Occupy Wall Street

[Mission Accomplished]

the right are full of hypocrites

[video]https://www.hulu.com/watch/290660/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-scorn-in-the-usa


How many of you republicans make of $200,000 a year?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBAay9nPtOU

 

[GoJazz]

The predatory lenders were originating mortgages based on guidelines from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These guidelines in turn came from the CRA. That doesn’t make all mortgage brokers innocent, but they would have never been able to make those loans had it not been for the GSE’s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was an absolute absurdity when a borrower with no money down, on a “no, no loan” (no income, no asset verification) would be charged a risk premium of 1-2% over a prime borrower. A true free market would have priced those sub-prime loans much higher. In fact, a free market would more than likely have never touched those loans, because they are near impossible to price, given that the risks would be too difficult to determine.

The bubble was created by an orchestra of market intervention from the Federal Reserve, the manipulation of interest rates; and the Federal Government intervention via GSE’s and affordable housing initiatives. Artificially lower interest rates increased the demand for housing. It also allowed for housing prices to increase beyond a nominal level by making them more affordable at a higher price. The GSE’s created a market for the sub-prime and risky loans, which were then securitized and sold to Wall Street. The Community Reinvestment Act poured fuel on an already volatile situation. All of this activity created artificial demand for housing with cheap money and artificially low lending standards. All of this was made possible by the practices of the Federal Reserve and its ability to create money out of thin air and government intervention.

And all of this is exactly what a FREE MARKET ISN'T which was my point. Our Market is about as free as the federal reserve is federal. I mean just the fact that Fannie and Freddie are the major player in the Mortgage market and are Government Controled Companies proves my point that our market is not a FREE MARKET.

Also just so you know many reports say that Fannie and Freddie accounted for as much as 90% of the sub prime loans. Here is my referance its about 4 paragraphs down last line. https://hnn.us/articles/1849.html

Short, but wrong. Less than half the subprime loans were securitized through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 

[One Brow]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

The predatory lenders were originating mortgages based on guidelines from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These guidelines in turn came from the CRA.

Repeating an error does not make it correct. The CRA dates from the 1970s, and never required banks to undertake bad loans.

That doesn’t make all mortgage brokers innocent, but they would have never been able to make those loans had it not been for the GSE’s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

You don't think there were private brokers of mortgage-backed securities? Fannie Mae and Frddie Mac actually lost market share in the MBS field by insisting on higher standards than the private companies.

Read the wikipedia article, at the very least.

It was an absolute absurdity when a borrower with no money down, on a “no, no loan” (no income, no asset verification) would be charged a risk premium of 1-2% over a prime borrower.

Something the executives at Fannie Mae pointed out. Fannie Mae and Freedie mac opposed such practices, and refused to securitize them.

A true free market would have priced those sub-prime loans much higher.

Why? What is your proof?

In fact, a free market would more than likely have never touched those loans, because they are near impossible to price, given that the risks would be too difficult to determine.

The worst of them were securitized by the free market, exclusively.

The Community Reinvestment Act poured fuel on an already volatile situation.

The CRA required banks in low-income neighborhoods to invest locally. How many really expensive properties do you think there are in low-income neighborhoods, outside of New York and San Franlcisco?

All of this activity created artificial demand for housing with cheap money and artificially low lending standards. All of this was made possible by the practices of the Federal Reserve and its ability to create money out of thin air and government intervention.

It's like your reading off talking points.

Also just so you know many reports say that Fannie and Freddie accounted for as much as 90% of the sub prime loans. Here is my referance its about 4 paragraphs down last line. https://hnn.us/articles/1849.html

It actually says, "Currently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac control about 90 percent of the nation's secondary mortgage market." You do realize the difference between having 90% of a market, and 90% of a small segtment of that market, right?

