cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Here we go again.

snip-

The 1990s may have brought us supercharged politicized lending, but Eric Holder's Department of Justice is taking the game to an entirely new level, and then some. The weapon is a "fair lending" unit created in early 2010, led by special counsel Eric Halperin and overseen by Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez.

A sampling of Mr. Perez's thinking, from April 2010 congressional testimony: "The foreclosure crisis has touched virtually every community in this country, but it disproportionately touches communities of color, in particular African-Americans and Latinos." And: "[C]ross burnings are the most overt form of discrimination and bigotry. Lending discrimination is some of the most subtle. It's what I call discrimination with a smile."

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904199404576538283776006582.html

 

 

They have played their racist card so much it is now blank on both sides. I'm sure "fair lending" will be a big part of the Obama "jobs" program.

17 Replies
Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: Here we go again.

Yes, here we go again. The suggesting that government is forcing bank to lend to people not credit worthy. The truth is government is telling banks that they shouldn't discrimanate against blacks and latinos that ARE credit worthy.

 

It sthe same bull scat that was spread during our housing crisis that banks were forced to make bad loans. They were not. They made bad loans because they could sell them and make a profit on them. Yet they choose to blame the big bad goberment for making them loan to po folks.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Here we go again.

What percentage of illegals and unemployed African Americans can pay off a loan?

 

"The most recent figures show African American joblessness at 16.2 percent. For black males, it's at 17.5 percent; And for black teens, it's nearly 41 percent."

Veteran Advisor

Re: Here we go again.

I agree.  The banks were not MADE to give loans to minorities with bad credit.
More along the lines of what happened, was that banks were encouraged to loan to minorities, and the government said that they'd foot the bill if the loans went bad, and when they did, the banks got a nice bailout, I don't even think I have to go into what happened with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.

The problem with this, is that in my opinion, it actually HURT a lot of the minorities it was intended to help.  I don't have any stats, just a personal story.  I don't know how widespread, this sort of thing is, it could be only this family, or it could be a lot of families.  I am only speaking for the one I know of.

Carlos is a nice guy, who applied for a loan to buy a house.  An immigrant on his way to becoming a citizen, he wanted a house for his family they could call their own.  The banker talked him into more house than he could really afford (more profit for the bank, that way, and no risk as the Gov't would buy the loan from the bank, from what I understand).
Well, hard times hit, and Carlos's wife was out of work for a while.  They went into default, and now Carlos is working extra hours, running a chain saw, clearing brush, with his cousins, to keep his house from being re-possessed.  The bank got their money, and the governent is doing a re-finance, with the taxpayers making up the difference.  Had it not been for the government assurances of covering the loan for a 'minority', Carlos would have wound up buying a smaller, fixer-upper house, which they could have afforded, even when his wife was off work.  He only bought the bigger house, because the banker talked him into it.  Had the bank been the one taking the risk, neither Carlos, nor us taxpayers would be footing the bill for this mess.

Maybe Carlos was trusting to the point of being gullible, but I believe him 100% when he said the banker guaranteed him that it would all be well in his budget, he just made the mistake of thinking that a banker always tells the truth.  My experience is that some bankers only tell as much truth as they need to, to make the most money, and keep them from being charged with fraud.

Highlighted

Re: Here we go again.

Hi Nebfarmer,

 

You're a latecomer here so I'll give you some space.

 

Your boys already lost that argument here many times over.

 

Not going back into it- it would be like the Yankees getting forced to replay their exhibition game with the AAA affiliate over and ovre again.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

.

 
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Just more conjecture and opinion from Kraft

Yep, cougar. They walked right up, put a gun to their head and said, Give em' a loan or we blow your heads off. They (the banks) are indepentant entities, the government can't make them do anything, and they didn't. Nice try though. 

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

.

 
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Here we go again.

I guess I needed to do more looking into this.  I guess it goes to show you, don't believe everything you are told, but find out the story for yourself.

 

Here is a video of Maxene Waters, giving a recommendation to President Obama, about what to do about banks who aren't giving favorable enough loan terms to minorities:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kJbBV-Ntwic

 

Not a gun to the head, but not exactly a 'suggestion', either.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: What, all blow and nothing to show?

It's only "hot air" because I didn't fall down on my knees and praise your view. Fact is my friend, I am closer to the truth than you are.

THE BANKS, WEREN'T FORCED TO DO ANYTHING, THEY SAW A CHANCE TO MAKE MORE MONEY, THEY WERE BEING GREEDY, AND GOT CAUGHT.