Someone finally said it

[PhiGam]

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_590330.html

The roots of today's mortgage-based financial crisis can be traced back to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which Jimmy Carter signed in 1977. Seeking to address complaints from anti-poverty activists and housing advocates about banks allegedly discriminating against minority borrowers and "redlining" inner-city neighborhoods, the CRA decreed that banks had "an affirmative obligation" to meet the credit needs of victims of discrimination in borrowing.

To add a government stick to the process, the CRA decreed that federal banking regulators would consider how well banks were doing in meeting the goal of more multiculturalism in loaning when considering requests by banks to open new branches or to merge.

A good "CRA rating" was earned by way of increasing loans in poor neighborhoods. Conversely, lenders with low ratings could be fined.

story continues below

[RaggedyAnn]

Another interesting article from the New York Times in 1999.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_590330.html

What do you mean, "finally"? I've been hearing this during the entire crisis.

We all know that this crisis was caused, in part, by how banks made it easier for people who had NO BUSINESS being homeowners to buy places far far beyond what they could afford. Just look at a list of neighborhoods affected the most by foreclosures...the demographics aren't a coincidence.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

What do you mean, "finally"? I've been hearing this during the entire crisis.

We all know that this crisis was caused, in part, by how banks made it easier for people who had NO BUSINESS being homeowners to buy places far far beyond what they could afford. Just look at a list of neighborhoods affected the most by foreclosures...the demographics aren't a coincidence.

I think he means that a news source is finally pointing out that banks didn't just decide "Hey, let's stop making sure people are going to be able to pay us back before we loan them money, it'll work out great." To point out that the reason banks made these kinds of loans is because they were coerced to is a big difference from everyone just printing the garbage Barney Frank has been spewing about "Look what the greedy banks that the Republicans deregulated got us into."

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

I think he means that a news source is finally pointing out that banks didn't just decide "Hey, let's stop making sure people are going to be able to pay us back before we loan them money, it'll work out great." To point out that the reason banks made these kinds of loans is because they were coerced to is a big difference from everyone just printing the garbage Barney Frank has been spewing about "Look what the greedy banks that the Republicans deregulated got us into."

No, no, no. I absolutely know that the banks were encouraged to lend to riskier people, as a way to right previous wrongs, the CRA being the most glaringly obvious example. Again...I've been hearing this for at least the past year and a half.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

To point out that the reason banks made these kinds of loans is because they were coerced to is a big difference from everyone just printing the garbage Barney Frank has been spewing about "Look what the greedy banks that the Republicans deregulated got us into."

As long as we all remember that it doesn't have to be one or the other. Some garbage makes pretty good manure -- while the roots of the crisis include the CRA, "corporate greed" (for lack of a better term) and lax regulation can make some pretty good fertilizer.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

No, no, no. I absolutely know that the banks were encouraged to lend to riskier people, as a way to right previous wrongs, the CRA being the most glaringly obvious example. Again...I've been hearing this for at least the past year and a half.

I personally had never heard anything of it from the media other than a brief sound bite from Fox.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

I personally had never heard anything of it from the media other than a brief sound bite from Fox.

I don't watch much network news at all, unless I'm in an airport. Nothing against it, I'm just not home a lot to watch TV. I guess I just read a bunch of different papers with several viewpoints.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I don't watch much network news at all, unless I'm in an airport. Nothing against it, I'm just not home a lot to watch TV. I guess I just read a bunch of different papers with several viewpoints.

I go to realclearpolitics.com and read the articles that sound intriguing, this was one of them.

[srmom]

Here is a great article regarding this issue - it's the most fair and even handed one I've read:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...6375633.column

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

I go to realclearpolitics.com and read the articles that sound intriguing, this was one of them.

That's okay for a start, but I think anyone is better off reading/watching/listening to a variety of news sources from a variety of perspectives -- especially at least one or two news sources that typically do not represent your own views. You're not likely to get that with RCP.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

That's okay for a start, but I think anyone is better off reading/watching/listening to a variety of news sources from a variety of perspectives -- especially at least one or two news sources that typically do not represent your own views. You're not likely to get that with RCP.

Ummm... yes you are?

Their top section articles, just from today, are from Chicago Tribune, Time, LA Times, NY Times, Boston Herald, Salon, Washington Times, RCP, Huffington Post, Bloomberg, Indianapolis Star, National Review, Miami Herald, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and the Wall Street Journal. If you include the editorials you can add on New York Sun, Washington Post, and San Diego Union Tribune.

That seems to be a pretty wide variety and cover both sides of the political spectrum. Salon and the Huffington Post are both very liberal, a number of the others are kind of liberal/liberal slanted, WSJ is kind of conservative/conservative slanted and National Review and Washington Times are both pretty conservative.

Seems to me like they have it covered.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

Ummm... yes you are?

Their top section articles, just from today, are from Chicago Tribune, Time, LA Times, NY Times, Boston Herald, Salon, Washington Times, RCP, Huffington Post, Bloomberg, Indianapolis Star, National Review, Miami Herald, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and the Wall Street Journal. If you include the editorials you can add on New York Sun, Washington Post, and San Diego Union Tribune.

That seems to be a pretty wide variety and cover both sides of the political spectrum. Salon and the Huffington Post are both very liberal, a number of the others are kind of liberal/liberal slanted, WSJ is kind of conservative/conservative slanted and National Review and Washington Times are both pretty conservative.

Seems to me like they have it covered.

Maybe, though that hasn't been my (admittedly limited) experience with it. If they were pulling everything from all of those sources, maybe, but when you start deciding what to put up and what not to, I think perspective is going to come into play. Regardless of where they pull from, it has seemed to me that what they cull from those sources tips to the conservative side.

But maybe.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Maybe, though that hasn't been my (admittedly limited) experience with it. If they were pulling everything from all of those sources, maybe, but when you start deciding what to put up and what not to, I think perspective is going to come into play. Regardless of where they pull from, it has seemed to me that what they cull from those sources tips to the conservative side.

But maybe.

Bevan (one of the founders of RCP) is certainly conservative.

I think the news sections manage to stay pretty neutral. The political strategy analysis (both in their blogs and some of the articles suggesting strategies that they link to) are looking at strategy for Republican candidates more often I think, but I would guess that's more because of their audience.

Whatever, I read most of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal most days (trying to have one leaning each way), so I'm going to RCP for the strategy analysis anyways.

[PhiGam]

RCP is very balanced but I must confess that I don't read the articles that I think I would dislike. I try to read at least one liberal article per day just to give me the other perspective but I read more conservative stuff. It's not that RCP doesn't allow me to, I choose to read 75% conservative articles.