Shall We Call It a Depression Now?

quote:

Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Extra,

Suggest you review past posts. I've repeatedly included mortgages and mortgage based securities (derivatives) in my posts.

CRA forced local lenders to make risky loans. The loans were bought up by Mae/Mac or bundled into securities and bought by Mae/Mac. The existence of such a large pool of funds sucked the credit market dry and, hence, our present predicament.

Mae/Macs and the commercial investment houses bought the mortgages and derivatives without knowledge of the risks attached.

So then Fredie/Fannie were not the ones who actually lowered the standard for loaning money to people who couldn't pay their mortgage..???

So if this be true, the entire right wing smoke screen blaming the meltdown on Democrats and Obama's friends is exactly that, a smoke screen.

CRA lowered the standards, as has been repeated ad nauseum. Threats of lawsuits from community groups forced the banks to give bad loans, also repeated ad nauseum.
No right wing or left wing; blame Phil Graham, Dodd, Frank, Schumer, Johnson, Raines, Carter, Clinton, Obama(as a trial lawyer),Newt(lobbying),Reid and others. Mostly left though.

Look up past statements from Dodd and Frank saying F&F are solid.

See White House statement that shows the admin tried to regain control for past 7 years.

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
Typical Right Wing Response, when you can't answer the facts use slander.

Ohmigosh! You're right! I'm exhibiting symptoms of being progressive!

Hopefully, there's an ointment for that.

As I have shown a couple of times the CRA did not force any bank to "lower standards" or make loans to people they felt could not repay. You can try repeating the Right Wing lie LMM but the large majority of the defaults, over 80%, were not CRA related.

Wall Street and the Banks created a Ponzi scheme and made out like the bandits they are.
They gave loans to almost anyone, regardless of credit worthiness, they sold the loans and made huge profits through the sales.

The Corporate Media Pundits are like Referee's in TV wrestling, they are just part of the show.

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
As I have shown a couple of times the CRA did not force any bank to "lower standards" or make loans to people they felt could not repay. You can try repeating the Right Wing lie LMM but the large majority of the defaults, over 80%, were not CRA related.

Wall Street and the Banks created a Ponzi scheme and made out like the bandits they are.
They gave loans to almost anyone, regardless of credit worthiness, they sold the loans and made huge profits through the sales.

The Corporate Media Pundits are like Referee's in TV wrestling, they are just part of the show.

That doesn't even make sense to the dimmest among you. Let's see...banks went out of their way to make bad business decisions intentionally with the intent of losing billions of dollars.

Only the Government is capable of that sort of idiocy. Please get in the line over there to fill out the paperwork for the Darwin award.

And the only thing you have "shown" is your sheer inability to research objective facts, your reliance upon moonbat websites for "facts", and your deep compulsion for reductio ad bushium.

Extra,

quote:

So then Fredie/Fannie were not the ones who actually lowered the standard for loaning money to people who couldn't pay their mortgage..???

So if this be true, the entire right wing smoke screen blaming the meltdown on Democrats and Obama's friends is exactly that, a smoke screen.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The reasons have been posted a dozen times, you've read them and are still blowing smoke to hide the real reason.

Because of the CRA, banks gave loans to persons that ordinarily would not qualify. Fear of a $50,000 fine per loan and possibility of loss of FDIC status was very real, although not used. Community acitivists groups such as ACORN, bragged about their actions.

Fannie Mae/Freddie mac provided more funds to the banks by buying the mortgages and derivatives based on mortgages. The buy ups continued until Mae/Mac had sucked up half the market (about $6 trillion). Mortgages payments weren't coming in and the credit markets dried up. Private commercial investment banks also bought the mortgages and derivatives as they were competing with Mae/Mac.

Schumer, Dodd, and Frank all egged on the situation and decried audit reports to the contrary. You've seen this on video.

This was explained on the forum in detail about a dozen times, yet you go back again and again. There are treatments for short term memory loss, but none for liberal short sightedness -- except the Darwin Award.

If you repeat a lie often enough soon it becomes the truth.

zip,

Unfortunately, true! Our lefties are following Goebbels playbook to the letter. He'd be soo proud.

I referred to the Darwin Award, without reading you previous post. Great minds, I guess!

quote:

Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Extra,

quote:

So then Fredie/Fannie were not the ones who actually lowered the standard for loaning money to people who couldn't pay their mortgage..???

