Ha! Today's Obama/sub-prime Story turns out to be Lie of the Day.

[paperview]

That's true, or ... They could have given less loans to white people.

They should have given a lot less loans in generally. They must certainly should not have been pressured to give loans to people they knew would fail.

As few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes with clean credit ratings.

Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bear Stearns, and Morgan Stanley were not pressured to give loans to people they knew would fail. This is one of the dumbest of the persistent memes still out there.

The broker dealers of Wall Street were not subject to the CRA. No one was pressuring them to make these toxic loans except themselves. They needed to make the loans to use as the fuel for the derivatives products they were selling to meet the $70 trillion demand for them. And that demand was coming from your health insurance company, your public employee pension fund, your 401k manager, hedge funds, your city treasurer, and many, many more sources. Their demand was the pressure behind the toxic loans being supplied.

And they didn't use just mortgages. They used auto loans, credit cards, and sovereign bonds.

Yeah. Sovereign bonds. Did you think the meltdown currently underway in Europe was a SEPARATE problem?

You probably did, considering the idiocy of your post.

This CRA meme was invented in late 2008 by people with a political agenda who have no clue as to the nature of the global derivatives bubble. They cannot see the forest for the trees. The forest being this was a GLOBAL bubble. On a relative scale, Ireland's real estate bubble dwarfed ours. So did Iceland's. And Spain's.

Most of the Western world had a property bubble, but the ignoramuses seem to be deaf, dumb, and blind to that simple fact. They can't name a single foreign bank that melted down at the same time ours did, because that does not fit their mad narrative, even though that list is quite long.

Blaming the CRA is the epitome of stupidity. It does not get any dumber.

"It was those damned negroes of Iceland, I tell ya!"


.

 

[g5000]

What the results of the lawsuit tells us is that white people had been getting shitty loans all along they should not have gotten.

Therefore, the banks had been making shitty loans without being forced to. The toxic loans were self-inflicted.

The blacks sued to be given the same shitty loans the white people were getting.

You see, the banks threw the underwriting laws of the Universe out the window because they believed their derivative products had eliminated risk. But their models were completely wrong.

If the banks had tightened their underwriting rules, they would have been denying those shitty loans to those white people with shitty credit, and then the black people with shitty credit would not have had a leg to stand on in their lawsuit.

.

 

[Mustang]

What the results of the lawsuit tells us is that white people had been getting shitty loans all along they should not have gotten.

Therefore, the banks had been making shitty loans without being forced to. The toxic loans were self-inflicted.

The blacks sued to be given the same shitty loans the white people were getting.

You see, the banks threw the underwriting laws of the Universe out the window because they believed their derivative products had eliminated risk. But their models were completely wrong.

If the banks had tightened their underwriting rules, they would have been denying those shitty loans to those white people with shitty credit, and then the black people with shitty credit would not have had a leg to stand on in their lawsuit.

.

The banks didn't throw out their underwriting rules due to any belief that their derivative products eliminated risk because they didn't hold ON to the risk. They sold it on the secondary market.

 

[IHBF]

What the results of the lawsuit tells us is that white people had been getting shitty loans all along they should not have gotten.

Therefore, the banks had been making shitty loans without being forced to. The toxic loans were self-inflicted.

The blacks sued to be given the same shitty loans the white people were getting.

You see, the banks threw the underwriting laws of the Universe out the window because they believed their derivative products had eliminated risk. But their models were completely wrong.

If the banks had tightened their underwriting rules, they would have been denying those shitty loans to those white people with shitty credit, and then the black people with shitty credit would not have had a leg to stand on in their lawsuit.

.

Thanks for bringing this back to the point:

Barack Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago’s African-Americans

Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago blacks | The Daily Caller

Obama is guilty of being a part of the cause of the big ass mess, but because he lacks integrity, he blames Bush but not himself.

 

[zeke]

no, he participated in a lawsuit that required Citibank to stop making loan decisions based on race in violation of the Fair Housing Act.

Their decision wasn't based on race. Here's the plaintiff's claim again:

"the percentage of loan applications approved by Citibank was far lower in areas where the racial composition of the neighborhood was predominantly African-American than it was in areas where the composition of the neighborhood was predominantly White."

The loans were approved at a lower rate in areas where more Black people happened to live.

Obama pressured citibank to approve loans to these people. As few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes.

