Affiliate Marketing Blog |

Hello. I would like to start an online business/company over the summer. My goal is to eventually make six or more figures a year. I have two ideas which I think could be really profitable. The problem is, I was quoted 40-50 thousand to make each site (except for the other business ideas). I just dont have that kind of money to even build one site. I will list the ideas below, and could you please tell me which idea you think is more profitable. How should I go about building the site? Should I hire someone on craigslist, rent a coder, etc.? Or should I try to build it my self? What should I use? I dont know programming or coding or web design.

1. My first idea is a website where users can submit original songs and other users can listen, rate, comment, share, and chat with other users. Users could also create a page where they could post info, and find new band members. I like this idea since the only competition is www.purevolume.com. PureVolume is making $300 a day! If I make a better site, why can’t i make that or more? I would sell ad space on the site. Accounts would be free, but if the site became big enough, I would create a pro membership that costs money in addition to the free account. If you think this idea could be profitable, how should I go about creating the site? I got quoted 40-50k to build by a web design firm. Should I use Kickapps which lets you create a social network site where user submit content (videos, MUSIC, videos etc.) for a small fee? Should I hire a developer on rent a coder?

2. My second idea is a website where users could post, list, sell, buy, auction, and trade websites. An ebay or amazon marketplace for websites. Users would post the site link with info and a snapshot and price, and other users would buy the site if they wanted to. I would take a small 4% commision from the sale. I would also sell ad space on the website. This website has some competition such as websitebroker.com, flippa.com, and sitepoint.com, but the potential is huge, and there is room for another player. If you think this site is profitable, how should I build it? Should I hire someone or build it myself. If build it myself, how should I build it?

3. My third idea is to sign up for resellerdynamics. You pay $1000 to them and they give you liscense to re sell there website building software on your own website and charge fees per month. they were reviewed in small business opportunity mag as a good opportunity and bbb says they are legit.

4. My last idea is to make a website with lots of articles, reviews, comparisons, etc. on cell phones. I would also sign up to be an affiliate with verizon, att, sprint, etc., and sell phones on my site. I know there are a lot of competition out there such as phonearena, phonedog, cnet, and mobiledia, but each site doest the same thing as the other site, and they all are making great money. By the way, is a website like this or a website in general considered a company? Could you be a CEO of the company that runs the website. Like if I call the site www.sprocketfish.com, could I make a company called Sprocketfish Inc. that runs the website and could I be CEO of Sprocketfish Inc.?

I really want to make one of these websites with as low startup as possible. I know I would have to market like crazy and do site matinence, but please help me. My parents think i should do a business like normal teens where you mow the lawn, babysit, etc, but I really want to do online business and hopefully make a good living. I think my sites ideas have potential. Which idea should I do? Which idea is more profitable? Even if you think they are not profitable, which would you choose if you had to? How should I build it?

Thanks!

PS, I am becoming a dealer at Kaeser and Blair and selling promotinal products to get me some startup cash for my online companies (websites).

Thanks!!

Easy methode to make money online,is use PPI
you can read here http://makemoneyonline5.notlong.com/

i was on mycokerewards.com and it said "Congratulations!! You have won todays
contest in Walpole!!" I clicked on it and it took me to a site http://www.chooseyourcolor.com/index.confirm.php?lid=::cpx_cyc and nothing bad happened it all seems pretty legit on the site it says 100 percent safe and secure, as well as privacy verified and shows pictures of other winners with their computers. I am wondering if i should trust the site or not? I don’t want to give out personal info and be wrong. if you have a mycokerewards account would you tell me if it says that for you at the top? Thanks So MUCH!!! Nothing in life is free right?

it also said this at the bottom and has sponsors like Discover Card, Columbia house, Credit report.com, video professor, and netflix.

† THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. SEE TERMS FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Members are being accepted subject to the following Program Requirements: 1) Must be a legal US resident; 2) must be at least 18 years old or older; 3) must have a valid email and shipping address; 4) Eligible members can receive the incentive gift package by completing two reward offers from each of the Top, Prime and Premium reward offer page options. Various types of reward offers are available. Completion of reward offers most often requires a purchase or filing a credit application and being accepted for a financial product such as a credit card or consumer loan. The following link illustrates a Representative Sample of reward offers by group along with monetary and non-monetary obligations. Failure to submit accurate registration information will result in loss of eligibility. A limited number of members will be given the opportunity to participate in the testing program. This promotion is administered solely by this website. Members are also registered in the Quarterly Sweepstakes, see Official Rules for details. The manufacturers and retailers of the gift items offered through our programs have not endorsed this promotion and are not affiliated with the promotion in anyway. This promotion is not valid to residents of Washington state and is void where prohibited by law. Please read the Terms and Conditions for complete program details. Your information will be shared with our marketing partners. Please read the Privacy Policy for more details.

This Gift Program is not endorsed, sponsored by or affiliated with the manufacturers and retailers of the gift items listed above in anyway. All trademarks, service marks and logos are property of their respective owners.

**if you guys could go to the site and read the privacy policy and tell me what it means cause i read it twice and have no idea! that would be greatly appreciated. I need a computer bad but not if it will harm me in any way.

I think their Requirement 4, "Eligible members can receive the incentive gift package by completing two reward offers from each of the Top, Prime and Premium reward offer page options. Various types of reward offers are available. Completion of reward offers most often requires a purchase or filing a credit application and being accepted for a financial product such as a credit card or consumer loan. " says it all.

The prize isn’t 100% free, and you could wind up spending more than the "free prize" is worth. There’s even the chance you’ll not complete one of the requirements and lose altogether, just because they say so. In particular, note that "filing a credit application and being accepted" clause. Who decides if you’re accepted or not, and on what basis?

When a giver puts pre-conditions on their "gifts," I go elsewhere.

Hope that helps.

i was on mycokerewards.com and it said "Congratulations!! You have won todays
contest in Walpole!!" I clicked on it and it took me to a site http://www.chooseyourcolor.com/index.confirm.php?lid=::cpx_cyc and nothing bad happened it all seems pretty legit on the site it says 100 percent safe and secure, as well as privacy verified and shows pictures of other winners with their computers. I am wondering if i should trust the site or not? I don’t want to give out personal info and be wrong. if you have a mycokerewards account would you tell me if it says that for you at the top? Thanks So MUCH!!! Nothing in life is free right?

it also said this at the bottom and has sponsors like Discover Card, Columbia house, Credit report.com, video professor, and netflix.

† THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. SEE TERMS FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Members are being accepted subject to the following Program Requirements: 1) Must be a legal US resident; 2) must be at least 18 years old or older; 3) must have a valid email and shipping address; 4) Eligible members can receive the incentive gift package by completing two reward offers from each of the Top, Prime and Premium reward offer page options. Various types of reward offers are available. Completion of reward offers most often requires a purchase or filing a credit application and being accepted for a financial product such as a credit card or consumer loan. The following link illustrates a Representative Sample of reward offers by group along with monetary and non-monetary obligations. Failure to submit accurate registration information will result in loss of eligibility. A limited number of members will be given the opportunity to participate in the testing program. This promotion is administered solely by this website. Members are also registered in the Quarterly Sweepstakes, see Official Rules for details. The manufacturers and retailers of the gift items offered through our programs have not endorsed this promotion and are not affiliated with the promotion in anyway. This promotion is not valid to residents of Washington state and is void where prohibited by law. Please read the Terms and Conditions for complete program details. Your information will be shared with our marketing partners. Please read the Privacy Policy for more details.

This Gift Program is not endorsed, sponsored by or affiliated with the manufacturers and retailers of the gift items listed above in anyway. All trademarks, service marks and logos are property of their respective owners.

I think their Requirement 4, "Eligible members can receive the incentive gift package by completing two reward offers from each of the Top, Prime and Premium reward offer page options. Various types of reward offers are available. Completion of reward offers most often requires a purchase or filing a credit application and being accepted for a financial product such as a credit card or consumer loan. " says it all.

The prize isn’t 100% free, and you could wind up spending more than the "free prize" is worth. There’s even the chance you’ll not complete one of the requirements and lose altogether, just because they say so. In particular, note that "filing a credit application and being accepted" clause. Who decides if you’re accepted or not, and on what basis?

