding into insurance or securities unless they were compliant with the CRA. In the final compromise, the CRA would cover bank expansions into new lines of business, community groups would have to disclose certain kinds of financial deals with banks, and smaller banks would be reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance.[31][32][33] On signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[34]

Like I said, google Phil Gramm. Key words here would be "Smaller banks would be reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance." Which is what I've said, the majority of these sub-prime loans that failed were not compliant with the CRA.

Crucial to the passing of this Act was an amendment made to the GLBA, stating that no merger may go ahead if any of the financial holding institutions, or affiliates thereof, received a "less than satisfactory [sic] rating at its most recent CRA exam", essentially meaning that any merger may only go ahead with the strict approval of the regulatory bodies responsible for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).[10] This was an issue of hot contention, and the Clinton Administration stressed that it "would veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements." [11]

What do you think this says?

Criticism
President Barack Obama believes that the Act directly helped cause the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.[15] Economists Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have also criticized the Act as contributing to the crisis. They state that while "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made "perfect sense" as a legitimate act of deregulation, under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly".[16]

See now I have to question your source here? Wiki? Obama blames the CRA? Hardly. You're also referring to the Gramm bill, which certainly did not lower the CRA requirements. They aren't referring to the CRA.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has called Senator Phil Gramm "the father of the financial crisis" due to his sponsorship of the Act.[17] Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has also argued that the Act helped to create the crisis.[18] An article in The Nation has made the same argument.[19]

Yea me too.

Contrary to Phil Gramm's claim that "GLB didn't deregulate anything" (see Defense), the GLB Act that he co-authored explicitly exempted security-based swap agreements (a derivative financial product based on another security's value or performance) from regulation by the SEC Commission by amending the Securities Act of 1933, Section 2A, and similarly the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 3A, to read, in part:[20] [21][/i]

Yup, default swaps, derivatives, banks leveraged 35:1, what does that have to do with the CRA again?

He pushed for changes and signed changes into law that enabled to securitization of loans as part of the GLB. All of which is tied into the CRA.

This doesn't even make sense. Who could read the first sentence and conclude it with the second? How is all that tied to the CRA? Please explain.

This crisis has been slowly brewing before Bush took office. This has the fingerprints of both parties on it... I love how you seem to want to ignore that the left is equally responsible for this. Just keep taking jabs at the right and smugly shrugging off any evidence that doesn't support your agenda.

The original argument was not who is to blame, but that CRA is to blame. That is what I take issue with.

You can make partisan accusations all you'd like but it doesn't take away from the fact that your claims about the CRA are false and you have yet to provide any factual information or data to back your claims. On the contrary you've only solidified my argument.

[freedom78]

The review of Romney's record is not so black and white.

The 2 points instantly picked out are Abortion and Gay Rights.

Abortion:
With abortion he has stated that personally he is against abortion, But has stated "I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.***"... I don't see where that changes his personal views.
*** 1994 campaign against Ted Kennedy

Regarding Gay Rights:

"All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship."
- Romney's 2002 campaign website

"Mitt and Kerry Wish You a Great Pride Weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference"
- A flier handed out at "Gay Pride" by the Romney/Healey Campaign

While that wouldn't make him the most conservative member of the party, I don't see how those ideas in conjunction with his economic views and experience make him a person that most conservatives can't back. Unfortunately for him Mormonism will always be a huge problem for him Nationaly.

Maybe we see him pop back up in 2012... maybe not. I think the party would be better served with him out front than some of the other options floating around.

Again... back to the current universe and not my Dream Land.

I don't think it's black and white...very gray in a party that has massacred those who aren't black n' white (i.e. McCain on occasion).  Personally, I have no big beef with Romney.  He's a Republican from Massachusetts...he's gonna be more liberal if he wants to win...duh. 

Now, if he used those stances to grab the territory of what I wish was the GOP's libertarian heart, then I'd salute him.  I'd disagree with his economic philosophies somewhat, but there are serious principles in that wing of the party that have clearly lost some power in the last few decades.  In fact, let me state for the record that I very much appreciate the idea of a fiscally conservative GOP.  The expansion of government SHOULD have a clear opposition, and they provided that in principle (though not in practice, via the presidency).  And, since I think the natural libertarian opinion should be one in favor of gay and abortion rights, he could be a much more viable (i.e. less extreme) Ron Paul if he grabbed those positions.  But he sold them out very quickly come primary season.  I suppose the same "duh...he wanted to win" argument should apply, but there's going to have to be a serious fight for the heart of the GOP and I'd like to think what wins is principle and not simply sucking up to part of the electorate that tends to be dominant at a given time.   

[C0ma]

According to a 2000 United States Department of the Treasury study of lending trends in 305 U.S. cities between 1993 and 1998, $467 billion in mortgage credit flowed from CRA-covered lenders to low- and medium-income borrowers and areas. In that period, the total number of loans to poorer Americans by CRA-eligible institutions rose by 39% while loans to wealthier individuals by CRA-covered institutions rose by 17%. The share of total US lending to low and medium income borrowers rose from 25% in 1993 to 28% in 1998 as a consequence. [28]

Yea, so? What were the default rate on those loans? What were the default rate on those in unregulated sub-prime loans? Those with excellent credit? Alt A's?

[jarmo]

I think we can all agree that the current economic situation can be blamed on the person who invented money.

There.

Time to move on and focus on what's going on right now.... 

 



/jarmo

[C0ma]

I think we can all agree that the current economic situation can be blamed on the person who invented money.

There.

Time to move on and focus on what's going on right now.... 

 



/jarmo

Wasn't that the theme of some of the rioting durring the G20 in London?

[TAP]

Are there seriously still people who believe that poor people caused the economic crisis?

[jarmo]

Wasn't that the theme of some of the rioting durring the G20 in London?

I thought they were just disagreeing about who the Republicans should nominate in the next election...





/jarmo

[AxlsMainMan]

My money is on Jeb Bush.

[freedom78]

My money is on Jeb Bush.

Nah, he has a Latina wife.  Can't win that primary without winning the white supremacist base. 

[AxlsMainMan]

My money is on Jeb Bush.

Nah, he has a Latina wife.  Can't win that primary without winning the white supremacist base. 

My friends, with Sarah Palin by his side, the world is their's for the taking

[SLCPUNK]

For Chrisake you're thick as a brick!

For the last time, THE MAJORITY OF SUBPRIME LOANS DID NOT MEET CRA REQUIREMENTS. THEY WERE GIVEN OUT BY UNREGULATED MORTGAGE COMPANIES THAT IMMEDIATELY SOLD THEM AS SECURITIES.

Fuckin' hell!

[SLCPUNK]

Are there seriously still people who believe that poor people caused the economic crisis?

It's all code words for "The Niggers, Jimmy Carter and Clinton." They just don't have the fucking balls to say it.