Occupy Wall Street: Not on major media but worth watching!

[dagnabit]

like the utter tripe you posted above concerning the CRA?

just go back a few pages to see how the '92 '94 '95 and '99 legislative and regulatory changes in the CRA combined with the encouragement to lower credit standards in order to meet CRA merger requirements is a direct part of the causation of the mortgage crisis.

well that and the '95 change which allowed mortgage lenders to use bundles with CRA loans to account for CRA credits.

well that and dodd and schumer running to billy and finding out why he wouldn't sign the FSMA.
turns out he just wanted this added.

§ 2903. Financial institutions; evaluation

(a) In general
In connection with its examination of a financial institution, the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shall—
(1) assess the institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution; and
(2) take such record into account in its evaluation of an application for a deposit facility by such institution.
(b) Majority-owned institutions
In assessing and taking into account, under subsection (a) of this section, the record of a nonminority-owned and nonwomen-owned financial institution, the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency may consider as a factor capital investment, loan participation, and other ventures undertaken by the institution in cooperation with minority- and women-owned financial institutions and low-income credit unions provided that these activities help meet the credit needs of local communities in which such institutions and credit unions are chartered.
(c) Financial holding company requirement
(1) In general
An election by a bank holding company to become a financial holding company under section 1843 of this title shall not be effective if—
(A) the Board finds that, as of the date the declaration of such election and the certification is filed by such holding company under section 1843 (l)(1)(C) of this title, not all of the subsidiary insured depository institutions of the bank holding company had achieved a rating of “satisfactory record of meeting community credit needs”, or better, at the most recent examination of each such institution; and
(B) the Board notifies the company of such finding before the end of the 30-day period beginning on such date.
(2) Limited exclusions for newly acquired insured depository institutions
Any insured depository institution acquired by a bank holding company during the 12-month period preceding the date of the submission to the Board of the declaration and certification under section 1843 (l)(1)(C) of this title may be excluded for purposes of paragraph (1) during the 12-month period beginning on the date of such acquisition if—
(A) the bank holding company has submitted an affirmative plan to the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to take such action as may be necessary in order for such institution to achieve a rating of “satisfactory record of meeting community credit needs”, or better, at the next examination of the institution; and
(B) the plan has been accepted by such agency.
(3) Definitions
For purposes of this subsection, the following definitions shall apply:
(A) Bank holding company; financial holding company
The terms “bank holding company” and “financial holding company” have the meanings given those terms in section 1841 of this title.
(B) Board
The term “Board” means the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
(C) Insured depository institution
The term “insured depository institution” has the meaning given the term in section 1813 (c) of this title.
(d) Low-cost education loans
In assessing and taking into account, under subsection (a), the record of a financial institution, the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shall consider, as a factor, low-cost education loans provided by the financial institution to low-income borrowers.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I'll repeat. CSA doesn't say individuals can't be refused. CSA says banks and lenders can't red line.

You post lost of stuff that doesn't back your claims. There's nothing in your reference that instructs banks and lenders to sell to deadbeats. Nothing in CSA said STOP QUALIFYING APPLICANTS.

That's why I call your stuff toilet paper. You wipe your premise on bogus reference rather than seeking reference that backs your premise.

Try pointing to a single statement in your post that instructs lending to deadbeats. You can't. You just throw up a bunch of crap you don't even understand yourself. Hell, you can't hang with ordinary back-and-forth.

Lowing lending standards doesn't say loan to warm bodies. Applicants have to qualify for these lowered standards.

If private banks and lenders stopped qualifying applicants, lowering credit standards becomes a moot point, moot boy.

 

[dagnabit]

you don't read so good...

reference is the third and least important point..

go back and reread the portion of the thread dedicated to the CRA and the regulatory changes..
it's all linked up for you already and ill be damned if ill do it for you yet again like i had to do 15 times before you admitted the DEA was not formed by congress...

i think the reason you "call my stuff toilet paper" is it's either the best retort your wit will allow or you simply cant comprehend the covernment could possibly have played a role in the meltdown...

either way..
it's all linked you choose to remain ignorant because it's blissful?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

There's nothing in your post that endorses lending to deadbeats. You don't have to post a single thing twice. Just tie your premise to the sheet, not the whole bail of Charmin. I'll give you a hint, what you're looking for isn't in your reference.

You're interpreting regulatory changes as 'give away'. Just as simple as your misunderstanding that the president is like a private business executive - in a separation-of-powers system of government.

Tying a pork chop around your neck doesn't get you as much attention as it used to. So filling threads with intangibles has filled the space of your idle time.

 

[In~Plain~Site]

Anything being the operative

has this movement actually achieved anything?

