Bass v 2.0
Biblical Warrior For God.
- Thread starter
- #61
To swindle means they were tricked into it completely. With loans they have to go in with the intent to take one, so that doesn't fit either. They went into the bank asking for a loan (or called them or mailed them ... whatever) and therefore had the intent to get it already. The bank then assess what the risk is based on the numbers (generally finances and credit rating because there are too many people willing to take advantage of a loan if given the chance). The rates they get are generally based on how much of a risk they are which is formulated by their past and present situation. The banks however were forced by law to give loans to really high risk borrowers, thus they were really the ones forced to take chances. When banks are forced to take these chances it never works out, period, and we who aren't stupid enough to live beyond what we earn are the ones that have to pay for it the most.
The Bass yet to see any law that *FORCES* banks into giving loans to high-risk borrowers, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this.
You really are short sighted. Every time someone proves something is different than what you want it to be you dismiss it, no matter how definitive the proof is. This is why there is no burden, you will ignore it completely anyway, just as I now ignore all your "proof" as well, the difference is I have a logical reason for ignoring what you have posted, where-as you have shown no such logic.
You have also not proven that anyone was ever forced to sign a loan.
You made the claim that banks were forced to give loans to high-risk applicants and the burden of proof is on you to validate that claim, the Bass made no claims that people were forced to take bad loans.