When a giver puts pre-conditions on their "gifts," I go elsewhere.

Hope that helps.

Hello. I would like to start an online business/company over the summer. My goal is to eventually make six or more figures a year. I have two ideas which I think could be really profitable. The problem is, I was quoted 40-50 thousand to make each site (except for the other business ideas). I just dont have that kind of money to even build one site. I will list the ideas below, and could you please tell me which idea you think is more profitable. How should I go about building the site? Should I hire someone on craigslist, rent a coder, etc.? Or should I try to build it my self? What should I use? I dont know programming or coding or web design.

1. My first idea is a website where users can submit original songs and other users can listen, rate, comment, share, and chat with other users. Users could also create a page where they could post info, and find new band members. I like this idea since the only competition is www.purevolume.com. PureVolume is making $300 a day! If I make a better site, why can’t i make that or more? I would sell ad space on the site. Accounts would be free, but if the site became big enough, I would create a pro membership that costs money in addition to the free account. If you think this idea could be profitable, how should I go about creating the site? I got quoted 40-50k to build by a web design firm. Should I use Kickapps which lets you create a social network site where user submit content (videos, MUSIC, videos etc.) for a small fee? Should I hire a developer on rent a coder?

2. My second idea is a website where users could post, list, sell, buy, auction, and trade websites. An ebay or amazon marketplace for websites. Users would post the site link with info and a snapshot and price, and other users would buy the site if they wanted to. I would take a small 4% commision from the sale. I would also sell ad space on the website. This website has some competition such as websitebroker.com, flippa.com, and sitepoint.com, but the potential is huge, and there is room for another player. If you think this site is profitable, how should I build it? Should I hire someone or build it myself. If build it myself, how should I build it?

3. My third idea is to sign up for resellerdynamics. You pay $1000 to them and they give you liscense to re sell there website building software on your own website and charge fees per month. they were reviewed in small business opportunity mag as a good opportunity and bbb says they are legit.

4. My last idea is to make a website with lots of articles, reviews, comparisons, etc. on cell phones. I would also sign up to be an affiliate with verizon, att, sprint, etc., and sell phones on my site. I know there are a lot of competition out there such as phonearena, phonedog, cnet, and mobiledia, but each site doest the same thing as the other site, and they all are making great money. By the way, is a website like this or a website in general considered a company? Could you be a CEO of the company that runs the website. Like if I call the site www.sprocketfish.com, could I make a company called Sprocketfish Inc. that runs the website and could I be CEO of Sprocketfish Inc.?

I really want to make one of these websites with as low startup as possible. I know I would have to market like crazy and do site matinence, but please help me. My parents think i should do a business like normal teens where you mow the lawn, babysit, etc, but I really want to do online business and hopefully make a good living. I think my sites ideas have potential. Which idea should I do? Which idea is more profitable? Even if you think they are not profitable, which would you choose if you had to? How should I build it?

Thanks!

PS, I am becoming a dealer at Kaeser and Blair and selling promotinal products to get me some startup cash for my online companies (websites).

Thanks!!

oh boy, you’ve really thought this one through. I’d go with the first idea because that seems to be something i’ve always wanted to use.

Which affiliate programme is the best to join? With so many affiliate marketing sites online, it’s hard to determine which would give a person a reasonable opportunity to earn a steady income online from ones own promotional effort.
I just need some opinion on which I should join-saving the long search and much trial and error with some that are just waste of time.

I would recommend that you consider your own product. It’s true that affiliate marketing is a good place to start, in terms of getting your feet wet if you are new to internet marketing, but if you can create your own product, you will achieve a lot more.

Two approaches you can take here:

OPTION #1

1) Sign up for ClickBank. Look for an affiliate product that is in the niche which interests you the most.

2) Do some homework on Affiliate Marketing and try to get some experience selling the product you chose. You can sell the products via placing high in organic search using a variety of free promotion strategies (article marketing, social bookmarking, etc.) or you can dive into Google Adwords and set up a PPC campaign. (check out http://www.adwords-profits2.com for good overview on how to do this or you can sign up for their free mini ecourse.)

