Asked how she would not be just a third term of Obama, Hillary Clinton did not talk about how her foreign policy would be different, about her fiscal acumen, about immigration or executive orders, about being able to work with Congress on legislation. No, she replied smugly: “Well, I think that’s pretty obvious. I think being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents we’ve had up until this point, including President Obama.”
At another point she pointedly remarked, “Well, I can’t think of anything more of an outsider than electing the first woman president, but I’m not just running because I would be the first woman president,” though she has been inside politics much of her adult life.
Bernie and Hillary (AP photo by John Locher)
She also talked about being a mother and having a baby and a granddaughter.
She even managed to work gender into the fact she apparently cut in close in returning to the stage after a commercial break, saying, “You know, it does take me a little longer. That’s all I can say.”
On the other hand, she refused to accept being labeled a capitalist — so obviously shunned by runner-up Bernie Sanders — but said we have to save capitalism from itself, adding that Sanders “certainly makes sense in the terms of the inequality that we have.”
Clinton also talked about sending heads of big businesses to jail. “I went to Wall Street in December of 2007 — before the big crash that we had — and I basically said, “cut it out! Quit foreclosing on homes! Quit engaging in these kinds of speculative behaviors. … Nobody went to jail after $100 billion in fines were paid … (applause) and would give regulators the authority to go after the big banks.”
And no regulators have gone to jail either, even though it was the regulators during the Bill Clinton administration who pressured banks under the Community Reinvestment Act to make risky mortgage loans under the threat of being accused of redlining.
Though Sanders let Clinton off the hook for those “damn emails,” he kept bashing millionaires and billionaires while standing next to Clinton, who is worth about $45 million, according to Forbes.
But being a woman president trumps, pardon the pun, sound fiscal policies.
4TH ST8 
Bernie Sanders has no chance but he yearns to be today’s socialist icon, he imagines posters and t-shirts emblazoned with his image, ala the old Soviets, windblown hair and rumpled suit, going down through history. He might have to be the VP candidate for Clinton, who with an ounce of pride would take that on?
Vernon Clayson: Do you think it is acceptable to call people “flaming homos”?
Ah yes, the genitalia vote.
The CRA study that Mr. Mitchell selectively cites has been criticised:
“Notably, a study by Agarwal et al. (2012) has garnered considerable attention from critics of the CRA, including Calomiris and Haber (2014), who claim it supports the contention that the CRA caused risky lending. The study reports higher approval rates on mortgage applications in the six-quarter window around banks’ CRA exams, and elevated delinquency rates on such “CRA-induced” mortgages. However, one criticism of this paper is that there is little incentive for banks to ramp up lending near the exam date, because examiners focus on lending done well before the exam (Foote, Gerardi, and Willen 2013). Indeed, Agarwal et al. (2012) also report increased lending to higher-income borrowers and neighborhoods, suggesting there may be some confounding factor driving the results. Regardless, the magnitudes of the estimated effects in Agarwal et al. (2012) appear moderate: a few percentage point increase in approvals and a 0 to 2 percentage point increase in delinquency rates.”
http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2015/assessing-the-community-reinvestment-acts-role-in-the-financial-crisis-20150526.html
The same study concludes:
“Overall, there appears to be little reason to believe that the CRA was an important factor in the subprime boom and subsequent crash. Not only is the law explicitly written and enforced to avoid pushing banks too far, but empirical research, by and large, also finds little connection between the CRA-related activities of banks and the expansion of risky or subprime mortgage lending.
“A number of researchers have investigated whether the CRA could be responsible for the subprime boom and riskier lending in general. Three key findings suggest the CRA did not have an important role in the subprime mortgage boom, either through banks’ direct originations or their secondary market purchases
“Empirical research indicates that CRA-related loans were a small fraction of the subprime market during the mortgage boom. The literature estimating the effect of the CRA finds small increases in originations–if any at all–and effects on delinquencies that are small or even negative.”
You conveniently left out the last sentence: “While we do not have a good estimate of the net costs or benefits of the act, the current best evidence suggests that the CRA was not a significant contributor to the financial crisis.”
They are guessing.
“…during the Bill Clinton administration who pressured banks under the Community Reinvestment Act to make risky mortgage loans under the threat of being accused of redlining.” You think regulators from 7 and more years before the crash should go to jail for exerting some sort of vague “pressure”, even though there was no real estate bubble at the time? And of course, BILL Clinton was in charge, not Hillary, but hey, all those Democrats look alike, don’t they?
