Once again Black ppl blamed fe de crisis

**blugiant** · 10-05-2008, 12:12 PM

Re: Once again Black ppl blamed fe de crisis

da joke ear iss dem change da rules soo dem cood gentreefied blakk neighbarhood by overvaluinn propertee. den dem sold dem overvalued propertees too blakks widd predatories lendinn practices dat force blakk fii pay higha intarest rate pon overvalue propertees. aftah awl aff dat den dem tunn rund ann blame blakks peeps fii natt payinn aff da bad loans. den dem gitt canservatives ann demoncrats fii pass laws soo dat demm natt force fii sell dem ovavalued propertee fii beelow market values cah fii doo dat meen more peeps cood buy dem propertee att market value prices

**dahjah** · 10-05-2008, 12:21 PM

Re: Once again Black ppl blamed fe de crisis

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BlackStar</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Maakheru_dahJah</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jimmi</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-style: italic">Is not de black people fault, is the green people fault ... yu eva eat sumting dat was off - real nasty? Mi tun green. </span>

<span style="font-style: italic">Seriously, I don't tink race has anything to do with this crap.</span> </div></div>
<span style="font-style: italic">we kno dat a de chute but dis is de idea some a dem ppl waan fi push.</span> </div></div>
And my quibble is that some of these "color-blind" people are not demanding that their white government representatives stop chatting foolishness. Having black friends, not seeing color, having black spouses or whatever else white people think makes them not racist is not enough to end racism.

I just heard another one on MSNBC (Congressman Brian Bilbray, California's 50th District) saying how the "federal government since 1977 has been demanding that 'certain people' who don't normaly qualify for loans have to get loans in a fix...Washington was responsible for mandating that certain loans go out", blah, blah. </div></div>

yuh kno how much time de one Barak couldab jus rise up an seh "hey that is racism and I resent that kind of statement an ting" an watch dem run fi cuvah. Him too soff, prolly cah him an dem kno de outcome a de lekshun ahreddy.

**tsophra** · 10-05-2008, 12:27 PM

Re: Once again Black ppl blamed fe de crisis

are we only bout 15% of the population? even if every single black person defaulted on a loan me nu tink that's enough to bring about what happened..

**dahjah** · 10-05-2008, 12:44 PM

Re: Once again Black ppl blamed fe de crisis

12 0r 13% and again, dis a de idea some a dem push so mi nuh tink it should just be dismissed cah wi kno bettah. Nuff ppl outdeh a believe it and it will cause repercussions fi unno dung deh.

**blugiant** · 10-05-2008, 12:54 PM

Re: Once again Black ppl blamed fe de crisis

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jaded</div><div class="ubbcode-body">are we only bout 15% of the population? even if every single black person defaulted on a loan me nu tink that's enough to bring about what happened.. </div></div>

yu missinn da pint. dem ovavalue ouses ann dem give blakks predatoriy loanssoo dem caan teef blakks. den dem same peeps bawl dat dem too bigg fee fail soo taxpayers(blakks included) need fe bail dem out. den dem appose changinn da bankruptcee laws soo dat peeps widd onlee wan house(majaratee aff blakks) cyaan gitt da same bankruptcee protection peeps widd more dan wan house entitled too. iff yu own more dan wan house bankruptcee judge can reduce mortage loan amount dat dem see as unfair

wat a ting iff peeps ask obama y imm selected biden woo push too change da bankruptcee law dat mekk itt harda fii blakks fii keep dem house

Blackstar* · 10-05-2008, 01:37 PM

Re: Once again Black ppl blamed fe de crisis

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jaded</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-style: italic">are we only bout 15% of the population? even if every single black person defaulted on a loan me nu tink that's enough to bring about what happened..</span> </div></div>
Of course black people did not cause the sub-prime lending fiasco. However, right-wing lawmakers and pundits are <span style="font-weight: bold">blaming</span> black people and you know Joe Six-Pack is nodding his head in agreement. Those same lawmakers are using that argument to not add a bailout of homeowners to the bill and they have Budweiser Bob's support. This is why I'm saying fiyah fi bun pan dat foolishness.