Your bias seems to give you a serious comprehension problem.

Whites with the same credit history were being given loans that blacks were being denied. Think about that real hard. Think about what that means.

If blacks were then given loans at the same rate as whites, and those loans failed, what does that tell you about the quality of the loans being given to the whites who had been getting them all along?

Think real hard. It will come to you.

There were and are lots of ways to "red line" a neighborhood. Appraisals are one way. Telling loan officers to not solicit business from certain realtors is another. Excluding zip codes from phone bank activity calling for refinance loans is a good way. Having loan officers work 100% commission is another. (which would you rather write, a 200K loan with excellent credit or a 40K loan with problems duh?) I have even seen loan officers, in reviewing recorded phone messages, pick out the ones that sounded "black" and not even return the call. I have seen loan officers switch a black borrower who would qualify for a conforming loan to a non conforming loan because they could make much more commission.

Yes sir there was some discriminating and cheating people going on.

 

[8537]

That's true, or ... They could have given less loans to white people.

They should have given a lot less loans in generally. They must certainly should not have been pressured to give loans to people they knew would fail.

As few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes with clean credit ratings.

Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bear Stearns, and Morgan Stanley were not pressured to give loans to people they knew would fail. This is one of the dumbest of the persistent memes still out there.

The broker dealers of Wall Street were not subject to the CRA. No one was pressuring them to make these toxic loans except themselves. They needed to make the loans to use as the fuel for the derivatives products they were selling to meet the $70 trillion demand for them. And that demand was coming from your health insurance company, your public employee pension fund, your 401k manager, hedge funds, your city treasurer, and many, many more sources. Their demand was the pressure behind the toxic loans being supplied.

And they didn't use just mortgages. They used auto loans, credit cards, and sovereign bonds.

Yeah. Sovereign bonds. Did you think the meltdown currently underway in Europe was a SEPARATE problem?

You probably did, considering the idiocy of your post.

This CRA meme was invented in late 2008 by people with a political agenda who have no clue as to the nature of the global derivatives bubble. They cannot see the forest for the trees. The forest being this was a GLOBAL bubble. On a relative scale, Ireland's real estate bubble dwarfed ours. So did Iceland's. And Spain's.

Most of the Western world had a property bubble, but the ignoramuses seem to be deaf, dumb, and blind to that simple fact. They can't name a single foreign bank that melted down at the same time ours did, because that does not fit their mad narrative, even though that list is quite long.

Blaming the CRA is the epitome of stupidity. It does not get any dumber.

"It was those damned negroes of Iceland, I tell ya!"


.

^This post should be required reading before anyone participates in a thread on this topic. Well stated, sir.

 

[8537]

Obama "helmed" the lawsuit? Lol.

A guy that booked 2% of the hours "helmed" it. Even when Tucker Carlson lies he can't keep his facts straight.

 

[IHBF]

Obama "helmed" the lawsuit? Lol.

A guy that booked 2% of the hours "helmed" it. Even when Tucker Carlson lies he can't keep his facts straight.

Obama was a part of it, therefore responsible for those shitty loans that contributed to the economic mess.

But Obama blames Bush.

 

[8537]

Obama "helmed" the lawsuit? Lol.

A guy that booked 2% of the hours "helmed" it. Even when Tucker Carlson lies he can't keep his facts straight.

Obama was a part of it, therefore responsible for those shitty loans that contributed to the economic mess.

But Obama blames Bush.

Did he "helm" the lawsuit? Or do you just like the taste of Tucker Carlson's boot?

And "shitty loans"? You still haven't answered my question about equally-qualified borrowers and race.

 

[zeke]

Obama "helmed" the lawsuit? Lol.

A guy that booked 2% of the hours "helmed" it. Even when Tucker Carlson lies he can't keep his facts straight.

Obama was a part of it, therefore responsible for those shitty loans that contributed to the economic mess.

But Obama blames Bush.

Good god you are stupid. I have read at least 5 good explanations about what was going on, and you still persist saying the same shit.

You can't fix stupid. Can you read?

 

[IHBF]

Obama "helmed" the lawsuit? Lol.

A guy that booked 2% of the hours "helmed" it. Even when Tucker Carlson lies he can't keep his facts straight.

Obama was a part of it, therefore responsible for those shitty loans that contributed to the economic mess.