So if this be true, the entire right wing smoke screen blaming the meltdown on Democrats and Obama's friends is exactly that, a smoke screen.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The reasons have been posted a dozen times, you've read them and are still blowing smoke to hide the real reason.

Because of the CRA, banks gave loans to persons that ordinarily would not qualify. Fear of a $50,000 fine per loan and possibility of loss of FDIC status was very real, although not used. Community acitivists groups such as ACORN, bragged about their actions.

Fannie Mae/Freddie mac provided more funds to the banks by buying the mortgages and derivatives based on mortgages. The buy ups continued until Mae/Mac had sucked up half the market (about $6 trillion). Mortgages payments weren't coming in and the credit markets dried up. Private commercial investment banks also bought the mortgages and derivatives as they were competing with Mae/Mac.

Schumer, Dodd, and Frank all egged on the situation and decried audit reports to the contrary. You've seen this on video.

This was explained on the forum in detail about a dozen times, yet you go back again and again. There are treatments for short term memory loss, but none for liberal short sightedness -- except the Darwin Award.

Sounds good, too bad for you it's just not true. It was greed that lowered the lending standards and the knowlege that the bad loans could be sold to someone else to worry about. That unsuspecting buyer happened to be the government.

Extra,

The trail is there, the evidence exists and only in the left is there denial.

quote:

Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Extra,

The trail is there, the evidence exists and only in the left is there denial.

Ha Ha Ha Howie, Caught on the horns of your own dilemma.

No horns, no delimma, I've stated the scenario cogently. It's been discussed in detail in at least a dozen other threads. I'll not play nursemaid to a lib either in denial or practicing obfuscation.

quote:

As I have shown a couple of times the CRA did not force any bank to "lower standards" or make loans to people they felt could not repay. You can try repeating the Right Wing lie LMM but the large majority of the defaults, over 80%, were not CRA related.

Pogo, your articles are nothing but opinion pieces, I posted articles with facts as did the rest of the posters. If you wish to live with your head in the sand, so be it.

It would appear that all could be either right or wrong.
Link

The act stated that lending should be done in a way that would be financially safe and sound.

Where it all went wrong was later on when the greed factor by the banks and the advocate groups started bending that declaration.

The problem was that the very thing Congress was worried would happen, did happen. The Act was noble in theory but horrible in practice. But never fear, the new Clinton Obama admin will make all the necessary changes!



In Congressional debate on the Act, critics charged that the law would "distort credit markets, create unnecessary regulatory burden, lead to unsound lending, and cause the governmental agencies charged with implementing the law to allocate credit." Partly in response to these concerns, Congress included little prescriptive detail and simply directs the banking regulatory agencies to ensure that banks and savings associations serve the credit needs of their local communities in a safe and sound manner.[16][10] Community groups only slowly organized to take advantage of their right under the Act to complain about law enforcement of the regulations

Irregardless of how the financial sector got to its sorry mess, I can not envision the upcoming administration and congress offering more than empty platitudes. The laws and rules that led us to this place need to be changed, or if history does not repeat, it will probably rhyme. Link

My articles are opinion pieces as are the many posted by you LMM or any one. But my articles stated the facts.

The Right Wing version of events are their usual stereotyping, racist fear and nonsense we have come to expect from them. But hey, you bought the Saddam WMD stuff, what the heck right? Bush really does care about Black folks right? And Gee, who could have known the housing bubble would burst?

The CRA never forced any Bank to make a loan to people who did not deserve one. The Government cannot force a Bank to do such a thing, it would have been fought out in the Supreme Court in the 1980's, last time they robbed the till.

It's that Big Black Conspiracy that take from the Hard Working Whites to give to the lazy "people of color."

The evidence shows over 80% of the defautls are not related to the CRA.

The CRA was to end discrimination that was being practiced in America for decades. Yes, I know. It's Hard to Believe but banks had a policy of denying you a loan in white areas if you were Black. I know, that some people were actually judged and held to a different standard because of the color of their skin is hard to believe, but it's true.

Banks may be fined under different laws for discriminating but the CRA only withdrew it's backing from the FDIC.

The banks made bad loans, big profits and sold them to investors, that's who being protected and saved by the bailout. Which will cost each American. The rest of the Right Wing Story is nonsense, but usual distortion they have put out for years.

Well, now the Right Wing are on to the next problem, the America worker. They want too much money to make cars and are cutting into the CEO's million dollar salaries.

quote:

The banks made bad loans, big profits and sold them to investors, that's who being protected and saved by the bailout. Which will cost each American. The rest of the Right Wing Story is nonsense, but usual distortion they have put out for years.