 

[dagnabit]

the reference is more about GLB than CRA effecting lending...

i can't tell if you are being obtuse or you really are that lost?

three individual points.
the third having to do with GLB.
the second having to do with federal CRA credits(hint that's how the CRA works)and bundles that only had a single CRA loan in them allowing mergers that would have never happened otherwise.
the first being related to CRA encouraging lending to risky borrowers(not deadbeats)through it's credits system.

but i truly am realizing delving into the meat of a subject like the CRA is waaaaay beyond your scope.

the reference is all about the bipartisan effort to destroy the firewall..

but you would never get that the CRA had anything to do with GLB because it under the skin of the onion..

 

[dagnabit]

You're interpreting regulatory changes as 'give away'.

just to prove you dont get it you post this nonsense.

Just as simple as your misunderstanding that the president is like a private business executive - in a separation-of-powers system of government.

never suggested he was..
dude im realizing more and more you are playing in the kiddie pool.
i've given you way to much credit...

Tying a pork chop around your neck doesn't get you as much attention as it used to. So filling threads with intangibles has filled the space of your idle time.

more shallow end nonsense.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

the reference is more about GLB than CRA effecting lending...

And ZERO about lending to deadbeats.

i can't tell if you are being obtuse or you really are that lost?

None of your reference is relative.

dag, if you wish to make a point, please do. Just refrain from imagining that it counters things it has nothing to do with. If you have to go to Mars to make a connection, there's no connection to make.

three individual points.
the third having to do with GLB.

sentence fragment - no point made

the second having to do with federal CRA credits(hint that's how the CRA works)and bundles that only had a single CRA loan in them allowing mergers that would have never happened otherwise.

Zero to do with lending to deadbeats. I'll say it again. Make all the baloney points you want. But tying em to intangible conclusions fail every time.

the first being related to CRA encouraging lending to risky borrowers(not deadbeats)through it's credits system.

but i truly am realizing delving into the meat of a subject like the CRA is waaaaay beyond your scope.

the reference is all about the bipartisan effort to destroy the firewall..

but you would never get that the CRA had anything to do with GLB because it under the skin of the onion..

There's something about lowering standards (doesn't equal give away) you don't get. Lending standards become shiny objects for the blame game when lenders stop qualifying mortgage applications.

 

[dagnabit]

just as i suspected..

not capable.

you don't even understand the reference is not to lending standards...

ill say once again the quoted piece of legislation has to do with the relationship of grham leech baily to the CRA.

but this discourse is beyond your capabilities.
go back to the kiddie pool you are out of your depth.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

just to prove you dont get it you post this nonsense.


never suggested he was..




dude im realizing more and more you are playing in the kiddie pool.
i've given you way to much credit...



more shallow end nonsense.

It's not surprising you lose your own argument. You were initially trying to tie regulatory changes to the failure of private-sector due diligence when ZERO regulatory changes dismissed due diligence.

You don't have apples to apples comparison so you substitute a giant eggplant and hope that nobody catches the fact you can't tell the difference.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

and to wit:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

when the Bill of Rights comes due, it will be paid in blood, as always. stay frosty,

-iD

^In every example in human history, those in absolute power will not give power when their allotted time is up , they force people into killing them. I would like to avoid any political violence in America, but I am also not starving. It is the starving masses that will revolt and behead the top 1 percent. I will be off in the woods. I don't need society.

 

[forty]

someone needs to donate portashitters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pZlQBTsuOk

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

just as i suspected..

not capable.

you don't even understand the reference is not to lending standards...

ill say once again the quoted piece of legislation has to do with the relationship of grham leech baily to the CRA.

but this discourse is beyond your capabilities.
go back to the kiddie pool you are out of your depth.

.

Look, dumb ass. You quoted my comment, countered with your irrelevant reference and now you're backing away from the suggestion that regulatory changes made it ok or somehow forced private lenders to stop due diligence.

 

[dagnabit]

no..

you just cant seem to comprehend there are three separate points made the first addresses lessening credit approval standards
the others address other aspects of the CRA's effect on the current crisis.

i realize the concept is beyond you so you resort to being yourself.
but believe it or not the CRA's effect is much more far reaching than lessening lending standards.(although that is a huge part of it)
it played a major role in what you acknowledge is a major contributor to the meltdown(GLB)
you see billy was holding up GLB until dodd and schumer came to him to find out what he needed to make it happen.
the quoted piece of legislation(that has nothing to do with lending requirements)was what billy said he needed to go along.
what did it say?
basically put if goldman wants to buy/merge with countrywide they have to have a certain amount of CRA credits(earned by lending to CRA qualified borrowers or after the '95 changes to hold enough bundles with 1 CRA loan)to qualify for the merger.

but this deep in the onion is probably to difficult for your level of discourse..

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

no..

you just cant seem to comprehend there are three separate points made the first addresses lessening credit approval standards
the others address other aspects of the CRA's effect on the current crisis.

