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

[Care4all]

NY these CONS(a fitting name) really dont get it. They dont understand the moochers againt welfare concept, they dont understand how they actually pay less in taxes under Obama if they make less than 250k a year than they did under the bush tax cuts, they dont understand the need to infastructure, or a social safety net program. its almost a lost cause.

The reason I don't understand it jackass, is because I see my paycheck every single time and I see that I DON"T pay less than I used to.

Try thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating left wing talking point garbage.

yes you do pay less predfan...you are getting a tax break on SS taxes....anyone who pays SS is getting the tax break, so look again...

 

[IHBF]

Snopes is for dopes.

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to point out, with supporting evidence, what Snopes said that was not factually accurate.

Or, you could shut up and go away.

That would require me clicking the link to that terribly biased liberal POS site, and giving legs to this crappy thread.

But in a nutshell, Snopes uses a common tactic in many of the things they try to debunk. They'll take a statement that may not even be the main topic and then try to prove how that statement is false. It's a standard fallacy in arguing. I suspect you are an attorney, so you can probably give us the name.

OK, I clicked on the POS link. I see the claim is "Obama filed a lawsuit to require banks to 'make loans to poor people". OBVIOUSLY the lawsuit wasn't "to make loans to poor people". Duh. It was for "redlining". But what Snopes will do is say nope, huh, the whole thing is wrong because it didn't sue Citibank to "make loans to poor people".

The first paragraph they say "though there is a vague element of fact", then they go on to attack that exact email, not the main idea, that is used as an example. Here is a better version of the story than that email snopes uses:

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

The last sentence of second paragraph states that the result was citibank agreed to help ease the way for low income people to apply for mortgages. Read that sentence again. The result was citibank agreed to help ease the way for low income people to apply for mortgages.

First sentence of third paragraph: Barack Obama was involved in the case. Here is a prime example of another tactic snopes uses. They now try to diminish Obama's role in the lawsuit. Essentially they agree that there was a lawsuit and that it resulted in citibank not "redlining" and therefore loaning more money to low income people. But now it's oh no, well yeah, Obama was listed, but he didn't really do much. Funny cause his name is on it.

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000

More court docs:

Chicago 'Buycks' Lawsuit Plaintiffs

That's snopes does. Misleads. Finds a phrase it can debunk in some random email and uses that debunked phrase to represent the whole thing. That's why snopes is for dopes.

 

[zeke]

I tried to explain this yesterday.

Banks were regulated by the Community Reinvestment Act.

Sub prime mortgages were made primarily by mortgage brokers. And brokers were not regulated by CRA. Mortgage brokers do not have deposit accounts for customers.

And Obama brought suit on a bank. Citibank.

Therefore he did not force banks to make sub prime loans to anyone.

But Citi had a rep of discrimantory lending practices.

 

[paperview]

Snopes is for dopes.

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to point out, with supporting evidence, what Snopes said that was not factually accurate.

Or, you could shut up and go away.

The last sentence of second paragraph states that the result was citibank agreed to help ease the way for low income people to apply for mortgages. Read that sentence again. The result was citibank agreed to help ease the way for low income people to apply for mortgages.

First sentence of third paragraph: Barack Obama was involved in the case. Here is a prime example of another tactic snopes uses. They now try to diminish Obama's role in the lawsuit. Essentially they agree that there was a lawsuit and that it resulted in citibank not "redlining" and therefore loaning more money to low income people. But now it's oh no, well yeah, Obama was listed, but he didn't really do much. Funny cause his name is on it.

...
That's snopes does. Misleads. Finds a phrase it can debunk in some random email and uses that debunked phrase to represent the whole thing. That's why snopes is for dopes.

The only one misleading is you.



Maybe this little part escaped you:


Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois

snopes.com: Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People

Do you think it's OK to discriminate against loan applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories just because of their color?

 

[IHBF]

The only one misleading is you.



Maybe this little part escaped you:


Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois

snopes.com: Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People

Do you think it's OK to discriminate against loan applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories just because of their color?

Here's what the plaintiff's said: "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."

I believe banks should be able to not give loans to people for many reasons. Specifically denying an application simply based on race, is wrong. What evidence do you have that says they were denying people simply because of race?

Here's what escapes you: Barack Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago’s African-Americans.

That's a fact.

 

[AmyNation]

The only one misleading is you.



Maybe this little part escaped you:


Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois

snopes.com: Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People

Do you think it's OK to discriminate against loan applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories just because of their color?

Here's what the plaintiff's said: "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."

I believe banks should be able to not give loans to people for many reasons. Specifically denying an application simply based on race, is wrong. What evidence do you have that says they were denying people simply because of race?

Here's what escapes you: Barack Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago’s African-Americans.

That's a fact.

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In fairness to the Progressives here, Obama probably did not know enough about the law to write the brief, somebody else did that.

 

[8537]

The only one misleading is you.



Maybe this little part escaped you:


Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois

snopes.com: Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People

Do you think it's OK to discriminate against loan applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories just because of their color?

Here's what the plaintiff's said: "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."

I believe banks should be able to not give loans to people for many reasons. Specifically denying an application simply based on race, is wrong. What evidence do you have that says they were denying people simply because of race?

The FACT that a large number of people with equal credit worthiness applying for similar loans received different responses, and the rate of denial among one group was much higer than the other, is prima facie evidence of discrimination - intentional or not.

 

[Misty]

Sounds like he was involved to me:

"Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter. He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case:
Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods."

This also proves that banks were forced to loan money to people who couldn't pay the loans.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Poor folks in the ghetto deserve a home whether or not they can afford one or not...........The taxpayers and banks should have to provide this basic human right without consideration of credit worthiness.......

