And this one really has to hurt. Even The New York Times admitted that there is "little evidence" of any connection between the deregulation measures that Obama blames, like the Gramm-Bleach-Liley Act, and the collapse of the housing market. By the way, Bubba signed the act in 1999.
And we cannot omit President Barack Hussein Obama and his role in the housing market and economy collapse. Obama personally signed on in 1995 to sue Citibank into lowering its lending standards to include people from extremely poor and unstable areas. Even Snopes, a blatantly leftist fact-checker, had to admit that this one is true. Snopes tried to, by using some tortured logic, excuse or minimize Obama's part in the suit. Obama's role in the lawsuit, as presented by Snopes, is both interesting and hilarious.
And, in September 2012, Obama did it again! His "anti-redlining" suit/campaign pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago's African Americans.
So, where does that leave us? The vast majority of the MSM, in an effort to blame Republicans while protecting Democrats, will continue to report what is blatantly and demonstrably untrue. The very liberal MSM has spent years relentlessly and deliberately spreading falsehoods, providing people with anything but the facts, turning them to mindless blame Bush robots who say Bush was in charge when Democratic policies destroyed the housing market and the economy.
Unfortunately, most of the US population will believe what the MSM reports, never will question their reporting, will never do any research (or even reading) for themselves. Yet this continued falsehood is what forms the basis for decision making in this country. Pity!
But that's just my opinion.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr Dreadful
Warren, you'll get no argument from me about the buck for the housing mess stopping at anyone's door but Obama's, since he is after all the President. But trying to pin the blame on him for causing the crisis in the first place just makes you look silly. Well, sillier than usual.
Perhaps you were hoping that by not linking to it (and by poisoning the well), no-one would bother to actually check out Snopes' assessment of Buycks-Robertson v. Citibank.
I fail to see what is "tortured" about Snopes's concisely factual outlining of Obama's minor role in the case, nor do I see what a class action anti-discrimination lawsuit has to do with "forcing" banks to lend to high-risk borrowers.
Perhaps you could guide me through this logical labyrinth. And while you're about it, perhaps you'd care to explain (in your own words, for a change, rather than those of a whining right-wing blogger) exactly what makes Snopes a "blatantly leftist" fact-checker. And no, "website that sometimes tells right-wingers they're wrong" will not cut it as a definition.
2 - Jet Gardner
Any idiot (except you obviously) knows that the bush-era bank crisis was because of the housing crisis which began long before pbama took office.
Your lack of intelligence and obvious hatred of hussein just keep topping itself tothe point that you are a meer joke not to take seriously.
3 - Jet Gardner
some one fix the ability to comment PLEASE
4 - Christopher Rose
Jet, your last comment appears to have been made from your normal IP...
5 - Jet Gardner
What do all of the following years in bold have in common Warren? They're all before 2009 when Hussein Obama took office!
========
The value of American subprime mortgages was estimated at $1.3 trillion as of March 2007, with over 7.5 million first-lien subprime mortgages outstanding. Between 2004 & 2006 the share of subprime mortgages relative to total originations ranged from 18%-21%, versus less than 10% in 2001-2003 and during 2007.
The boom in mortgage lending, including subprime lending, was also driven by a fast expansion of non-bank independent mortgage originators which despite their smaller share (around 25 percent in 2002) in the market have contributed to around 50 percent of the increase in mortgage credit between 2003 and 2005. In the third quarter of 2007, subprime ARMs making up only 6.8% of USA mortgages outstanding also accounted for 43% of the foreclosures which began during that quarter.
Have you seen a doctor about your alergy to facts?
6 - Jet Gardner
Check your e-mail Chris
7 - Jet Gardner
What do all of the following years in bold have in common Warren? They're all before 2009 when Hussein Obama took office!
========
The value of American subprime mortgages was estimated at $1.3 trillion as of March 2007, with over 7.5 million first-lien subprime mortgages outstanding. Between 2004 & 2006 the share of subprime mortgages relative to total originations ranged from 18%-21%, versus less than 10% in 2001-2003 and during 2007.
The boom in mortgage lending, including subprime lending, was also driven by a fast expansion of non-bank independent mortgage originators which despite their smaller share (around 25 percent in 2002) in the market have contributed to around 50 percent of the increase in mortgage credit between 2003 and 2005. In the third quarter of 2007, subprime ARMs making up only 6.8% of USA mortgages outstanding also accounted for 43% of the foreclosures which began during that quarter.
