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 homesÂ’ 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.
Justice Dept. Fights Bias in Lending - NYTimes.com
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.
In essence, yes.
Lawyer scum always lie about the truth.
Typical of the right’s response when they lose the debate – personal attack.
