Obama & Dems to FORCE Banks to Make Risky loans AGAIN!

get_involved

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
2,046
Reaction score
427
Points
130
"Talk about not learning from past mistakes: A government department is again intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates, all in the name of combating "discrimination." Welcome to the next housing mess."

What a moron Obama is! The job is WAY over his head!

Mary Kissel: Justice's New War Against Lenders - WSJ.com
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
"Talk about not learning from past mistakes: A government department is again intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates, all in the name of combating "discrimination." Welcome to the next housing mess."

What a moron Obama is! The job is WAY over his head!

Mary Kissel: Justice's New War Against Lenders - WSJ.com

According to the article you linked to..

The government claimed that, in aggregate, African-Americans were charged more than other ethnic groups.
and the article also say that the Feds complaint that banks:

"failed to serve predominantly black areas on an equal basis with predominantly white areas" by not opening branches in majority-black areas or engaging in "effective outreach activities." Justice wants the bank to add nine counties to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.-approved geographic area where Cardinal does business.
NOWHERE does it really prove that the government is forcing banks to lend to peope who cannot afford the loans.

It says that it does that,

A government department is again intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates, all in the name of combating "discrimination." Welcome to the next housing mess.


but nowhere does it show an example of the Feds forcing banks to lend money.

It complains that the banks charge Blacks more money for the loans, and it complains that the banks don't have branches in redlined neighborhoods.
 

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Sometimes when a group is more at risk at defaulting on a loan they get charged more. It is kind of like Teenage drivers paying more as they are more likely to get into trouble on the road or fuck off and get drunk, crash.
 
Last edited:

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,117
Reaction score
15,855
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
but nowhere does it show an example of the Feds forcing banks to lend money.

It complains that the banks charge Blacks more money for the loans, and it complains that the banks don't have branches in redlined neighborhoods.
yeah, but the racist scum always blame the CRA for the crash and continue to harp on the same lies.
 

code1211

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
5,999
Reaction score
854
Points
48
"Talk about not learning from past mistakes: A government department is again intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates, all in the name of combating "discrimination." Welcome to the next housing mess."

What a moron Obama is! The job is WAY over his head!

Mary Kissel: Justice's New War Against Lenders - WSJ.com

According to the article you linked to..

The government claimed that, in aggregate, African-Americans were charged more than other ethnic groups.
and the article also say that the Feds complaint that banks:

"failed to serve predominantly black areas on an equal basis with predominantly white areas" by not opening branches in majority-black areas or engaging in "effective outreach activities." Justice wants the bank to add nine counties to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.-approved geographic area where Cardinal does business.
NOWHERE does it really prove that the government is forcing banks to lend to peope who cannot afford the loans.

It says that it does that,

A government department is again intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates, all in the name of combating "discrimination." Welcome to the next housing mess.


but nowhere does it show an example of the Feds forcing banks to lend money.

It complains that the banks charge Blacks more money for the loans, and it complains that the banks don't have branches in redlined neighborhoods.


As I drive through the rougher parts of town, these are the "Minority Areas", probably similar to those referred to in the article, I see the real reason for the reluctance to build banks in these areas.

Just for fun, go to the worst part of whatever town you might live in in. Around here, a good choice would be Lafeayette Square. Find a bank and walk in with a tape measure on your belt. Here is what will very likely happen:

1. the doors to the lobby automatically lock.
2. You are asked to empty your pockets into the tray.
3. The armed security gaurd will come to the other side of the 2 inch glass door and review the items in the tray and may ask for your identification.
4. Once it's established that you have legit business in the bank, you are allowed to enter.

This differs from the branch in my neighborhood in that there is not the auto locking vestibule, no valuables tray into which I will need to place my firearms and knives, no bullet proof glass, no armed security and no weekly robberies.

There is that little maze to form the line by. Man, that must cost a fortune.
 

