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

[Tom Schindler]

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.

I agree with you, but does it seem fair to just exclude anyone that lives in that area from getting a loan sound fair and just to you? Should a loan be denied simply because of where you live and not because of your credit score?



It doesn't matter where I live. If I got the credit to back it, then give me the money. For the record, I got the credit to back it.





Tom

 

[H D]

Nope, I have never said that either. I don't think redlining is fair or should be allowed.



I have only said that the actions of these agencies will result in sub-prime mortgages again. That, or the banks will pull out of those areas completely.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh said:

I am not saying that the administration is explicitly (actively, deliberately, or willfully) pushing sub-prime mortgages.

Really? The title of the thread seems to say otherwise.



Hugh also said:

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.

Yes, you are speculating. One can't with credibility speculate and repeatedly use the word "will", without qualification. It is more correct to say "may", or "is likely to."



Might these agencies and their actions cause an increase in subprime lending as compared to their inaction? Maybe. But even if that does happen, what is to say that those increased number of subprime loans will be bad loans to people who shouldn't get them? Some may, but most probably won't be... But even that is speculation... speculation on top of speculation.



Again, subprime loans do have a purpose, a place and a value for those that sell them and take them on responsibly.



So, even if we assume for a moment that these agencies actions actually do increase subprime lending... The question then becomes: So what?



TJR

 

[Richard L]

Hugh,

I don't think redlining is fair or should be allowed.

Now we finally agree :banana:



Bank's Redlining certain areas was the only issue being investigated in the article. All of the speculation about Sub Prime loans was injected into the article by the author using bracketed/bolded text. In the author's opinion, the Obama Administration was pushing for new Sub Prime loans but that opinion is not supported by anything stated in the article except the author's opinion.



Unlike TJR, I don't think Sub Prime loans were that benefical and certainly the way they were implemented was reckless. There was no control, no due-diligence, and few if any limitations. Banks were cranking them out as fast as they could because they would simply sell off these toxic loans and get their profit up front, and did not care if they defaulted on the loan. Who is going to buy-into these Sub Prime loans? It certainly does not appear that the Banks want to get into the sub prime loan business again if they are going to be stuck with these loans.



Perhaps some form of Sub Prime loans may come up again, but I can almost guarantee that they will not be called "Sub Prime"...That phrase alone is toxic. If they do, I hope that they will be limited, and that the lenders will do all the neccessary scrutiny of the applications to verify that everything correct and truthful....and the loans are not based on arbitray redlines



All we can do is wait and see, but I think any attempt to resurrect Sub Prime loans would be suicidal for any political candidate.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Richard L,



I didn't mean to imply that sub-prime loans were "that" beneficial. I simply was trying to say that for some, they are valuable.



I agree that most banks have no real interest in getting into sub-prime home loans. In addition, sub-prime as a lending vehicle seems to have all but dried up, and that is not due to agencies like those described in the article.



As for the phrase "sub-prime" being toxic, I agree, but find that unfortunate. Again, for some, especially those that are certain to be in a home for only a few years, sub-prime, ARM, and similar vehicles can make sense.



TJR

 

[H D]

I continue to contend that they will be the result. I will not qualify it or play any of your word games. My personal analysis is that it will result in sub-prime loans. You can make any sort of qualifying statements about the possibility of me being incorrect if you'd like. I make my assertions and I stand by my statements. If I am proven wrong, I will own up to it, but I won't hide behind phrases like "I said 'maybe' or 'it is likely'.



If you'll read many of my previous posts, I have repeatedly stated opposition to redlining. I haven't finally done anything. All I've continued to do is repeat myself in differing ways. Of course redlining is wrong. I have never once supported it. That has not been the issue I have been discussing.



I have been talking about the implications of what the article said is happening. I read articles and then I ask myself, so what is the result of this? Who will be helped? What will be the consequences. I think those questions have been answered in this thread. I appreciate having others to debate these things with. We may not completely agree, but it seems that everyone to varying degrees accepts my premise that the actions of the agencies will (or insert your qualifiers here) result in the lending of sub-prime mortgages. The implications of that (which has started to get mentioned) is for another debate. Thanks for keeping it civil.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



Again, an open mind is a great thing. I am glad we can keep it civil.



