It has nothing to do with giving loans to people not credit-worthy.Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.
Oh, the irony, coming from someone that relied on something he heard without verifying any of it, getting all the facts wrong in a clearly racist way.Racist wrote:Boo-fucking-hoo, I'll make up my own mind while you're herded like the little sheep you are.
How the fuck does that make sense? I was just watching Invader Zim with the sister and I feel like I didn't turn the TV off. Holy fuck does that quote have so many things wrong with it.So, please, take a seat and look at yourself before you call someone else a racist piece of shit. You're clearly racist towards me just because I don't think the same way as you to the point that it upsets you...
Well that sucks. Anyone with a mortgage balance of over 200K has an interest deduction that is greater than the standard deduction, which means they'd be better off itemizing. And that includes just about everyone who bought a home in 2004-2007. And its THOSE people that need the help the most, since they are the ones that are likely under water in regards to loan to value ratios. Especially in high dollar real estate places like California, Hawaii, New York, and some of the larger urban areas.Lurker wrote:Here's the language from the actual planUniversal mortgage tax credit for homeowners. Barack Obama believes we should immediately enact a 10 percent refundable tax credit on the mortgage interest paid by hardworking American families that do not itemize their taxes. This credit will help offset the cost of mortgage payments for at least 10 million middle-class homeowners.
rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.
On approximately July 9, 1993, Calvin Roberson applied for a home loan [**7] of approximately $ 43,000 from Citibank. Mr. Roberson [*327] wished to use the loan to refinance an existing mortgage of approximately $ 43,000 on his home, located at 2847 West 85th Street in Chicago, Illinois. Compl. P 18. The property that Mr. Roberson attempted to refinance is located in a neighborhood where the African-American representation is growing. Compl. P 19. Mr. Roberson provided Citibank with all requested documentation, including documents showing an annual income of approximately $ 69,000 from his management position at AT&T and the equity in his home valued at approximately $ 75,000. Mr. Roberson also provided documentation showing additional liquid assets well in excess of the amount of the loan requested. Mr. Roberson's income was more than sufficient to enable him to meet his credit obligations. Compl. P 20. On approximately July 9, 1993, Mr. Roberson received a letter from Citibank denying his application for refinancing on grounds that it was "incomplete" and Citibank did not "make this type of loan." Compl. P 21. Mr. Roberson alleges that he was qualified to receive the loan he sought from Citibank. Compl. P 22.
I am going to speak simply to the example given......it doesn't make any sense. It is trying to say that he applied for a home loan.....that he wanted to use to refinance another loan. That doesn't make sense. What he needed to do was open a HELOC on his personal residence and then use the money to do whatever he wanted to do with the money. It sounds like he wanted to use a somewhat at risk property as collateral to take cash out.Lurker wrote:Shorter Fallakin: Why did those black people have to ruin the economy for all us white people?!?
Oh, and here's one of the "high risk loans" from the case file.On approximately July 9, 1993, Calvin Roberson applied for a home loan [**7] of approximately $ 43,000 from Citibank. Mr. Roberson [*327] wished to use the loan to refinance an existing mortgage of approximately $ 43,000 on his home, located at 2847 West 85th Street in Chicago, Illinois. Compl. P 18. The property that Mr. Roberson attempted to refinance is located in a neighborhood where the African-American representation is growing. Compl. P 19. Mr. Roberson provided Citibank with all requested documentation, including documents showing an annual income of approximately $ 69,000 from his management position at AT&T and the equity in his home valued at approximately $ 75,000. Mr. Roberson also provided documentation showing additional liquid assets well in excess of the amount of the loan requested. Mr. Roberson's income was more than sufficient to enable him to meet his credit obligations. Compl. P 20. On approximately July 9, 1993, Mr. Roberson received a letter from Citibank denying his application for refinancing on grounds that it was "incomplete" and Citibank did not "make this type of loan." Compl. P 21. Mr. Roberson alleges that he was qualified to receive the loan he sought from Citibank. Compl. P 22.
The Real Deal
So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
* The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
* Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
* Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
* Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
* The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
* Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
* Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
* Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
* The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
* An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
* Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.
This is a summary of every post this racist puke Fallakin has ever made on this board. Durrr.... I didn't read it. But my cousins neighbors sisters husband heard it on Fox News, so lets call it what it is! There's plenty of people on this board that I disagree with on several issues, but I honestly can't think of a single post in this section of the board where I've not only disagreed but been astounded at the level of bullshit he utters.The Village Idiot wrote:I didn't even read the text, so I didn't summarize it. I summarized it as I've heard it before
Fallakin Kuvari wrote:Because laws that require voters to have an ID (Something they are required to have anyway) are bad....
He wanted to refinance his primary residence at a lower interest rate, not open a line of credit. I can see how the language from the court summary is confusing and looks like it mentions two properties. There was just the one.Kulaf wrote:It is trying to say that he applied for a home loan.....that he wanted to use to refinance another loan. That doesn't make sense. What he needed to do was open a HELOC on his personal residence and then use the money to do whatever he wanted to do with the money. It sounds like he wanted to use a somewhat at risk property as collateral to take cash out.
Errr-durrr, Thas won tyme on that glowy thangy in the other room I saw this thurr videao about that Obama feller that he raped little children.Minute wrote:This is a summary of every post this racist puke Fallakin has ever made on this board. Durrr.... I didn't read it. But my cousins neighbors sisters husband heard it on Fox News, so lets call it what it is! There's plenty of people on this board that I disagree with on several issues, but I honestly can't think of a single post in this section of the board where I've not only disagreed but been astounded at the level of bullshit he utters.
I disagree. And it wasn't just "somewhat biased", it was racist and completely wrong on the facts. It's a line of attack that is bubbling up from the cesspool on the right that seeks to blame the minorities for the financial crisis. Anyone that still trusts these sources after all we've seen the last eight years needs to seriously reevaluate themselves.Ddrak wrote:Nah, Fallakin wasn't being racist. He was summarizing what he'd heard of the case. I think it got pointed out by all parties that what he'd heard was somewhat biased.
What the crack? Took advantage to make their mortgage more expensive? I'm sure glad I was able to use low interest rates to add to the cost of my home. http://www.zillow.com The market value of my house went from 126K in 1999 to 280K in 2005. I actually managed to get it for 270K in 2006 Don't ask me how I managed that. Anyway. I would have had to have a 15% interest rate on that 1999 value to bring my mortgage payment to what it is on my 2006 loan. And in 1999 rates were higher than they were in 2006 http://www.homefinders.com/historical-i ... 4-2007.gif* Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
Nah... no racist tendencies there.Fallakin wrote:If theres not a liberal bias to the media *cough* they're all tonsils deep on Obama's cock */cough* then I'm a monkey's uncle (and as far as I know theres no half-ricans in my family).
I think what they are saying is that with easy credit, the demand for houses increased dramatically, which contributed to the rapid increase in valuations. Something unsustainable.Klast Brell wrote:@ harlowe* Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