3) Once you feel more comfortable that affiliate marketing is right for you, you then move into developing your own product and repeat the process.

OPTION #2

1) Think of what you are most excited about, and look to see if that people in your chosen niche has a particular "pain" that needs to be addressed.

2) Research affiliate products to see if there are currently other competing products. (if you find them, great! because this means there is a market out there).

3) Go to google and type in your niche. Do you see lots of Adwords Ads? If so, another good indicator.

4) Write your own ebook (or develop a free report to get a feel for the market).

5) Set up your website, market your eBook, distribute via sites such as ClickBank to get affiliates selling for you.

Keep in mind, the above is a VERY high level abbreviated version of what you need to do, but in my mind, if you are going to go through all the effort selling someone else’s product, you might as well sell your own. Not only will you make a higher % per sale, but you will be able to get affiliates selling for you plus build up your own "list" of prospects & customers to sell to in the future.

Good luck!

Charles

I really want to start a home based business but seemingly the affiliate marketing programs I find in the internet prove not to be working fine for me. Please assist me in finding the proven home based business ideas and opportunities.
Thank you.

Hi! I had a similar problem sometime ago when I was looking for home based business ideas and opportunities. So I know what your problem is all about. But as I was searching for a solution I came across http://www.wealthcreationempowerment.ws/. This website provides a great solution for your problem.Now I no longer have a problem as I chose 5 programs to promote. I did this after signing up to a newsletter provided by the website and a personal website was designed for me FREE of charge. Thanks to this website.

I keep hearing how dems forced banks to make loans to poor people which caused the housing crisis.

Dozens of economic experts have stated this is a lie.

In fact, bush’s own top banking appointees have said the "cra had nothing to do with the crisis"

Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."

Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.

Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech:

Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC
December 17, 2008
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak.
What I’d like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool’s errand.

CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there’s plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.

Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.

You’ve heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.

Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth … pure and simple.

CRA isn’t perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".

Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.

CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank’s capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited.

That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can’t pay back. That’s a set up for failure.

Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages.

Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America.

So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

They (conservatives) won’t listen. Their world is not our world. They are still looking for a scapegoat for failed supply-side economics and deregulation.

Almost all economic experts have said this is a lie. Even bush’s top 2 banking appointees have said this is a lie.

Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."

Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.

Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech:

Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC
December 17, 2008
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak.
What I’d like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool’s errand.

CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there’s plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.

Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.

You’ve heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.

Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth … pure and simple.

CRA isn’t perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".

Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.

CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank’s capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited.

That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can’t pay back. That’s a set up for failure.

Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages.

Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America.

So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

I really don’t hear them say that. Could you stae where you got your facts

I have seen dozens of posts about how "dems forced banks to make bad loans" but when I provide proof, they won’t respond.

In fact, bush’s own top banking appointees have said the "cra had nothing to do with the crisis"

Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."

Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.

Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech:

Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC
December 17, 2008
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak.
What I’d like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool’s errand.

CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there’s plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.

Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.

You’ve heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.

Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth … pure and simple.

CRA isn’t perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".

Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.

CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank’s capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited.

That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can’t pay back. That’s a set up for failure.

Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages.

Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America.

So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

Bwany Fwank is a lib and a little research will revel the truth!!!

Bush appointees Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and FDIC Chairman Shelia Blair, both republicans, have stated that the CRA had nothing to do with the housing crisis.

In fact, bush’s top 2 banking appointees have stated that the CRA - community reinvestment act - has had absoutely nothing to do with the banking crisis.
Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."
Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.

Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in a speech:

Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC
December 17, 2008
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak.
What I’d like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool’s errand.
CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there’s plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.
Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.
You’ve heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.
Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth … pure and simple.
CRA isn’t perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".
Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.
CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank’s capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited.
That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can’t pay back. That’s a set up for failure.
Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages.
Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America.
So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

Because it was true. Loans made under the CRA, which has been law since the 1970’s, have a very low default rate and are an insignificant percentage of the mortgage loans outstanding.