You said:

I have been talking about the implications of what the article said is happening. I read articles and then I ask myself, so what is the result of this? Who will be helped? What will be the consequences. I think those questions have been answered in this thread.

Clearly, though, I belive that a more unbiased person with an open mind would have more appropriately said:

I have been talking about what I consider to be the likely implications of what the article said is happening. I read articles and then I ask myself, so what is a likely result of this? Who will likely be helped? What will likely be the consequences. I think those questions have been credibly speculated in this thread.

See the difference?



Now, you probably think the 2nd version is "wishy-washy" and non-commital. It isn't, not really. It is accurate, it is opinionative, and it reinforces the "thought experiment", speculation and conjecture that is going on in your communication, seemingly in your mind, and to some extent in the article (or so it appears to me).



Questions have been asked. *Possible* outcomes have been speculated and discussed. More sub-prime mortgages *may* be the result (doubtful, in any large numbers, I submit... and very very few as truly bad loans, I further submit...also speculation, on my part).



Again, I will ask, what would be bad if some increased number of sub-prime loans went to qualified buyers through these actions?



P.S. The only thing I disagree with you, on, Hugh, is the fact that you continue to paint opinion, conjecture and speculation as "fete complete."



TJR

 

[H D]

So, I think it is fact. You see other possibilities. I'm ok with that.

 

[Bill V]

TJR, now you're starting to sound like Ana Gasteyer's Judge Lessner on "The Good Wife", in my opinion.

:grin:

(If you watch the show at all, you'll know what I mean, and get the humor. In my opinion.)

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh said:

So, I think it is fact. You see other possibilities. I'm ok with that.

Okay, so to me that statement aboe is and admission that what you are taking about are not facts, but instead are opinion and speculation.



Consider this:



When there is a point of interest that one person can think about one way, and another can think about and see some other possible way (which is what you state above), then that point of interest is not necessarily a "fact." What you are describing is something subjective. Opinions are subjective. Speculation is subjective.



Facts are not subjective. They don't change based on one's opinion or POV. The don't come in various flavors of possibilities.



Labeling something as a fact because you suspect it is true or will be true does not make it so.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V,



I have never seen the show, but if I sound like her then she must be smart. LOL!



TJR

 

[Bill V]

TJR, she's a judge who insists that anyone in her court who says something which is not indisputable fact include the words "in my opinion" in their statement. It is never presumed that just because a person made a statement, that it is their opinion. It must be explicitly said, every time that person speaks.



It makes for some pretty humorous courtroom banter, in my opinion.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V,



Very funny, and I like that actress from her SNL days.



I can see the resemblence, but I actually don't have the need for people to preface with "in my opinion." All I really strive for is that people stop throwing the F-word (fact) around in their assertions when what they are saying is opinion, speculation, etc.



TJR

 

[H D]

I believe it is fact.

 

[Tom Schindler]

I believe it is fact.

That still makes it an opinion.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen gets it.



TJR

 

[H D]

I can call your facts opinion, too, ya know. Until you prove mine are incorrect or you prove your's are correct, I can claim these as facts and they are no less valid than your thoughts.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



I'm not debating whether or not what you are postulating will or won't come true. I'm just pointing out that these things that you are calling facts, by the very definition of the word "fact" are not facts at all.



Something that has not yet come to pass is not a fact. That is just the way it is. That, is a good example of a fact.



A forecast for rain tomorrow is not a fact. It is a forecast of something that might happen. If and once it rains tomorrow, then that rain will be a fact.



Believing that something will happen, which is what you are describing, is speculation. It is a belief of what will happen. It may in fact prove to be true, but until it happens, it is not a fact.



BTW, what I am saying has absolutely nothing to do with your argument or what you feel is likely to happen in the future. Again, i am simply pointing out your misuse of the term "fact."



I am not sure I can explain this any more clearly. I am beginning to think you simply are unwilling to see things reasonably.



TJR

 

[H D]

I am simply basing my projections based on history. Y'all are basing your projections on the hope and change that has been promised. Until hope and change happens, it is not fact, either.

 

[Bill V]

TJR, should we really confuse the issue? . In yor example, it is a fact that rain is forecasted for tomorrow, even though the forecast itself is not, in fact, a fact.



:grin: