That is factual incorrect. Only minor changes were made to CRA under Clinton. It was the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act also under Clinton that required Fannie and Freddie to securitize a certain percentage of CRA mortgages.
Again, only a fraction of the bad mortgages that caused the housing crisis were subject to CRA. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: > CRA was started under Carter and greatly expanded under Clinton. This is a > far more detailed conversation then we can have here, but the fact is that > if the government (Fan and Fred) hadn't created the market for the paper, > this could not have happened. > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > Jeff Broadwick > ImageStream > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > > -----Original Message----- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Matt Liotta > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 9:36 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in > regulationofnet-neutrality > > The Community Reinvestment Act was first passed in 1977. It was later > changed under Bush in 1989 because of the S & L crisis. I mention this only > to provide some context as to how long it has been with us and the variety > of administrations that have affected it. It was really the Federal Housing > Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 that put us in the > current situation with Fannie and Freddie securitizing CRA loans. That in > and of itself didn't get us here. It was really the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act > that started us down the wrong road. This ultimately allowed companies like > Goldman to create CDOs, sell them, and buy insurance against their failure > all without having any interest in the underlying securities. > > Sorry for the history lesson, but I thought the background was useful. > Understand that by 2004 only 30% of mortgages were done under CRA and in > 2005 regulatory changes allowed certain banks to do less CRA mortgage > lending. Thus, it just isn't credible to suggest that the CRA caused the > housing crisis. > > Was the housing crisis created by people getting mortgages they couldn't > afford? Yes, but that wasn't limited to CRA mortgages. Both parties helped > get more people into houses they couldn't afford for their own reasons. > > -Matt > > On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: > >> That's just not accurate Tom. The Community Reinvestment Act required >> lenders to do a lot of this stuff and then Fannie and Freddie created >> the market for the paper. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Jeff >> >> >> Jeff Broadwick >> ImageStream >> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) >> +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi >> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:19 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in >> regulationof net-neutrality >> >> Brad, >> >>> People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been >>> afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big >>> government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. >> >> You had me, until the above paragraph. That is a crock of ShXX. >> >> Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the >> middle class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it >> worth continuing to sink money into this bad investment losing money? >> I will say that there are a shortage of buyer. So when an investor >> cant offload their losing investment (House) to someone else, they >> resort to less ethical choices. >> What does someone do if their house jsut lost 50k in value? IF they go >> to foreclosure, they can pretty much live rent free for a year in >> their home, before they are forced out. If they put their rent check >> in hidden savings instead, they earn 50k that year. That combined with >> gettting out of a loan taht is valued at mor ethan the house, it is a >> net $100k earning, for doing nothing. They learn they can earn more >> losing their home than some people do holding on to their home as an > investment to resale. >> >> And governments were not the ones forcing lenders to lend. Its the >> opposite.... Government regulation is unnecessarilly setting >> regulations to make buying harder for consumers, to address a problem that > didn't exist. >> >> Some People loose homes because.... a home is a 30 year commitment, >> and its hard for anyone to predict how one's life will pan out every >> year for 30 years. All it takes is one bad year, and there goes the >> house. People loose houses because they loose jobs. People loose >> houses because most personal debt is secured by their house, and >> loosing the house is the easiest way to get rid of the other debt. >> People lose houses because they cant live within their mean in other >> areas of their life. Or because they set their sights to high. But the >> biggest reason people default, is because they develop a sense of >> satisfaction or entitlement in screwing their lender when they feel >> they were taken advantage of by their lendor. Even with Bankruptcy, >> there are some interesing stats, for example, almost all people that >> go bankrupt religiously paid their bills the many years prior to, and >> that they had an average interest increase of 80-100% the year they >> filed. The borrower could have paid and wanted to pay, but whenthey felt > there was no way out of getting screwed by the lender, they make a business > decission. >> >> Part of the problem was dishonest overstated appraisals, and greedy >> lenders approving loans at values higher than the homes should be >> worth. Sure there is a percentage of foreclosure that are legitimate >> cases where the homeowner can no longer afford to pay their mortgage. >> But many are conscience business decissions on their investment. Why >> do you think Obama decided to help Middle class save their homes, >> while they let the most needy loose their homes? A Interest rate >> savings canbe