 

[sirkickyass]

Via reddit: Occupy Wall Street Explained by Calvin and Hobbes

 

[Scat]

 

[Mission Accomplished]

I'm pretty sure that this is a real movement and it will be a game changer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC9Vyt1ZBpQ&feature=related

 

[Mission Accomplished]

The funny thing about this picture is it seems to miss the whole teaparty movement. What were they a bunch of christians returning from church or a Klan rally. The TEAPARTY movement was all about threats of violence, racism, and raw hatred that turned into a lap dog for the GOP. It wasn't a movement it was a Fox News bought and paid for power play put on to reenergize the ignorant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II21iLtbLY4&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtvMrUBjeuU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCpwjvVaqyE&feature=related

 

[One Brow]

I wonder where Eric Allie got all those images of the Wall Street protestors? He must have made them up. After all, you can't find those pictures on news sources.

 

[Mission Accomplished]

here is a link to some Tea Partiers reacting to occupy wall street
[video]https://www.5min.com/Video/Values-Voter-Attendees-React-to-Occupy-Wall-Street-517176501

 

[The Thriller]

The predatory lenders were originating mortgages based on guidelines from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These guidelines in turn came from the CRA. That doesn’t make all mortgage brokers innocent, but they would have never been able to make those loans had it not been for the GSE’s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was an absolute absurdity when a borrower with no money down, on a “no, no loan” (no income, no asset verification) would be charged a risk premium of 1-2% over a prime borrower. A true free market would have priced those sub-prime loans much higher. In fact, a free market would more than likely have never touched those loans, because they are near impossible to price, given that the risks would be too difficult to determine.

The bubble was created by an orchestra of market intervention from the Federal Reserve, the manipulation of interest rates; and the Federal Government intervention via GSE’s and affordable housing initiatives. Artificially lower interest rates increased the demand for housing. It also allowed for housing prices to increase beyond a nominal level by making them more affordable at a higher price. The GSE’s created a market for the sub-prime and risky loans, which were then securitized and sold to Wall Street. The Community Reinvestment Act poured fuel on an already volatile situation. All of this activity created artificial demand for housing with cheap money and artificially low lending standards. All of this was made possible by the practices of the Federal Reserve and its ability to create money out of thin air and government intervention.

And all of this is exactly what a FREE MARKET ISN'T which was my point. Our Market is about as free as the federal reserve is federal. I mean just the fact that Fannie and Freddie are the major player in the Mortgage market and are Government Controled Companies proves my point that our market is not a FREE MARKET.

Also just so you know many reports say that Fannie and Freddie accounted for as much as 90% of the sub prime loans. Here is my referance its about 4 paragraphs down last line. https://hnn.us/articles/1849.html

Copying and pasting nonsense from Sean Hannity's blog isn't exactly a good way to win a discussion against One Brow.

 

[GoJazz]

Did you even read your own article? If so you are just so blinded by your own opinions that having a reasonable conversation is impossible. That article specifically points out how George Bush Senior "enhanced CRA, then Clinton further enhanced it, then Bush Jr enhanced it yet again... How the **** is that a free market. I mean are you seriously this stupid? Just the fact that we have GSE's and a CRA proves my point that we are not playing in a FREE MARKET. So your entire arguement is a joke from the start. So anyways thanks for trying but you can't even come close to winning this arguement. So I will stand by my previous comments... WE HAVE NOT HAD ANYWHERE NEAR A FREE MARKET SINCE 1908. So to say the "Free Market has failed us" or "capitalism has failed us". Is wrong from the start because we haven't had a free market. So back to my original point... the differance between the Tea Party and #occupywallstreet is the tea party would like a return to free markets and capitalism while #occupywallstreet feels free markets and capitalism has failed and would like to usher in a socialist/communist form of government. I think what both parties can agree on is that the current system of corperate rule isn't working. They just disagree on the answer to the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

Repeating an error does not make it correct. The CRA dates from the 1970s, and never required banks to undertake bad loans.



You don't think there were private brokers of mortgage-backed securities? Fannie Mae and Frddie Mac actually lost market share in the MBS field by insisting on higher standards than the private companies.

Read the wikipedia article, at the very least.



Something the executives at Fannie Mae pointed out. Fannie Mae and Freedie mac opposed such practices, and refused to securitize them.



Why? What is your proof?



The worst of them were securitized by the free market, exclusively.