But Obama blames Bush.

Good god you are stupid. I have read at least 5 good explanations about what was going on, and you still persist saying the same shit.

You can't fix stupid. Can you read?

You have excuses. You can't admit Obama was part of the problem. Therefore, it is futile to have further discussion with you about all the causes. You can't admit that fact. Admit it. Obama was part of the cause.

 

[8537]

Obama was a part of it, therefore responsible for those shitty loans that contributed to the economic mess.

But Obama blames Bush.

Good god you are stupid. I have read at least 5 good explanations about what was going on, and you still persist saying the same shit.

You can't fix stupid. Can you read?

You have excuses. You can't admit Obama was part of the problem. Therefore, it is futile to have further discussion with you about all the causes. You can't admit that fact. Admit it. Obama was part of the cause.

How did barring a bank from discriminating against blacks cause the financial collapse?

Would allowing banks to discriminate against blacks make the housing mess better today?

 

[IHBF]

Good god you are stupid. I have read at least 5 good explanations about what was going on, and you still persist saying the same shit.

You can't fix stupid. Can you read?

You have excuses. You can't admit Obama was part of the problem. Therefore, it is futile to have further discussion with you about all the causes. You can't admit that fact. Admit it. Obama was part of the cause.

How did barring a bank from discriminating against blacks cause the financial collapse?

Would allowing banks to discriminate against blacks make the housing mess better today?

Until you can admit that Obama's involvement contributed to the economic collapse, there is no point discussing this with you.

If you can't admit that fact, we have nothing to go further with. It's that simple. Admit it. You'll feel better.

 

[8537]

You have excuses. You can't admit Obama was part of the problem. Therefore, it is futile to have further discussion with you about all the causes. You can't admit that fact. Admit it. Obama was part of the cause.

How did barring a bank from discriminating against blacks cause the financial collapse?

Would allowing banks to discriminate against blacks make the housing mess better today?

Until you can admit that Obama's involvement contributed to the economic collapse, there is no point discussing this with you.

No, you start from a false premise. You are working under a construct that believes applying the exact same lending criteria to people in black neighborhoods is a greater risk than doing so in white neighborhoods.

Until you (Or Citibank!) can justify that construct, you will continue to be wrong. So go ahead, attempt to justify it.

 

[paperview]

You have excuses. You can't admit Obama was part of the problem. Therefore, it is futile to have further discussion with you about all the causes. You can't admit that fact. Admit it. Obama was part of the cause.

How did barring a bank from discriminating against blacks cause the financial collapse?

Would allowing banks to discriminate against blacks make the housing mess better today?

Until you can admit that Obama's involvement contributed to the economic collapse, there is no point discussing this with you.

If you can't admit that fact, we have nothing to go further with. It's that simple. Admit it. You'll feel better.

Can't you just answer his fucking question?

 

[8537]

How did barring a bank from discriminating against blacks cause the financial collapse?

Would allowing banks to discriminate against blacks make the housing mess better today?

Until you can admit that Obama's involvement contributed to the economic collapse, there is no point discussing this with you.

If you can't admit that fact, we have nothing to go further with. It's that simple. Admit it. You'll feel better.

Can't you just answer his fucking question?

Apparently not!

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have excuses. You can't admit Obama was part of the problem. Therefore, it is futile to have further discussion with you about all the causes. You can't admit that fact. Admit it. Obama was part of the cause.

How did barring a bank from discriminating against blacks cause the financial collapse?

Would allowing banks to discriminate against blacks make the housing mess better today?

Until you can admit that Obama's involvement contributed to the economic collapse, there is no point discussing this with you.

If you can't admit that fact, we have nothing to go further with. It's that simple. Admit it. You'll feel better.

He had nothing to do with the collapse. Stop being such a fucking pussy.

 

[jillian]

Snopes?

don't like snopes now?

you crack me up

 

[NYcarbineer]

I suggest you read the lawsuit, because you haven't.

It was a racial discrimination lawsuit. It had nothing to do with forcing banks to make sub-prime loans.

That is correct!
And it was settled OUT of court.
BUT it did leave a strong impression on lending community that IF they didn't relax lending requirements ACORN/et.al. THREATENED to lead protests, boycotts,etc. of any lenders that didn't comply.

Not true. The banks were already into the subprime loan business, and glad to be in it.