PDA

View Full Version : NAACP sues banks over sub prime mortgages



Bob Gutermuth
03-13-2009, 11:31 AM
http://www.wboc.com/global/story.asp?s=10000032

They ought to sue Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the rest of the congresscritters who pushed the programs as well.

YardleyLabs
03-13-2009, 11:41 AM
http://www.wboc.com/global/story.asp?s=10000032

They ought to sue Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the rest of the congresscritters who pushed the programs as well.

Did you actually read the article? It was about discrimination, not complaints about predatory lending.

"Black homebuyers have been 3 1/2 times more likely to receive a subprime loan than white borrowers, and six times more likely to get a subprime rate when refinancing, Tighe said. Blacks still were disproportionately steered into subprime loans when their credit scores, income and down payment were equal to those of white homebuyers, he said."

If true, the banks deserve to lose. I'm assuming that none of us would support a bank that charges more simply because of the color of someone's skin (Of course, we know that brown dogs should pay more:rolleyes:).

Patrick Johndrow
03-13-2009, 11:43 AM
That is sad

Bob Gutermuth
03-13-2009, 12:08 PM
My belief is that they should sue all those who are responsible for the sub prime lending fiasco, INCLUDING the congresscritters who pushed for the program.

K G
03-13-2009, 04:16 PM
Not to mention our 42nd President.....

kg

M Remington
03-13-2009, 05:49 PM
There's a huge difference between encouraging home ownership and encouraging lenders to commit fraud. I am not aware of any legislator encouraging fraud. One might conclude, however, that the lack of regulation under the Republicans was a major cause of this.

john fallon
03-13-2009, 09:10 PM
The name, sub prime, itself is deceiving.

john

K G
03-13-2009, 10:42 PM
One might conclude, however, that the lack of regulation under the Republicans was a major cause of this.

Then again, one might not conclude that.

kg

IowaBayDog
03-13-2009, 10:55 PM
There's a huge difference between encouraging home ownership and encouraging lenders to commit fraud. I am not aware of any legislator encouraging fraud. One might conclude, however, that the lack of regulation under the Republicans was a major cause of this.


Which de-regulation was that? Sarbanes-Oxley that all the dims seem to like to bring up now. Cause a majority of House Democrats and every Dem. Senator voted Yes on it. Not to mention being co-sponsored by a Democrat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107-204 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ204.107), 116 Stat. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large) 745, enacted July 30, 2002), also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and commonly called Sarbanes-Oxley, Sarbox or SOX, is a United States federal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_law) enacted on July 30, 2002 in response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_scandals) including those affecting Enron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron), Tyco International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyco_International), Adelphia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphia_Communications_Corporation), Peregrine Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peregrine_Systems) and WorldCom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldCom). These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of the affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_market). Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Sarbanes) (D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States))-MD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland)) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_G._Oxley) (R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States))-OH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio)), the Act was approved by the House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) by a vote of 334-90 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll110.xml) and by the Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) 99-0 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00192). President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt)."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act#cite_note-Bumiller2002-0)

Steve Amrein
03-14-2009, 10:46 AM
There's a huge difference between encouraging home ownership and encouraging lenders to commit fraud. I am not aware of any legislator encouraging fraud. One might conclude, however, that the lack of regulation under the Republicans was a major cause of this.


Hey M your avatar IMHO your avatar is in poor taste maybe I will get a photo of Obama smoking crack for mine. Dont be so childish.

Bob Gutermuth
03-14-2009, 10:52 AM
Frank et al were encouraging the banks to make sub prime loans, had it not been for their enabling such perhaps people who couldn't afford them would not have gotten mortgages in the first place.

Hoosier
03-14-2009, 11:08 AM
Hey M your avatar IMHO your avatar is in poor taste maybe I will get a photo of Obama smoking crack for mine. Dont be so childish.

I actually like it better then the last one. You gotta admit it's funny.

badbullgator
03-14-2009, 11:41 AM
Hey M your avatar IMHO your avatar is in poor taste maybe I will get a photo of Obama smoking crack for mine. Dont be so childish.


I kind of like this

http://techbuddha.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/barack_obama_muslim1.jpg?w=300&h=235 (http://techbuddha.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/barack_obama_muslim1.jpg?w=300&h=235)

This would make a nice avatar

http://www.americans-working-together.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/obama_button.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2201/2380554605_45ecda9052_o.jpg

Patrick Johndrow
03-14-2009, 11:43 AM
Frank et al were encouraging the banks to make sub prime loans, had it not been for their enabling such perhaps people who couldn't afford them would not have gotten mortgages in the first place.

That is why dealing with libs is a no win situation.

Julie R.
03-14-2009, 04:21 PM
Hey M your avatar IMHO your avatar is in poor taste maybe I will get a photo of Obama smoking crack for mine. .

Ask, and ye shall receive http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/abigrofl.gif :

http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/oBONGo.jpg

http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smoker.jpg

Steve
03-14-2009, 08:47 PM
Frank et al were encouraging the banks to make sub prime loans, had it not been for their enabling such perhaps people who couldn't afford them would not have gotten mortgages in the first place.

Encouraging is an understatement. More like pressuring or how 'bout extorting.

YardleyLabs
03-14-2009, 08:59 PM
With all respect guys, the banks were falling all over themselves along with every other financial services firm to issue these mortgages and then to pool and resell them as fast as they could. The number of such mortgages in place was negligible until 2001/02 after which the market grew exponentially, fueling the housing bubble. However, the issue then and the issue now is not just the sub-prime market, but all mortgages. The banks, the rating agencies, the financial services firms and the insurance companies all believed that the mortgage market was a simple, safe way to earn extraordinary profits and did everything they could to cash in. Unfortunately, we now get to cash them out.

T. Mac
03-14-2009, 09:53 PM
...The banks, the rating agencies, the financial services firms and the insurance companies all believed that the mortgage market was a simple, safe way to earn extraordinary profits and did everything they could to cash in. Unfortunately, we now get to cash them out.


Also couple in the city/county/state endorsements of continual growth as a steady income source. And their extrapalations of this continuing income source as a funding base for untold numbers of projects and spending. We are now facing the prospects of finding ways to cash out these governments as well. Or as just reported, California, despite massive tax increases, spending cuts, and borrowing still finds itself $8B in the hole despite any federal stimulus. Sacramento County is now $150M in the red, and Sacramento City is $50M down.

T. Mac

Steve
03-15-2009, 12:20 AM
Absent of government intervention, there is no reason to believe that banks would have gone down this path. The problem is clear, government interference in the market.

I blame both sides. Instead of Bush touting increased home ownership he could of pushed for free markets. He failed at that most of the time.

Patrick Johndrow
03-15-2009, 08:53 AM
Absent of government intervention, there is no reason to believe that banks would have gone down this path. The problem is clear, government interference in the market.

I blame both sides. Instead of Bush touting increased home ownership he could of pushed for free markets. He failed at that most of the time.

Steve that is about as straight as you can say it…if you’re a midlevel crack dealer you have no business owning a home or if you make 50K a year you have no business buying a 500k home.