NAACP sues banks over sub prime mortgages

[Bob Gutermuth]

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]

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).

[Patrick Johndrow]

That is sad

[Bob Gutermuth]

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]

Not to mention our 42nd President.....

kg

[M Remington]

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]

The name, sub prime, itself is deceiving.

john

[K G]

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]

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, 116 Stat. 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 enacted on July 30, 2002 in response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and 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. Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH), the Act was approved by the House by a vote of 334-90 and by the Senate 99-0. 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."[1]

[Steve Amrein]

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.