Have you seen a doctor about your alergy to facts?
8 - troll
the 'ownership society' was a delusion shared by democrat and republican administrations - an admirably bipartisan fuck up in this age of party politics highlighting the underlying force of crony financial capitalists
9 - Baronius
Barack Obama did exist before 2009, as a lawyer and legislator. The Daily Caller link in the article connects to a story about his law work.
Good article, Warren.
10 - Dr Dreadful
The bit about Obama is just padding. Warren can never resist an opportunity to complain about the President, and manufactures one if he can't see an obvious opening.
Both the Daily Caller writer and the other blogger linked to in the article mischaracterize the lawsuit and exaggerate Obama's role in it.
11 - Maurice
Home Ownership and President Bush
12 - Baronius
There's an automatic assumption that Warren is wrong. I can understand how that's developed, but it's unfair. Calling him "sillier than usual" or a "joke not to take seriously" is the kind of obnoxious stuff that I expect to see on other sites, but is a step down for this one. When it comes to dominate the threads following an author's articles, it's bullying. I think this article was pretty good. Warren's to be admired for the stuff he puts up with (even though I've had my problems with his articles before).
13 - Jet Gardner
Baronius, you and Warren need to get a room. This article is obviously just a regurgitation of a couple of right-wing websites that he adores and he obiously could care less about facts. Rush Limp-baugh probably covered this a few days before Warren copied his homework.
As for Obama, of course he single handedly engineered the housing crisis to make an inept Bush look bad... after all his middle name is Hussein!
14 - Maurice
The youtube video I pasted at #11 shows Bush pushing for the very things attributed to Obama.
15 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius, if I say that Warren is being sillier than usual it's because he is both usually silly and exceptionally so, in my assessment, in this article.
Note that unlike some other commenters I don't stop there but make points in refutation: points Warren seldom has a satisfactory comeback for.
I disagree that the article is good. Warren is a poor writer and thinker, and that prejudices me against him far more strongly than his politics. This piece is principally a regurgitation of arguments that have been made for months in the right-wing blogosphere blaming the housing crisis on the Clinton-era CRA. It's a typical piece of American bubble thinking, which fails to account for how a piece of US legislation caused a global housing collapse.
And what is the persistent use of Obama's middle name, for reasons regarding which Warren protests innocence but is perfectly well aware of, if not obnoxious?
16 - Baronius
It's completely obnoxious. Warren's found something that bothers people, and he's running with it.
You're right that a lot of the right wing blames the CRA and overregulation of the debt market. A lot of the left wing blames underregulation of the debt market. Neither one is necessarily more American-bubbly. And to be fair, a lot of the world's financial institutions were invested in American housing debt. It did have ripples.
This article highlights one study that promotes the CRA angle. I wouldn't have heard about this study if it weren't for Warren. I can't begrudge him his effort to make the argument for his side the best that he can.
17 - Dr Dreadful
And to be fair, a lot of the world's financial institutions were invested in American housing debt. It did have ripples.
I'm not going to stand up and argue that the American economy doesn't have global influence when clearly it has more than any other nation's. However, we're talking about a claim that the CRA forced lenders to sell high-risk mortgages to unsuitable customers. While foreign banks may have followed their American colleagues' lead to some extent, they are not subject to US law with regard to their business in the rest of the world. It's a very small part of the complete picture.
18 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 1, Doc, you are correct about the Snopes link, "Buycks-Robertson v. Citibank," that I inadvertantly omitted. That is the one to which I was referring when I said that Snopes used tortured logic.
You say, "I fail to see what is "tortured" about Snopes's concisely factual outlining of Obama's minor role in the case, nor do I see what a class action anti-discrimination lawsuit has to do with "forcing" banks to lend to high-risk borrowers." If you cannot see Snopes' tortured logic, then no response from me can ever cause you to see it. I guess we look at the article from different perspectives.
You say, "... (in your own words, for a change, rather than those of a whining right-wing blogger) ...." I'm sure that you can cite some (even one) reference of some "whining right-wing blogger" that I copy. Until then, it's very difficult to respond.
Re: comment # 2, Jet, you say, "Any idiot (except you obviously)..." and, "Your lack of intelligence ..." Classy on your part, as usual. Who is "pbama?" And I never said that Obama caused the housing market collapse, only that he had (and continues to have) a part in it. And damned if I didn't provide a link that provides facts that form my opinion.
