Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice.
“… the Justice Department has asked several banks to relax their mortgage underwriting standards and approve loans for minorities with poor credit as part of a new crackdown on alleged discrimination.
And to think we laughed at Peggy Joseph.
h/t R. Black
Couch:
How long ago did happen? If entire neighbourhoods do not qualify for a mortgage, just call in the NINJA state. No income? No job? No problem.
What happened with the last remedy?
Are you a maroon or do you just have selective memory?
Divan:
In Canada, when the banks did not lend money, people formed these wacky organizations called credit unions.
Get the hint?
Obama doubles down on yet another poor economic play.
It won’t be long before Americans & Canadians are eating dirt.
With no electricity
Thats what the Indoniesian wants. The bums to eat the food of the real providers. Just because of skin color. hat used to be called racism, now its Equality.
Davenport – at the risk of being overly blunt, I’d be very reluctant to lend money to someone who lived next to a – how you say? – crack house, even if that individual seemed okay. Please note that I am not saying that all minorities live in crime-ridden neighborhoods; for example, Asians don’t. (That was a joke. Don’t call the thought police, who I assume you have on speed-dial.)
We’re not talking skin colour, we’re talking risk factors and you know it. Eric Holder wouldn’t lend that guy money either. Why is he under the impression that sticking up banks is part of his job?
What a nightmare this administration is.
davenport – could you provide evidence that the bank was refusing a loan to someone who could financially afford a loan but was ‘black’ or ‘was living in the wrong neighbourhood’?
Are you suggesting that there was some kind of expected population ratio for loans to low income people? Why should there be? The loan should only be given if there is a reasonable expectation that it would be repaid. Period. Obviously, such a ratio would be very very low.
And if someone is living in an area of low income, then one has to consider very carefully whether such a loan would be repaid.
Prove that ‘redlining’ was in evidence.
Banks aren’t charities. They are using the money from individuals..to invest..in loans. They have no right to throw this money away on loans that will not be repaid.
To approve loans to minorities – or anyone – with poor credit is irresponsible. What’s going on?
Obama is campaigning…that’s what is going on. He’s after the minority vote and particularly, the black and hispanic vote. He’s buying them..
If we group the illegal income earners in America that a legitimate Mortgage (income verified by tax return) is not available….The housing industry is giving up a 1.5 trillion market… The racial BULL is just a cover to open the back door for the gangster factor of the Chicago punk…. How are the OBama/Pelosi drug mules going to live in California, or other distribution centers if they can’t spend thier money on Mortgages?
This is why we need TAX reform. Flat Tax on income with a sales Consumption tax….
Enough Smoke & Mirrors
Slap:
Are you an American? You use the term we.
“Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it,” goes the saying. So how on earth can they have forgotten the history already when it is still doing its damage? We don’t like to believe that they actually WANT collapse, but if this activity continues so blatantly, then what other conclusion is there?
The road to hell is paved with the purportedly good intentions of “anti-discrimination”.
What follows is the political correctness agenda.
The Frankfurt School recommended the following:
1. The creation of racism offences
2. Continual change to cause confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools and teachers authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of the media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/riteman/riteway/16308802/a-conspiracy-to-undermine-western-values/
To find this in a hurry, I usually just Google “creation of racism offences” and go from there.
You say “discrimination” like its a bad thing.
Discrimination is the BUSINESS of banks and insurance companies. They have to weigh factors and play the odds. They look not just at the individual, but at group histories: do women live longer, are they worse drivers.
Banks had decades of data showing that certain groups of people were better risks than others, and had fewer assets to act as collateral.
No, it may not seem “fair” that they were judging by group and not individual.
Life isn’t fair. And the banking system had been more or less sound for generations by working on that basis, bringing prosperity and security to many.
Via HUD in 2004:
“Blacks, Hispanics, and those in judicial foreclosure states and underserved areas have higher conditional loss rates, other things the same.”
Note; “other things being the same.”
Weird, huh?
But under Fannie/Freddy, Banks were obliged to STOP “discriminating.” and the financial system collapsed.
You got the “equality” and “social justice” you wanted. It lasted a year or two. (And those minority home owners LOST their homes, too.)
Now the rest of us are paying the price. But liberals got to feel like Martin Luther King for a while so I guess it was all worth it.
Sounds like fascism: privately owned businesses forced to implement government ideology.
Whether they like it or not, discrimination is an inherent right. It’s called freedom of association.
