Dear Senator Boxer,
I appreciate your answer but I have to tell you that you are just following what Barack Obama is telling you without doing any home work.
What Barack Obama has brainwashed you into thinking is the same thing that Jimmy Carter did in the 70’s. It is true that Jimmy Carter gave way to creating a lot of jobs by doing the same thing. But in the long run we ended up with a huge Inflation rate. To combat that out of control inflation the fed took the prime interest rate to 20.39% on July 1, 1981 (Source: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/MPRIME.txt ) and Inflation Rate of 13.58% in 1980 (Source: http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp).
By the way, Jimmy Carter used the “Misery Index” (http://www.miseryindex.us/) to get elected. The difference here is that Barack Obama has psychologically damaged people so bad as far as consumer confidence that it will be very, very hard to change peoples minds until the light goes on in people’s minds when they finally realize that electing Barack Obama was the most catastrophic that thing that the citizens of the United States could have ever done.
OK, Now here is what I really want to hear your rational on. Let’s talk about Bill Clinton’s expansion of Jimmy Carters Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 that he did in 1997. This mandate led people from all different arenas to develop a ferocious appetite for greed and corruption which in the end caused the mortgage and home market to collapse to what we have today. While it is true that Bill Clinton did not tell the banks and lending institutions how to write loans, Bill Clinton was most certainly the catalyst for the mortgage melt down. I just find it appalling that there is not one socialist (Democrat) that will admit to his wrong doing in trying to expand our “Land of Entitlement.”
“C. Experience With the 1978 Rule
The experience with the 1978 rule
was summarized in the preamble to the
Agencies’ 1995 CRA rule. 60 FR 22156
(May 4, 1995) (1995 rule).”
The CRA has come to play an increasingly important role in improving access to credit in communities—both rural and urban—across the country. Under the impetus of the CRA, many banks and thrifts opened new branches, provided expanded services, and made substantial commitments to increase lending to all segments of society. Despite these successes, the CRA examination system has been criticized. Financial institutions have indicated that policy guidance from the agencies on the CRA is unclear and that examination standards are applied inconsistently. Financial institutions have also stated that the CRA examination process encourages
them to generate excessive paperwork at the expense of providing loans, services, and investments to their communities. Community, consumer, and other groups have agreed with the industry that there are inconsistencies in CRA evaluations and that current examinations overemphasize process and underemphasize performance. Community and consumer groups also have criticized the agencies for failing aggressively to penalize banks and thrifts for poor performance. Noting that the CRA examination process could be improved, President Clinton requested in July 1993 that the Federal financial supervisory agencies reform the
CRA regulatory system. The President asked the agencies to consult with the banking and thrift industries, Congressional leaders, and leaders of community-based organizations across the country to develop new CRA regulations and examination procedures that ‘‘replace paperwork and uncertainty with greater performance, clarity, and objectivity.’’ Specifically, the President asked the agencies to refocus the CRA examination system on more objective, performance-based assessment standards that minimize compliance burden while stimulating improved performance. He also asked the agencies to develop a well-trained corps of examiners who would specialize in CRA examinations. The President requested that the agencies promote consistency and evenhandedness, improve CRA performance evaluations, and institute more effective sanctions against institutions with consistently poor performance.
60 FR 22156–57.”
“D. The 1995 Rule and Subsequent
The experience with the 1978 rule led the Agencies to replace it in 1995 with a rule designed to emphasize performance rather than process, promote consistency in evaluations, and eliminate unnecessary burden. 60 FR 22156.”
Ok what this tells me is that when Bill Clinton made this mandate it basically rated banks on the QUANTITY of loans over the QUALITY of loans. When this was presented, lending institutions were already writing as many standard 30 year loans as they could. However, the banks and lending institutions had to write more loans. Write more loans to people that could not qualify for a standard 30 year loan. The banks and lending institutions did not want to do this because it would expose the lending institutions to dangerously large amounts of bad debt from bad loans and foreclosures. Remember this was in 1997. So the banks and lending institutions had to come up with creative loan vehicles to meet the mandate that Bill Clinton had written or face federal fines or other actions against the institutions. So the birth of the “No down payment,” Interest Only,” “Adjustable Rate Loans” etc were created to meet the QUATITY of loans that were then rated by this system:
“D. The 1995 Rule and Subsequent Guidance
The experience with the 1978 rule led
the Agencies to replace it in 1995 with
a rule designed to emphasize
performance rather than process,
promote consistency in evaluations, and
eliminate unnecessary burden. 60 FR
22156. Among other things, it established a large retail institution test
comprised of three tests: one for
lending, one for investment, and one for
OK on page 10025 it talks about the above “test.”
Now if I’m not mistaken that is exactly what Barack Obama’s boy Tim Geithner wants to do. The same thing as he called it a “STRESS TEST’ of performance.
OK so what I am trying to tell you is that everything that the Socialist (Democratic) Party has done in the past has been a huge failure as far as jump starting the economy. This time will be no different.
But here is the big difference between Barack Obama and Bill Clinton:
Bill Clinton’s mandate gambled with investor’s money and the public’s savings (401K and IRAs) and lost.
Barack Obama’s mandate is gambling with all of the countries Tax Payer Dollars for generations to come in the future and will lose again. A much much greater amount of people’s lives are at stake here and in these numbers a Tax Payer Revolt is not out of the realm of reality.
And one final thing. A am just as upset with George W. Bush to have even offered a TARP program to begin with. It just gave the Socialist (Democratic) party an excuse to make business and individuals highly dependent on the Federal Government to survive when they gained power by creating a “Land of Entitlement.” out of the United States of America.
I will be best to say that I know you never even read all 1000 plus pages of that “Spendulas” package as I know you did not have the time as did none of the other people that voted for it.
Senator Boxer I can only hope that you sleep well at night not understanding what you voted for in this “Spendulas” package that Barack Obama and the Socialist (Democratic) party rammed down the throat of the citizens of the United States.
I have been writing to Senator John Mc Cain about this as I do not have any representation what so ever in the State of California.