Obama sued Citibank.

iusbvision.wordpress.com...

Check it. Obama is part of the problem.

Roper



Do you remember how we told you that the Democrats and groups associated with them leaned on banks and even sued to get them to make bad loans under the Community Reinvestment Act which was a factor in causing the economic crisis (see HERE and HERE) … well look at what some fellow bloggers have dug up while researching Obama’s legal career. Looks like a typical ACORN lawsuit to get banks to hand out bad loans.


In these lawsuits, ACORN makes a bogus claim of Redlining (denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage). They protest and get the local media to raise a big stink. This stink means that the bank faces thousands of people closing their accounts and get local politicians to lobby to stop the bank from doing some future business, expansions and mergers. If the bank goes to court, they will win, but the damage is already done because who is going to launch a big campaign to get the bank’s reputation back?

reply to post by Roper


I know you didn't really read it, since you didn't even really put a thought of your own in there (despite not using quotes like it was your own thought). But at least get an idea of what it was about:

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.

They weren't suing for not giving a line of credit to poor blacks, they were suing for not giving a line of credit to poor blacks when they were given to poor whites in the same financial situation.

Now would you care to explain how he did anything wrong there?

Why sure hoss,

The banking crisis has been caused buy people defaulting on their loans. People of low income were given loans that they shouldn't have been given.

These banks, citibank, for one was sued buy your Obama and others to force banks to make bad loans that are failing now and causing a large part of the USA's current problem.

The White-Vs-black was alleged and not proven in a court of law.

What did he do wrong? He helped to wreck this economy.

Now Sub did you listen to the video?

Roper

reply to post by Roper


Incorrect. This law suit had nothing to do with forcing loans. It had to do with not giving loans to blacks when they were given to whites.

It was not proven in court because the company settled out. Do you have any proof that the case was unwarranted? Apparently the company didn't think it was completely unfounded because they paid out to avoid court.

That's only because it is cheaper to settle, rather than defending against a silly lawsuit. Finance matters should be left to those who understand it, rather than community activists like Obama who contributed to this mess. If it were me, I would have told him to pound sand and to open his own mortgage lending business if he felt that strongly about it.

I approve of redlining. Why should a bank be compelled to give loans to people just because they live in the same neighborhood as the bank? The answer of course would be to either not open a bank in those neighborhoods or become a hard money lender because then you are not subject to the usual idiotic regulations that institutional lenders must follow. In other words, if someone does not have the income and the down payment, they do not get the loan, something foreign to a good socialist like Obama!

Originally posted by Roper
Why sure hoss,

What did he do wrong? He helped to wreck this economy.

Roper

First of all it was the HUGE amounts of money being funneled to your Presidents friends over the past 8 years that did the real damage. Now what we are talking about is Racial profiling or out right discrimination, and the last time I checked in America, that was wrong and punishable by law.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Roper

 

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.

They weren't suing for not giving a line of credit to poor blacks, they were suing for not giving a line of credit to poor blacks when they were given to poor whites in the same financial situation.

Now would you care to explain how he did anything wrong there?

So I guess those silly bankers were just being racist and all those loans were paid off in full in "good faith" by all those oppressed black folks?

Or.... Did the banks realize they were about to step in Do-do?

Look, forget the "racist" word because as soon as anybody utters it, all logic goes out the window. The fact is at an individual level... there is great diversity in character, but as an aggregated demographic population, statistics don't lie. People who make their living by making multi-million dollar decisions upon risk assessment treat statistics like the gospel because that's all they can trust, and I might add, so they should. I'm not defending banks, especially when they are trying to get away with charging people %33 interest, BUT... When people say banks are racist they are not seeing the root cause of behavior - projected profit based on past performance. Statistically speaking, some demographic groups have been *WAY* more profitable than others. So let's call a spade a spade. Shall we?

reply to post by ATS4dummies


Again, I realize you have some predetermined view of black people, but it is not relevant. This case involved people with similar financial backgrounds, credit histories, etc. The only difference in the people was their race.