Bureaucrats can decide who "merits" these handouts..............

For the common good..........lol

 

[IHBF]

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

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Snopes is for dopes.

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to point out, with supporting evidence, what Snopes said that was not factually accurate.

Or, you could shut up and go away.

That would require me clicking the link to that terribly biased liberal POS site, and giving legs to this crappy thread.

But in a nutshell, Snopes uses a common tactic in many of the things they try to debunk. They'll take a statement that may not even be the main topic and then try to prove how that statement is false. It's a standard fallacy in arguing. I suspect you are an attorney, so you can probably give us the name.

OK, I clicked on the POS link. I see the claim is "Obama filed a lawsuit to require banks to 'make loans to poor people". OBVIOUSLY the lawsuit wasn't "to make loans to poor people". Duh. It was for "redlining". But what Snopes will do is say nope, huh, the whole thing is wrong because it didn't sue Citibank to "make loans to poor people".

The first paragraph they say "though there is a vague element of fact", then they go on to attack that exact email, not the main idea, that is used as an example. Here is a better version of the story than that email snopes uses:

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

The last sentence of second paragraph states that the result was citibank agreed to help ease the way for low income people to apply for mortgages. Read that sentence again. The result was citibank agreed to help ease the way for low income people to apply for mortgages.

First sentence of third paragraph: Barack Obama was involved in the case. Here is a prime example of another tactic snopes uses. They now try to diminish Obama's role in the lawsuit. Essentially they agree that there was a lawsuit and that it resulted in citibank not "redlining" and therefore loaning more money to low income people. But now it's oh no, well yeah, Obama was listed, but he didn't really do much. Funny cause his name is on it.

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000

More court docs:

Chicago 'Buycks' Lawsuit Plaintiffs

That's snopes does. Misleads. Finds a phrase it can debunk in some random email and uses that debunked phrase to represent the whole thing. That's why snopes is for dopes.

No. The email is misleading and the Daily Caller story is misleading. Go read the threads from yesterday.

If the Daily Caller was NOT misleading, why were people jumping into the thread and going on about how Obama caused the real estate meltdown, caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and on and on in that vein, while using the article as their basis?

 

[Dot Com]

Twenty threads by resident 'nuts over a years old spam email story that was thoroughly debunked long ago:

The rightwing internet tabloid Daily Caller revives this beauty:

snopes.com: Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People

and the Right goes wild...

...people, please, it's just an election. No need to let your hysteria become an embarassment.

yep. I knew about this

 

[IHBF]

Sounds like he was involved to me:

"Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter. He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case:
Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods."

This also proves that banks were forced to loan money to people who couldn't pay the loans.

Exactly.

 

[paperview]

The only one misleading is you.



Maybe this little part escaped you:


Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois

snopes.com: Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People

Do you think it's OK to discriminate against loan applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories just because of their color?

Here's what the plaintiff's said: "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."

I believe banks should be able to not give loans to people for many reasons. Specifically denying an application simply based on race, is wrong. What evidence do you have that says they were denying people simply because of race?

Here's what escapes you: Barack Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago’s African-Americans.

That's a fact.

No. That's not a fact.

Do you even know what a sub prime loan is?

It's for people with lower or bad credit...this wasn't what was happening, and this was before financial institutions started tinkering with ARMS and other various and eclectic products. Then of course later came the abominable no-docs loans...

But this was well before that.

THIS is what is necessary to let sink into your skull:

Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.

Seriously. Slow down and think about it.

You know the case was settled and it was not in Citibanks favor.

Know why? Because they were discriminating.

 

[IHBF]

No. The email is misleading and the Daily Caller story is misleading. Go read the threads from yesterday.

If the Daily Caller was NOT misleading, why were people jumping into the thread and going on about how Obama caused the real estate meltdown, caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and on and on in that vein, while using the article as their basis?

False. Snopes is misleading. That was my point.

The question is: was Obama involved in pressuring banks to give loans to people they knew were very risky and otherwise would have denied?

The answer is YES.

 

[8537]

Sounds like he was involved to me:

"Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter. He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case:
Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods."

This also proves that banks were forced to loan money to people who couldn't pay the loans.

Exactly.

Depository institutions are not allowed to discriminate in loan decisions based on race. If a bank want the security that comes along with government insurance they are required to issue loans based on objective loan criteria. Race is not objective loan criteria.

They weren't forced to loan to anyone - they were simply required to refrain from making decisions based on race.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Twenty threads by resident 'nuts over a years old spam email story that was thoroughly debunked long ago:

The rightwing internet tabloid Daily Caller revives this beauty:

snopes.com: Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People

and the Right goes wild...

...people, please, it's just an election. No need to let your hysteria become an embarassment.

Daily Caller is about as bad as Glenn Beck's Blaze.

 

[8537]

No. The email is misleading and the Daily Caller story is misleading. Go read the threads from yesterday.

If the Daily Caller was NOT misleading, why were people jumping into the thread and going on about how Obama caused the real estate meltdown, caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and on and on in that vein, while using the article as their basis?

False. Snopes is misleading. That was my point.

The question is: was Obama involved in pressuring banks to give loans to people they knew were very risky and otherwise would have denied?

The answer is YES.

Two people with equal credit scores, resources and credit history apply for a loan. Person (1) is white. Person (2) is black.

Is (2) more risky than (1)?

That's what Citibank was implying. the color of one's skin is not an indicator of ability to repay a loan.

 

[IHBF]

Did Barack Obama push banks to give subprime loans to Chicago’s African-Americans?