Although I couldn’t find anything about the Clinton administration “pressuring” anyone, I did find the BIPARTISAN Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which “…repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act Might have been a bit more important than this vague “pressure” from the Clinton administration. Presumably, this “pressure” disappeared in early 2001, so the mortgages from Clinton’s time were all at least 7 years old by the time of the crash. The shaky mortgages apparently continued throughout the Bush administration too, but we don’t talk about that. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act though, was still in full swing in 2007.
No one who reads that study could reasonably conclude that the authors are “guessing.”
sure, no guessing….except for those “confounding factors” “driving results”.
The laughs just keep coming.
What factor(s) do you think contributed to the 2008 financial crisis?
Here is some more from the same study:
“Bhutta and Canner (2009) analyze 2005–2006 mortgage origination data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) and find that just 6 percent of all higher-priced loans (a proxy for subprime loans) were “CRA-related”–that is, were originated by depositories to either lower-income borrowers or lower-income neighborhoods in the banks’ CRA assessment areas. The small share of subprime lending in 2005 and 2006 that can be traced to the CRA suggests that the CRA is unlikely to have played a substantial role in the subprime crisis.”
And:
“Avery and Brevoort (forthcoming) and Ghent et al. (forthcoming) also find no evidence that the CRA drove up mortgage default rates during the housing bust, showing that default rates in neighborhoods that just meet the CRA definition of “lower-income” are nearly identical to those in neighborhoods just outside the lower-income definition.”
A separate study had this to say about Mr. Mitchell’s source:
“Our overarching criticism of this paper—and of commentators using it to make sweeping statements
about CRA—is that the authors seem to have jumped to conclusions not well supported by the analysis
provided. The findings of elevated conversions are not consistent across lender sizes or across time
periods, and the preponderance of evidence in the paper suggests that the examined “CRA loans” were
not riskier. But most fundamentally, the loans considered in the analysis are unlikely to be CRA‐
motivated to begin with. While we appreciate the empirical challenges of isolating the effect of CRA,
given the lack of correspondence between the paper’s econometric strategy and the reality of CRA
exams, we don’t believe that this paper adds to the body of knowledge regarding the law’s
effectiveness.”
Click to access DebunkingCRAMyth.pdf
Barbara: what caused the Great Recession and the financial crisis of 2008:
1. irresponsible lending practices, particularly subprime mortgages.
2. reckless securitization of debt into Collateralized Debt Obligations that ignored the correlations between different risk areas.
3. improper relationships between the rating agencies and the banks
4. The Asia-driven savings glut
5. inadequate regulation of financial institutions.
6. non-existent regulation of “shadow banks” and “dark pools”
7. failure of central bankers to recognize and respond to the housing bubble
8. insufficient bank capital ratio requirements and the lee-way given to banks by regulators to set their own capital model.
9. Reckless behavior by European banks that purchased US securities with inadequate due diligence.
There are other factors, but those are the major ones.
“1. irresponsible lending practices, particularly subprime mortgages.”
number one on nyp’s list.
The laughs just keep coming.
BTW;
Amir Taheri claims the Iranian Parliament made huge changes to the JPOA that basically nullify the whole thing especially that sure fire “snap back” feature.
Spot on Steve…and here are a few more interesting developments on that peachy Iran deal…
http://nypost.com/2015/10/11/obama-will-be-the-only-person-sticking-to-iran-deal/
I am trying to find out what is so hilarious about the idea that the financial industry engaged in irresponsible lending practices, including subprime mortages in the run-up to the crisis. It is almost a truism.
Help me out here.
Amir Taheri — isn’t he the tool who falsely claimed that Iran was requiring that Jews and Christians wear badges identifying then by their religion?
http://tinyurl.com/cazwd2
Nyd claimed CRA had nothing to do with it, but subprime is number ONE on his list!
CRA created subprime.
I like irony.
Is that ALL you could find about him? I know there are a bunch more things about the guy you could use!
But allow me to help[ you out a bit;
That deal does not get implemented until Iran passes muster. There is a possibility the whole thing might never get implemented. Currently, this is up to Iran. No matter what their Parliament says.
And, Iran’s Parliament is basically little more than a public voice, saying what they think their voters want to hear. Iran’s Parliament can be (and often is) overruled by the regime which requires all their bills go through two more stages for approval and a final OK by the “Supreme Leader” Who can also overrule anything that comes his way…
So it really does not matter what Amir Taheri found. Whether he is right or wrong about the Parliamentary bill, Iran remains the final say in whether that deal actually gets implemented and what he claims would absolutely prevent any implementation.
Brien, that story is based wholly on Amir Taheri and his tweets. It glosses over or outright ignores the points I lay out above.
