Obama admin pushing banks to offer sub-prime mortgages again...

[H D]

So, you're implying that there are people in these impoverished areas that have such perfect credit that they would get loans if only they didn't live in that area?



And the people in the supposedly redlined areas are going to jump start our economy if only they can get some loans?



And the banks' refusal to make loans easily available is what is making it so difficult for the administration to get the economy back to strength?

 

[Tom Schindler]

So, you're implying that there are people in these impoverished areas that have such perfect credit that they would get loans if only they didn't live in that area?

Are you saying that banks that only operate in better areas are imune to sub-prime loans?





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



No one is implying any such things, at least not your first two.



Now may be a good time for all to stop assuming, stop implying, and or all of us to say what we mean and mean what we say... And not posture and postulate.



The facts of the article are that there are those that are making sure that banks are lending fairly. Period.



As for your third question, yes, I would agree that the lack of easy access to credit is limiting the speed and the amount to which our economy has recovered as it has especially hurt small businesses, and has eroded consumer confidence and spending. Heck, I have an 800 credit rating and was denied a 0% for x years loan in 2008. Just got my first such loan in years just this past March. That availability of credit was the difference between me spending or not spending $4k on furniture.



TJR

 

[H D]

I've said exactly what I mean and meant everything I've said.

The facts of the article are that there are those that are making sure that banks are lending fairly. Period.

That's such a "black and white" statement, TJR. You claim to not operate in such a way. "Period." That's it, really?



The facts are that agencies are citing banks for lending practices. Yes, I agree. That's not the endo of it, though. There's no definite "period" after that. You can't just say those are the only facts just because that is what is explicitly stated in the article. Actions come with consequences. The consequences here are that banks will be forced to do one of two things. They will start providing subprime loans to appease the powers or they will retract operations.



Tom, answer my question first, and maybe I'll answer yours. Answering a question with a question...come on now.

 

[Richard L]

Hugh,

I think you and the author of the article are reading way to much into the article that is simply not there. Just because some one investigates bank practices, does not mean any changes will be made. The law requires that access to credit be available to all credit worthy candidates regardless of race, etc. The article indicates that the banks are being questioned about redlining areas that may be predominately poor black areas.



You asked if I thought there are people in these impoverished redlined areas who could actually have a good or excellent credit rating? Yes there probably are some. The simple fact that they cannot get a loan because of the arbitrary redlining by the banks, they could have better credit ratings than you or I, but for many reasons cannot or do not want to leave these neighborhoods. People who live in these neighborhoods may have grown up there, have parents and family there...They're business is there and they want to make improvements to the neighborhoods.



Home owners and Landlords in these redlined areas cannot get loans to fix up the homes and apartments, small businesses cannot get loans to expand or buy inventory, etc.



How would you feel if the banks had too many deaults and repossesions in Georgia (where you live) and decided that they were not going to make anymore loans to residence of Georgia??? The banks will not even look at your loan application, and could care less if you are credit worthy or not. You simply live in Georgia, and they arbitrairly decided that Georgia was a redlined area. You have a job, you have good credit, but you need a loan but cannot afford to move out of Georgia. That's what is going on in the redlined area.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

I will answer your question...

So, you're implying that there are people in these impoverished areas that have such perfect credit that they would get loans if only they didn't live in that area?

Yes. My parents are such people.



Your turn...





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



Facts are black and white. Beliefs, opinions, are not. When it comes to my beliefs and my opinions, or judging something, then YES, I agree, rarely are things black and white.



You are entitled to your opinion, but please don't try to post them as facts, and please, don't take the dots that you connect then present them as facts.



A simple addition of a couple of words to your title, such as: "Is the...", at the beginning and a "?" at the end would have made it clear that you were simply posting speculation.



I don't think for a minute that the Obama administration is "pushing" for banks to offer subprime loans. Not if by "pushing" you mean trying to get banks to give such loans to people not qualified. Again, I don't think that for a minute.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

TJR,



I thank you for your last post. If I can follow this correctly, I think we will no longer have to name call or insult a fellow Sport Trac Site Member. I propose the following bi laws based on your posted facts.



1. Opinions/beliefs are each individuals right. They are taken as just that and supported by the Site. Disagreement with another's opinion shall not be cause for a attack on said poster. However, expression one's own opinion of the subject is encouraged and supported by the the Site.



2. Facts are classified as Black / White and or 100% true. Facts should be proceeded by the words "facts are". Facts cannot be questioned or opinions cannot be offered on a fact. TJR will be the final judgment of "facts". I propose this because he is the most familiar with Black / White and 100% rules. Anyone violating the fact rule shall be banned for the site.



3. Facts can be "dots". Dots can be connected to make facts, but this must be case law and not under appeal.



4. All Post shall be proceeded by "Is the" and ended with "?"



5. Thinking. Someone will have to help me with this one on.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



Funny... I think, because I assume that was meant as sarcastic humor above.



I do think it would be a little more civil here if people didn't try to bait and troll by presenting opinions as facts.



I'm all for thinking, for discussing, even for debating. I just don't see the need for the pi$$ing contests that often come up. Typically they are over opinions presented as facts.



Opinions are fine. Respect them. Don't try to make them more than they are.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

Yes you are right. To windy to fish today.



I got to thinking you would accept the position and ban me right away.



:driving:

 

[H D]

I'm not baiting, trolling, or pissing. I haven't injected any opinions.



This will be my last post concerning this issue unless someone answers these yes/no questions. These are purely based on fact and should be easily answered yes or no. Somebody please answer them and then after the fact, insert your opinion or interpretation of these facts.



1. Are the agencies that are citing banks and investigating them part of the executive branch?

2. Is the executive branch also known as President Obama's administration?

3. Will the citations by the agencies result in offering credit to people in areas previously denied?

4. Will any of these people be given loans they cannot afford?

5. Are these loans given to these people because they will prevent further citations or investigations?

6. Have these situations occurred previously?



I suspect there will be dodging of these questions and I will not get a numbered list 1-6 of only yes and no answers, but here's the answer key I'm using. I will follow with the result of these facts.



1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. Yes

6. Yes



Therefore:

Obama administration (1&2) pushing banks (5) to offer sub-prime mortgages (3&4) again (6).



The only question I posed that could even remotely, possibly be answered based on opinion is #5. The only differing opinion I can think of, though, would be that the banks would start offering credit in these areas, not as a result of the citations, but rather as a result of suddenly deciding to do the right thing. In that case, it would be of their own free will that they begin offering sub-prime mortgages again, not because of a push from agencies.



Where do you see opinion?



The only opinion I'm seeing in this thread is the opinion that the Obama administration would not do something so foolish, so this cannot be true.

 

[H D]

And let's be honest about who is being attacked in this thread. I have mentioned nobody by name except Tom for answering a question with a question. I have been the subject of all of the attacks. I simply posted an article as a source of food-for-thought and I have been attacked in all sorts of ways to belittle my intelligence or reasoning.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



Your questions 3, 4, 5 above and your assumption that all are answered in the affirmative are just that... Assumptions.



You seem to assume that these agencies will bully lenders into giving bad, subprime loans to people that can't afford them in these poor areas. There is simply no way to prove those assumptions. You are speculating on what might happen.



I find it unlikely that any bank or lender will be coerced into giving bad loans, and I certainly don't see that what is being described in this article as such coercion with the motive you state.



Greed was the gun put to lenders heads before...



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

I'll play, I'm really bored today.



1. Yes and No. I think the Legislative Branch just completed a two year review of three banks, but don't think they are issuing citations, so yes if that is included.

2. Yes.

3. Vote Present Don't know. Most likely

4. Yes, but this is not a problem because I will make up the difference.

5. Vote Present Don't know. Most likely

6. Yes.

 

[Bill V]

Hugh--



1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Most likely yes

4. Yes, but that's the case for all loans.

5. Depends on what you mean by "these people". But most likely, the answer to 5 is "perhaps partially, but not wholly"

6. Yes--but not the way you're thinking.



But even if I were, for the sake of furthering the discussion, to say that the answer is "Yes" to all six--that doesn't make your subject line true, as contrary to your assertion, #3 and #4 do not equate to sub-prime mortgages. There is still nothing in the article that says that the Obama administration is pushing banks to offer them. It says that the Obama administration is pushing banks to not block mortgages based solely on the geographical residence of the person seeking it. It says nothing about not offering mortgages to people who aren't financially able to hold up their end of the deal--i.e. sub-prime.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



I never said the Obama administration wouldn't do something foolish. Crap, they do foolish stuff all the time.



I just don't see them actively, deliberately, willfully pushing for subprime loans.



I will answer if you will allow me to change the rules, because when it comes to opinions and speculation there can be no Yes/No only answers. Your questions require speculation. They simply do. When it comes to speculation then there can be "I Think So", or "I Think Not", but I digress...



If allowed, I will answer "Yes" to those questions that I am certain will prove to be true or are true given the way that they are written. If an answer requires speculation then I will not answer it Yes or No. I simply cannot in good conscience do so.



If I don't know the answer, I will answer "Don't Know" (sorry, Hugh, that was not a choice, I know).