Disagree or not, the bank obviously didn't feel they had a case and settled out of court. Try keeping your racism to yourself please. I don't care if you think one race pays better than another.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620


I'd like to refine your statement even more.... I am an *extreamely* baised and predjudiced person, but here's the surprise punchline... at an individual level, I am not. A mathematical model is a very predjudiced thing. But it only works when aggregating. At an individual level, the standard of deviation, in part due to the small sample size, is off the charts, making it completely useless.

So let's look at the real problem - Culture.

The more I look around these days, the real problem is not racism, it is (to make up a word..) CULTURALISM.

It's not the skin color, it's what you were taught when you were a kid about what is admired, what is acceptable, and what is not. The key here is that kids are given wisdom while they are growing up, and sometimes it is good wisdom, but I see *A LOT* of bad wisdom being taught. How do you change the inertia of cultural wisdom? It might be easier to steer the Titanic around icebergs. What do we do to instill that when you sign a contract, that you do whatever the hell you have to do to honor your promise? There are people on this board who are now laughing at that last sentence. I say those who laugh at responsibility and integrity are the half who are dragging humanity back down into the mud. And I am ashamed when I see people who have no concept of personal responsibility and pride in being honorable. What the hell are you doing here other than eating food and taking up space! Isn't there something higher in life to be inspired by, to look back at your life and say - despite challenges, I overcame, I kept my word, and I succeeded. I'm talking about educating yourself, raising your kids with character, and leaving a small patch of the world better when you leave than when you first arrived. THIS IS WHAT SOCIETY AND CIVILIZATION IS.

If people stop believing that, than society falls. Is that what we are seeing today? I hope not.



[edit on 5-10-2008 by ATS4dummies]

reply to post by ATS4dummies


Exactly.

Then you agree this case was valid. Cēterīs paribus, the only difference between the people loaned to and the people not was their skin color.

That's it. So, this was not racism on a statistical level, because statistically they loaned to people just as likely to default. This was racism on an individual level.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620

That's a fair question. And an interesting Interpretation, but let me bring it down to a concrete example.

We have three people.
1) a bank lender
2) Mortgage Applicant #1 (who is black)
3) Mortgage Applicant #2 (who is black)

Both applicants are black, but they are of completely different cultures.
#1 is blue collar, blue jeans, blue shirt, and a damn hard worker.
#2 walks in with a suit, tie, shiny shoes, a brief case, a nice watch too.
#1 has worked hard his whole life, but he doesn't have the vocabulary to reach management level.
#2 Says all the right things, and *instinctively* relates to the same cultural protocols and subtle social behavior as the Bank Lender.

Now here is the important thing I am getting at:
Success knows when it sees itself in the mirror *even* if the race is different.

Obviously #2 is more likely to get approved than #1.
So here's my fair question - backed up by statistics (sort of) -
Who is most statistically likely to land a job in management, thereby ensuring the chances of paying off the loan successfully?
Who is most representative of the *aggregate* black culture?

This is a culture thing. Unfortunately bankers can't take the time to perform any more than a cursory and shallow ranking based upon a limited and admittedly flawed yardstick. Remember, millions of dollars are at stake here. So as the banker, where are you going to put your money? C'mon we all know the answer. Is it fair? no. But that's Business.

The only way the outcome can change, is if the culture changes. The only way that can happen, is if #1, raises kids in a way that lifts them out of the culture the father was raised in.
Good luck with that.



[edit on 5-10-2008 by ATS4dummies]

[edit on 5-10-2008 by ATS4dummies]

reply to post by ATS4dummies


But that's not right. The real situation is this:

1) Bank Lender
2) White Guy
3) Black Guy

Person #2 has defaulted on a car loan and makes $25,000 a year. Person #3 has defaulted on a personal loan for a similar amount and makes $22,000 a year.

Person #1, the lender, gives person #2 a loan and not person #3. Not only does he do it this time, but on a consistent basis. Now, one could make the argument that the lender shouldn't have lent to either, but he did. He lent to one, and the only descernable difference was race - time after time.

reply to post by Sublime620


And what I am saying is this is not about skin color.
This is about culture.

And there are certain cultures that are *HIGHLY* motivated to keep thier honor and their word, because to do otherwise is to be a total complete and utter failure and disgrace to themselves, thier family, and thier community.
These cultures are very profitable to banks.
There are other cultures that don't take these obligations as a do or die priority. These cultural attributes are very unprofitable to banks.

