Excuse me???? She's leaving out FACTS here and her articlie is completely misleading. During the Clinton administration, the CRA was adjusted to require financial institutions to provide even RISKIER loans to those who would normally not qualify. Also, she completely missed the point that the CRA was originally created to allow lending to those ethnic backgrounds whom banks considered poor risks. In other words, the CRA was to break down walls of racial discrimination. Which was a positive when it was created. But, the fact that it was altered during the Clinton administration to make lending available to those with poor credit and eliminate lending requirements that PROTECTED the financial industry. However, at this, the mortgage industry created "creative" financing for those who fit this mold.
So, ma'am...you are WRONG...the CRA is the reason...but not the original CRA. You broke the rules of journalism. If you are going to present facts, make sure you present ALL facts and not only ones that make YOU look good. You completely MISLED readers. SHAME ON YOU!

Excuse me??? Brenda's also leaving out or misstating facts. The CRA does not REQUIRE anything, specifically not risky loans, even after the much-maligned 1995 adjustments. The CRA was not responsible for the creation of subprime mortgages, they were the result of changes in the law in the 1980's. Their use expanded greatly in the late 1990's. While the 1995 changes in the CRA opened the door for subprime mortgages to be used for CRA compliance, the evidence is that the bulk of the risky loans were not made by lenders subject to the CRA. And there is further evidence that CRA loans were of higher quality than the average mortgage loan. While hard statistics are hard to come by in this area, blaming the CRA for the mortgage meltdown in the absence of such evidence is quite a stretch. At this point, the best evidence is that out-of-control lending by financial institutions not covered by the CRA (or much of any regulation), encouraged by fee-based sales (where the riskier loans generated the higher fees), where the risk could be passed on through securitization (often not involving Fannie or Freddie) is the real culprit.
If it turns out, after more evidence is available, that the government encouragement of risky lending is more of a culprit than it currently seems to be, then a couple of George W. Bush initiatives also need to be considered as contributory (possibly intervening) causes The American Dream Downpayment Act (a George W. Bush initiative for the government to pay the down-payment of minorities) and this White House Press Release (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021015-7.html) wherein President George W. Bush announces his initiative for minority home ownership.
Given all of this, the blame being placed on the CRA by conservative columnists seems highly suspect.

Maybe you all have your facts right, I don't know. I did know many hard working people who didn't understand credit therefore didn't use it, therefore were considered poor credit risks, therefore couldn't get a mortgage. Whatever changed, for whatever reason, those hardworking people who never abused, just didn't use credit, all of a sudden were able to get a home financed. That was good news for them. Most now have their mortgages paid down or off. Others abused the credit card and were able to get a home financed even when they didn't have jobs. Some worthy people benefitted when the redlining stopped.