[rockinqsranch]

Were I not so concerned about you spreading disinformation to some unsuspecting readers that might happen upon your ignorance, I’d simply not respond anymore, but I am concerned for those whom might actually believe your blockheaded perspective.

You’re dead wrong on this. The derivatives were not the instigating problem, they were an incidental to the CRA legislation of which Clinton used to expand upon the base thereof, and force not only the Banks as legislated by the CRA, but also the Mortgage Industry as well.

You should read entirely the article I presented you the link to. You will see the groundwork set for what happened, and you will see how relevant the article of this thread is.

Your persistance in persuing the derivatives indicates you haven’t really paid the attention due to this tragedy at the hands of Carter, Clinton, Frank, and other Democrats whom fought successfully any Republican attempts to reform that legislation including the President of the United States whom brought up the matter several occasions.

The Democrats flat out stated there was no problem and balked at any reform whatsoever. It’s the Democrats stupid.

[FocusNexus]

“org.whodat” is a sleeper troll — while pretending to be a conservative, always reliably jumps in to defend Democrats and bash Bush, Republicans and anything conservative.

His intent is is indeed to spread disinformation, it’s not that he doesn’t have an undestanding of the issues, he is deliberately trying to confuse and spread MSM type propaganda.

[Lakeshark]

I seriously doubt he even knows what derivatives are and what they do. You might want him to explain what they are, and how they actually caused the crisis.

He might melt before our very eyes.

[org.whodat]

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2133189/posts

[org.whodat]

University of Michigan Law Professor Michael Barr, a specialist in banking and finance law, flatly rejected claims that the CRA was "a significant factor in the current crisis. CRA was enacted more than 30 years ago. It would be quite odd if this 30-year old law suddenly caused an explosion in bad subprime loans from 2002-2007....Subprime mortgages were mostly made by mortgage brokers and lenders and securitized by investment banks -- institutions not covered by CRA," he told the Huffington Post, adding, "CRA only covers banks and thrifts, and these institutions mostly have not suffered to the same extent or kind from bad lending as the non-CRA-covered institutions at the core of the current crisis. The problem here is not CRA. It is what the late former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich called 'the giant hole in the supervisory safety net' -- bad lending by firms outside the banking sector's rules for prudential supervision, capital requirements, consumer protection and yes, the CRA."

If you don't know the topic you can always BS, applies to you sir.