About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

On Fox, Barnes, Krauthammer echoed conservative claim that CRA played key role in subprime crisis

December 23, 2008 2:47 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: On Special Report, Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer echoed other conservatives in claiming that the Community Reinvestment Act and efforts to expand affordable housing are at least in part to blame for the home foreclosure crisis. But as experts have noted, the CRA does not govern the vast majority of subprime lenders.

56 Comments

Sounding a common conservative refrain during the December 22 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributors Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer each claimed that the Community Reinvestment Act and efforts to expand affordable housing to minorities and low income people are at least in part to blame for the home foreclosure crisis. However, experts have said that approximately 80 percent of subprime loans were offered by financial institutions that are not subject to the CRA, which applies only to depository institutions like banks and savings and loans, and also pointed out that lenders subject to the CRA face stricter regulations than do other lenders.

During the Special Report panel discussion, Barnes said of a December 20 New York Times article about the Bush administration's role in the subprime lending crisis: "Look, the problem with the story is it blames everything on President Bush and pretends like nothing happened before he became president. And, you know, you can go back to the Community Reinvestment Act under President Carter and all the things that President Clinton did and what Fannie Mae did announcing in 1999 that they would buy up loans -- home loans that were made by banks to people who hadn't qualified before." Later in the discussion, Krauthammer said: "The only surprise I had in reading [the article] is why it took the Times so long to get around to blaming the entire collapse on George Bush. ... Look, the truth is that there were two realities here. One is that we set as a national goal 30 years ago expanding homeownership, especially for low-income and minorities."

However, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, a study released in early 2008 by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, more than 84 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. Similarly, in February 13 testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, Michigan law professor Michael Barr said the following:

Despite the fact that CRA appears to have increased bank and thrift lending in low- and moderate-income communities, such institutions are not the only ones operating in these areas. In fact, with new and lower-cost sources of funding available from the secondary market through securitization, and with advances in financial technology, subprime lending exploded in the late 1990s, reaching over $600 billion and 20% of all originations by 2005. More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30 percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts. Although reasonable people can disagree about how to interpret the evidence, my own judgment is that the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight.

Barr pointed out in his testimony that depository institutions, which are subject to the CRA, face far more scrutiny than other lenders, stating: "Banks and thrifts are subject to comprehensive federal regulation and supervision; their affiliates far less so; and independent mortgage companies, not at all." Additionally, in a March 31 speech, Janet Yellen, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, criticized efforts to blame CRA lending for weaknesses in the mortgage market and stated that "studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households" [emphasis added].

In a November 19 speech in Baltimore, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan also criticized efforts to blame CRA for the mortgage crisis, saying: "CRA is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace." Dugan added, "Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA."

From the December 22 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

BRIT HUME (host): What is this story that so agitated the White House that not only did it send a Sunday response in the form of a statement but also sent, as you saw there, Ed Gillespie, the president's political adviser, out on the North Lawn to talk about it again today.

Well, the story says in part, quote, "He," speaking of President Bush, "his housing policies and hands-off experience to regulation encouraged lax lending standards. He pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minorities in an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors."

Well, that statement is -- is correct. So what all -- what's all the grumbling about? Some thoughts on this now from Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard; Nina Easton, Washington bureau chief of Fortune magazine; and the syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer -- Fox News contributors all.

Fred, what's the -- the quote I read, which lies at the heart of what the Times claimed, is, standing by itself, correct.

BARNES: Well --

HUME: So what's the fuss about?

BARNES: -- it is. But it is -- correct, but I'll mention that program and the president's efforts to increase homeownership.

Look, the problem with the story is it blames everything on President Bush and pretends like nothing happened before he became president. And, you know, you can go back to the Community Reinvestment Act under President Carter and all the things that President Clinton did and what Fannie Mae did announcing in 1999 that they would buy up loans -- home loans that were made by banks to people who hadn't qualified before.

They didn't have much -- they weren't going to be able to put much down and couldn't provide much proof that they were going to be able to pay off their home loan and so on.

And then you go to 2003 and four and five, and, as Ed Gillespie says, the Bush administration was pushing hard for a tough crackdown on the practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and so on.

I mean -- just one of the most breathtakingly one-sided, narrow story with blinders on that I have ever seen before that can only be motivated by an effort to get President Bush. I mean, you wouldn't write that piece otherwise.

Look, it's not that the Bush administration bears none of the blame. They do bear some. But -- but this story is utterly ridiculous.

