Chalk this up as another racist comment by someone at FOX. Good job James for giving this to MMFA.

WOW!  Thanks for this James!

So now it's minorities who are to blame for this financial disaster? These... "republicans"... sure can't take responsibility for anything they do, can they?

Any found responsible were not "TRUE" Republicans, retroactivly.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL WARNING:

Be advised. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster.

Now if Imus said this , imagine the outrage?

It's outrageous regardless of who says it.

Not remotely surprising. But still outrageous.

It's not racist when Cavuto is pointing out a fact. Banks were forced to lend to minorities (who happened to have lower credit scores on average) or suffer certain consequences.

Banks were not "forced to lend to minorities", you racist moron!  They were ALLOWED by racist McBush's deregulation mania to lend to low income people with poor credit scores in order to falsely prop-up a failing economy.  They did this to win votes and make obscene amounts of money off of the unsuspecting poor and then run to the Government to help bail them out when they fell.  Eactly what racist Republicans complain about poor people doing!  Where is the outrage from racist Republicans when huge corporations are looking for hand-outs!

You got it right, iowadem.  The only thing that gave Bush's economy any semblance of normalcy was rising home prices and rampant equity re-financing.  It was a house of cards, one that's falling right now before our very eyes.

You

Iowa Dem posted:

Banks were not "forced to lend to minorities", you racist moron!  They were ALLOWED by racist McBush's deregulation mania to lend to low income people with poor credit scores in order to falsely prop-up a failing economy.  They did this to win votes and make obscene amounts of money off of the unsuspecting poor and then run to the Government to help bail them out when they fell.

You almost got it right, well at least the part about lending.  I would add a caveat about "Allowed" though.  It was actually Clinton who signed this into law, not McBush, (whoever that is?), and it made clear that lending institutions could not "turn down" low income/poor credit borrowers or be faced with penalties and fines.  This seed planted turened into the sub-prime mess as predatory lenders in the mid-nineties started to bundle bad loans.  

NIce spin trying to deflect this to todays problems, but this started squarely in '93 and was law by '95.  I'll let you deduce who was in charge then.  Never let a good talking point get in the way of facts though!

Thanks for the assist T-Bone!  You're exactly right, the Republican Congress did pass these laws, "The De-regulator" McCain and his buddies (like his Economic Advisor Grahmm) pushed these initiatives through and Clinton went along.  No argument there.  There was nothing in the legislation forcing banks to lend to low credit score people?  If there was, please feel free to post your links.  You also got your time frame wrong, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act went through in 1999 and led to Enron and the subprime mess that occurred during the Bush administration and the McCain-Republican Congress. So nice try deflecting blame.

Not to stray to far from topic, though, the point is that trying to blame MINORITIES for this mess is like blaming the victim of rape.  "HEY, they were askin' for it!"

IowaDem posted:

You're exactly right, the Republican Congress did pass these laws, "The De-regulator" McCain and his buddies (like his Economic Advisor Grahmm) pushed these initiatives through and Clinton went along.  No argument there.  There was nothing in the legislation forcing banks to lend to low credit score people?  If there was, please feel free to post your links.

Nice try at revisionist history Iowa, but '93 was a dem congress with a dem president.  The bill was signed into law in '94.  Here are some quotes from then:

"The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was supposed to prevent banks from taking deposits in one neighborhood and making loans in other neighborhoods. But since President Clinton took office, the federal government has largely ignored the law and instead relied on massive threats against banks to force them to loan more to favored groups. As former Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts observed, `The Justice Department is simply trying to establish by consent decree [also known in the Clinton administration as `Alternative Dispute Resolution', or ADR] a system of racial quotas in lending regardless of credit risks." (Washington Times, page A16, by James Bovard, 01/19/99, no link available.)

answering letter to the editor:

The Community Reinvestment Act has worked for homeowners and lenders

What James Bovard calls "shakedowns" in his outrageous attack on the Community Reinvestment Act ("Urban bank loan shakedowns targeted," Commentary, Jan. 19), is actually the flow of much needed credit to communities long denied by discrimination. The "payoff" dollars he refers to are mortgages for credit-worthy lower-income and minority first-time home buyers . . . "

Community Reinvestment Act

As for Phil Grahm, you have a point.  I will add that Clinton could have vetoed this bill.  Why didn't he?  Ultimately the buck stops with him.

