History 101 - Or, Where It All Began

[Crafty Angler]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Crafty, I know we dont agree on much, so it should come at no suprise that I disagree stongly with this.

Hey, no worries, mate - that's what makes America great.

You've got good musical taste, anyway, Jimmy -

Listen, the bankers indulged in risky behaviors - lending money to people who didn't have a snowball's chance of being able to meet their financial obligations. So how can the money-lenders cry the blues -

Their current dilemma is the result of self-inflicted wounds. If you indulge in risky behaviors, you have to be willing to suffer the consequences. And the whole sub-prime fiasco was hardly the result of a noble effort to help consumers enjoy a home of their very own.

They said yes to these people without the prudence that should have been exercised by someone who knew with the outcome would be. That begs another question - why?

How can you justify giving those people in finance TARP money - our money - when they blew the fundamental premise so badly? That being, if you're gonna loan someone money, make sure they can pay you back, like The Dad Fisherman said.

Not a very complex set of groundrules for institutions that make their living that way...for a banker, that has to be covered in Intro To Lending 101 when they get the gig...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Crafty Angler

Hey, no worries, mate - that's what makes America great.

You've got good musical taste, anyway, Jimmy -

Listen, the bankers indulged in risky behaviors - lending money to people who didn't have a snowball's chance of being able to meet their financial obligations. So how can the money-lenders cry the blues -

Their current dilemma is the result of self-inflicted wounds. If you indulge in risky behaviors, you have to be willing to suffer the consequences. And the whole sub-prime fiasco was hardly the result of a noble effort to help consumers enjoy a home of their very own.

They said yes to these people without the prudence that should have been exercised by someone who knew with the outcome would be. That begs another question - why?

How can you justify giving those people in finance TARP money - our money - when they blew the fundamental premise so badly? That being, if you're gonna loan someone money, make sure they can pay you back, like The Dad Fisherman said.

Not a very complex set of groundrules for institutions that make their living that way...for a banker, that has to be covered in Intro To Lending 101 when they get the gig...

Is it true that before the Community Reinvestment Act was imposed on the lending institutions that they DID issue mortgage loans by "Lending 101" guidelines, i.e. 20% down and the ability to pay off the loan? And once the GOVERNMENT not only okayed, but to some extent mandated, that loans were to be issued to those that did not meet Lending 101 standards, it was THEN that the banks went with the new flow?

[likwid]

Edward Howland Robinson Green

Ahhh the Colonel.

I'm sure someone can pick out other noteable people who spent extensive time in New England.

[Raven]

I disagree

we are being taxed to DEATH

the American People are not to blame for that.....

they are not the ones collecting the Taxes...

the Taxes collected are not being spent wisely
and never have been.

Sure Americans haven't been responsible with Credit...
but the Government and it's tax policies are as responsible for this dilemma
just as much as the American Public.

[Crafty Angler]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Is it true that before the Community Reinvestment Act was imposed on the lending institutions that they DID issue mortgage loans by "Lending 101" guidelines, i.e. 20% down and the ability to pay off the loan? And once the GOVERNMENT not only okayed, but to some extent mandated, that loans were to be issued to those that did not meet Lending 101 standards, it was THEN that the banks went with the new flow?

While I'm not familiar with the CRA, I would guess the intent was to keep banks from red-lining certain neighborhoods.

I'll also have to admit that predatory borrowing as a root cause has really never crossed my mind...

The subpoenas for that Senate investigation will probably have to be delivered to the van down by the river that those folks are living in now -

And I don't think the Nuremburg defense - that the banks were only following the orders of their government - really applies here either as a justification for their lending behaviors.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Crafty Angler

While I'm not familiar with the CRA, I would guess the intent was to keep banks from red-lining certain neighborhoods.

I'll also have to admit that predatory borrowing as a root cause has really never crossed my mind...

The subpoenas for that Senate investigation will probably have to be delivered to the van down by the river that those folks are living in now -

And I don't think the Nuremburg defense - that the banks were only following the orders of their government - really applies here either as a justification for their lending behaviors.

As far as I can gather, intent of CRA is to loosen Lending 101 standards so that less fortunate folk can also enjoy the "American Dream" of home ownership, and, probably, to get and keep their votes in the future.

Borrowing and Lending is a two way, agreed upon transaction. It is not forced. Ergo, if one is predatory, so is the other. Predation, as far as I know, is not agreed upon. It is, as far as I know, forced.

I don't think there will be a Senate investigation of the CRA. If there were, it would be a whitewash. When Government ivestigates itself, the conclusion is foregone.

I don't think our Government is Nazi . . .yet. But I do believe we have to follow its laws. Consequences are usually dire if we don't.