Who did more subprime damage than Countrywide? Nobody, that's who

Jail time???

OBAMA did it;

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance

Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill.) FH-IL-0011

State/Territory Illinois

Case Summary

Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers
Alexis, Hilary I.(Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)

FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)

FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H.(Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000

From James Simpson
September 28, 2008
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack...

ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.

As a New York Post article describes it:

A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.

I hope you take the time to read the article linked above, it was written September 28, 2008. The last sentence in the above post strikes an astounding resemblance to what is happening today with our banks and car manufacturers.

What the story and the insipid "study" fail to mention is that in 1991 Bill Clinton changed the Fannimae and Frediemac rules to lower the standards for home loan eligibility. In other words, people who otherwise would not be able to get a home loan now could get a home loan. These rules were changed at the demands of organizations such as ACORN which absurdly said that banks were "racist" for not loaning to low income, i.e.,, minority, applicants. After the rues were changed, Freddiemae and Fanniemac, which were stuffed with Clinton appointees, such as Jamie Gorelic, pressured banks to make these risky loans. If the banks did not comply, they in essence would be ut out of the home loan business by Freddiemae and Fanniemac. Once the loan standards were lowered, the opportunity for companies such as Countrywide were created. Countrywide was brilliant at exploiting these new rules. Indeed, today look at the major concentration of foreclosed homes: the inland empire, ad the other lower income communities of southern California.

This is not to say, however, that the Dems are entirely at fault. Wall street saw lots of money to be made by the Clinton rules and they made it. The GOP generally backed their banking buddies, although about 2.5 years ago several republicans in the Senate saw the danger and tried to change the rules but democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd killed the effort along with members of the Freddiemae and Fanniemac boards which were still stuffed with corrupt democrats from the Clinton administration.

The bottom line: the real cause despite the sophomoric study was not Countrywide. Countrywide did not create the rules, it was a great exploiter of them. The real cause was the insane rule changes by Bill Cinton. The real moral of this history is that the federal government should not manipulate the financial markets for crass political purposes.

Social engineering. Back in the old days we had project homes for those that could not afford to buy a home. Now we have to pay to assimilate them in society. Put em all back into managed care.

Comrade Dodd and Comrade Franks will be hailed by future generations of Marxists for their pivotal work to destroy the American Financial System.

And now we're subsidizing millions of people's mortgauges with tax money so that they can continue to buy houses at inflated prices??? Is that any better?

We should have let the entier market crash, the speculators loose, and the market price of homes fall to the point where responsible people could afford to buy them.

All supplimenting has done is transfer the cost of buying homes to taxpayers, and keep the price of homes unrealistically high so that thier owners end up paying higher taxes for the rest of their lives.

Well, there WAS a "Housing Shortage" just before the ca ca hit the fan. I recall vividly our beloved media shouting that the building industry was providing only 65% of the new homes needed in the U.S.A.

Greed! Mr Tan needed more money. All these people looked for was a body to sign on the dotted line. They also asisted families who had no need for these loans to partake in the greedfest. Everyone wanted to be like the jones with the bling bling, the hummer. This applied to the greasy loan officers who wanted those big commisions. Nobody believed the party would ever end. I just hope in the end we all learn from this episode or greed. We can point all we want but it was everyone greed that created this nightmare.

Who did more damage then Countrywide??? Lets see...how about Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, Chriss Dodd, Barney Frank, ACORN, and all the others that incentivized and encouraged banks to give loans to unqaulified people simply because of the liberal ideology that everyone should have a house whether they can afford one or not.

The Congressional Democrats in Leadership roles extorted loans to the insolvent; by blackmail! The quality of life suffers in the USA, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House! The taxes ln the USA are too high with democrats in control! The pay check is worthless and becoming homeles is a real asset to keep what little one has left! They cannot take what does not exist, here in California! The politicans need to suffer and we VOTE YES on F!

Wilcox Analysis: Countrywide = Bad Guys who did in the financial system.

Come on Wilcox, your logic is seriously flawed and way to simplistic. "Deliberate Enablers"!?!? Why in the world would a company deliberately sink their own ship?

Think about it.Countrywide gave loans to people who would not normally qualify for a loan. This is so bad, right? Who do you think paid for what we now know in hindsight was a poor decision?

It wasn't the borrowers. They simply walked away from the homes and left the banks holding the bag.

Geez, Wilcox. There's plenty of blame to go around. Don't just lay it at the feet of the ones who paid the biggest price.