Why don't you include a link to the Washington Times article? The WA Times is a notorious right-wing newspaper. Your proof seems to be one article, which we can't read. However, I just did a google search on James Bovard, and found he is a libetarian idealogue. In other words, what you posted here is an opinion which you tried to present as fact.

Do you have any facts that show that lending to minorites led to the current crisis? Did the bad loans that banks made *only* go to minorities? Were they really forced to make thes loans, or did they willingly do it to enrich themselves?

The phrase is "minorities and risky folks" here.  If the point is just that people with lower credit shouldn't get loans, then why on earth would you bring up minority status?  Just say "risky folks".

Far more white people defaulted on these loans (houses in the 200,000-350,000) range and Cavuto is just plain ignorant.  Lower income and minorities simply don't make up the numbers of people defaulting on their loans. Banks don't get forced to loan money, listen to Rushbag a little less and you'd be a little more informed.

Also, the reason why they defaulted is because of the BAD ECONOMY. Job loss and the like, not because they were flakes.

The right-wing is trying to falsely blame this whole mess on lower income people who just happened to stop paying their easy, corrupt loans. But that's not what happened-- the economy tanked, and this little tidbit is being ignored.

Let's see, bush, mcsame and the rightwingers push for an ownership society, then the buying creates a housing bubble that can't be sustained, the bubble collapses making homes worth less than they were bought for, and Cavuto wants to pass the buck off onto minorities and the poor. Today's republicans sure give christianity a bad name what with all their lying.

Flashback: In 2004 Bush Campaigned For Re-Election On The Backs Of Subprime Mortgages

During the 2004 campaign, President Bush declared his pride in making America what he called “an ownership society.” He promoted expanding home-ownership as the best way to ensure a strong economy, campaigning constantly on the idea:

5/6/04: “Thanks to being the most productive workforce in America, and I might say, thanks to good policies, this economy is strong and it’s getting stronger. … Home sales were the highest ever recently. That’s exciting news for the country.”

8/28/04: See, I love an ownership society. It’s a hopeful society. It’s a society that provides stability in times of change.

8/9/04: If you own your own home, and building equity in your own home, and you’re changing from job to job, it provides great security and relief.

8/6/04: Home ownership is at an all-time high now in America. That’s fantastic news. Isn’t it wonderful to have somebody for the first time be able to say: welcome to my home; I’m glad you’re here at my piece of property.

Of course, what the current enormous crisis — rooted in subprime mortgages — proves is that promoting home ownership without regulatory safeguards is inherently risky. As economist Paul Krugman explained, “[B]orrowing to buy a home is like buying stocks on margin: if the market value of the house falls, the buyer can easily lose his or her entire stake.” And that’s just what happened: More homeowners now owe more money than their homes are actually worth, while foreclosure filings in August rose 12 percent from July — and represented a 27 percent increase from Aug. 2007.

Further, the quest for an all-encompassing ownership society led to the policies that have created the crisis. From dramatically low interest rates to ignoring the warnings about predatory lending to quashing state regulations that would have helped prevent such massive Wall Street investment in subprime loans, Bush and his allies built an economy on a house of cards that was bound to collapse.

Today, Bush declared, “There will be ample opportunity to debate the origins of this problem.” That debate will need to focus on his own failed promise of an “ownership society” as an economic panacea.

Thank you for this, Snoopy. What used to amuse me is that Bush proudly declared home ownership was at an all-time high, when that had been true every year since they started keeping the statistic. But it doesn't amuse me anymore, because I'll bet home ownership is, for the first time, not at an all-time high.

On a personal note, if I had taken one of the ARM schemes I was offered, instead of insisting on a 30-year fixed, I'd be out of my own house right now. Imagining that always helps me put it in perspective when somebody goes out of his or her way to blame the borrowers in this mess. Didn't the president want more "folks" to own our homes?

