edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,883
- 1,830
Wrong again! Your IBD link tried to make it look like the minorities were not qualified for the loans, but if you remember the banks got stung by the media. Reporters sent in black couples with identical credit information as white couples sent in second. The black couples were rejected and the white couples accepted. So white couples with the identical "poor credit" as the blacks were given loans in spite of the crap from the dishonest IBD.And you CON$ never attack "the Liberal Media"Attack the source, not that facts. LOL! You all wonder why you keep losing?
And I did attack the facts, that the CRA addressed REDLINING, involved QUALIFIED minorities and had nothing to do with Bush's housing crash, but you couldn't rebut that so you chose to divert by defending IBD, which has no credibility to begin with and this is yet another example of that lack.
I'm not a 'conz' though I will say, no, I'm not going after left media.
There was no claim about CRA not being about 'red-lining', quite the contrary and the obvious attempt to segue differently makes you the loser of today.
From your link:
"The study did not take into account a host of other relevant data factoring into denials, including applicants net worth, debt burden and employment record. Other variables, such as the size of down payments and the amount of the loans sought to the value of the property being bought, also were left out of the analysis. It also failed to consider whether the borrower submitted information that could not be verified, the presence of a cosigner and even the loan amount.
When these missing data were factored in, it became clear that the rejection rates were based on legitimate business decisions, not racism."