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Wow, somehow charging a group that have shown to be riskier to give loan to is now RACIST. Well guest what- when a group be it teenage drivers or blacks that are far more likely to default on there loans they both are going to pay more. White teenagers or blacks looking for loans. The rules are what they're. Nothing racist about it...Of course blacks don't wish to be treated equally, but better or they will scream racist. BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!

:cuckoo:
 
Last edited:

code1211

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
5,999
Reaction score
854
Points
48
but nowhere does it show an example of the Feds forcing banks to lend money.

It complains that the banks charge Blacks more money for the loans, and it complains that the banks don't have branches in redlined neighborhoods.
yeah, but the racist scum always blame the CRA for the crash and continue to harp on the same lies.


There is probably no evidence showing that Gibson Guitars is getting pressure to unionize, either.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,024
Reaction score
3,213
Points
290
Location
Washington State
"Talk about not learning from past mistakes: A government department is again intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates, all in the name of combating "discrimination." Welcome to the next housing mess."

What a moron Obama is! The job is WAY over his head!

Mary Kissel: Justice's New War Against Lenders - WSJ.com

According to the article you linked to..

The government claimed that, in aggregate, African-Americans were charged more than other ethnic groups.
and the article also say that the Feds complaint that banks:

"failed to serve predominantly black areas on an equal basis with predominantly white areas" by not opening branches in majority-black areas or engaging in "effective outreach activities." Justice wants the bank to add nine counties to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.-approved geographic area where Cardinal does business.
NOWHERE does it really prove that the government is forcing banks to lend to peope who cannot afford the loans.

It says that it does that,

A government department is again intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates, all in the name of combating "discrimination." Welcome to the next housing mess.


but nowhere does it show an example of the Feds forcing banks to lend money.

It complains that the banks charge Blacks more money for the loans, and it complains that the banks don't have branches in redlined neighborhoods.
When you sue someone because they are not serving black arias then yes, you are FORCING them to serve that aria. That would include loans.

Note: the article does point out one such suit to AIG in 2010 that was settled. Do you not understand how this works?
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
Sometimes when a group is more at risk at defaulting on a loan they get charged more. It is kind of like Teenage drivers paying more as they are more likely to get into trouble on the road or fuck off and get drunk, crash.
Yes and there is no problem AFAIC, if that is what is happening.

So the question regarding overcharging Blacks for loans comes down to one question

IS IT TRUE?
 

code1211

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
5,999
Reaction score
854
Points
48
Sometimes when a group is more at risk at defaulting on a loan they get charged more. It is kind of like Teenage drivers paying more as they are more likely to get into trouble on the road or fuck off and get drunk, crash.
Yes and there is no problem AFAIC, if that is what is happening.

So the question regarding overcharging Blacks for loans comes down to one question

IS IT TRUE?


According to the facts, yes. The hard truth of the situation is that if a lender can make more money lending, that lender will lend. Are no-white peope always charged a higher rate or always UNpreferrred burrowers?

NO.

Asians repay at higher rates than whites. It's not the color of the skin. It's the color of the money.

Factors associated with student loan default among different racial and ethnic groups | Journal of Higher Education | Find Articles at BNET
Steve Sailer's iSteve Blog: Student loan default rates by ethnicity
http://aux.zicklin.baruch.cuny.edu/jrer/papers/pdf/past/vol18n02/v18p279.pdf
» Which Racial Groups Are The Most Likely To Default On Loans?
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
I'm stillwaiting for anyone to show me where this article says that

Obama & Dems to FORCE Banks to Make Risky loans AGAIN!
It's not in that article, folks.

 

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
84,438
Reaction score
15,917
Points
2,180
but nowhere does it show an example of the Feds forcing banks to lend money.

It complains that the banks charge Blacks more money for the loans, and it complains that the banks don't have branches in redlined neighborhoods.
yeah, but the racist scum always blame the CRA for the crash and continue to harp on the same lies.
Lawyer scum always lie about the truth.
 

yidnar

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
12,287
Reaction score
4,778
Points
315
Location
Inside your head.
but nowhere does it show an example of the Feds forcing banks to lend money.

It complains that the banks charge Blacks more money for the loans, and it complains that the banks don't have branches in redlined neighborhoods.
yeah, but the racist scum always blame the CRA for the crash and continue to harp on the same lies.
your credit rating is color blind!!thats the problem the blacks have with it!!the lower your rating the more interest you have to pay white or black!! but the blacks now expect affirmative lending!!:cuckoo::cuckoo:
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
51,708
Reaction score
16,127
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
The government claimed that, in aggregate, African-Americans were charged more than other ethnic groups.
Blacks are the lowest socioeconomic demographic in this country. They are likely charged more as a whole because they are a higher risk.

"failed to serve predominantly black areas on an equal basis with predominantly white areas" by not opening branches in majority-black areas or engaging in "effective outreach activities." Justice wants the bank to add nine counties to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.-approved geographic area where Cardinal does business.
NOWHERE does it really prove that the government is forcing banks to lend to people who cannot afford the loans.
But it says they're pressuring them to do business in areas where they may not make any money. Majority-black neighborhoods are typically poor and crime ridden so a lot of the services offered by the banks these people won't be able to qualify for. If these were areas where banks were able to profit then they'd already be there, not to mention the safety concerns of the employees who have to work there.

The government needs to stay the hell of it. It's none of their business where banks open their branches at.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
56,627
Reaction score
14,315
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
As usual, there are a number of problems with the OP.

First, the opinion piece is from the WSJ, a self-acknowledged rightist publication.

Second, it’s an opinion piece, it’s speculation – and as noted there are no facts presented, no documents cited establishing there’s a ‘war’ against lenders or that indeed the loans made have failed.

Third, the op-ed is predicated on the fallacy that minority borrowers are more prone to foreclose. Remember that the lending instruments provided minority and low income borrowers were a contrivance of the banks in an effort keep business going as home values skyrocketed. Most of the minority and low income borrowers entered into these agreements in good faith, believing they could refinance to a fixed APR in a few years when their homes’ values increased sufficiently. They, like the banks and the rest of us, did not foresee the housing market crash.

Finally, as noted in a much less hysterical and more objective analysis of the subject in the NY Times in January 2010, prior to the start of the investigations, the documented practice cited below used by lenders is more likely to cause foreclosure as opposed to the status of the borrower:
While past lending discrimination cases primarily focused on “redlining” — a bank’s refusal to lend to qualified borrowers in minority areas — the new push will instead center on a more recent phenomenon critics have called “reverse redlining.”

In reverse redlining, a mortgage brokerage or bank systematically singles out minority neighborhoods for loans with inferior terms like high up-front fees, high interest rates and lax underwriting practices. Because the original lender would typically resell such a loan after collecting its fees, it did not care about the risk of foreclosure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/us/14justice.html
In fact, therefore, the greater threat to increased foreclosures is the banks’ poor faith lending policies where ‘junk mortgages’ are created and sold to blow up on someone else’s doorstep. And the Administration is merely enforcing federal civil rights laws, prohibiting lending practices that have an adverse impact on minority borrowers.

Yet another non-issue from the right.
The OP is fail.
In essence, yes.

Lawyer scum always lie about the truth.
Typical of the right’s response when they lose the debate – personal attack.
 

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
16,319
Reaction score
7,480
Points
390
Location
The AL part of PA
The banks can hold their breath longer than the dems can. The bank stocks are crashing, so they can't loan money unless its a sure thing. The economy is cratering because the dems don't get the risk-reward thing, maybe "credit ratings" are racist too....C'mon 2012...
 

ColonialMarine

DEUS VULT
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
48
Reaction score
20
Points
6
Location
FLorida
I'm shocked!

You mean that blacks are more prone to have bad credit than whitey? Next you'll be telling me that black males are more prone to committing crime than white males!

Oh Lawdy! Whats we gonna do!:eek:
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top