But singling out minority borrowers is simply beyond the pale. It's disgusting. And it's almost exactly like an Imus statement, except that Imus is not "news," so Cavuto's slip of the forked tongue is even worse. I hope very soon that someone else will be describing "my world."

Yep, that whole deregulate-everything-and-let-the-market-sort-it-out scheme would have worked if it wasn't for those damn minorities!

I have heard Sec Paulson say that borrowers were to blame for much of this financial crisis!!!!  The credit does not have to be extended if the lender deems it too risky. They the lender are solely to blame. If one lied on a loan application, it doesn't matter . The borrower must still be checked out.

Because the banks making mortgage loans had no risk or consequences to their lending practices(IT was even financially lucrative to do so), they made loans that were not prudent.  Minority status has nothing to do with it.  Credit score and references are the key.

The only reason a lender would extend a mortgage to someone they know could not repay it is because the lender knew that they could resale the mortgage to Fannie Mae in the secondary market.  County Wide was Fannie Mae's biggest customer in 2007.  Face it the American tax payers are being scammed by this whole mess on a bi-partisan bases.

The problem may not even be largly due to defaulted home loans. What other investments occurred and what kind of results did they return?

Banks were forced to lend to minorities (who happened to have lower credit scores on average)

See, that's the racist part. Even if it were true, it doesn't matter. And what's this lumping-in thing of "minorities?" Credit reports are an individual factor.

THe bigot who wrote that probably believes it no matter what you say. The republicans screwed us? Nope...it was darky who caused all this...

Give me a break.

Cavuto is a tool. The right wing spin machine is working really hard to blame this on the Dems but I don't think anyone is buying that.

This is definitely appealing to right wing racism, but loans to minorities is in no way the root cause of our current problems. Legislation signed by Clinton did not force lenders to make unsecured loans for overvalued property. It did not force the bundling of unsecured loans into securities that were then sold as high-return/low-risk investments to a market hungry for better returns (remember, interest rates have been at extreme lows for much of the Bush administration in order to stimulate the economy so Bush could pretend his tax cuts were effective). It did not force the accounting irregularities to happen, the overvaluation of near-worthless securities that eventually had to be unwound. Unfortunately this is such a tangled and complex web of finance that the right wing can use the public's cluelessness about the problems that are occurring. An unducated public is the best friend of the right wing.

Republican response to Wall Street meltdown: black people caused it... Whew...

(OK, so Fox's genius said 'minorities and risk folks' but we know what he means. Idiot hatemonger...meanwhile, the 'white'-collar criminals skate free...Welcome to Bush and McCain's America...)

Note this exchange cited in the article: "CAVUTO: -- I'm just saying, I don't remember a clarion call that said, "Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster." BECERRA: Oh, Neil -- CAVUTO: Maybe if you said it, enlighten me. BECERRA: -- oh, Neil, no, no. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely, we did." So Becerra is admitting that he said that lending to minorities is a disaster. But Media Matters doesn't bother headlining that inconvenient truth. I wonder why.

Because reading is fundamental and cherry picking doesn't work.

How about reading the whole quote:

BECERRA: -- oh, Neil, no, no. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely, we did. If you look at the record -- and if you want me to -- want to have me on again soon, I can bring you a record of time after time where members of Congress pointed out to a then-Republican majority that deregulating too many of these industries was going to cause this mismanagement and reckless-abandon activity that we now see by a lot of these money-changers. And, so, absolutely, Congress was alerted by members of Congress about what would happen if we stopped the oversight responsibilities that Congress has. So, absolutely, that's the case.

Nice try though.

My only guess is that MMFA counts Becerra as "not conservative," since he's a Democrat, and that MMFA's mission is about conservative misinformation. It's left to the clever posters in the comments section to find any liberal misinformation.

I will say, if Becerra really heard what he was answering, then what he answered Cavuto with was wrong. I doubt anyone who reads MMFA would disagree with that.

Oh no he di'int!