**Nylah** · 10-05-2008, 04:59 PM

Re: Once again Black ppl blamed fe de crisis

And when black ppl in the U.S go were prevented from owning homes in neighborhoods they could afford because of restrictive racial convenants, Joe six-pack had nothing to say or anyone they thought should be blamed for that travesty.

Blackstar* · 10-05-2008, 05:59 PM

Re: Once again Black ppl blamed fe de crisis

I found a comment on a blog post "Racism without racists" which pretty much mirrors my POV. The writer also illustrates why the "color blind" or "I don't care if they're black, white, green purple" rhetoric is so unbearably idiotic.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">15.
October 4th,
2008
11:24 pm

While "white guilt" or a desire to be explicitly non-racist might fuel the desire of a sizable number of Obama supporters, I really believe that white guilt is very much the enemy of overcoming the "unconscious" racism you're talking about.

My sense is that far too many of us white folks have taken an overly simplistic approach to dealing with racism. We declare ourselves non-racist, label those who are less tolerant than ourselves to be bad people, and then believe ourselves to be finished with the matter.

But it's a bit more involved than that, because the "stuff around the edges" remains there until we confront it and work through it. And guilt is a barrier to that process because it makes the notion that we may harbor unexamined racism so painful, so intolerable, that we sweep it under the rug (and into our subconsciousness) rather than acknowledge it, confront it, and deal with it.

It would be nice to think of racism as a dragon we could simply slay with the sword of good intentions. But it's not; it's more of a weed that grows in the gardens of our souls.

So rather than view it in simple binary terms, I would suggest we take a more gardener-like approach to the matter. We didn't plant the weeds. We needn't berate ourselves over the existence of the weeds. We just need to get out in our respective gardens and get to work.

And we can save our breaths when it comes to our self-declarations of non-racism and tolerance. My hunch is that Black folks and other minorities tend to let such declarations go in one ear and out the other, preferring instead to simply peak over the fence and see if we're working on the weeds.

- Posted by Mark</div></div>

**Derek** · 10-06-2008, 03:03 AM

Re: Once again Black ppl blamed fe de crisis

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jaded</div><div class="ubbcode-body">are we only bout 15% of the population? even if every single black person defaulted on a loan me nu tink that's enough to bring about what happened.. </div></div>

Yes! Black people ruined western society.
(Just like we created AIDS.)

**Tuff Gong** · 10-12-2008, 03:50 AM

Re: Once again Black ppl blamed fe de crisis

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">I hate to quote myself but:</span>

<span style="font-size: 14pt"><span style="color: #CC0000">The Real Culprits In This Meltdown</span></span>

Page not found - Jamaicans and Jamaica - Jamaicans.com

http://www.jamaicans.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=853903&page=1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lonrwolf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT
While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.</div></div>
<span style="color: #3366FF">
So, the Sub-Prime Mortgage Failure was primarily about helping low-income speculators getting houses.
Remind me of why the folks in the Upper and Middle Income bracket started to lose their houses long before that effects of even became evident to most of the public? Who led Bear Stearns a company known for making marginal and risky investments to dive into even riskier Sub-Prime Mortgages?</span></div></div>

<span style="font-size: 14pt">Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis</span>
<span style="font-style: italic">By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers</span>

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">WASHINGTON</span> — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis. </span>

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height vrom 2004 to 2006.

<span style="text-decoration: underline">Federal Reserve Board data show that:</span>

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">_ More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

_ Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

_ Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.</span>

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages.

"I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.

Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.

This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.

But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.

Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.

Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."

Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."

(e-mail: khall )at)mcclatchydc.com)
McClatchy Newspapers 2008

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

**Dr.Dudd** · 10-12-2008, 04:53 AM

Re: Once again Black ppl blamed fe de crisis

Mortgage loans is not cause pf the problem. It is only the presently suggested cause.
It is really one of the symptoms.
The problem is in the fondamentals of th eeconomy,that needs the support of puechasiung power way beyond the earning capacity of the popilation,os as to main tain the GDP levels.

