So many errors, in such a small space. I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but sadly, it takes a lot more space to prove claims wrong then it does to make them.
1.CRA has nothing
to do with the housing bubble.
"data provided by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reveal that loans covered by the CRA accounted for only a fraction of mortgage lending to lower-income borrowers and neighborhood"
The data clearly shows that the vast majority of subprime lending was conducted by lenders outside of CRA scrutiny, and therefore under no government ‘coercion’ to lend to lower income and/or higher risk borrowers.http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/governmentprograms/n08-2_park.pdf
There are many other studies showing the same thing. Let me know if you need more to be convinced.
I know blaming poor people, especially poor non-white people, for the economic crisis is a favorite hobby horse of the pseudo-conservative, but it's completely invalid.
2. Fannie and Freddie were not the cause of the housing crisis; really they were unwitting accomplices; private mortgage securitization was a primary cause of the mortgage crisis.
Fannie and Freddy did not force the rating agencies to mis-rate risk, did not force bankers to originate garbage in return for huge bonuses, did not force banks to spin tales of structuring the risk out of investments, did not force fund managers to buy toxic waste that they little understood, did not force regulators to dismiss concerns with blind faith in the marketplace and distribution of risk.
From a 2011 report analyzing the role Fannie and Freddie had, "actual high-risk activity by Fannie and Freddie was neither sufficient in volume nor did it come at the right time to persuasively argue that the two mortgage finance giants drove the surge in actual high-risk lending we saw in the 2000s. ... [Fannie and Freddie] did not buy enough of [high-risk mortgage-backed securities] to be blamed for the mortgage crisis."
for more and links to the report.
3. You're blaming Democrats for blocking regulation? Really? What world do you live in? Rep. Frank actually was against the "ownership society" that President Bush was pushing for. He wanted to steer those who would struggle to buy a house to rent, but President Bush was against that.
"In 2005, Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, worked with committee chairman Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which would have established the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to replace the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) as overseer of the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He, in the end, voted against the bill because (guess who, yup, Republicans) put an amendment on the bill that would have prevented non-profits from receiving funding under the bill.
In early 2007, as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank sponsored H.R. 1427, a bill to create the FHFA, granting that agency "general supervisory and regulatory authority over" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and directing it to reform the companies' business practices and regulate their exposure to credit and market risk. Among other things, Frank's legislation, titled the "Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007," directed the FHFA director to "ensure" that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "operate in a safe and sound manner, including maintenance of adequate capital and internal controls" and to establish standards for "management of credit and counterparty risk" and "management of market risk." The FHFA was eventually created after Congress incorporated provisions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said were "similar" to those of H.R. 1427 into the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which the president signed into law on July 30, 2008."
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/12/090112fa_fact_toobin?printable=true#ixzz1lSCjfiUM
Of course, it was too late then. Delay was caused by ... yup, Republicans.
4. Job growth - let's not use back of the napkin math, lets use real numbers.
See ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.compaes.txt and ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt and http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Average 2001 non-farm jobs - 131,826 (monthly not available)
January 2010 non-farm jobs- 133,563
Yup, 8 years and about 1.7 million job growth for Pres. Bush (the 2nd) (about 200k a year).
By March, though, the numbers were down to 132,041. Pres. Obama's policies were not having any impact yet. So, 8 years of Bush, no net jobs.
December 2011 non-farm jobs - 132,166
Yup. Less than 4 years of Pres. Obama and we have positive job growth.
There's still a long way to go to make up for the number of lost jobs due to the recession (we were at 137,996 in 2008, plus a lot of new workers need jobs), but the recent growth makes me very hopeful.
See ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.compaes.txt and ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txthttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm