NAACP: Bank Giants Steered Blacks to Bad Loans

[Bass v 2.0]

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.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

Aah ... so then they took the bad loans because they wanted bad loans. Well at least you learned something today.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Aah ... so then they took the bad loans because they wanted bad loans. Well at least you learned something today.

You're being an idiot, you made the claim that these "high-risk" applicants[which is a red herring in itself because the original focus of this topic was that 40% of blacks who took subprime loans were actually qualified for better loans and lesser rates but nonetheless were given subprime loans and targeted by subprime lenders] were thieves because they walked into banks knowing they would get this money because these same banks are forced to give them loans, that was your claim, as ridiculous as it sounds. If this is true please post evidence that these high risk applicants were acting in a thieving manner and post evidence that banks are forced to give these people loans.

 

[KittenKoder]

Aah ... so then they took the bad loans because they wanted bad loans. Well at least you learned something today.

You're being an idiot, you made the claim that these "high-risk" applicants[which is a red herring in itself because the original focus of this topic was that 40% of blacks who took subprime loans were actually qualified for better loans and lesser rates but nonetheless were given subprime loans and targeted by subprime lenders] were thieves because they walked into banks knowing they would get this money because these same banks are forced to give them loans, that was your claim, as ridiculous as it sounds. If this is true please post evidence that these high risk applicants were acting in a thieving manner and post evidence that banks are forced to give these people loans.

Oh, forgot about the laziness angle ... damn how did I miss that. So you are really calling them lazy. Ever see what happens when you get quotes and go from dealership to dealership when you buy a car, if you qualify for it that is? They fall all over you to make a deal, and eventually you get a really good price. Same holds true for loans ... so, perhaps you are not calling them thieves or idiots but instead are calling them lazy bums.

You can't win, because no matter what, a loan is optional, people do NOT have to sign the paper, so it's all on the person who asks for the loan. Whatever problems they create it's because they signed it, it's not the banks fault these people don't just walk away. If I had a cookie and offered it to you, you took it and it made you sick because you were allergic to something in the cookie, who's fault is it?

 

[editec]

Um, yeah .... thanks for conceding at least.

Yeah, no problem.

No point wasting our time if we can know nothing for sure, right?

Here's the thing, by relying on statistics you have completely ignored logic, this is why statistics are proving bad for our country. Especially those released by any media. Those are the ones most likely to be altered.

If the statistics are in doubt they are useless, I can agree to that.

If the statistics are valid, then that is reason to investigate exactly WHY those statistics are showing us what they are showing us.

Now, here is the logic:

No, here your assertions being offered as fact you are calling logic.

Don't you know the difference between facts and logic, Kitten?

No one was forced or tricked into getting a loan.

Forced? Of course not.

But tricked or cheated? The answer to THAT question really depends on those statistics.

Anyone who gets a loan they know they can't pay off is a thief.

True...not germane to this disucssion, but true.

Anyone who gets a loan without knowing whether they can pay it off is an idiot.

Likely ALSO true. Again, not germane, but definitely true.

Banks make money only if the loan is paid off.

Totally false. You obviously do not understand anything about this industry. Which, explains a LOT about you, I think.

Banks do not want to give loans to people who are not likely to pay it off because they lose too much money that way ... and wind up where most are falling now.

No actually, they don't. Since they do not keep the loans in their portfolio, they lose absolutely NOTHING if the loans go South.

How can you live in this world and come to a place like this, and not know that?

NAACP is interested in making a fuss, for as long as people think they are needed they will continue to get money themselves.

Yup! Which does nothing to prove you point, but hey..I'm getting used to talking to people whose ability to understand what is germane to a subject and what is not germane to the subject at hand is rather weak.

Most advocates are either paid for their work or crave attention so they will say anything outrageous to get these.

I totally have no idea what you're talking about.

People taking loans they cannot or do not intend to pay back are what ultimately caused the largest portion of the financial mess to be as bad as it is.

Really? I'd like to see the proof of that assetion.

Money has to come from somewhere, all debts must be paid for the system to work at all.

Okay, if you say so. Obviously I am no macroeconomist.

It is not the banks fault if someone with a certain skin color has a history of bouncing checks, not paying people back, or some other less than intelligent habit.

No shit?

The only way humans can succeed is if they first "stand up" themselves, and the more they are told that they are being oppressed the more they will oppress themselves.

Competely irrelevant to the issue we are discussing, dear.

Certainly true to some extent, but in no way relevant to the issue at hand.

The issue at hand, I will remind you is this:

Can we find STATISITCAL EVIDENCE which suggest that BLACKS with EQUAL CREDIT SCORES were given mortgages that were more expensive than WHITES of EQUAL CREDIT WORTHINESS.

If we CAN, then this is an important issue which must be addressed by our society.

If we cannot, then this issue is nonsense and nothing but whining.

It ALL depends on the FACTS.

The only germane response you have thus far offered is

The STATISTIC ARE LYING.

As yet, you have failed to support that contention with facts, but if you are right, then this issue is meaningless.

If you are WRONG, then it IS meaningful.