The CRA required banks in low-income neighborhoods to invest locally. How many really expensive properties do you think there are in low-income neighborhoods, outside of New York and San Franlcisco?



It's like your reading off talking points.



It actually says, "Currently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac control about 90 percent of the nation's secondary mortgage market." You do realize the difference between having 90% of a market, and 90% of a small segtment of that market, right?

 

[GoJazz]

Also please read this to show that Fannie and Fredie were directly involved in the sub prime lending in the USA... https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802111_pf.html Also just so you know. That article is sourced in your wiki article. Yep your own stuff proves you and your pathetic arguement wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

Repeating an error does not make it correct. The CRA dates from the 1970s, and never required banks to undertake bad loans.



You don't think there were private brokers of mortgage-backed securities? Fannie Mae and Frddie Mac actually lost market share in the MBS field by insisting on higher standards than the private companies.

Read the wikipedia article, at the very least.



Something the executives at Fannie Mae pointed out. Fannie Mae and Freedie mac opposed such practices, and refused to securitize them.



Why? What is your proof?



The worst of them were securitized by the free market, exclusively.



The CRA required banks in low-income neighborhoods to invest locally. How many really expensive properties do you think there are in low-income neighborhoods, outside of New York and San Franlcisco?



It's like your reading off talking points.



It actually says, "Currently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac control about 90 percent of the nation's secondary mortgage market." You do realize the difference between having 90% of a market, and 90% of a small segtment of that market, right?

 

[One Brow]

Did you even read your own article?

Thoroughly, twice. I've read other sources, and read up on the CRA, as well.

If so you are just so blinded by your own opinions that having a reasonable conversation is impossible.

If by reasonable, you mean "a conversation where One Brow acknowledges GoJazz is correct even though the evidence says otherwise", you are certainly correct.

That article specifically points out how George Bush Senior "enhanced CRA, then Clinton further enhanced it, then Bush Jr enhanced it yet again...

There's also an article on the CRA at Wikipedia.

Some economists, politicians and other commentators have charged that the CRA contributed in part to the 2008 financial crisis by encouraging banks to make unsafe loans. However, every empirical study that has looked at CRA loans has concluded that they were safer than subprime mortgages that were purely profit driven, and CRA loans accounted for a tiny fraction of total subprime mortgages.

How the **** is that a free market.

It isn't. In a truly free market, the situation would have been even worse. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made the bottom slightly less deep. I realize many people worship free markets, but this isn't the 1700's anymore, and multinational corporations don't respond to the pressures Adam Smith laid out.

So anyways thanks for trying but you can't even come close to winning this arguement.

I'm not in a debate, and I'm not trying to score points. I'm just laying out facts to counter propaganda. It's a game you can never win, but I play nonetheless.

So I will stand by my previous comments...

I expect nothing else. I fully expect that, regardless of the evidence provided, you will stand by your comments.

WE HAVE NOT HAD ANYWHERE NEAR A FREE MARKET SINCE 1908.

Thank you, Theodore Roosevelt.

So to say the "Free Market has failed us" or "capitalism has failed us".

I don't recall saying that. I do recall saying "The worst of [the subprime loans] were securitized by the free market, exclusively." Are you saying the securitization of subprimes loans was a failure?

However, I do stand corrected on the "exclusively". You're right insofar as in 2007, Fannie Mae started to respond to the loss of market share by pursuing these loans more aggressively, in contrast to its previous p0olocies. So, they may have contributed to the crisis in a small way as well, although by then most of the damage had been done, and the crash was inevitable.

So back to my original point... the differance between the Tea Party and #occupywallstreet is the tea party would like a return to free markets and capitalism while #occupywallstreet feels free markets and capitalism has failed and would like to usher in a socialist/communist form of government.

After 40 years of free markets, we eleminated them in 1908. Do you really want to go back to that?

I'm sure there are a few in OWS who legitimately desire communism or socialism. There are more who would support the financial regulations that led to growth and properity in the 1950s-1960s (the Glass-Steagall Act, solid tax margins on high-income earners, etc.).

I think what both parties can agree on is that the current system of corperate rule isn't working. They just disagree on the answer to the problem.