TK Bruin

You are missing a few things. In 1994 Congress repealed the interstate provision of the Bank Holding Company Act under pressure from the banking, finance and insurance industries. This act prohibited bank holding companies from engaging in non-banking businesses or from acquiring voting securities in other non-bank businesses. It's repeal allowed the sorts of conflicts we have seen where the stock brokerage side of a holding company inflates the stated value of a company it is lending money to to make the loan look reasonable.
If you are familiar with your history, it was Reagan appointees William L. Seidman, Chairman of the FDIC, and Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Fed who publicly advocated abolishion of three existing laws, the Glass-Seigal Act which restricted investment banks from owning commercial banks, the above mentioned Bank Holding Company Act and the McFadden Act that limited interstate banking. All three were repealed under tremendoud pressure from the banking, finance and insurance industries. The results we see today were predicted by the critics of these repeals, but back then these critics were laughed at as New Deal dinosaurs, called Socialists and all manner of other names. We would not be here today had we listened to them back then.
Something else all the non-economists missed in 2006 was a very subtle change in the way the Fed measures the money supply and inflation. The Fed measures the US money supply using three definitions.
M1: Liquid money, currency, traveler's checks, demand deposits and other checkable deposits.
M2: M1 plus savings deposits, small, short term time deposits and short term money market accounts, close substitutes for liquid money.
M3: M2 plus large time deposits, institutional money market accounts, repurchase agreements, and other large deposits such as hedge funds.
The Fed stopped revealing M3 to the public in March 2006 claiming it did not matter much to the public measures of inflation. What this did was hide the real inflation in the economy that was occuring in the mortgage industry with the staggering increase in the number and value of credit default swaps.

Deregulation by Reagan that was expanded by Clinton but was kept in check by the republican congress went to hell under George W Bush and Barney Frank and the liberal democratic congress ..is what caused all of it ..It was the congress the banking queen Barny Frank who wanted everyone to own a home whether they could afford it or not ..You cant trust a liberal to run anything ..just look at what these idiots are doing to the economy and wont stop even though its beginning to stabilize and did it without that the stimulus ..all recessions last about 18 months this one lasted 20 but its over and Obama an this congress had nothing to do with fixing it ..it was the free market that did the same one these idiots are trying to destroy with stimulus packages,bailouts, and health care reform..they need to all be fired ..they dont know any thing about business and shouldnt be in it in the first place..

George W Bush wrote:

Deregulation by Reagan that was expanded by Clinton but was kept in check by the republican congress went to hell under George W Bush and Barney Frank and the liberal democratic congress ..is what caused all of it ..It was the congress the banking queen Barny Frank who wanted everyone to own a home whether they could afford it or not ..You cant trust a liberal to run anything ..just look at what these idiots are doing to the economy and wont stop even though its beginning to stabilize and did it without that the stimulus ..all recessions last about 18 months this one lasted 20 but its over and Obama an this congress had nothing to do with fixing it ..it was the free market that did the same one these idiots are trying to destroy with stimulus packages,bailouts, and health care reform..they need to all be fired ..they dont know any thing about business and shouldnt be in it in the first place..

Funny, but we had Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and a Republican President, but all problems are the fault of a "Liberal Democratic Congress'.
A little lesson in macroeconomics. National output, called Gross Domestic Product or GDP is the sum of consumption, investment, government spending and the net of exports and imports, usually expressed as GDP = C + I + G +( EX - IM ). The last expression has been a large negative number for decades. C has fallen dramatically due to the depression we are in, and the credit crunch has ensured that I is falling as well. That means unless G is increased, national income or GDP will fall. That is what any economist will tell you. How you stimulate an economy is subject to energetic discussion however. In general, good economic practice is to run a debt during an economic downturn to sustain consumer spending and keep as many businesses as possible afloat. Put the stimulus money in the bottom of the economy where it will reach the broadest cross section of business while keeping money in the hands of consumers. This time around, credit is the apparent culprit so it was decided, rightly or wrongly, to put the money into the credit system. Had it been mine to call, I would have dumped something like fifty to one hundred grand into every mortgage in the nation. That would have cut the credit crisis off at it's knees, prevented most big bank failures, and kept credit available for business investment.
The US government, however, did not invent the credit default swap, and if you are honest you know everyone, Republican and Democrat, were demanding the expansion of home ownership. Especially Republicans, it was a principal plank of their "ownership society" ideology. Property owners were seen to be more conservative in their habits and voting. Unfortunately, no one was the least bit conservative in their borrowing or lending habits. Everyone of us has blood on our hands for being a part of the frenzy, so now what do we do to rebuild? Not an easy question.

The more interesting thing to me is what happens after the recovery begins. There will be a debt to be paid off. This will require some combination of tax increases and spending cuts. Will there be cries for tax cuts or will there be a more responsible attitude of running surpluses to pay down the debt? Another not so easy question.

The sad part is that Obama is in effect throwing a giant party right now and no one seems to notice.

They do notice the millions of jobs he is sponsoring with tax payer money that he's borrowing, but no one seems to realize how painfull it's going to be some time in the future when we try to pay off all the debt it's taking to do things now.

Some poor future president is going to get the blame when they stop the party and start taxing us to pay the debt Obama is running up right now. No one will look back and ask who ran up the charge cards, and what for; their just going to be unhappy with the president that raises their taxes.

People who loose there jobs shouldn't be taking wild vacations, even thought if they do, the spending does help the economy, they should be sucking it in and trying to not borrow money. Obama is takng money from taxpayers who should be sucking it in and throwing it around to help the economy as though no one will ever have to pay it back.