What I am saying is that banks were forced to lend to people they otherwise would not. Why? Statistics.

I could make the same argument about Asian verses White Culture (Even before MTV, RAP and eminem )

Asians are far smaller a percentage of the US population, but their material wealth is disproportionately higher. Why? CULTURE! Culture is King!
Honor to Asians is off the scale compared to Whites. They have an immense respect for education, a ridiculous work ethic, and *a past track record of success*
And here is the proof: Look at advertisements showing successful intelligent people and I bet 3:1 odds it's an Asian being shown.
Bankers go ape and bannanas over lending to Asians because they *know* they're gonna get paid back. Exceptions? Sure, but very rarely.

SO my last words are, when you see what looks like racism, I ask that everyone just look a little deeper. Skin color is so 20th century.
This is the new 21st century, and culturalism is the new racism of today.
Good night, all.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by ATS4dummies]

And the point of this thread? Is it to connect this program with the current housing crisis? I have seen zero evidence that the loans from this program are the loans which have caused the system to crash. In fact most of the evidence I have seen seems to point white blue collar and lower end white suburbia that is having all the problems.

reply to post by ATS4dummies


Where are you getting culture from? As far as I am aware, this entire case was based on whites versus blacks from a bank, cēterīs paribus.

I have been going,I got to take a long weekend.

You all need to hear this maybe read a little.

iusbvision.wordpress.com...

Roper

The CRA was not responsible for this economic crisis. That position is simplistic and indefensible. A recent Ohio State study found that in the WORST case sceanario, the ENTIRE level of default for owner-occupied, first mortgages (not just those covered by the CRA but ALL) represent, at most, $180B.

source

So as you can see, not only can't you blame Obama for the problem, you can't blame the CRA or owner-occupied mortgage defaults. The problem goes to fraudulent investment products and the predatory lending practices outside of the CRA. Your argument doesn't even remotely work mathematically if you had looked into it before cut-and-pasting someone else's rant here.

You want someone to blame to make it all neat and clean for you? Blame the people responsible for oversight of the markets. I'm not an Obama supporter particularly. I just hate ignorance.

Hey Guys - Try reading the rest of that IUSB Vision article and the updates - the writer addressed all of those objections the Obama supporters brought up here.

Quote:

In these lawsuits, ACORN makes a bogus claim of Redlining (denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage). They protest and get the local media to raise a big stink. This stink means that the bank faces thousands of people closing their accounts and get local politicians to lobby to stop the bank from doing some future business, expansions and mergers. If the bank goes to court, they will win, but the damage is already done because who is going to launch a big campaign to get the bank’s reputation back?

It is important to understand the nature of these lawsuits and what their purpose is. ACORN filed tons of these lawsuits and ALL of them allege racism.

The CRA did not cause the mortgage crisis - but the abuse of it by groups such as ACORN and officials such as Janet Reno was a real factor in banks lowering credit standards dangerously.

You guys should read the rest of the IUSB Vision story. It addresses the redlining issue and all of the things that people brought up in that thread.

The article contains references such as the one below.


******

Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the act to combat “red-lining,” a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”

The Clinton-Reno threat of “vigorous enforcement” pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown, Richman said. “Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been getting mortgage loans.”

This threat combined with the government backing of Fannie and Freddie set the stage for the current uncertainty, because the “banks could just sell the loans off to Fannie or Freddie,” who could buy them with little regard for negative financial outcomes, Richman said.

www.cnsnews.com...

reply to post by Vision1


Blah blah blah. I love how they say, "Under the Clinton Administration", like Bill Clinton could pass laws. The Bush administration has come close to it, but the President cannot pass laws.

There was a Republican Congress at the time, so it is hard to blame it solely on the democrats or Clinton. So regardless of "what" caused it, "who" is not as simple as people would like to believe.

Congressional Control Past 16 Years

Democrat Republican
Clinton: 2 6

Bush: 2 6

Total: 4 12

Republicans have had Congressional control 12 out of 16 years. They've had Executive control 8 out of 16.

6 out of the past 16 years Republicans have had both Congressional and Executive control.

Quit blaming the democrats. It's so passe.