Iran is nowhere near done in their process for finalizing their approval of that deal. And even then IRan will still have to be cleared by the international atomic agency via inspections that bill tries to prevent. Not a chance the bill is what gets past the final rule of law in Iran.
1. No, the community reinvestment act of 1977 did not “create subprime” mortgage loans. that is crazy.
2. It is, of course true, that the Iran Deal is a multilateral agreement. If Iran decides not to implement the agreement it does not come into effect. But it would be foolish to believe anything written by a fraudster like Amir Tahiri.
Even if Iran does implement the agreement, they must still pass muster with the international atomic energy agency. Those inspections will be watched very closely. They will be the lynchpin.
If Ran does not allow them as defined in the multi country agreement, then it still does not get implemented. There is a real possibility it could never be implemented.
The whole thing is now in Iran’s hands and if Amir Taheri’s tweets turn out true, the embarrassment to Iran will be very entertaining.
Of course CRA created subprime, it was its very idea to loan to people who were not able to afford regular loans, it was regulators who pushed banks over the edge. Plain and simple, robo signing and everything else came out of the “encouragement” of those regulators.
It was private industry reacting to government regulations. Predictably the outcomes were the opposite of the intentions.
Um, no. Most subprime lending had absolutely nothing to do with the Community Reinvestment Act. Lenders pushed subprime deals for the simplist of reasons — they could make money at it. That’s how bubbles operate.
Yup regulators “encouraged” the lenders…….instead of doing what they should have done.
“In a 2003 research paper, economists at the Federal Reserve could not find clear evidence that the CRA increased lending and home ownership more in low income neighborhoods than in higher income ones.[85] A 2008 Competitive Enterprise Institute study resulted in a similar finding.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Effectiveness The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a LIBERTARIAN think tank. You guys need to all get on the same side. Can’t be seen disagreeing with your fellow ideologues. And of course, this all goes against Conservative principles. Studying and examining evidence closely is the stuff of hoaxes and conspiracies. Only good ol’ common sense tells Conservatives what’s right and wrong. Kind of like the days of leeches and dirty surgical instruments in medicine
Number 1 reason for housing crisis was greed.
Number 2 reason for housing crisis was lack of regulation (Ayn Rand acolyte and notorious snake chamber of the “free market agrees).
“But on Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=0
Number 3 reason was refusal of bush administration TO regulate derivative markets all the while “taking a chain saw to financial regulations intended to prevent such crisis” and weakening the SEC from a true watchdog, to a shell. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all
Reason Number 4 was changing the reserve requirements for investment banks, at the behest of former Goldman Chairmen now Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, which encouraged the “banks” to spend spend spend on worthless assets. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?pagewanted=all
Reason 5 was that the salaries of investment bank CEOs FORCED them, along with capitalist forces, to makes these sort of worthless investments to keep increasing the “value” of their companies shares, which were the most important consideration when determining the “bonuses” of those CEOs. http://www.corporate-ethics.org/pdf/BRI-1007_Bailout_Bonus_Wall_Street.pdf
But most important was the greed encouraged, nay, REQUIRED, by a capitalist system.
CRA created the idea. Private lenders ran with it. Regulators failed to prevent it.
Number 3 was the Bush admin (CHORLTLE ) failing to RE REGULATE THE INDUSTRY THAT CLINTON ALLOWED (ENCOURAGED) TO RUN AMOK!!!!
The comedy abounds from the guys today!
““This administration made decisions that allowed the free market to operate as a barroom brawl instead of a prize fight,” said L. William Seidman, who advised Republican presidents and led the savings and loan bailout in the 1990s. “To make the market work well, you have to have a lot of rules.”
But Mr. Bush populated the financial system’s alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.”
“The president’s first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission promised a “kinder, gentler” agency. The second was pushed out amid industry complaints that he was too aggressive. Under its current leader, the agency failed to police the catastrophic decisions that toppled the investment bank Bear Stearns and contributed to the current crisis, according to a recent inspector general’s report.
As for Mr. Bush’s banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks.
The administration won that fight at the Supreme Court. But Roy Cooper, North Carolina’s attorney general, said, “They took 50 sheriffs off the beat at a time when lending was becoming the Wild West.”
Brian Montgomery, the Federal Housing Administration commissioner, understood the significance. His agency insures home loans, traditionally for the same low-income minority borrowers Mr. Bush wanted to help. When he arrived in June 2005, he was shocked to find those customers had been lured away by the “fool’s gold” of subprime loans. The Ameriquest settlement, he said, reinforced his concern that the industry was exploiting borrowers.