justified as a clear business decission that might >> influence the middle class home owner to want to keep their home, instead > of purposely defaulting. >> >> I will agree that the Government is not taking the right approach to >> solve the problems. But they surely are not the cause of the problem. >> Assisting Americans into HomeOwnership is one of the largest success >> stories for America. And government assistance (such as FHA loan) was >> one of the answers to when the private sector was not willing to solve >> the problem on their own. >> >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >>>> Brad Belton wrote: >>>> Jack, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Your police analogy is flawed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the >>>> safety of a larger population it does not take a larger government >>>> body with increased invasion of those people's lives to govern >>>> effectively. A larger population requires no more or fewer laws >>>> than a small population as the laws are applied to all regardless of >>>> the size of population. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Agreed, the more people that "give up" and begin to simply depend on >>>> the government to provide for them the worse our country (or any >>>> country) becomes. This is exactly what big government wants; the >>>> people to become more dependent on them. The more dependent the >>>> people become on big government the more power they have over your >>>> life and the fewer freedoms you enjoy. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Why is it that so many small businesses exist? They exist partly >>>> because they can provide a better service/price than the "big guys". >>>> Wireless providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep >>>> their doors >>>> open) >>>> exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified >>>> and acted upon. Capitalism and the market works well as long as big >>>> government stays out of it. I don't know about the rest here, but >>>> the more the big Telco's charge the better my business does! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending? >>>> GM >>>> is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced >>>> to take TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the >>>> government out of their business. Is it such a bad thing to own and >>>> operate a small business with no long term debt? Sure, it makes >>>> getting the company off the ground that much harder, but it also >>>> creates a personal investment and commitment by the proprietor >>>> beyond any cash infusion. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that >>>> employ people weather the storm of uncertainty. People are losing >>>> their homes.many of which never should have been afforded the >>>> privilege of home ownership if it were not for big government >>>> forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to >>>> you, Jack. That's fine with me.there are those that do and those >>>> that.I don't know.just coast along I guess? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Brad >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Jack Unger >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:55 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in >>>> regulation of net-neutrality >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Brad, >>>> >>>> You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's >>>> try it again. >>>> >>>> When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going >>>> to have more frequent and more complex problems, including more >>>> fighting over the available amount of resources. Like it or not, >>>> attempting to maintain order is expected of government, be it large >>>> or small government. A two-person police force is expected to be >>>> able to maintain order in a tiny community and a 10,000 person >>>> police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a large >>>> city. A two-person (small government) police force will not be able >>>> to maintain order in New York or Los Angeles. "Socialism" (however >>>> that is defined or mis-defined) has nothing to do with this basic >>>> dynamic. >>>> >>>> America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the >>>> limited government framework that the founding fathers provided. >>>> Unfortunately today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up >>>> their power to govern their own lives. That power now resides in the >>>> hands of large corporations (banks, factory farms, seed companies, >>>> meat processors, insurance companies, news networks, incumbent >>>> telecom companies, etc.). Government has unfortunately become >>>> complicit in this dynamic. Today, big money corporations control >>>> government by "buying off" politicians through large campaign >>>> contributions. It doesn't matter if the politicians are Democrats or >>>> Republicans. Our big-money political system has corrupted virtually >>>> all of them. Until we fix our broken political system by removing >>>> the corrupting effect of big money, none of us will regain the >>>> freedoms that were fought for and won by our ancestors. >>>> >>>> jack >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Brad Belton wrote: >>>> >>>> Jack, >>>> >>>> I completely disagree with the notion that America has to become >>>> smaller to have a smaller less invasive government! It is a >>>> socialist mentality to think that only government can grow America >>>> or help Americans. >>>> >>>> America achieved its success by people utilizing their abilities to >>>> better themselves and their lives free of an overly burdening >>>> government. >>>> America >>>> was not built by grants, entitlements or anything big government can >>>> possibly provide. Instead our constitution provides a framework >>>> outlining government limitations, so as to prevent government to >>>> ever be able to control the people it governs. The people of the >>>> republic govern not the other way around. >>>> >>>> Countless Americans have