When I was writing a book about President Bush -- oh, when was it -- a couple of years ago, and I wrote a chapter on the ownership society. And so I looked into the homeownership program that the Bush administration had -- it was puny. It wasn't much at all. I barely mentioned it in my chapter on -- on the ownership society.

And one of these pieces I read today said that that was the core of the ownership society idea of the Bush administration. No, it wasn't. You know, Social Security investment accounts and so many other things were. It wasn't.

So the problem with this story is it blames a person who is only partly, and smaller than other people, to blame, and mentions no one else.

HUME: Nina?

EASTON: Well, as somebody who is not part of Fred's sort of media blame club, usually, I have to say I was flabbergasted when I read this story. Flabbergasted.

I mean, there are three sections to blame for this -- this crisis we're in. You can blame Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve easy money supply. You can blame this whole risky slice, dice, and pass mortgage packages up the food chain, so no one has responsibility for it. And, frankly, regulators should have been looking at. You can blame that.

And you can blame affordable housing policies. You cannot write a story about affordable housing policies and blame it on George Bush instead of the Democrats. I mean, it's just -- it's outrageous.

You cannot go through -- as Fred said, I mean, the Democrats were so tied to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 1999, the Clinton administration pressured Fannie Mae to get into this more risky business of affordable housing, meaning you give loans to people who can't afford it. You take the normal credit, normal lending standards off the table. People don't have to have the required income and so on, so that you can expand affordable housing.

And in -- in The New York Times article at the time, it said this is gonna lead -- this could lead to a savings and loan crisis. Every Bush administration official I've interviewed in the past couple years has always pointed to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being out of control, we need to rein them in, and they couldn't get the Democrats to do it.

KRAUTHAMMER: The only surprise I had in reading this is why it took the Times so long to get around to blaming the entire collapse on George Bush. After all, it blames everything else on Bush. I mean, from, you know, the droughts in Kansas to Hurricane Katrina.

Look, the truth is that there were two realities here. One is that we set as a national goal 30 years ago expanding homeownership, especially for low-income and minorities. And it was accelerated in the Clinton administration.

And the Bush administration, Bush, who defined his ideology as compassionate, continued it.

And the other truth is that in his administration, he continued it, but he did try to regulate the out-of-control Fannie and Freddie, who were really at the root of this explosion.

We had Franklin Raines in 1999, the CEO at the time of Fannie, boasting that they had lowered the down-payment requirements and were now gonna lower the interest rates paid by these lower-income, subprime people, which was obviously a huge risk. And it was ignored, and it led, ultimately, to the calamity that we're in today.

HUME: Folks, it seems that this is not your father's New York Times.

Up next, the income incoming vice president has big changes in mind for the office he will inherit in a few weeks, and that's not sitting too well with the current one. All-stars on rising tension, next.

UPDATE: In a written response to Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated that the CRA is not in any way to blame for the subprime lending crisis, writing: "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."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (December 23, 2008 3:00 pm ET)
         
      These guys are finished. they had their 15 minutes ( err eight years 0 of fame. and the blame game continues throwing darts at a wall, and missing. Their level of intellect is sharply contrasted to the debate at hand. No mention at all over the millions paid to CEO's whose lack of management ability is plays a big part in what will surely be a continuation of the problem. AIG brass going on junkets with taxpayers money does not sit well with me judging the current presidency and deregulation policies. the whole thing stinks and well paid " reporters " passing the buck makes FOX a joke.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (December 23, 2008 3:06 pm ET)
         

      I love the way MMFA sometimes contradicts their own statements, and parse words in defense.  MMFA > "Fox News contributors Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer each claimed that the Community Reinvestment Act.......are at least in part to blame for the home foreclosure crisis"

      Barnes > "Look, the problem with the story is it blames everything on President Bush and pretends like nothing happened before he became president. And, you know, you can go back to the Community Reinvestment Act under President Carter and all the things that President Clinton did and what Fannie Mae did announcing in 1999 that they would buy up loans -- home loans that were made by banks to people who hadn't qualified before"

      Wow, big difference there.....

