Conservatives Push Absurd Lie that Wall Street Hustlers Were Innocent Victims ... of Poor People

[Better Believe It]

Conservatives Push Absurd Lie that Wall Street Hustlers Were Innocent Victims ... of Poor People

Deregulation allowed Wall Street to build a house of cards on America's mortgage industry, but many conservatives live in a parallel universe in which the banks are blameless.
By Joshua Holland
October 10,2010

Perhaps the most pernicious right-wing lie of late is that the Wall Street hustlers who came close to bringing the global economy to its knees in 2008 were just innocent victims of government-sponsored programs that forced them to lower lending standards in a misguided effort to increase home ownership among the poor (read: dark-skinned).

It’s an alluring story line for those who are ideologically predisposed to blame “inner city” people instead of MBAs in suits roaming the executive suite. It’s also patent nonsense—a Big Lie that has nonetheless become an object of almost religious belief for some on the Right.

Yet no bank has ever been “forced to comply with government mandates about mortgage lending.” There are no “government mandates,” and there never were. In order to qualify for government-backed deposit insurance—a benefit that banks aren’t forced to accept but enjoy having—the Community Reinvestment Act and similar measures designed to prevent discrimination in lending (to qualified individuals) only encourage banks to lend in all of the areas where they do business. And Section 802 (b) of the Act stresses that all loans must be “consistent with safe and sound operations”—it’s the opposite of requiring that lenders write risky mortgages.

There are no penalties for noncompliance with CRA guidelines. The only “stick” hanging over banks that fail to meet those standards is that their refusal might be taken into account by regulators when they want to open new branches or merge with other financial institutions. What’s more, there are no defined standards for CRA compliance, and within the banking community, the loose guidelines are considered to be somewhat of a joke.

As Sheila Blair, the chairwoman of the FDIC, asked in a December 2008 speech, “Where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? Nowhere! 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.”

Please read the full article at:

http://www.alternet.org/story/148454/conservatives_push_absurd_lie_that_wall_street_hustlers_were_innocent_victims_..._of_poor_people/?page=entire

[Historic NY]

1. All those poor people better get out & vote.

[rfranklin]

2. Like the woman's head on the curb injured the wingnut's foot that kicked her...

They are always the victim. They are discriminated against for their beliefs, their religion, their bizarre sexual appetities. They are whiners and liars.

[CoffeeCat]

3. I am so angry about this, I can barely type...

I had a shouting match with a tea bagger over this very issue.

People. Seriously. The tea baggers believe that TOO MUCH regulation caused the housing
collapse. You heard me right. I was told by Mr Tea that regulation required Fannie
and Freddie to give out loans to the poor and minorities, when they had no business
buying homes or buying big homes that they couldn't afford.

In effect, we need LESS regulation--NOT MORE.

I talked about Glass Stegall and how the politicians donated to political campaigns to get
that repealed, and it was then when the banks grew as enormous as they did. Furthermore,
regulations were relaxed which allowed the banks to develop all of that creative financing
that cajoled NEARLY everyone into a bigger home than they could afford. I pointed out that
many yuppie types were buying McMansions and many upper income folks were flipping houses
and most foreclosures were on upper-income homeowners, and the poor were not to blame.

Mr. Tea would not concede any of my points. It was too much regulation and the poor and
minorities who collapsed it all, and the banks are victims of government telling them
what to do.

Seriously. The stupid in this country is so vast and so entrenched. That conversation made
me doubt that we would ever have a unified country to fight the corporatism that has permeated
our democracy. We've got a divided country and each side is speaking their own language.

It's very, very sad.

[marmar]

4. "me doubt that we would ever have a unified country"

Agreed. The brainwashing has been thorough.

[CoffeeCat]

5. I do agree that there are differences...

...in Republicans and Democrats.

However, the monster that has been created on both sides--the crazed division and wacko history
revision by goons like Beck--has assured that we are all too busy hating each other to notice
that the corporate goons and our corrupt politicians are running out the back door with the loot.

Yes, there are differences in the parties. But this HATE has been manufactured to keep us
busy and focused on the wrong enemy.

And it's so sad. Dems and Reps can't even have a conversation anymore. But it's just
as the Fascists intended.

[the redcoat]

6. People actually fall for this? nt

[Irritable Liberal]

7. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a small part of the problem

Less than 20% of the sub prime loans were written by them. Companies like Countrywide and Washington Mutual wrote far more bad loans. In some Washington Mutual offices over 60% of all loans were not just sub prime but actually fraudulent where income data was either faked or underwriting standards were ignored.

Argueing with conservatives/Tea Partiers is futile and believe me, I have tried. It's impossible to reason with ignorance where facts are ignored.

[Rex]

8. Repukes love to blame the powerless and downtrodden.

Because at heart all GOPukers are cowardly shitbags. Just like their idols that NEVER have objective material on their shows. Always RWinger agenda drivel and never a fair debate (they don't dare).

[Better Believe It]

9. kick