If you can't parallel your references, they're not worth the space. If you present your non-related points as direct rebuttal, you're wasting everybody's time.

the CRA's effect is much more far reaching than lessening lending standards.(although that is a huge part of it)
it played a major role in what you acknowledge is a major contributor to the meltdown(GLB)

There are multiple major aspects. Make any or all if you wish. Just stop attempting direct rebuttal when you don't have it.

you see billy was holding up GLB until dodd and schumer came to him to find out what he needed to make it happen.
the quoted piece of legislation(that has nothing to do with lending requirements)was what billy said he needed to go along.
what did it say?
basically put if goldman wants to buy/merge with countrywide they have to have a certain amount of CRA credits(earned by lending to CRA qualified borrowers or after the '95 changes to hold enough bundles with 1 CRA loan)to qualify for the merger.

Nothing in that has a thing to do with the comment you rebuked. Nothing you posted absolves private lenders from their day job, accepting qualified applicants and rejecting non-qualified applicants. Private lenders stopped doing this and NOTHING in the references you post nor the opinions you reflect refute it.

The vast part of the housing bust was sub-prime lenders applying ZERO lending standard - plus exotic mortgages disguised to sell yet also designed to fail. Clouding the issue with reduced standards makes ZERO difference where standards as a whole are completely ignored.

Just make your billy and chuck comparisons free and clear of absolving crooked lenders. At least you'll have platform that doesn't contradict your premise. Until you make one of course. lol

 

[dagnabit]

NOTHING in the references you post nor the opinions you reflect refute it.

you are getting there...


lets brek down the post you are having trouble with(not that you will get it)

like the utter tripe you posted above concerning the CRA?

just go back a few pages to see how the '92 '94 '95 and '99 legislative and regulatory changes in the CRA combined with the encouragement to lower credit standards in order to meet CRA merger requirements is a direct part of the causation of the mortgage crisis.

this is a paragraph break.
we use paragraphs in english to denote a change in sub topic within the original topic.

well that and the '95 change which allowed mortgage lenders to use bundles with CRA loans to account for CRA credits.

this was the second paragraph.
it is a sub topic not directly related to lending standards but still related to the main topic of the effect of the CRA on the mortgage crisis.
notice the three letter word i have emboldened. it is a conjunction. it denotes "as well as" meaning it is related to but divergent from.

well that and dodd and schumer running to billy and finding out why he wouldn't sign the FSMA.
turns out he just wanted this added.

this was the third paragraph still on the topic of the CRA but dealing not with lending standards but with the relationship with the CRA and the demolishing of the firewall.

so you see little guythe first paragraph(well referenced the first time we had this discussion which you got all huffy and played yourself to the tune of ad hominem to)is direct rebuttal to your little oped.

the rest are just a few of the other ways the CRA(or more accurately the legislative and regulatory changes in the '90s)played their part.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Government has a responsibility when it comes to housing. Housing is one of the big elements in the economy. Housing can tank economies. Mortgage lending makes folks rich. Greed makes ethics thin. Government mitigates fraud where it occurs and regulates potential, future fraud. That's the way it used to happen.

Where lawmakers fucked up was underestimating several factors. Lawmakers never anticipated so much global bond money pouring into mortgage lending. Lawmakers never dreamed that private lenders would qualify buyers with as little as a pulse, then approve these mortgages (complete with all the data required to qualify for for the particular loan.) Lots of info your average dead beat buyer didn't know to fill out themselves.

Had lawmakers known that private lenders would largely shirk due diligence, lawmakers might have mandated due diligence. If not, lawmakers might have mandated realistic ratings on obvious junk.

Lawmakers just overestimated the promises of, "get out of the way, allow the market to regulate", only until Greenspan swallowed a whole crow, admitting the cloud can't mitigate fraud.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

you are getting there...

Sadly you're not. You either can't grasp simple concepts or you don't care to differentiate.

You have a few very simple options.

Make direct rebuttal (directly) relevant.

Save everything else for original offering or wait until someone contributes something you're qualified to correct.

You're opinions and ideas are just as worthy as the next guy's. But the way you put it together, that needs some work.

 

[dagnabit]

Sadly you're not. You either can't grasp simple concepts or you don't care to differentiate.

that is what the paragraph breaks and conjunctions are all about

You have a few very simple options.

ohh do tell LMAO

Make direct rebuttal (directly) relevant.

paragraph one

Save everything else for original offering or wait until someone contributes something you're qualified to correct.

that is what the paragraph breaks and conjunctions are all about

i notice you focus on silliness because you cant comprehend the rest...

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Again, you're way past your misconceptions. Paragraph break and conjunctions don't mean anything when your reference isn't relevant to your rebuttal. Even your argument isn't relevant to the comment you quoted. (What 20 pages back?) Never mind.

You can recognize a square peg from a round hole but it doesn't stop you from attempting to jam it through. Your references and arguments that don't fit are irrelevant.

Restore your relevancy and apply aspects where they exist, not where you try to jam em.