given their lives to protect the very >>>> freedom big government takes away. Government run health care just >>>> happens to be the straw that broke the camel's back and Americans >>>> are saying enough is enough in overwhelming numbers. >>>> >>>> >>>> Brad >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Jack Unger >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:48 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in >>>> regulation of net-neutrality >>>> >>>> Brad, >>>> >>>> There is really only one way to get a smaller government without >>>> throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a >>>> smaller country, in other words, a lower level of population. With >>>> an exploding population there is just no way that I can see to get a >>>> smaller government. >>>> >>>> If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as >>>> voting the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's >>>> not that simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in >>>> government doing a better job for working people because the real >>>> influence is the big-corporation money that finances the election >>>> campaigns for each new crop of political nominees. The big-money >>>> lobbyists remain when each old group of politicians is voted out so >>>> the big-money corporation's power actually becomes greater and greater > as time goes on. >>>> >>>> The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL >>>> political campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an >>>> equal number of taxpayer dollars to run their campaign. This will >>>> help ALL candidates remember who they are supposed to be working for >>>> (working-class taxpayers, not large corporations). >>>> >>>> As to regaining some influence for working people with regard to >>>> banks, I'd recommend that everyone put their money in a local credit >>>> union or small local community bank. My money has been kept in a >>>> local community credit union for over 20 years and I feel good about >>>> it >> being there. >>>> It's contributing to the community instead of being used in an >>>> irresponsible fashion and/or used against the best interests of the >>>> community. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> jack >>>> >>>> >>>> Brad Belton wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank >>>> (or organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly >>>> you have recourse. If your own government treats you unfairly, you >>>> have little to >>>> >>>> >>>> no >>>> >>>> >>>> recourse. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to >>>> stand up and say no more to big government. A smaller less >>>> intrusive government is what America needs. In order to achieve >>>> this we have to remove the career politicians from office that have >>>> clearly lost touch with the >>>> >>>> >>>> people >>>> >>>> >>>> that elected them. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Brad >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Jack Unger >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:01 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in >>>> regulation >>>> >>>> >>>> of >>>> >>>> >>>> net-neutrality >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance >>>> companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they >>>> want to do it. >>>> >>>> BWaaaah, haaa, haaaa, haaa, haaaaggggh.... >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank Crawford wrote: >>>> >>>> YES >>>> >>>> Jack Unger wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you >>>> support the alternative of making government so small that you can >>>> drown it in a bathtub? >>>> >>>> Glenn Kelley wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates >>>> telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the >>>> FCC to oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell >>>> during a talk he gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see >>>> First Do No >>>> Harm: A >>>> >>>> >>>> broadband >>>> >>>> >>>> plan for Amercia) >>>> "Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this >>>> regulatory Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice >> application?" . >>>> >>>> >>>> "With >>>> >>>> >>>> this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just >>>> another type of data app? As the distinction between network >>>> operators and application providers continues to blur at an >>>> eye-popping rate, how will >>>> >>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>> government be able to keep up?" >>>> >>>> >>>> Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________________ >>>> _ >>>> _______ >>>> >>>> >>>> _________ >>>> Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com >>>> Email: gl...@hostmedic.com >>>> Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> - >>>> ------- >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> - >>>> ------- >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> >>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>> >>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>> >>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> - >>>> ------- >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> - >>>> ------- >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> >>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>> >>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>> >>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. >>> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the >>> Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since >>> 1993 >>> www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> - >>> ---------- >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> - >>> ---------- >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------ >> ---- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------ >> ---- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---------- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---------- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