      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (December 23, 2008 3:20 pm ET)
           

        You have a point to a degree.  The headline says "key role" and the article says "at least in part".  That's not a big difference.  It's interesting that Barnes only mentions 2 Democratic Presidents.  What about Reagan and Bush 1?  It's a huge stretch to blame any part of this crisis on Carter.  Bush has been in office for 8 years and he deserves a very large part of the blame along with his rubber stamp congress.  Clinton may have contributed a bit but the Republican Revolution of the '90's takes at least an equal share of the blame.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Victor Colorado (December 23, 2008 3:25 pm ET)
             

          Agreed, not a big difference between the headline and the article, just a pedantic one.  Certainly not a contradiction.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (December 23, 2008 4:02 pm ET)
             

          Shaggles,

          I don't disagree about Carter, he hasn't been in office for nearly 30 years, it's a little partisan convenient to blame him now for this. And Barnes is an apologist so that is no surprise.  My point was MMFA really has no beef with Barnes on his "blame" comment, it's semantics, at best

          Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (December 23, 2008 3:07 pm ET)
         
      They've been on this for months now. I don't think anyone is really buying it but they'll keep hammering away at it. Probably for years after the crisis is over.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (December 23, 2008 3:09 pm ET)
         
      Well I think it's just wonderful the way the media keeps its citizens well informed on major issues of deep concern to our present, and future. Hope we get one sometime.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (December 23, 2008 3:28 pm ET)
           

        Nah, they won't let go of this anytime soon. Krauthammer's still insisting that some imaginary people blamed Bush for droughts and hurricanes. It's like they start to believe their own strawmen after a while.

        And that broken water main in MD? El Rushbo today started with his premise that the water must have frozen in the pipe and expanded, and used it as a jumping off point to refute Global Warming.

        They'd be sort of cute if they were just a bunch of demented old geezers on a park bench. Unfortunately, they're considered a credible source of info. by some Americans who vote.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (December 23, 2008 3:37 pm ET)
             

          http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/12/23/ash-flood-superfund/

          If that works, it's a first. Another story of little note to MSM.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by eweston8542983 (December 23, 2008 3:39 pm ET)
               

            Slap me silly, it worked.

            Sometime next year "picktures", it could happen. :)

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (December 23, 2008 3:45 pm ET)
                 

              Oh, I get it, EW. You're blaming Bush for the ash spill, too.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by jjamele2880 (December 23, 2008 3:48 pm ET)
             

          That's right- when Democrats blame Bush for his failure to rush emergency supplies to New Orleans instead of playing air guitar and flying his jet over the disaster area, it gets turned into "people blame Bush for the hurricane."

          And when you criticize Bush's handling of the war, "Liberals are failing to support the troops."

          These people make me sick.  their aversion to criticism and responsibility is just beyond pathetic.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by wookie (December 23, 2008 5:15 pm ET)
               

            Besides, everyone knows hurricanes are the fault of gays and the lack of prayer in schools...

            Report Abuse
        • Author by philib (December 25, 2008 11:12 am ET)
             

             I don't think many consider Rush a "credible source" of information. Quite similar to mmfa (as pointed out by Tommy), the information provided is directed at a concerted few. Of course that "few" on each side will believe whole-heartedly everything that is said by the respective source.

             Global warming is a perfect example. Everyone knows global warming happens. Some believe it's cyclical and the rest believe either one of those two sources. To deny global warming is simply living in denial. To believe man caused it all is, again, living in denial.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (December 25, 2008 4:39 pm ET)
               

            It's hard to create equivalence between MMfA and Limbaugh unless you can demonstrate how MMfA is dishonest.

            Who says man caused "all" of global warming?  Wouldn't an exaggerated effect on top of the cyclical temperature rise be attributable to mankind?  I'm pretty sure that's what's claimed to be our responsibility, not the fact that there's a warming trend in and of itself.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by philib (December 26, 2008 9:18 am ET)
                 

                 I think Tommy did a good job of demonstrating how dishonest mmfa is. The degree of dishonesty isn't the key, the dishonesty in itself is enough.

                 Al Gore says man caused it all. And, every one who refuses to disagree with him. I don't seem to remember any cyclical effect being a partial cause in any of Gore's diatribes.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (December 26, 2008 10:22 am ET)
                   

                The degree makes a tremendous difference.  The point here was that Tommy disagreed with wording.  Limbaugh tells outright lies.  Here they provide context for their items, Limbaugh does not.  By your logic any subpar posting on any site makes them exactly the same as Limbaugh, which is absurd.

                Where did Al Gore say that?  I seem to remember him showing graphs which displayed the cyclical effect quite clearly.

                Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (December 23, 2008 3:23 pm ET)
         

      Bush was the one who bragged about how America had become an "ownership" society under his watch. He also owns the economic collapse.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (December 23, 2008 3:29 pm ET)
           

        Hey King, Merry Christmas and man your battle station. It's on!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (December 23, 2008 3:36 pm ET)
             

          I'm already at my post in the bunker by the mall. Waiting for General O'Reilly to give the word. I won't let any of those SPs get through our lines to attack the baby Jesus.