In other words, as long as they keep finding ways to pay workers less to do more, and keep exporting real paying jobs in their attempt to chase quick profits, the US, followed by the world economy will continue in the downward spiral it is in. With no end in sight.

Even if they get the credit markets to function,unless they are still wulling to offer the population more credit then they can affotd, our GDP will never be maintained.
The only solution is real paying jobs. Watch the government introduce anthier 'crash program to put money in the pockets of th epeople without loans.
they will offer another 'stimuli package,before they get there though.

**Tuff Gong** · 12-01-2008, 03:38 PM

Re: Once again Black ppl blamed fe de crisis

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">Bush Administration Weakened Lending Rules Before Crash</span>
<span style="font-style: italic">MATT APUZZO | December 1, 2008 10:23 AM EST | </span>

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.

<span style="font-size: 14pt">"Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories," California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job.</span>

Bowing to aggressive lobbying _ along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK _ regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way.

"These mortgages have been considered more safe and sound for portfolio lenders than many fixed rate mortgages," David Schneider, home loan president of Washington Mutual, told federal regulators in early 2006. Two years later, WaMu became the largest bank failure in U.S. history.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">The administration's blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic of a philosophy that trusted market forces and discounted the need for government intervention in the economy. Its belief ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention since the 1930s.</span>
"We're going to be feeling the effects of the regulators' failure to address these mortgages for the next several years," said Kevin Stein of the California Reinvestment Coalition, who warned regulators to tighten lending rules before it was too late.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">Many of the banks that fought to undermine the proposals by some regulators are now either out of business or accepting billions in federal aid to recover from a mortgage crisis they insisted would never come. Many executives remain in high-paying jobs, even after their assurances were proved false.</span>

In 2005, faced with ominous signs the housing market was in jeopardy, bank regulators proposed new guidelines for banks writing risky loans. Today, in the midst of the worst housing recession in a generation, the proposal reads like a list of what-ifs:

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">_Regulators told bankers exotic mortgages were often inappropriate for buyers with bad credit.

_Banks would have been required to increase efforts to verify that buyers actually had jobs and could afford houses.

_Regulators proposed a cap on risky mortgages so a string of defaults wouldn't be crippling.

_Banks that bundled and sold mortgages were told to be sure investors knew exactly what they were buying.

_Regulators urged banks to help buyers make responsible decisions and clearly advise them that interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected.</span>

Those proposals all were stripped from the final rules. None required congressional approval or the president's signature.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">"In hindsight, it was spot on," said Jeffrey Brown, a former top official at the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, one of the first agencies to raise concerns about risky lending</span>.

Federal regulators were especially concerned about mortgages known as "option ARMs," which allow borrowers to make payments so low that mortgage debt actually increases every month. But banking executives accused the government of overreacting.

Bankers said such loans might be risky when approved with no money down or without ensuring buyers have jobs but such risk could be managed without government intervention.

"An open market will mean that different institutions will develop different methodologies for achieving this goal," Joseph Polizzotto, counsel to now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers, told U.S. regulators in a March 2006.

Countrywide Financial Corp., at the time the nation's largest mortgage lender, agreed. The proposal "appears excessive and will inhibit future innovation in the marketplace," said Mary Jane Seebach, managing director of public affairs.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">One of the most contested rules said that before banks purchase mortgages from brokers, they should verify the process to ensure buyers could afford their homes. Some bankers now blame much of the housing crisis on brokers who wrote fraudulent, predatory loans. But in 2006, banks said they shouldn't have to double-check the brokers.</span>

"It is not our role to be the regulator for the third-party lenders," wrote Ruthann Melbourne, chief risk officer of IndyMac Bank.

California-based IndyMac also criticized regulators for not recognizing the track record of interest-only loans and option ARMs, which accounted for 70 percent of IndyMac's 2005 mortgage portfolio. This summer, the government seized IndyMac and will pay an estimated $9 billion to ensure customers don't lose their deposits.