Pogo, you are sort of right that bad laws and rules led to this mess, but as others have pointed out, those rules and laws happened mainly in the last century with demoncrats leading the charge. For your viewing pleasure:

Critics credit Rubin with helping create the conditions for the Financial crisis of 2007–2008, as a result of the policies he pursued as Treasury Secretary. Together with then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, Rubin strongly opposed the regulation of derivatives, when such regulation was proposed by then-head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Brooksley Born. Overexposure to credit derivatives of mortgage-backed securities was a key reason for the failure of US financial institutions Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, American International Group, and Washington Mutual in 2008.
Link

Robert Rubin received over $17,000,000 in compensation from CitiGroup and a further $33,000,000 in stock options as of 2008.

quote:

The CRA never forced any Bank to make a loan to people who did not deserve one.

This one sentence proves you have not read ANY facts.
Oh, and could you stop with the right wing crap, it is getting old. I have not called you a left wing loon or koolaid drinker, now have I??

End of discussion, this is really monotonous.

quote:

My articles are opinion pieces as are the many posted by you LMM or any one. But my articles stated the facts.

No they didn't. LMM and myself posted several articles that thoroughly debunked your statements. We even went through the trouble of isolating a few paragraphs that proves the CRA was a bad idea.

Did you ever read those articles we posted? If not, why? Don't try using lack of time as an excuse because you've spend more time typing your last response than it would take to read a couple of paragraphs.

I did read the articles Nash, that's when I realized they were the usual Right Wing nonsense based in lies, racism and fear. The articles that were printed simply have someone stating that the CRA forced banks to give loans to unqualified minorities.

The facts are the CRA never forced any Bank to make loans to people who did not qualify. It won't be legal and the Banks would have took it to court. Over 80% of the mortgages that defaulted are NOT CRA related.

Wall Street set up a Ponzi scheme and made huge profits while they sold bad loans to unsuspecting investors. Corporate Democrats as well as Corporate Republicans are to blame but the fault lies on Bush and Greenspan who set the interest rates low to fuel the housing bubble. For a while they benefited from it. They hoped it would collapse after they left office.

When, a leftwinger cries racism, its the last tool in his arsenal, he's bereft of logic, common sense and any call to logic.

Pogo, by proxy, admits he has no logic arguments, only a call to negative emotions.

One may not argue witha non-serious person. Its rather like arguing with a parrot with a limited vocabulary.

quote:

I did read the articles Nash, that's when I realized they were the usual Right Wing nonsense based in lies, racism and fear. The articles that were printed simply have someone stating that the CRA forced banks to give loans to unqualified minorities.

The facts are the CRA never forced any Bank to make loans to people who did not qualify. It won't be legal and the Banks would have took it to court. Over 80% of the mortgages that defaulted are NOT CRA related.

So give me one mistake made in any of the articles posted with evidence that proves it wrong. If you can't, then you really can't say they articles are inaccurate.

If they are not inaccurate, then how can you still insist the CRA didn't force banks to loan to unqualified people?

Since its inception, the CRA has been criticized by the bankers it seeks to regulate and by the
communities it is supposed to help. The banking industry decries the administrative burdens imposed
by the CRA, while community groups fault regulatory agencies for lax and ineffective enforcement.
Economists focus on the socialist philosophy of mandatory reinvestment calling it a "governmentally-imposed credit allocation" coercing "a private sector industry... into providing a service which contradicts the dictates of the marketplace. Forced allocation of capital ... is at best damaging to a financial institution and at worst a publicly mandated redistribution of wealth."
(Macey and Miller, 1993) Link

A little more evidence that the CRA was a socialist program intended to force bad lending.

Whether it is Socialist or not the Government does have the responsibility to protect citizens from racism. as well as fraud.

Over 80% of the defaults were not CRA related.

Ignoring the facts to blame "Liberals", "Government" and "Minorities" is the typical nonsense, that passes for logic for the Right Wing. They are always looking for scapegoats to distract people from their thievery. We had decades of it and the people are tired of it.

quote:

Whether it is Socialist or not the Government does have the responsibility to protect citizens from racism. as well as fraud.

Over 80% of the defaults were not CRA related.

Ignoring the facts to blame "Liberals", "Government" and "Minorities" is the typical nonsense, that passes for logic for the Right Wing. They are always looking for scapegoats to distract people from their thievery. We had decades of it and the people are tired of it.