Re: comment # 5, Jet, I provide a link to an analysis of a study - you do not. Please tell me why we should believe ANYTHING you provide. You say, "Have you seen a doctor about your alergy to facts?" I think that question is more appropriate for you.
Re: comment # 9, Baronius, thank you. The DLPs really come out when their opinions are refuted by a study that points out the glaring falacies of what the MSM has fed them.
Re: comment # 10, Doc, you say, "The bit about Obama is just padding." Your opinion is showing - again.
Re; comment # 15, Doc, you say, "Note that unlike some other commenters I don't stop there but make points in refutation: points Warren seldom has a satisfactory comeback for." Why bother to respond to what is obviously your opinion, repleat of any references.
You continue, "I disagree that the article is good. Warren is a poor writer and thinker, and that prejudices me against him far more strongly than his politics. This piece is principally a regurgitation of arguments that have been made for months in the right-wing blogosphere ..." Your opinion is showing - again. And, I can't help but notice, Doc, that your regurgitation accusation provides no references.
Re: comment # 17, Doc, you say, "While foreign banks may have followed their American colleagues' lead to some extent, ..." Gosh, are you admitting that the CRA may have had an effect on the global economy?
You continue, "... they are not subject to US law with regard to their business in the rest of the world." Are you referring here to "leverage?" Let's see, I don't recall any bank (foreign or domestic) being FORCED into investing in CRA loans, the loans Jamie Gorelick, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac said were sound investments. Thank you for strengthing my argument.
19 - Clavos
Baronius' points that the automatic reactions by our resident liberals amount to bullying where Warren is involved are correct, and sadly, they seem to apply also (though to a lesser degree) to one of the more prominent commenters on these threads, who, though a liberal, has deservedly earned and maintains a significant degree of respect from those of us who lean to the right, myself included. I'm speaking of course of our esteemed Dr. Dreadful. Even he, it seems, tends to lose his admirable insight and perspective to a degree when commenting on Warren's threads.
Finally, as editor and publisher of this piece, I agree it is well written; it is also well researched and I have read nothing so far in this thread that even comes close to refuting the points made. Whomever referred to Warren's principal source, The National Bureau of Economic Research, as "right wing" appears not to have done any investigation; the Bureau has been home to 22 Nobel Prize winners and the chairs of no fewer than thirteen president's Council of Economic Advisors have also worked there. It is far from being a partisan organization.
20 - Dr Dreadful
Clav, I'll try to be kinder to Warren. :-) And will respond to his #18 tomorrow when I have a bit more time.
21 - Jet Gardner
So what you're saying Clavos is that as long as you agree with his opinion his sources are credible-despite the fact that anyone can find a website that agrees with you if you look hard enough. There are thousands of politicians and "neutral" organizations that can pontificate on any issue and be diametricly opposed to each other's "facts'
Every one of Warren's Articles are basically the same-We all should hate the elected President of the United States. I was the same with Bush, but at least I wrote Science, Astronomy, book & movie reviews, and Entertainment pieces too.
Warren is like waking into a bar and having to listen to the same song on the jukebox over and over and over again to the point of finally walking out.
As far as personality conflicts go, it's very hard to respect a hack who childishly, immaturely (and repeatedly) uses The President's middle name Hussein in an idiotic delusion that if any reader "discovers" it, they'll not only hate the President-but that they will instantly take Warren's point of view as their own because of it.
One more thing to chew on - Warren is oh so negatively anxious to tell us who he isn't when he posts an article or a comment, so we can only make our own assumptions as to what he is - negative.
There's a reason I stopped listening to AM talk radio, since it leans so far to the right that the set keeps falling off the desk.
..but of course that's only my opinion-and that is what his articles should be clearly marked as.
22 - Doug Hunter
"nor do I see what a class action anti-discrimination lawsuit has to do with 'forcing' banks to lend to high-risk borrowers."- Doc
Really? Citibank's defense in the case was that they found the defendant along with the rest of the class to be high risk. The named plaintiff was in foreclosure for three years and has filed two bankruptices since the case. The statistics on the rest of the class demonstrate they were indeed very high risk. So you're right no one is forced to do anything, you are certainly free to continue not lending to high risk borrowers and losing million dollar court cases and being harassed by the government under the CRA as much as you like.
To the point though, the root of the discrimination is the fact that blacks (and hispanics) are 70-80% more likely to default and ultimately be foreclosed in a mortgage even when adjusted by income and credit score. In a cold, logical light this indicates minorities are already getting more loans than they can effectively handle... but people don't like logic, they like to feel good. As a practical matter this means minorities as a group are higher risk so any attempt through legislation or lawsuit to force banks to lend equally to minorities is precisely 'forcing banks to lend to high risk borrowers'.