Here are the questions and my answers.



1. Are the agencies that are citing banks and investigating them part of the executive branch? - I don't know.



2. Is the executive branch also known as President Obama's administration? - Yes.



3. Will the citations by the agencies result in offering credit to people in areas previously denied? - Requires speculation, but I do not think so. There might be some that get credit that otherwise didn't, but if that happens it won't necessarily prove that it was because of any agency citations.



4. Will any of these people be given loans they cannot afford? - Requires speculation, but I suspect that yes, there will likely be a few people that get loans they cannot afford, but will this be because of citations, or because of a lender that is asleep at the wheel, or because of some other issue (misstated earnings, etc).



5. Are these loans given to these people because they will prevent further citations or investigations? - Requires speculation, but I DO NOT THINK SO.



6. Have these situations occurred previously? - No. Not exactly. Yes, things are similar, but today is different in many ways than the boom of 2000 to 2006. The major difference is that then there was a widescale incentive for lenders to sell subprime to those that couldn't afford them. Today, that incentive is gone, and no amount of citations is going to sway lenders (IMHO).



TJR

 

[Richard L]

I agree with Bill V.

You cannot insert your assumptions and claim they are facts. How can they be facts when they have not happened yet.



1. Are the agencies that are citing banks and investigating them part of the executive branch?

A. Yes



2. Is the executive branch also known as President Obama's administration?

A. Yes



3. Will the citations by the agencies result in offering credit to people in areas previously denied?

A. Perhaps yes, unless the banks can figure out a better way deny loans than simply where they draw the redlines.



4. Will any of these people be given loans they cannot afford?

A. Probably, but I think qualifying will be harder. People who do not live in Redline zones also get loans they cannot afford...they always have and probably always will.



5. Are these loans given to these people because they will prevent further citations or investigations?

A. Perhaps, but most likely if they are cited because of their Redlining areas, they may have to change their practices to avoid further citations.



6. Have these situations occurred previously?

A. Yes, the Banks have a long history of denying credit to poor, predominately black areas. However, now there are more anti-discrimination laws that make it harder to get away with those kinds of practices. Denying credit because of race is illegal. In my opinion...drawing a red line around an area or district that is predominately black and denying credit to ANYONE who lives in that area would have a lot of racial overtones.



Yes some people will get loans that they cannot pay back...It happens everyday and has always hapened, but that has nothing to do with subprime. People lose their jobs, get divorced, or simply encounter financial hard times, especially with the way the economy is today. As TJR explained, Subprime loans were people getting loans they either lied on the application, or did not qualify for, but the Banks did not care because they sold these loans/mortgages to the CDO's before the people defaulted....probably before the ink was dry on the loan agreement. So they had no dog in the fight, and they saved money by not doing a complete credit check or even verfied the income of the applicants.



Some of the people getting the subprime loans were faithfully making payments, until the economy took a nose-dive and people lost their jobs and did not have any income to pay the mortgage. There were so many of these forclosures that the market was filled with more home than people eligible to buy them. That drove down the price of homes and people could not even sell their house for enough money to pay-back the balance on the loan...and they were forclosed on, which just added to more fuel to the plumeting real estate market.



Hugh, none of what you said in your post are facts...your opinions, yes, but not facts. Even the author of the article has injected his opinion into the article to make it look like facts, but they are only his opinion. Nothing in the article directly or indirectly states that the Obama Administration is pushing banks to start doing sub-prime loans...It's only the author who seems to be jumping to that conclusion.



...Rich

 

[H D]

Forget the friggin' article. These are the things I am saying.



I am not saying that the administration is explicitly (actively, deliberately, or willfully) pushing sub-prime mortgages. I am saying that their actions will result in sub-prime mortgages. All I am saying is that these actions will have consequences and those consequences will be in the form of sub-prime mortgages. Some of you have admitted it is likely; none have said it will not; I assert that it will. So, what am I being argued against here? The administration is engaging in actions that will result in sub-prime mortgages. Call it speculation or whatever you want, but that will be the result.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Hugh,



You are ultimatly assuming that subprime loans originated in the ghetto's and never in the suburbs.



You are assuming that if banks are required to operate in the ghetto's, that those people will apply for subprime loans and the banks will give them the loans.



That simply is not true.



Answer my question since I answered yours.





Tom

 

[H D]

No I am not. I am only assuming that more people in the ghettos have less money to pay back loans. It's not a blanket statement but it is an obvious observation. Sure there are those that choose to live in such areas, but the majority are there because of circumstances they feel they can't control.



To answer your question:

Are you saying that banks that only operate in better areas are imune to sub-prime loans?

Nope, I never once said that.