Charlie Self wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:59 pm, Stuart wrote:
In article ,
PDQ wrote:

According to one source - in 1977 Jimmy signed into law the "Community
Reinvestment Act" which was passed by his Democratic controlled Congress.
Apparently this act required depository institutions to help meet the
needs of the communities in which they operate.
So began the sub-prime mortgage fiasco.
In 1995 Billy further loosened the purse strings.
What most will not believe - in 2003 the shrub tried to correct this and
in 2005 so did McCain. On both occasions the Democrats shot it down.
The politics of "Affirmative Action for Affordable Housing" sure cooked
the books for Fannie and Freddie.
As an observer in the UK, whose financial situation has also suffered as a
result of all this, I find this insight a revalation.

I can only hope you guys put someone in the white house this next time who
has the guts to get it all sorted.

--
Stuart Winsor

For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See:http://www.barndance.org.uk

It's not so much a revelation as bull****. The problems with subprime
were not caused by the borrowers aimed at by Carter, but by lenders

Wrong. Forcing banks to lend money to people whose source of
"income" is welfare is plainly insane. This contributed mightily
to the unhinging of Freddy & Fannie. That fact that it is not
the *only* reason we currently have a mess doesn't mean it wasn't
a huge part of the underlying problem - it was.

who over-valued houses and allowed people who obviously didn't have
the means to buy immense houses. Almost wrote homes, but damned few of

Wrong. People who borrow money are assumed to be grown ups. When
they are irresponsible, it is *their* fault. Only if someone can
demonstrate that there was fraud or force (or threat) would the
lender be morally/ethically on the hook. So far, no one has done
so. Another major underpinning of the current mess: The greed
and immense foolishness of borrowers.

those places are homes or ever will be. The original act was aimed at
allowing poorer borrowers a shot at the market. What happened was that

It was a moral travesty then, it still is today. They did not *earn*
the homes they got. Their "purchase" was built on stealing money
from their fellow citizens, however indirectly.

lenders saw far more money in letting better off, but not better off
enough, borrowers to grab mortgages beyond their means. Short term
profits were immense. Now, you and I get to pay for that.

Encouraged by a federal government with immense debts that was depressing
interest rates to irrational levels to try and make its debt problem
better. This cheap money made many people dive into highly risk
leverage positions in their personal lives. This mess that you and
I get to pay for starts and ends with government spending that is
out of control - well over 50% of which is for *social entitlements*
(like "helping" the poor buy homes they cannot afford by stealing the
money from people who have it).


It really has little to do with political parties. There is sufficient
shame and blame to go around.

That's right - it begins/ends with a greedy and stupid population
that wants what it has not earned, blames people of wealth and goes
after them to steal their money. The end game of all irrational
evil of this sort is ... evil results.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/