ET: “davenport – could you provide evidence that the bank was refusing a loan to someone who could financially afford a loan but was ‘black’ or ‘was living in the wrong neighbourhood’?…Prove that ‘redlining’ was in evidence.”
Sigh. Must I do everything for you? justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/June/11-crt-784.html. See the link to the complaint at the bottom. The facts are there.
“Are you suggesting that there was some kind of expected population ratio for loans to low income people?”
No.
“And if someone is living in an area of low income, then one has to consider very carefully whether such a loan would be repaid.”
True, but consider them you must. You can’t just say, “We’re not going to give any loans to anyone who lives on THAT side of a line we drew on a map.” Applicants can still be rejected, but each has the right to be considered on his/her individual financial merit, not on the neighborhood where they live.
Black Mamba: “Davenport – at the risk of being overly blunt, I’d be very reluctant to lend money to someone who lived next to a – how you say? – crack house, even if that individual seemed okay.”
What does living next to a crack house have to do with one’s ability to pay the mortgage? “Because living beside a crack house is usually associated with a whole bunch of other financial red flags, you dimwit”, you might reply. Well then, banks should assess, and then where applicable, reject applicants on those other potential red flags, not just the ASSUMPTION that those red flags exist because they live beside a crack house.
“We’re not talking skin colour, we’re talking risk factors and you know it.”
The problem is, some banks were (and are) using skin colour as their short-hand indicator of otherwise valid financial risk factors.
Read the cases files, Black Mamba, and then ask yourself: am I really defending racist business practices just to win an argument?
davenport – do you know the difference between ‘All’ and ‘Some’? You don’t seem to.
When I ask you to support your claims, you sigh, and declare that, it’s not you who failed to substantiate – I’m the problem because I’m asking you to do so.
How do you know that an applicant was not rejected on the basis of his credit history and instead..for no reason? [Your link doesn’t work and one example is statistically irrelevant.]
Davenport >
Quoting Media Matters is like quoting Al Sharpton on racism and black poverty.
Better to quote FBI statistics of black crime including murder, rape, robberies and fraud. You can find abundant professional statistical information elsewhere on black drug/ spousal abuse, incarceration levels, and dead beat dads.
Then it may make a little more sense as to why banks evaluate risk levels of loans with a practical approach instead of hateful little gut feelings and a warped sense of “social entitlements”.
If that doesn’t seem clear enough, it’s a little like life insurance premiums for smokers and high risk employment verses those that do not. Dreamy wishes aside, that is how the world really makes money and prospers – risk verses reward.
Brilliant, just brilliant! Where have these people been over the past three years.
Do not fall into the Media Matters spin of “Banks are racist against blacks”.
They do look at loan applications individually. The fact is that most black Americans do not qualify individually for multiple reasons as I listed earlier. The result is a much higher percentage of blacks refused loans or given loans at higher premiums due to their individual risk level.
“Social Justice” and feel good feelings aside, this is how banks and economies prosper. You don’t change the formula for prosperity; if you want to help blacks you change their culture to one compatible with the existing system.
Of course that is never going to happen, in fact it has been the opposite culture reversal for a couple of decades now. We will continue to see decline and rising poverty in our society until something fundamentally changes. Regardless that will not be a good thing for the cultures that built once great nations, and only a few will prosper off the ancestral scraps of our betters. Including what’s left of yours Davenport.
I agree with Lucky Strike there, why he makes his handle a cigarette brand, I will never know. Anyway, banks should be forced to make high risk loans. I mean, what could go wrong? History never happened, and for utopians like pack o death sticks and me, perfection of humanity is always just around the corner after breaking a few dishes, maybe.
Obama is so smart, it is a shame that his head has to rot someday. Maybe the Left should have him embalmed like Lenin….
Davenport – no, even I have other things to do than read these reports. I simply do not believe that any North American bank in the last few decades has denied loans based exclusively on race (if there is one, it’s a hateful freak). Why would they? There is a significant Black middle-class in North America and those people are as reliable a bet for mortgages and other loans as anyone else. (BTW any info on loan policy towards the confirmed “White trash” in the Appalacians, or even trailer parks? Some nice people live in trailers, actually.)
I’ve stated I have no problem with “lives in the projects” as a lending disincentive. If you can prove that “being Black” or “being Hispanic” in and of itself has ever been specified as a no-no then I’d like a quote.
Aside from anything do you not have the slightest problem with the Department of Justice acting as a shakedown operation on banks, especially given how well this routine panned out last round? I mean, is this the DOJ’s job?