Yes, it is the government's job to protect against racism. However, the CRA went too far and forced banks to lend to unqualified people.

The number of CRA related defaults were over 20%. That's still way too many. It means that if the government had not forced banks to loan to those people, defaults would be down more than 20%.

See for yourself.

Link

"Case in point: The Jimmy Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) forces lenders that want to expand their businesses to make stupid loans to weak borrowers living in bad locations. Yes, it’s that bad…and it’s one of the roots of our present subprime crisis.


The CRA is the law which forced traditional bank lenders to get involved in the stupid business of subprime lending. Interestingly enough, credit unions are the only category of financial institutions that have come through the financial crisis largely unscathed (and even profitably) - and credit unions have never been subjected to the requirements of the CRA. (Yes, there is a connection.)

But this is not “fair” according to John Taylor, CEO of National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC). The NCRC masquerades as an advocate for “individual economic empowerment”, but what that actually means is they lobby Congress and regulators to support mortgage programs for people who can not pay back the loans."

________________________________________________________________________________________________

NasBama:

Yes, it is the government's job to protect against racism. However, the CRA went too far and forced banks to lend to unqualified people.

The number of CRA related defaults were over 20%. That's still way too many. It means that if the government had not forced banks to loan to those people, defaults would be down more than 20%.

See for yourself.

Link

"Case in point: The Jimmy Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) forces lenders that want to expand their businesses to make stupid loans to weak borrowers living in bad locations. Yes, it’s that bad…and it’s one of the roots of our present subprime crisis.


The CRA is the law which forced traditional bank lenders to get involved in the stupid business of subprime lending. Interestingly enough, credit unions are the only category of financial institutions that have come through the financial crisis largely unscathed (and even profitably) - and credit unions have never been subjected to the requirements of the CRA. (Yes, there is a connection.)

But this is not “fair” according to John Taylor, CEO of National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC). The NCRC masquerades as an advocate for “individual economic empowerment”, but what that actually means is they lobby Congress and regulators to support mortgage programs for people who can not pay back the loans."


___________________________________________________________________________________________


Let's see, 20% are CRA related and 80% are not and you are say that this caused the inflated housing bubble to collapse and began the melt down.

Your article is just someone again just saying the CRA forced banks to make bad loans and I post articles that say it doesn't. If we use common sense we see the same underling nonsense we expect from the right wing, "the government forces banks to make loans to minorities who can't pay."

It was Predatory Lending. They weren't forced, to give bad loans, they did it more then willingly. The Banks knew they were going to sell the loans so they didn't care.

The government couldn't force an the Force The Banking Industry to lose money. It may be a nuisance but it's a safeguard. As Regulations are meant to be, a safe guard of our rights.

Look at the continuing scandals we see from unregulated Capitalism.

If, the banks knew they were to sell the bad loans, why are so many banks in trouble with bad loans? Your first statement does not follow! To quote Mr. Spock.

quote:

Look at the continuing scandals we see from unregulated Capitalism.

Where is there any unregulated capitalism? I haven't been able to see any in years.

I suppose your mantra is, "from all according to ability; to all according to need."

I don't think anyone said that the CRA by itself was the problem, it was part of the problem though. The housing bubble and mortgage meltdown had many components and participants. The following links show a complex graphic listing of contributors to the mess, and I doubt that it is a complete listing at that. Link
Link

quote:

Let's see, 20% are CRA related and 80% are not and you are say that this caused the inflated housing bubble to collapse and began the melt down.

Your article is just someone again just saying the CRA forced banks to make bad loans and I post articles that say it doesn't. If we use common sense we see the same underling nonsense we expect from the right wing, "the government forces banks to make loans to minorities who can't pay."

It was Predatory Lending. They weren't forced, to give bad loans, they did it more then willingly. The Banks knew they were going to sell the loans so they didn't care.

The government couldn't force an the Force The Banking Industry to lose money. It may be a nuisance but it's a safeguard. As Regulations are meant to be, a safe guard of our rights.

I didn't say it was the sole cause, but it was a major factor and I proved it many times. So did other posters here.

Think about it. Why would a bank loan money to someone who can't pay? Where is the profit if they only make a few payments and then default? The bank loses money by loaning to people with bad credit. So if they weren't forced to do it, why would they?

Government regulations rarely protect rights and more frequently inhibit rights. That's why this country was founded on the idea that a smaller government is the best government. That goes directly against the socialist mentality that the biggest government is the best. That's why so many socialist countries are also the most oppressive.

NashBama, as well as a number of articles that have been posted by Conservatives state that the Economic Melt is the direct result of the CRA. They post the usual line, the Liberals are using the government to give things to those "lazy" minorities" and it didn't work.

The Predatory lending, one of the real causes, had been going on for some years and an over inflated Housing Market, driven up by Wall Street Investments helped fuel the economy.

The bad loans were traded and sold among banks and investors around the world. They were triple A rated by an agency that is weak and corrupted by Wall Street.

What hurt our economy is it is fueled on consumer spending, debt and our trade imbalance.

This was Bush and Greenspans "Jobless Recovery" from the 2001 and 2002 recession and meltdown of Companies like Enron. Now we have another one.

Predatory lending was enabled by the CRA. There are bad apples falling from any apple tree. While perhaps there was an idealistic objective to the CRA, there are always sharpies that can skirt the edges to make a dollar or two. If you recall the dot-com boom then bust, there were cons rampant.

Some of the advertising here was, "the CRA says you have the right to get a mortgage loan. Call us at..." and send in money to apply for a mortgage loan. Other brokers would give mortgages that were risky but since the housing market was increasing by leaps and bounds they figured they could sell off the mortgages and walk. As the market was generally positive, it was A Good Thing.

Of course, people...including lenders and customers...forgot that the market value of real estate is based more on perception than reality. The ones that are in trouble now are similar in nature to those left standing when the music stops in "musical chairs".

There's absolutely no difference between the $750,000 southern california house from two years ago and the $500,000 southern california house now. It's the same house. During this real estate "crisis", no houses have disappeared from the face of the planet, nor have they shrunk in size. People...including lenders and customers...made bad decisions based on a belief that the positive situation was going to remain positive for all time. Turns out they were wrong. All I lost was about $200,000 in equity. Big deal. It means nothing right now unless I want to sell or borrow out the equity to pay for toys. In five to ten years when I decide to retire and return to the southeast, it will either be back or it won't. I'll worry about it then. More likely, that'll define my timetable.

In the meantime, I'll worry about the crises I can deal with. I've got a cat that needs to go to the vet for shots. I think I'll worry about that one. In the business matters, some criminals will walk free with a ton of ill-gotten gains in their pockets. Why? The crime is so complex it probably can never be successfully prosecuted. The government will likely Do Something so they can report back to their constituency they took action. It will probably be useless. Likely someone innocent will be villified. Life will continue.

Blame who you will, but there is plenty to share. There was no single motive nor was there a single cause for this. Idealism and greed cohabited, and used common means to gain their objective. The republic will not collapse as long as Americans don't lose their sense of optimism. That sense of optimism is the same thing which allows scams like this to flourish. It's the conundrum in which we live.

Banks used Predatory Lending to make profits, had nothing to do with the CRA. Greed was behind the lending.

The Housing Market was over inflated by speculative investing and predatory loans made the loans seem affordable. It fueled the economy, along with consumer purchasing, mainly on credit. The Progressive Press followed it as liberal and sane conservatives economists warned the bubble would burst. It was brushed aside by Bush, Greenspan, Corporate Media Pundits and Right Wingers bragged of great success. and Capitalism. Now there is all this scapegoating and double talk.

They First tried to blame Liberals, Government and Minorities and it's obvious some true believers cling to this belief the Internet has allowed the truth to get to the public.

Some right wingers still believe Saddam had a WMD and the war is not about oil.

quote:

Banks used Predatory Lending to make profits, had nothing to do with the CRA. Greed was behind the lending.

What will it take to prove to you that what you just said is completely untrue?

Repeating yourself doesn't make it fact. Evidence makes it fact. You've provided none while myself and others have provided quite a bit. So what exactly will convince you that the CRA did in fact pressure banks to give loans to unqualified people?

Let's see, I have posted articles that showed the Right Wings's version of the meltdown is the typical lies we get from the Right Wing. The CRA did not force any banks to make bad loans, Fannie and Freddie were not the cause of the crash but got in trouble in 2005 to 2007 in buying up half the bad loans that now defaulted.

I also posted an article by ex governor Elliot Sptizer from the Washington Post that states he has found massive evidence of predatory lending.

I have even tried to use common sense, how could the Government legally force the Banks to make Bad loans? And why haven't the banks took it to court if they were being forced to make loans they knew would default? The CRA penalties were to be removed from FDIC backing.

They made bad loans because they knew they were going to sell them. It was a con and is a crime.