Pretty elementary logic, really.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Aah ... so then they took the bad loans because they wanted bad loans. Well at least you learned something today.

You're being an idiot, you made the claim that these "high-risk" applicants[which is a red herring in itself because the original focus of this topic was that 40% of blacks who took subprime loans were actually qualified for better loans and lesser rates but nonetheless were given subprime loans and targeted by subprime lenders] were thieves because they walked into banks knowing they would get this money because these same banks are forced to give them loans, that was your claim, as ridiculous as it sounds. If this is true please post evidence that these high risk applicants were acting in a thieving manner and post evidence that banks are forced to give these people loans.

Oh, forgot about the laziness angle ... damn how did I miss that. So you are really calling them lazy. Ever see what happens when you get quotes and go from dealership to dealership when you buy a car, if you qualify for it that is? They fall all over you to make a deal, and eventually you get a really good price. Same holds true for loans ... so, perhaps you are not calling them thieves or idiots but instead are calling them lazy bums.

You can't win, because no matter what, a loan is optional, people do NOT have to sign the paper, so it's all on the person who asks for the loan. Whatever problems they create it's because they signed it, it's not the banks fault these people don't just walk away. If I had a cookie and offered it to you, you took it and it made you sick because you were allergic to something in the cookie, who's fault is it?

The burden of proof is still on you to prove your claim, that you got your panties in a bind is not the Bass' concern. The Bass has demonstrated how these banks practice predatory lending and mortgage discrimination, you have shown no proof that these people are dumb, thieves, etc, nor have you shown that banks were forced to give them loans which means your entire counter argument is worthless garbage, you're just arguing for the hell of it and trolling as usual.

 

[KittenKoder]

You're being an idiot, you made the claim that these "high-risk" applicants[which is a red herring in itself because the original focus of this topic was that 40% of blacks who took subprime loans were actually qualified for better loans and lesser rates but nonetheless were given subprime loans and targeted by subprime lenders] were thieves because they walked into banks knowing they would get this money because these same banks are forced to give them loans, that was your claim, as ridiculous as it sounds. If this is true please post evidence that these high risk applicants were acting in a thieving manner and post evidence that banks are forced to give these people loans.

Oh, forgot about the laziness angle ... damn how did I miss that. So you are really calling them lazy. Ever see what happens when you get quotes and go from dealership to dealership when you buy a car, if you qualify for it that is? They fall all over you to make a deal, and eventually you get a really good price. Same holds true for loans ... so, perhaps you are not calling them thieves or idiots but instead are calling them lazy bums.

You can't win, because no matter what, a loan is optional, people do NOT have to sign the paper, so it's all on the person who asks for the loan. Whatever problems they create it's because they signed it, it's not the banks fault these people don't just walk away. If I had a cookie and offered it to you, you took it and it made you sick because you were allergic to something in the cookie, who's fault is it?

The burden of proof is still on you to prove your claim, that you got your panties in a bind is not the Bass' concern. The Bass has demonstrated how these banks practice predatory lending and mortgage discrimination, you have shown no proof that these people are dumb, thieves, etc, nor have you shown that banks were forced to give them loans which means your entire counter argument is worthless garbage, you're just arguing for the hell of it and trolling as usual.

Oooh ... the irony ... the irony. You have not proven your claim yet, not with logic or reality, so until you do my proof is irrelevant. Funny thing is I have the proof, just waiting for you to prove yours first since you are incapable of looking up laws on your own.

So, if I offered you a cookie, you took it and it made you sick because you were allergic to something in it, who's fault is it? The question works with anything ... answer this one question first, then I will explain why you fail at logic.

 

[Ravi]

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 banks weren't forced to give loans to high risk borrowers.

Um ... yes they were. Look back at what Clinton did. I liked the guy but some of his policies were just wrong.

Show me the law then that forced banks to make bad loans.

You are being as obtuse as the Bass. No one FORCED anyone to take a bad loan and no one FORCED any bank to make a bad loan.

 

[KittenKoder]

The banks weren't forced to give loans to high risk borrowers.

Um ... yes they were. Look back at what Clinton did. I liked the guy but some of his policies were just wrong.

Show me the law then that forced banks to make bad loans.

You are being as obtuse as the Bass. No one FORCED anyone to take a bad loan and no one FORCED any bank to make a bad loan.

Answer my cookie question first.

 

[Ravi]

Ah, Kitten, I see where you are mistaken.

Banks make money only if the loan is paid off.

This is simply not true...the banks sold the bad loans, they passed on the risk...so they made money until the end of the ponzi pyramid was reached. And then it wasn't the bank that gave the original loan that lost money, it was whoever was holding that loan (cut into thousands of pieces) when the market fell apart.

 

[KittenKoder]

Ah, Kitten, I see where you are mistaken.

Banks make money only if the loan is paid off.

This is simply not true...the banks sold the bad loans, they passed on the risk...so they made money until the end of the ponzi pyramid was reached. And then it wasn't the bank that gave the original loan that lost money, it was whoever was holding that loan (cut into thousands of pieces) when the market fell apart.