If you put five Tea Partiers in a room, you'll probably get six different opinions. The same for OWS.

 

[GoJazz]

You have provided very little evidence otherwise. The CRA and fannie and freddie by following the CRA rules loosed lending standards for everyone on none sub prime loans. This while not entirely the problem it is a major source of the problem. Those people along with the sub prime loan barrowers are the majority of the people who have defaulted. Honestly how many people who had put 20% down to purchase a home defaulted on that loan? I would bet its a fraction of a % of those with none traditional loans.

Secondly, I would totally agree with you that Glass Seagall should be restored. Removing Glass Seagall was a disaster waiting to happen. It was followed by even a bigger disaster Dodd-Frank which should be repealed and replaced with Glass-Seagall but will never happen because large banks have the US Government by the balls. I am a strong supporter of regulation of businesses to ensure fairness in the market place.

Third if you look at my other posts I am not a Tea Party guy at all. In fact, I am one of the only people on this board that feels the solution to our National Debt issues is to reduce spending and increase taxes so rather then call me Teddie you should consider revising your insult and calling me Dwight D. Also I find your Left/Right Repub/Democrat Conservative/Liberal viewpoints highly immature from a philosophical standpoint. While those contrasts are great for turning people who in general agree with eachother against eachother and for distracting a mass of uneducated people into some sort of emotional responce. I find they hinder our ability to do the best thing possible for the country.

Thoroughly, twice. I've read other sources, and read up on the CRA, as well.



If by reasonable, you mean "a conversation where One Brow acknowledges GoJazz is correct even though the evidence says otherwise", you are certainly correct.



There's also an article on the CRA at Wikipedia.




It isn't. In a truly free market, the situation would have been even worse. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made the bottom slightly less deep. I realize many people worship free markets, but this isn't the 1700's anymore, and multinational corporations don't respond to the pressures Adam Smith laid out.



I'm not in a debate, and I'm not trying to score points. I'm just laying out facts to counter propaganda. It's a game you can never win, but I play nonetheless.



I expect nothing else. I fully expect that, regardless of the evidence provided, you will stand by your comments.



Thank you, Theodore Roosevelt.



I don't recall saying that. I do recall saying "The worst of [the subprime loans] were securitized by the free market, exclusively." Are you saying the securitization of subprimes loans was a failure?

However, I do stand corrected on the "exclusively". You're right insofar as in 2007, Fannie Mae started to respond to the loss of market share by pursuing these loans more aggressively, in contrast to its previous p0olocies. So, they may have contributed to the crisis in a small way as well, although by then most of the damage had been done, and the crash was inevitable.



After 40 years of free markets, we eleminated them in 1908. Do you really want to go back to that?

I'm sure there are a few in OWS who legitimately desire communism or socialism. There are more who would support the financial regulations that led to growth and properity in the 1950s-1960s (the Glass-Steagall Act, solid tax margins on high-income earners, etc.).



If you put five Tea Partiers in a room, you'll probably get six different opinions. The same for OWS.

 

[One Brow]

You have provided very little evidence otherwise. The CRA and fannie and freddie by following the CRA rules loosed lending standards for everyone on none sub prime loans. This while not entirely the problem it is a major source of the problem. Those people along with the sub prime loan barrowers are the majority of the people who have defaulted.

Had you read the CRA wikipedia article, you woould have noticed it explicitly points out the real problems cam from exurban loans, and that loans from CRA-affected branches were actually solid.

Legal and financial experts have noted that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton, stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".

Blaming the CRA is exactly what I would expect of a right-wing source (to be clear, I am not referring to you) whose real interest was in dismantling government program to help urbgan area, in order to cut spending. That the blame is basically false would not be relevant. It's convenient politically.

Try and explain this: why would you open a bank branch in an area with so little money it could not support a profitable local business structure and/or reasonable home loans? How does a bank expect a brach to be profitable in an area like that, unless the purpose is to suck money in from the community to invest in other places? The CRA did not force anyone to open a branch, and certainly did not prevent anyone from closing a branch. It merely said a decent protion of the investments derived from the deposits of people in East St. Louis should go into the loans of the populace of East St. Louis. The Bank of O'Fallon was unaffected by the CRA.

