Bush's Place in History.

[DuncanONeil]

You might want to actually read these laws before you cry foul.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights.cfm

The conditions of the fair housing act merely say you can't refuse a loan based on race. This means if a bank extends a loan to a white person who has a certain risk factor you can't refuse to extend the same loan to a black person with the same risk factor.

That is not quite accurate. The requirement was to grant loans in specific neighborhoods that were determined to be underserved at the same rate as the neighborhoods that were deemed appropriately served.

By the way your citation is not the law!

There is a difference between refusing a loan BASED on race, and refusing a loan to a minority.

The community reinvestment act of 1977 is more complicated, and there are some potential concerns here. That being said, the assets resulting from such practices were graded AAA, and sold around the financial world like hotcakes.

I have a specific questions for you Duncan, so stop the dodging and try and give them honest answers:

1) If these assets were as toxic as you describe why were banks trying to buy them from each other, well beyond their legal obligations to any act?

2)Why were they lobbying (successfully) to get their credit limits increased and then buying up more and more of these assets?

The only answer I've found that's consistent with the facts is this one:

Subprime loans were so profitable, that they were aggressively marketed in low-and moderate-income communities, even over the objections and warnings of housing advocacy groups like ACORN.

Which you can find either here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

or

http://www.innercitypress.com/cra1bailout092808.html


Even more telling is this:

There's a major factual problem, though: with a single exception, no bank sought CRA credit for its subprime loans. And the investment banks which were purchasing, bundling and securitizing the loans were not covered by CRA.