          Merry Christmas to you too Colonel.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by eweston8542983 (December 24, 2008 6:54 pm ET)
               

            And today you have a busted wing. The WOX, its not for sissies.

            Try to take it easy this holiday season. Have someone duct tape you to a recliner.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (December 23, 2008 3:35 pm ET)
           

        he even had McCain believing the " fundamentals of the economy are strong " I see the DJIA hovering about 8500 when I have seen it above 14000 under the Bush governance. Amazing the photo opportunities have basically disappered since Nov 4 for GW.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jjamele2880 (December 23, 2008 3:32 pm ET)
         

      Hannity, Limbaugh, Tom Sullivan, John Gibson, Rusty Humphries, Michael Reagan etc. etc. etc. put ALL the blame for the housing crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act- which means on Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Jimmy Carter and Bill Cliinton-- all conveniently Democrats, of course.  "This Act MADE financial institutions lend money to people they KNEW couldn't pay it back" blah blah blah-- they can get away with this crud because they know their audiences just want easy answers that feed into their "Government is Bad, Democrats are corrupt  and Poor People are Welfare Bums" mentality. 

      Along with the "FDR's programs did not end the Depression" chant, this one is getting really, really old.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (December 23, 2008 3:43 pm ET)
           

        I bet these individuals have received a memo urging the destruction of the Obama presidency in four years. they offer no intellectual discussions and add nothing to the debate on how to leave a better nation for our descendants.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Victor Colorado (December 23, 2008 3:42 pm ET)
         

      Sorry to butt in, but I thought I'd share my holiday well wishes I sent to Mr. O. last week (still have not received a reply from him)...

      To: oreilly@foxnews.com
      Subject: War On Christmas
      Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:59:29 -0500

      Dear Mr. O'Reilly,

      I'm just finishing up on my "Holiday" shopping and I want to personally thank you for posting your "Holiday Shipping Deadlines" on your web site.  It's particularly helpful for me to know that the "Holiday Shipping Deadline" for your products for ground transport for the "Holiday" occurring on December 25th is today.

      http://www.billoreilly.com/g/Holiday-Shipping-Deadlines/553.html

      Thanks again, Mr. O'Reilly, and Merry Holiday!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (December 23, 2008 3:44 pm ET)
           

        look out, the merry one gonna send FOX security after you and his lapdogs goona corner you in the driveway.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (December 23, 2008 4:17 pm ET)
           

        You might want to check with the "Governor", he was taking steps to "put Fox out of business"......maybe they are, which could be why you haven't gotten a response.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (December 23, 2008 4:41 pm ET)
           

        Yeah Victor,

        I haven't heard much about Billy's War on Christmas this year.  Maybe he's been banged around so much he just gave it up.

        First, Billy got kicked off his radio program.  Now he's so depressed, he can't even summon the manufactured outrage needed to press on with "The War on Christmas."

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (December 23, 2008 4:50 pm ET)
             

          The WOX is still a hot issue to many of the righty radio yakkers. I personally have never met anybody who wants to ban the words "Merry Christmas", but these crusaders seem to be running into them all over the place, defianly saying "Merry Christmas" in spite of the terrible consequences.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (December 23, 2008 5:03 pm ET)
         

      well, thanks again to bush looks like we can pretty much kiss any effort at accountability goodbye...

      Bush pardons mortgage fraudster who escaped restitution

      Father gave $28,500 to RNC this year

      President George W. Bush has characterized the recent US housing crisis as a product of greed and Wall Street excess.

      But that doesn't seem to have been Bush's opinion when he pardoned Isaac Toussie, 30, of Brooklyn, the son of a New York real estate developer, who defrauded the Housing and Urban Development Department government for millions of dollars and pled guilty to inflating the incomes of at least 100 families to make them eligible for federal loans in the lead-up to the worst housing crisis the United States has ever had.

      Toussie was among 19 pardoned by President George W. Bush in his semi-annual pre-Christmas clemencies.

      What's more, Toussie's father gave $28,500 to the Republican National Committee this year, according to a RAW STORY analysis of federal campaign finance records available at the nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog Open Secrets.

      Robert and his son were sued in 2001 in what was billed as the largest real-estate discrimination lawsuit ever filed in New York State on behalf of some 400 families. They said they were duped into buying overpriced and shoddily built properties.

      The two were accused of being in cahoots with more than a dozen lenders to defraud minority home buyers, most of whom had imperfect credit records.