So, if I offered you a cookie, you took it and it made you sick because you were allergic to something in it, who's fault is it?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Kittertroller is obviously an idiot, banks make their money through the interest they charge on loans, the longer you pay on the loan the more money they make, which is why they like to refinance loans so frequently and extend them. The faster a loan is paid off the less money a bank makes, some even charge penalties for paying back money too fast.

 

[KittenKoder]

Kittertroller is obviously an idiot, banks make their money through the interest they charge on loans, the longer you pay on the loan the more money they make, which is why they like to refinance loans so frequently and extend them. The faster a loan is paid off the less money a bank makes, some even charge penalties for paying back money too fast.

So, if I offered you a cookie, you took it and it made you sick because you were allergic to something in it, who's fault is it?

 

[Ravi]

Ah, Kitten, I see where you are mistaken.

Banks make money only if the loan is paid off.

This is simply not true...the banks sold the bad loans, they passed on the risk...so they made money until the end of the ponzi pyramid was reached. And then it wasn't the bank that gave the original loan that lost money, it was whoever was holding that loan (cut into thousands of pieces) when the market fell apart.

So, if I offered you a cookie, you took it and it made you sick because you were allergic to something in it, who's fault is it?

lol, I've already posted that no one was forced to take the loans, silly. Now show me the law that you claim forces banks to make bad loans.

 

[KittenKoder]

Ah, Kitten, I see where you are mistaken.

This is simply not true...the banks sold the bad loans, they passed on the risk...so they made money until the end of the ponzi pyramid was reached. And then it wasn't the bank that gave the original loan that lost money, it was whoever was holding that loan (cut into thousands of pieces) when the market fell apart.

So, if I offered you a cookie, you took it and it made you sick because you were allergic to something in it, who's fault is it?

lol, I've already posted that no one was forced to take the loans, silly. Now show me the law that you claim forces banks to make bad loans.

So then why are you blaming the banks for these people fucking up?

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

That's one.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The banks weren't forced to give loans to high risk borrowers.

Um ... yes they were. Look back at what Clinton did. I liked the guy but some of his policies were just wrong.

Show me the law then that forced banks to make bad loans.

You are being as obtuse as the Bass. No one FORCED anyone to take a bad loan and no one FORCED any bank to make a bad loan.

The Bass isn't being obtuse but asking the same damn questions. Taxpayers are footing the bill for the predatory and greedy tactics of these banks and their subprime loans but the Bass finds it hard to believe that misinformed idiots continue to heap the blame on those who are getting victimized.

 

[KittenKoder]

Um ... yes they were. Look back at what Clinton did. I liked the guy but some of his policies were just wrong.

Show me the law then that forced banks to make bad loans.

You are being as obtuse as the Bass. No one FORCED anyone to take a bad loan and no one FORCED any bank to make a bad loan.

The Bass isn't being obtuse but asking the same damn questions. Taxpayers are footing the bill for the predatory and greedy tactics of these banks and their subprime loans but the Bass finds it hard to believe that misinformed idiots continue to heap the blame on those who are getting victimized.

dumbAss (have I used that one yet? don't think I have, yeah, dumbAss works)

So, if I offered you a cookie, you took it and it made you sick because you were allergic to something in it, who's fault is it?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

So, if I offered you a cookie, you took it and it made you sick because you were allergic to something in it, who's fault is it?

lol, I've already posted that no one was forced to take the loans, silly. Now show me the law that you claim forces banks to make bad loans.

So then why are you blaming the banks for these people fucking up?

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

That's one.

Nothing in that links shows any definitive proof that the law forced banks into giving high risk applicants loans.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Show me the law then that forced banks to make bad loans.

You are being as obtuse as the Bass. No one FORCED anyone to take a bad loan and no one FORCED any bank to make a bad loan.

The Bass isn't being obtuse but asking the same damn questions. Taxpayers are footing the bill for the predatory and greedy tactics of these banks and their subprime loans but the Bass finds it hard to believe that misinformed idiots continue to heap the blame on those who are getting victimized.

dumbAss (have I used that one yet? don't think I have, yeah, dumbAss works)

So, if I offered you a cookie, you took it and it made you sick because you were allergic to something in it, who's fault is it?

Jackass, who's suffering, the ones who predicated the greedy behaviour or the taxpayers and those who lost their homes? While you whine and complain that people took the bad loans, the predatory jackass who masterminded these bad loans are rewarding themselves with bonuses, paid by you and the rest of us taxpayers.

 

[xotoxi]

Show me the law then that forced banks to make bad loans.

You are being as obtuse as the Bass. No one FORCED anyone to take a bad loan and no one FORCED any bank to make a bad loan.

The Bass isn't being obtuse but asking the same damn questions. Taxpayers are footing the bill for the predatory and greedy tactics of these banks and their subprime loans but the Bass finds it hard to believe that misinformed idiots continue to heap the blame on those who are getting victimized.

dumbAss (have I used that one yet? don't think I have, yeah, dumbAss works)

So, if I offered you a cookie, you took it and it made you sick because you were allergic to something in it, who's fault is it?

Dumbass. That's a good one!