In December 2005, Mr. Montgomery drafted a memo and brought it to the White House. “I don’t think this is what the president had in mind here,” he recalled telling Ryan Streeter, then the president’s chief housing policy analyst.
It was an opportunity to address the risky subprime lending practices head on. But that was never seriously discussed. More senior aides, like Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s chief political strategist, were wary of overly regulating an industry that, Mr. Rove said in an interview, provided “a valuable service to people who could not otherwise get credit.” While he had some concerns about the industry’s practices, he said, “it did provide an opportunity for people, a lot of whom are still in their houses today.”
The White House pursued a narrower plan offered by Mr. Montgomery that would have allowed the F.H.A. to loosen standards so it could lure back subprime borrowers by insuring similar, but safer, loans. It passed the House but died in the Senate, where Republican senators feared that the agency would merely be mimicking the private sector’s risky practices — a view Mr. Rove said he shared.
Looking back at the episode, Mr. Montgomery broke down in tears. While he acknowledged that the bill did not get to the root of the problem, he said he would “go to my grave believing” that at least some homeowners might have been spared foreclosure.
Today, administration officials say it is fair to ask whether Mr. Bush’s ownership push backfired. Mr. Paulson said the administration, like others before it, “over-incented housing.” Mr. Hennessey put it this way: “I would not say too much emphasis on expanding homeownership. I would say not enough early focus on easy lending practices.”
Even if subprime mortgages were the cause of the meltdown instead being merely the first of a house of cards to fall, and even if the idea of subprime mortgages came from the Clinton administration (it emphatically didn’t), this was clearly a bipartisan fustercluck. The risk from those mortgages should have been more and more clear with time. Blaming the Clinton administration for failing to gut a foolish BIPARTISAN law and claiming that they pressured the banks is questionable. What’s absolutely ludicrous is to condemn Clinton while giving the Bush administration a pass, as always, despite the facts that Bush had 7 more years of more and more obvious risk accumulating and, according to Thomas’ graph above, the subprime loans really took off after Bush took office. If Clinton had been pressuring the banks, then Bush must have really been tightening the screws. Go ahead, look at Thomas’ graph and try to say that Bush wasn’t even more to blame than Clinton with a straight face.
Gee, Rincon, you mean BOTH parties do stupid things? Shirley Beau Geste…
When Democrats are a significant part of the problem the issue becomes BIPARTISAN…when Republicans are any part of the problem it’s all about them stupid ass right wing conservotards!
Go ahead call my cynical.
Are you OK Steve? I just said a problem was bipartisan when you and your cohorts blame only the Clinton administration. Pot is calling the kettle black (no racism intended, nyp).
I and my “cohorts” do THAT when you and your “cohorts” blame the bush administration.
Ah the old “they did it too” and so “you can’t blame us for it because our errors were no more responsible for what happened than yours”.
Republicans have made a living off that nonsense haven’t they?
Nope, it’s “they” did it first, setting the rules. Then “they” move the goalposts!
And as usual…the Democrats used this whole sad & volatile situation as another money laundering scheme…and pointed the finger of blame at everyone else in the process. They began it, they nursed it, they corrupted it and then blocked any and every attempt to reign it in. What began as a noble idea to help folks purchase the American dream, was turned into another Democrat slush fund…and it all came crashing down…
Hmm, those of us who lay the cause of the housing and lending crisis at the feet of government interference and influence…well…as it turns out…. we are in good company.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-good-man-works-his-country-michael-moritz
I said the problem was bipartisan. Do you not know the meaning of the word? Is it not you that is exempting Bush?
AND I said the only thing making you call it “bipartisan” is due to the inescapable fact that Democrats had a huge part in it. A majority part, in fact.
If there were any way Democrats could find to hide their involvement, there would be no “bipartisanship” at all.
Republicans were the cause, and the reason, for the housing crisis. The role the democrats played was insignificant. But, as republicans are wont to do, the fact that democrats played any role, even if it was in not stopping republicans from doing what they did, republicans will happily point the finger and claim that since both parties were involved, that it would be unfair to blame just one of them.
All hail,,,,,revisionism!
Clinton rules! And subprime was their proffet!
All hail the bush administration and their minions under whose “care” the entire worlds economy collapsed and only a “socialist” could save it.
“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.” – Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL) , September 30, 2008
The Democrat’s fingerprints are all over this mess from top to bottom…from start to finish. A Democrat filibuster in the Senate was the final nail in the coffin of Republican efforts to rein in this disaster. Two key players…Franklin Raines, formerly President Bill Clinton’s Budget Manager and pilferer of Fannie Mae, and Jamie Gorelick a top Clinton administration lawyer with no financial experience…also a pilferer of Fannie Mae.