      Toussie admitted to mortgage fraud and to defrauding Suffolk County by issuing letters that inflated the value of a property the county and a town bought by $2.7 million.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by jjamele2880 (December 23, 2008 5:18 pm ET)
           

        What does "Semi-Annual Pre-Christmas" mean? 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (December 23, 2008 5:23 pm ET)
             

          apparently it's a bush tradition to grant pardons to his contributors in time for christmas?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by jjamele2880 (December 23, 2008 5:26 pm ET)
               

            Semi-Annual means "every six months or twice a year."  I'm trying to figure out how Bush manages to give pre-Christmas pardons in July.  I guess that's technically pre-Christmas, but still....

            Another example of how literate our "news" reporters are...

            Report Abuse
            • Author by SFnomad (December 23, 2008 7:30 pm ET)
                 

              Come on, you guys are being a bit too technical.  He does twice a year clemencies, before Christmas and one would assume before summer.  You can find ads for a "semi-annual summer sale" out there too, which wouldn't be any different.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by jjamele2880 (December 23, 2008 8:55 pm ET)
                   

                It's being "technical" to ask a news organization to be more literate than a mattress store.  Got it.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by philib (December 25, 2008 3:00 pm ET)
               

            "apparently it's a bush tradition to grant pardons to his contributors in time for christmas?"

               Apparently, it's a Bush tradition to do what right. He withdrew his pardon after he learned that the contributions were made. Unlike Clinton who didn't withdraw any pardons after inappropriate donations were discovered. I wonder if snoopy will say something to acknowledge this reversal. Somehow I doubt it.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by philib (December 26, 2008 9:21 am ET)
                 

               .... chirp ... chirp .....  Snoopy?!?  ..... chirp  ....   chirp ..... Brabs?!?  .... chirp  ..... chirp ....  anyone??

              Report Abuse
              • Author by jjamele2880 (December 26, 2008 9:51 am ET)
                   

                Maybe the people you are waiting to respond to you have better things to do the day after Christmas than to answer your idiotic half-truth posts, drooling moron.

                Al Gore has NEVER said that man is the ONLY cause of global warming, but you know that already.  The talent of braindead dopes like you to ignore what doesn't support your argument is truly remarkable.  Meanwhile,. 

                "Al Gore says man caused it all. And, every one who refuses to disagree with him"

                That last sentance isn't EVEN a sentance.  I wish the gift of literacy to you in the New Year.  Use it well.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (December 26, 2008 10:24 am ET)
                   

                Why are you waiting for a response from me?  I didn't say anything about that issue at all.

                Report Abuse
      • Author by philib (December 25, 2008 11:50 am ET)
           

           That's a good example of missinformation. When you listed Bush's pardon and complain about it after donations to the RNC, while ignoring Clinton did the SAME thing is very, very disingenuous and misleading.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy    When you forget that Clinton pardoned: Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory (bank fraud) after 'donations' to a member of Hilary's family, or forget: Almon Braswell (mail fraud) and Carlos Vignali (cocaine trafficking) paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to another Rodham family member (although he later claimed to have returned the money after it was publicised). Or if you forget about Marc Rich who helped set and control oil prices and made millions upon millions. (you do remember what happens when oil prices are falsely controlled, don't you?) and he was a major player in the food for oil kickback schemes, he also donated an unknown amount of $$$ to Hilary's senate campaign and the Clinton library.  Then you blame Bush for a pardon that you say ruined this country is simply paritson whining.

            Clinton pardoned drug dealers, terrorists, bank+mail+government frauders, but somehow those are just plain expected. While when Bush does the same thing he becomes the most evil man on the planet.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nuQlerOstrich (December 23, 2008 5:08 pm ET)
         

      What?

      No mention of Forclosure Phil Graham and his nifty pair of "Modernization" bills rammed thru Congress in the waning years of the Clinton administration.

      If you liked the "Enron Loophole," you'll really love the latter of these two bills.  Pushed thru during the 2000 Florida Recount when nobody was looking, the Commodities Futures Modernization act is a real doozy.