Last week, Downey Savings joined the growing list of failed banks. The problem: About 52 percent of its mortgage portfolio was tied up in risky option ARMs, which in 2006 Downey insisted were safe _ maybe even safer than traditional 30-year mortgages.

"To conclude that 'nontraditional' equates to higher risk does not appropriately balance risk and compensating factors of these products," said Lillian Gavin, the bank's chief credit officer.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">At least some regulators didn't buy it. The comptroller of the currency, John C. Dugan, was among the first to sound the alarm in mid-2005. Speaking to a consumer advocacy group, Dugan painted a troublesome picture of option-ARM lending. Many buyers, particularly those with bad credit, would soon be unable to afford their payments, he said. And if housing prices declined, homeowners wouldn't even be able to sell their way out of the mess.</span>

It sounded simple, but "people kind of looked at us regulators as old-fashioned," said Brown, the agency's former deputy comptroller.

Diane Casey-Landry, of the American Bankers Association, said the industry feared a two-tiered system in which banks had to follow rules that mortgage brokers did not. She said opposition was based on the banks' best information.

"You're looking at a decline in real estate values that was never contemplated," she said.

Some saw problems coming. Community groups and even some in the mortgage business, like Welch, warned regulators not to ease their rules.

"We expect to see a huge increase in defaults, delinquencies and foreclosures as a result of the over selling of these products," Stein, the associate director of the California Reinvestment Coalition, wrote to regulators in 2006. The group advocates on housing and banking issues for low-income and minority residents.

The government's banking agencies spent nearly a year debating the rules, which required unanimous agreement among the OCC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Federal Reserve, and the Office of Thrift Supervision _ agencies that sometimes don't agree.

The Fed, for instance, was reluctant under Alan Greenspan to heavily regulate lending. Similarly, the Office of Thrift Supervision, an arm of the Treasury Department that regulated many in the subprime mortgage market, worried that restricting certain mortgages would hurt banks and consumers.

Grovetta Gardineer, OTS managing director for corporate and international activities, said the 2005 proposal "attempted to send an alarm bell that these products are bad." After hearing from banks, she said, regulators were persuaded that the loans themselves were not problematic as long as banks managed the risk. She disputes the notion that the rules were weakened.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">In the past year, with Congress scrambling to stanch the bleeding in the financial industry, regulators have tightened rules on risky mortgages.

Congress is considering further tightening, including some of the same proposals abandoned years ago.</span>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/01/bush-administration-weake_n_147311.html

**RichD** · 12-01-2008, 03:44 PM

Re: Once again Black ppl blamed fe de crisis

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mortgage loans is not cause pf the problem. It is only the presently suggested cause.
It is really one of the symptoms.
The problem is in the fondamentals of th eeconomy,that needs the support of puechasiung power way beyond the earning capacity of the popilation,os as to main tain the GDP levels.

In other words, as long as they keep finding ways to pay workers less to do more, and keep exporting real paying jobs in their attempt to chase quick profits, the US, followed by the world economy will continue in the downward spiral it is in. With no end in sight.

Even if they get the credit markets to function,unless they are still wulling to offer the population more credit then they can affotd, our GDP will never be maintained.
The only solution is real paying jobs. Watch the government introduce anthier 'crash program to put money in the pockets of th epeople without loans.
they will offer another 'stimuli package,before they get there though. </div></div> yuh know doc was having a similar discussion wid my BIL on the weekend ....the question raised was what kind of jobs?

**Tuff Gong** · 12-01-2008, 03:57 PM

Re: Once again Black ppl blamed fe de crisis

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=Dr.Dudd]....yuh know doc was having a similar discussion wid my BIL on the weekend ....the question raised was what kind of jobs?</div></div>The USA recession according to the folks responsible for naming the dates started a year ago. It is clear that the slow down of the USA economy and the Housing Bubble was a toxic cocktail that was not killed and exploded with deadly consequences.

**Gen** · 12-01-2008, 04:09 PM

Re: Once again Black ppl blamed fe de crisis

cho mi nat even a badda