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/franklin-raines-to-pay-247-million-to-settle-fannie-mae-lawsuit/
“The Iraq War was a bipartisan disaster—and one we seem all-too-capable of repeating.”
https://reason.com/archives/2014/06/24/the-iraq-war-was-a-bipartisan-disaster
Ah republicans “is there ANYTHING they get right?”
The republican script never changes does it?
Never known an individual from the party that brays about “personal responsibility” to ever take any have you? And, they sure ain’t starting now.
“The origination of subprime loans came primarily from non-bank lenders not covered by the [Community Reinvestment Act, a law pushing the two GSEs to purchase more loans in the secondary markets and thus expand access to housing loans to low-income neighborhoods];
The majority of the underwriting, at least for the first few years of the boom, were by these same non-bank lenders;
When the big banks began chasing subprime, it was due to the profit motive, not any mandate from the President (a Republican) or the Congress (Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw;
Prior to 2005, nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought by Wall Street—NOT Fannie & Freddie;
In fact, prior to 2005, the GSEs were not permitted to purchase non-conforming mortgages;
The change in FNM/FRE conforming mortgage purchases in 2005 was not due to any legislation or marching orders from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled). It was the profit motive that led them to this action.”
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/dear-gop-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-cause-financial-crisis-subprime-mortgage-gse
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-good-man-works-his-country-michael-moritz
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-power-wall-street/#episode-one
The best television on television.
lol…yeah if you’re a progressive leftist socialist like you & Bernie Sanders!
I’m assuming HFB didn’t watch.
I’m calling the meltdown a bipartisan effort and Steve, by omission, says that Republicans had nothing to do with it even though It occurred 7 years into the Bush administration, and I’m the one who’s being unreasonable?
“Steve, by omission, says….”
I said, when Democrats can’t hide it, they then call it “bipartisan” otherwise EVERYTHING BAD is ALL on conservatives. (any doubts? read what Patrick posts.)
Don’t pretend to speak for me.
Rincon:
You gotta know by now that talking to Dteve is pointless right? I mean, here’s a guy, who only one line above where he says “Don’t pretend to speak for me”
Pretends to speak for me.
Seriously…why waste your time?
I told Rincon to read what you post….I did not, in any way shape or form, tell what you were saying.
What you say, Patrick, is abundantly clear. And one sided, always.
Steve it’s clear that the problem is, not only do you have a difficult (impossible) time understanding wha anyone else posts, you don’t even understand what you post.
See, by stating that “I said, when Democrats can’t hide it, they then call it “bipartisan” otherwise EVERYTHING BAD is ALL on conservatives.”
And then in parenthesis adding that “any doubts? read what Patrick posts.” You are inferring a couple things. One, that I am a democrat, and two, that with regards to things I can’t hide, blame all bad on conservatives.
THAT is speaking for me.
But again, I don’t expect you to understand.
You pretend to speak for me…..I need not infer anything, your words do it all for me.
As I said, you can’t understand what you say, you have no hope of understanding what I say.
Hitler, then insults….I understand all too well.
Typical.
Only if it fits on a bumper sticker Steve. (You might get this one)
Rincon: “I’m calling the meltdown a bipartisan effort and Steve, by omission, says that Republicans had nothing to do with it even though It occurred 7 years into the Bush administration, and I’m the one who’s being unreasonable?”
Steve: “AND I said the only thing making you call it “bipartisan” is due to the inescapable fact that Democrats had a huge part in it. A majority part, in fact.
If there were any way Democrats could find to hide their involvement, there would be no “bipartisanship” at all.”
Steve actually indirectly admits that Republicans had a hand in it by saying, “a majority part, in fact” (the only minority here would be Republicans), which is fine, for it appears to be the truth but for some reason, he can’t bring himself to actually state that yes, it was indeed bipartisan. Why is it so hard to just say it? Instead, he rants about our motivation for calling it bipartisan. I mostly enjoy our exchanges, but every once in awhile, a wall goes up and there’s just no reasoning with him. That’s OK. I sometimes just have to look past it and enjoy the good that he brings to the table. He may feel the same way about us.
Rincon indirectly admits liberal always blame conservatives unless and until liberals can’t find some way to weasel out from under rock they tried to hide under.
And while trying like crazy to “talk” with me (in a text forum), Patrick claims “You gotta know by now that talking to Dteve (sic) is pointless right?”
Liberal logic…good for laughs.