      Of course they don't want to get anywhere near talking about that, do they?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (December 23, 2008 5:17 pm ET)
         

      All BARNES AND KRAUTHAMMER  are , are BUSH AND CHENEY APOLOGISTS AND  CRITICS OF ANYTHING TO THE LEFT OF THEIR FAR RIGHT WING VIEWS. Nothing new from them.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by TelltaleHeart (December 23, 2008 5:28 pm ET)
         
      It's the same old bullpucky from them. Here's how it works: Fifty Republicans and one Democrat (or someone who was once a Democrat, or comes from Chicago, where Barack HUSSEIN Obama comes from, or whatever) are indicted. The news will about how there's a scandal which "reaches to the top of the Democrat [sic] Party establishment". Here, a few subprime loans were granted under the CRA arrangements, so the CRA is "responsible" for everything that follows.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jjamele2880 (December 23, 2008 5:57 pm ET)
           

        Exactly.  This economic meltdown was forged by events that took place in 1977 and 1995, and there were no Republican Presidents and no Republican Congress in between or since, so it's all the Democrats fault.  Just listen to John Gibson and his snivelling buttboy Angry Rich ("Yes John," "Right John," "that's correct John") and they'll explain to you that the Republicans WANTED to fix this problem but the Democrats blocked them every time, even when the GOP controlled every branch of government.  They just DID.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by philib (December 25, 2008 11:55 am ET)
             

             Yeah, but what you're saying is that the meltdown process started in '77+95 but only the republican presidents are responsible. How many democrats ruled during those periods? Do they bear NO responsibility?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by jjamele2880 (December 26, 2008 9:54 am ET)
               

            Nowhere in my post do I say Republican presidents are solely responsible.  Once again, you read a post, see something that isn't there, and attack that.  You see, Philib, what works for John Gibson doesn't work on this thread, because we get to respond.  Utter fail on your part.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (December 23, 2008 7:10 pm ET)
         
      After further review, the main cause of the housing crisis began with the Land Rush of 1849. None of those people could prove they had an income. Maybe if the Indians tribes would've spoken up this would have never happened.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by National_Insecurity (December 23, 2008 10:51 pm ET)
         

      I'm spending the better part of my day doing mortgage workouts for people losing their jobs and now their homes.  A few months ago when this CRA meme popped up I decided I needed to do some research of my own.  A really good book is <b>"Chain of Blame" by Paul Muolo of National Mortgage News.<b>  He's been a financial reporter on this beat for over 20 years and knows this industry cold. His latest book is on the $700 billion bailout.  It's too depressing for me to read at the moment, but if you want the inside scoop it's probably worth the time.

      As the Bernanke quote shows, CRA had nothing to do with the collapse.

      20% of all loans were subprime - but not all those borrowers were subprime prospects. Traditionally subprime was about 6-7 % of all loans.  That other 13-14% of loans, and many of the ones I've seen in my workouts, are speculators who wanted a liar loan with no documentation on income or liabilities.  These were the people you'd see going to real estate seminars who'd buy 5-10 properties, often new homes in big subdivisions.  Few of the developers prevented such speculators, and those that tried were circumvented by the speculators bringing in straw buyers.  

      Speculators drove many markets in California and Nevada. I met people who bought one with a liar loan, made fast money and bought 3 more, sold one of those, bought 5 more and have now defaulted on the remaining 7 loans of $500K each.  I don't see Fred and Chuck talking about them.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by cpinva (December 24, 2008 12:01 am ET)
         
      dr. krauthammer regularly gets skewered by his better, dr. paul krugman, nobel prize winning economist and prof. at princeton. for years, dr. krauthammer has espoused a theory of economics that had its heyday in victorian england. it re-emerged, like a 17-year locust, during the reagan administration (having had a brief run during the hoover years), spread disaster, and was put away when bush I was elected. unfortunately, bush II, being the idiot child of the family, opened that pandora's economics box, and the result, easily predictable, has been the economic implosion we're witness to today. fred barnes has equal standing with dr. krauthammer, which is to say, not much, when it comes to the field of economics.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by coachslife3331 (December 24, 2008 5:10 am ET)
         

      Same old stuff!  These guys lost the election and they are still trying gfive us the same old bullll!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Ossian (December 24, 2008 12:57 pm ET)
         

      Both sides here - one more than the other - are completely uninterested in the genesis of the subprime crisis, and by contrast entirely fixated on ensuring their enemies get the blame in the history books.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by TadekKorn (December 24, 2008 3:49 pm ET)
         
      KRAUTHAMMER: Look, the truth is that there were two realities here. When it comes to FIXed News, there are always two realities: 1) reality; 2) reality as perceived by its pundits. An especially pungent version breaks forth when Barns combines with Kraut under the direction of Humus!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by TadekKorn (December 24, 2008 3:54 pm ET)
         
      I should have added: when the East(on) wind blows, it only adds to the stench!
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.