One more in a long list of reasons I find our laws fairly arbitrary, sort of made up as you go along (that's why they settle these cases, who the hell knows what sort of 'logic' might be applied). Race is a protected class so it's unfair to treat one class different even if there is good statistical reasoning (70-80% higher default rate would qualify), yet sex is a protected class and males have to pay higher car insurance premiums than females based on statistical differences in claims. Is this not discrimination all the same? Why does the law protect some classes more than others? Why does the statistical evidence count in one case and not in others? Why is it OK to punish one male with higher premiums based on the actions of other people who happen to share the same gender but it's not OK to do the same with a minority in the process of a loan based on the payment history of his group?
Then again, I have no respect for the law, the state, or authority in general so what do I know.
23 - Jet Gardner
The smart-assed "Bubba" in parentheses doesn't help his credibility either as an unbiased source of "facts" and only alienates the very people he's trying to convince.
Obviously he only wants-or cares about like-minded fans and praise from the choir he's preaching to instead of converts to his way of thinking.
He wants to be another exhaulted Limp-baugh but is only a pale and embarassing copy
24 - troll
Dreadful re your #17 - weren't European banks under pressure from their governments to take on more securitized risk (and thus make more profits poor things) in the housing market similar to the cra leading up to the collapse?
25 - Dr Dreadful
It's my day off and my honey-do list is lengthening by the minute, so this won't be as detailed as I'd have liked.
Warren (comment 18):
If you cannot see Snopes' tortured logic, then no response from me can ever cause you to see it.
Why not? If the logic is tortured then it should be easy to show. You're copping out, or being lazy, or both.
I'm sure that you can cite some (even one) reference of some "whining right-wing blogger" that I copy.
Certainly. Here's one. Here's another. And for balance, here's a discussion of the question by some sensible people.
Doc, you say, "The bit about Obama is just padding." Your opinion is showing - again.
Agreed. But your article arguing that the CRA is responsible for the housing crisis would have been brief indeed without the Obama insert. I think it's a valid opinion.
Why bother to respond to what is obviously your opinion, repleat of any references.
And it's difficult to know what to do with a response that not only misspells "replete" but also demonstrates that its author doesn't know what the word means.
I can't help but notice, Doc, that your regurgitation accusation provides no references.
There are two references right there in your article. The Daily Caller piece was published in early September, as was the blog entry in Maggie's Notebook. Providing further examples seemed superfluous.
Gosh, are you admitting that the CRA may have had an effect on the global economy?
Of course it had an effect on the global economy - any piece of financial legislation passed in any country does. What I'm saying is that the CRA's critics are not seeing the big picture. How can a US law compel a bank in, say, Italy to change its mortgage lending policies? As I pointed out, the crisis is global and not entirely in thrall to what goes on in Congress and the White House.
I don't recall any bank (foreign or domestic) being FORCED into investing in CRA loans, the loans Jamie Gorelick, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac said were sound investments.
But isn't that exactly your argument? Clinton is to blame for pushing for and signing the CRA into law - and not the banks for making foolish loans? Aren't you trying to have it both ways?
Clav (comment 19):
I have read nothing so far in this thread that even comes close to refuting the points made.
The full NBER study is behind a paywall but it basically claims that the requirements of the CRA compelled them to make riskier loans. But it seems most of the risk-taking wasn't coming from the types of banks who were affected by the CRA. As I said, my time is limited this morning so I'll have to be a bit half-assed and post for your reflection this nifty Slate piece rather than my own words. I don't suppose you'll agree with most of its conclusions but I think it's fairly plain that Mr Gross's take on the question is somewhat more sophisticated and nuanced than Warren's.
Doug (comment 22):
Buycks-Roberson vs. Citibank was an anti-discrimination suit, brought because the defendants were systematically denying mortgage applications solely on the basis of where the applicant lived. If the banking industry collectively panicked and decided that the ruling meant they had to grant loans to all and sundry rather than consider the actual factual merits of each individual application, I don't see how that is the fault of some junior attorney who would one day become President, or Bill Clinton's fault, or anybody's fault but the lenders themselves.
And now I really must buzz off. Hopefully I'll have time to get back online later. Yes, this is the length of comment I post when I'm pressed for time. Aren't you all glad I don't have unlimited leisure? :-)