Here's another one: in the mid-2000s, you have the conservative groups claiming the CRA didn't acutally do anything, and wasn't needed anymore. After the crash, those same groups blame the CRA for distorting the loan market. That doesn't stike you as overly convenient argumentation?

Honestly how many people who had put 20% down to purchase a home defaulted on that loan? I would bet its a fraction of a % of those with none traditional loans.

Honestly, what does that have to do with the CRA? I put nothing down on my home loan in 2005, after having a job for less than three months, when I had been unemployed the previous four. Because the house is in O'Fallon, the CRA had nothing to do with the loan.

Secondly, I would totally agree with you that Glass Seagall should be restored. Removing Glass Seagall was a disaster waiting to happen. It was followed by even a bigger disaster Dodd-Frank which should be repealed and replaced with Glass-Seagall but will never happen because large banks have the US Government by the balls. I am a strong supporter of regulation of businesses to ensure fairness in the market place.

What specific strictures of Dodd-Frank do you find anti-thematical to regulation that ensures fairness (outside of the fact that it has been woefully understaffed)?

Third if you look at my other posts I am not a Tea Party guy at all. In fact, I am one of the only people on this board that feels the solution to our National Debt issues is to reduce spending and increase taxes so rather then call me Teddie you should consider revising your insult and calling me Dwight D.

Teddy was one of the great Presidents, and his vision was a prime reason we moved away from free markets, to a more progressive system. I have no beef with Eisenhower except for letting McCarthy run wild.

 

[GoJazz]

What I don't think you understand is the government backing and regulating via CRA and Fannie/Freddie creates an environment where additional investment (capital) goes into housing because of sense of security created by a government backed insurance provided by Fannie/Freddie but backed by the US government. Because of this artificial inflation of the market we get a boom/bust cycle. So back to my point. The government medaling in the market creates the bubble. I would also like to point out that your argument is that the guy featured in the video below was right and that you would not only continue but expand his policy. I think history has proved that your arguement is invalid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68

Had you read the CRA wikipedia article, you woould have noticed it explicitly points out the real problems cam from exurban loans, and that loans from CRA-affected branches were actually solid.


Blaming the CRA is exactly what I would expect of a right-wing source (to be clear, I am not referring to you) whose real interest was in dismantling government program to help urbgan area, in order to cut spending. That the blame is basically false would not be relevant. It's convenient politically.

Try and explain this: why would you open a bank branch in an area with so little money it could not support a profitable local business structure and/or reasonable home loans? How does a bank expect a brach to be profitable in an area like that, unless the purpose is to suck money in from the community to invest in other places? The CRA did not force anyone to open a branch, and certainly did not prevent anyone from closing a branch. It merely said a decent protion of the investments derived from the deposits of people in East St. Louis should go into the loans of the populace of East St. Louis. The Bank of O'Fallon was unaffected by the CRA.

Here's another one: in the mid-2000s, you have the conservative groups claiming the CRA didn't acutally do anything, and wasn't needed anymore. After the crash, those same groups blame the CRA for distorting the loan market. That doesn't stike you as overly convenient argumentation?



Honestly, what does that have to do with the CRA? I put nothing down on my home loan in 2005, after having a job for less than three months, when I had been unemployed the previous four. Because the house is in O'Fallon, the CRA had nothing to do with the loan.



What specific strictures of Dodd-Frank do you find anti-thematical to regulation that ensures fairness (outside of the fact that it has been woefully understaffed)?



Teddy was one of the great Presidents, and his vision was a prime reason we moved away from free markets, to a more progressive system. I have no beef with Eisenhower except for letting McCarthy run wild.

 

[One Brow]

What I don't think you understand is the government backing and regulating via CRA and Fannie/Freddie creates an environment where additional investment (capital) goes into housing because of sense of security created by a government backed insurance provided by Fannie/Freddie but backed by the US government.

