how many years have the wingnuts on et hammered the meme that the crash was caused by the cra? i suppose even this report wont change your mind but there it is: "The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loansâa proxy for subprime loansâhad any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."
That CRA loans performed better and were not a factor in the crisis is known to anyone with any familiarity with the actual facts of the situation. That excludes all of the Republican Party save a few sensible souls like Sheila Bair.
I'll admit I had to wiki CRA, I know little about it. Reading that article, why would anyone think CRA had anything to do with this crisis in particular? They've been around since the 70's...
http://housingthink.com/index.php/2011/01/27/fcic-releases-financial-crisis-inquiry-report/ Nonetheless, we make the following observation about government housing policiesâthey failed in this respect: As a nation, we set aggressive home ownership goals with the desire to extend credit to families previously denied access to the financial markets. Yet the government failed to ensure that the philosophy of opportunity was being matched by the practical realities on the ground. Witness again the failure of the Federal Reserve and other regulators to rein in irresponsible lending. Same report, different paragraph.
This is the report written by the libtard democrats on the board. In their delusional world, only their facts are relevant. And if they don't have facts, they make them up. Just like global warming, peak oil, and evolution. Stupid and arrogance go hand in hand.
you have proven your point by example. "If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence." -Bertrand Russell
And none of the reports, either by the libtards or the republicans dissenting reports, could find a problem with the fed's one percent interest rates during the bubble. Imagine that. One percent short term interest rates had nothing to do with the housing bubble. That's how deluded and worthless these reports are. If they had found a problem with one percent interest rates then, it would create a tiny little problem with the fed's zero percent interest rates now. No? If they conclude that one percent interest rates didn't contribute to a housing bubble, you can see how credible it is that the democrats don't think a gov't initiative to create "affordable housing" in "certain areas" also had no blame. I suppose those that believe this report also think Obama's abstract of a birth certificate on some liberal website also tells you all the facts about his birth, even though he's paid millions to keep his real birth certificate a deep dark secret.
Cognitive Dissonance and Politics Posted on: September 16, 2008 12:58 PM, by Jonah Yesterday, we looked at some new research that found that when conservatives were exposed to evidence demonstrating the falsity of a partisan belief - such as a report demonstrating that Iraq didn't have WMD, or that lowering taxes doesn't increase government revenue - they became more convinced than ever that those beliefs were actually true. The scientists call this "the backfire effect". The researchers argue that conservatives are particularly vulnerable to this cognitive flaw, as their beliefs tend to be more rigid and immutable. But I'm not so sure. As a liberal partisan hack, I'm very aware of how my political biases distort my processing of information. I fixate on news that jives with my beliefs and tend to ignore those inconvenient facts that contradict my inner talking points. This is a deeply human trait. One of the first scientists to really study this was Leon Festinger, a social psychologist at the University of Minnesota. In the summer of 1954, Festinger was reading the morning newspaper when he encountered a short article about Marion Keech, a housewife in suburban Minneapolis who was convinced that the apocalypse was coming. Keech had started getting messages from aliens a few years before, but now the messages were getting eerily specific. According to Sananda, an extra-terrestrial from the planet Clarion who was in regular contact with Keech, human civilization would be destroyed by a massive flood at midnight on December 20, 1954. http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/09/cognitive_dissonance_and_polit.php
File this report under "liberal myths", right along side "diversity is our greatest strength", "illegal immigration helps our country", "forced busing improves education" and "the stimulus plan created jobs." The same people who think forcing private lenders to lend large sums of money to people with bad credit is a good idea also think it is rational to pour trillions more back into Fannie and Freddie, even though their incompetence and fraud will cost taxpayers a trillion or so bucks. But by all means slur conservatives as dimwits. I mean what could possibly go wrong.