Your double talk is to cover your ignorance of the subject and it's sad but typical of the right wing.

quote:

Let's see, I have posted articles that showed the Right Wings's version of the meltdown is the typical lies we get from the Right Wing. The CRA did not force any banks to make bad loans, Fannie and Freddie were not the cause of the crash but got in trouble in 2005 to 2007 in buying up half the bad loans that now defaulted.

I also posted an article by ex governor Elliot Sptizer from the Washington Post that states he has found massive evidence of predatory lending.

I have even tried to use common sense, how could the Government legally force the Banks to make Bad loans? And why haven't the banks took it to court if they were being forced to make loans they knew would default? The CRA penalties were to be removed from FDIC backing.

They made bad loans because they knew they were going to sell them. It was a con and is a crime.

Your double talk is to cover your ignorance of the subject and it's sad but typical of the right wing.

I've posted objective evidence, I've even quoted the law itself. All you post are opinions from the far left. That's not evidence.

The government can legally force banks to do whatever they want by threatening to remove their FDIC. Read the CRA for yourself. I've posted it several times already here.

The adjustable rate mortgages came from having to give loans to unqualified people. When banks saw they could make a quick buck doing it, they pushed adjustable rate loans and made money. The problem was that too many people defaulted and the banks lost too much money.

Not to mention banks giving loans to illegal aliens. As soon as the jobs dried up, they skipped town and the banks were stuck with the loan and no way of finding the illegals because they were "undocumented".

That's reality, Pogo. You should look into it sometime instead of limiting your information to the opinions of socialists and the radical left.

Post the part that forces banks to make loans to people who are not qualified.

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
Post the part that forces banks to make loans to people who are not qualified.

Please do .
I would be interested in seeing that for myself (just to see the exact wording you understand)

Link

SEC. 804. (a) IN GENERAL.--In connection with its examination of a financial institution, the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shall--
(1) assess the institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution; and
(2) take such record into account in its evaluation of an application for a deposit facility by such institution.

a) REQUIRED.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Upon the conclusion of each examination of an insured depository institution under section 804, the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shall prepare a written evaluation of the institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.
(2) PUBLIC AND CONFIDENTIAL SECTIONS.--Each written evaluation required under paragraph (1) shall have a public section and a confidential section.
(b) PUBLIC SECTION OF REPORT.--
(1) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.--
(A) CONTENTS OF WRITTEN EVALUATION.--The public section of the written evaluation shall--
(i) state the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency's conclusions for each assessment factor identified in the regulations prescribed by the Federal financial supervisory agencies to implement this Act;
(ii) discuss the facts and data supporting such conclusions; and
{{8-31-00 p.6988.28}}
(iii) contain the institution's rating and a statement describing the basis for the rating.
(B) Metropolitan area distinctions.--The information required by clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall be presented separately for each metropolitan area in which a regulated depository institution maintains one or more domestic branch offices.
(2) ASSIGNED RATING.--The institution's rating referred to in paragraph (1)(C) shall be 1 of the following:
(A) "Outstanding record of meeting community credit needs."
(B) "Satisfactory record of meeting community credit needs."
(C) "Needs to improve record of meeting community credit needs."
(D) "Substantial noncompliance in meeting community credit needs."
Such ratings shall be disclosed to the public on and after July 1, 1990.


In other words, if banks refuse to give loans to too many people with bad credit, they can get a bad rating. If they have a bad rating, they can be denied FDIC since their rating is taken into account.

No account is given to the individual's ability to pay back the loans. If a particular neighborhood has lots of unqualified people in it and the banks aren't loaning to them, the banks can get a bad rating and lose FDIC. No FDIC, the bank can't operate. So the banks give sub prime loans to show that they aren't redlining and to keep a good rating. Then the unqualified people default and the bank gets stuck with a foreclosure.

The better method of avoiding redlining is for people to be able to petition the government when rejected for a loan. The individual's credit rating and race are compared with the reasons for rejection. If someone with good credit is rejected by a bank who has approved the same loan for others with lower credit ratings, the bank is penalized. That allows the banks to lend to qualified borrowers and prevents loaning based on race.

Unfortunately, that's not how the law works and is more proof that the government isn't always the answer to the problem, it usually is the problem.

So there is the law in black and white as well as an explanation. Are you still going to deny that banks were forced to give loans to unqualified people?

Here's another explanation of the CRA.

Link

"The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria."

So you've been given the law itself, my explanation, and the explanation of an economics professor. How much more proof do you need?