I get that's where it *started*. However, what then happened is that the appetite for such investment were made into securities under condition that, for years, Fannie and Freddie refused to touch. The private securitizers, focusing on exurban (non-CRA) loans, using private (not government-backed) insurance, created the vast majority of the bubble, and did it by having lower standards than Fannie and Freddie (pre-2007).

Because of this artificial inflation of the market we get a boom/bust cycle.

I agree. Where I disagree is the primary source of the artifical inflation, which occured in exurban areas, not urban areas. East St. Louis died not see it's housing prices skyrocket, and my understanding is that south central Los Angeles did not, either. The $50,000 urban home may have risen to $55,000. It was the $300,000 suburban house rising to $600,000 that caused the problem.

I would also like to point out that your argument is that the guy featured in the video below was right and that you would not only continue but expand his policy. I think history has proved that your arguement is invalid.

Then, perhaps you would like to offer some evidence that the CRA, or urban loans generally, were actually key to the hoursing bubble. I mean, the wikipedia article says, "However, every empirical study that has looked at CRA loans has concluded that they were safer than subprime mortgages that were purely profit driven, and CRA loans accounted for a tiny fraction of total subprime mortgages." However, maybe you know of studies that have not been registered into the Wikipedia article? After all, if we are going to talk about what "history proved", shouldn't that involve producing, say, proof, or at least evidence? Do you have any evidence CRA loans were a significant contribution?

 

[moevillini]

I agree. Where I disagree is the primary source of the artifical inflation, which occured in exurban areas, not urban areas. East St. Louis died not see it's housing prices skyrocket, and my understanding is that south central Los Angeles did not, either. The $50,000 urban home may have risen to $55,000. It was the $300,000 suburban house rising to $600,000 that caused the problem....


...Then, perhaps you would like to offer some evidence that the CRA, or urban loans generally, were actually key to the hoursing bubble. I mean, the wikipedia article says, "However, every empirical study that has looked at CRA loans has concluded that they were safer than subprime mortgages that were purely profit driven, and CRA loans accounted for a tiny fraction of total subprime mortgages." However, maybe you know of studies that have not been registered into the Wikipedia article? After all, if we are going to talk about what "history proved", shouldn't that involve producing, say, proof, or at least evidence? Do you have any evidence CRA loans were a significant contribution?

this is more just anecdotal, and I don't have time to check statistics, but it seems to me that the dollar amounts per loan is certainly higher in "exurban" areas, but the quantity of bad loans is higher in urban areas. So your view is to some degree dependent on how you think one $600,000 mortgage default compares to 4 defaults of $150,000 loans.

 

[One Brow]

this is more just anecdotal, and I don't have time to check statistics, but it seems to me that the dollar amounts per loan is certainly higher in "exurban" areas, but the quantity of bad loans is higher in urban areas. So your view is to some degree dependent on how you think one $600,000 mortgage default compares to 4 defaults of $150,000 loans.

What you get a chance, read the wikipedia article on the CRA, and in particular the section its relationship to the 2008 housing crisis. Among other things, it mentions CRA loans are more sound that the privately financed exurban loans.

 

[GoJazz]

My arguement is that CRA contributed the housing crisis which is very different then the CRA caused the housing crisis. Here are some facts/fictions.

FACT: Studies show that CRA loans have higher delinquencies and defaults and act as a major drag on bank earnings. In 2008, CRA loans accounted for just 7% of Bank of America's total mortgage lending, but 29% of its losses on home loans. Also, banks with the highest CRA ratings tend to have the lowest safety and soundness ratings.

FICTION: Only 6% of subprime loans were originated by banks subject to the CRA, so the vast majority of risky lending was not tied to the law.

FACT: Among other things, the figure does not count the trillions of dollars in CRA "commitments" that WaMu, BofA, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo and other large banks pledged to radical inner-city groups like Acorn, Greenlining and Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America (NACA) after they used the public comment process to protest bank merger applications on CRA grounds.

All told, they shook down banks for $4.6 trillion in such commitments before the crisis, boasts a report by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, or NCRC, the nation's top CRA lobbyist (which conveniently removed the report from its website during the FCIC hearings).