And you've got a home mortgage, a home mortgage that is subsidized by the taxpayers. Because, remember, this was a part of the problem with the amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act in the 1990s, and it was this: An individual could have no income, no assets, no job. With all of that, you could still get a mortgage just based on your welfare benefits. This was a complete change in the way mortgages were given out. And welfare is inherently unstable. So to think that a 30-year mortgage is being given to someone on the basis of their welfare payments. We had never done that before in the United States. And so what we saw is a correlation with a very high rate of foreclosure. What inducement or incentive is there for an individual to save up to buy a house, save up for a down payment, be frugal, do what you need to do to have a good credit score to get into a house when if in fact because of the Community Reinvestment Act, banks were forced to not look at credit scores essentially and to give mortgages to people on the basis of their welfare checks? And a lot of these mortgages that were given would give cash back to people. Then people went out and took home equity loans against their home and they had virtually nothing in the home. No wonder we're in the problem we're in. If you change your banking standards to ones that don't even rank up with a comic strip level of regulations, you're going to get disastrous results.
Michele Bachmann: “And you've got a home mortgage, a home mortgage that is subsidized by the taxpayers. Because, remember, this was a part…”
Editor's note · Context
Bachmann discusses the impact of the Community Reinvestment Act on mortgage lending and foreclosures.
Share
More from Michele Bachmann
That is why I call it a gangster government. It is a gangster government when you have to buy protection from your own government. In this instance, it is over $36,000 per year, per employee. In fact, the fine is in excess of what the wage…
I would like to share my experience with it, because as Members of Congress we were forced to go into ObamaCare. The only exchange we were allowed to go in was the one here in Washington, D.C. It is called a small business link. The only…
I was here in the Chamber with the gentleman. I saw and observed exactly what you said, that our colleagues across the aisle stood up and applauded. That is a constitutional crisis. As we are having this discussion today, we are in the…
Let's talk about the reality as an employer and an employee of how egregious this tax is. The employers that were in front of the Supreme Court today, and there were two employers before the Supreme Court today, they could pay the tax…





