Upcoming Foreclosures - Why do republicans avoid questions that prove them wrong?

Why do republicans avoid questions that prove them wrong?

I have seen dozens of posts about how "dems forced banks to make bad loans" but when I provide proof, they won't respond. In fact, bush's own top banking appointees have said the "cra had nothing to do with the crisis" Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech: Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC December 17, 2008 Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak. What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand. CRA as a scapegoat I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty. Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules. You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people. Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple. CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions". Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not. CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank's capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited. That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can't pay back. That's a set up for failure. Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages. Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America. So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

Public Comments

Your full of sheeeeeeeeeeeet
Dude, itll be more then obvious to you in the coming months that the Democrats deregulated the free market into its collapse.
This question isn't worth my time for a "proof" quality answer. Do some serious investigating into Barney Frank and you'll see he was a big player. No, not like that. Well, like that too I guess.
Dems forced banks to make bad loans
Obama's health care bill is the most unConstitutional bill to ever be consider in congress. The government cannot force a Citizen to buy a product from a private company. 10 amendment " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the people" They would have to change the constitution for this bill to be legal as the bill stands now it is extremely unconstitution
Yes they did force banks to make bad loans, research Barney Franks and Chris Dodds and then throw ACORN in for good measure.
Yeah, who are we going to believe anyway?? YOU or DEMOCRATS OWN WORDS; DEMOCRATS AND FANNIE MAE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Bwany Fwank is a lib and a little research will revel the truth!!!
It has been fun to watch.
I think all of the preceding answers crystalized your initial post question, sadly enough, which is why there can be no real conversation about health care (or anything else) and why the Dems are going to have to force it down their throats with a reconciliation, just like they did Social Security (not the reconciliation, but the forcing due to Reps inability to engage in dialogue). Sorry, a little off topic, but unlike other people, I don't pretend I know much about the topic, but I do understand the post question. Frustrating for us, think about our great, elected (for a change) leader.
Boy you're telling me. I like asking quesitons, "What would the Dems do to improve healthcare", or "what could Obama do better to work with the Repbulcans". Or here's a good one "Has tort in TX reform helped healthcare in anyway, please cite your source?". Most angry conservatives just heckle me, or insult Obama, and none have facts, or good ideas to contribute. See there's no way to work with these folks. THey are like spoiled children sitting at the dinner table refusing to eat with their arms crossed, and fury in their eyes. And what ends up happening, the child ends up getting into a figt later with a sibling and losing.
Listen to any politician answer a question put in front of them that proves them wrong. No politician will admit to being wrong. My favorite oximoron has always been and I've even told that to a politician. It is "There is no such thing as an honest politician''
why did Bush do this?http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123137220550562585.html
to act like Dems
They can't be wrong because god is on their side Sara is supposedly cute and Dick is supposedly a tough guy...And most important they are entitled to their own facts.
It was unrestrained greed that caused the problem and when the barrel was empty, they found new and creative ways to keep the wine flowing because greed begets greed. I was there at ground zero. We couldn't believe people would actually buy these things. Imagine a loan that amortizes negatively - where even after you make a payment you owe more than when you started (the incredible Option ARM)! Imagine loans being handed out based on verbal statements regarding income and assets (the equally incredible SISA loan)! Imagine a loan where you don't pay any principle, sometimes for 15 years on a 30 year term, at which time you get socked with a massive increase in monthly payments! We just laughed we were so astounded that there were people out there stupid enough to take those terms. But the mortgagees did and they did because all they cared about was how much the monthly payment was and they did because the loan officers didn't give a flying F about what happened after the sale - they pushed the loan to get their commissions and to make their monthly quotas. And the banks were making a fortune on the front end with all the originations - they were willing to overlook the back end as long as the gravy was flowing. And the CEO's - they didn't care either because for them, the mantra is 3 and out. They come in for a three year contract, make a mess of things and then leave for greener pastures right before the sheet hits the fan. In the meantime, the govt. did absolutely nothing and don't even try to tell me they didn't know. Frontline ran a piece on this very topic at least a year before implosion. If they knew, then so did the Feds.
Straw man argument by Benanke and you. It also makes no sense to be prosecuted for discrimination in lending practices - something that falls outside the CRA