Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you support banks not loaning money to blacks for mortgages? You do know that people of all races and political view points were effected by the housing bubble, not just blacks.
Wow, are we doing the Democratic spin again? lol
I support banks establishing policies that they believe will help them weed out people who will not pay back the money as per agreement. I do not believe government has the right to come in and force a company to change those policies. Color does not matter, only financial ability to honor their part of the agreement matters. If they meet the test then the bank agrees to lend the money, if they fail then the bank should not be forced to lend money.
Would you want to lend money to people who did not look like they had the ability to pay you back? Of course not.
I support banks establishing policies that they believe will help them weed out people who will not pay back the money as per agreement. Color does not matter, only financial ability to honor their part of the agreement.
And that i support, the problem with redlining is that it is all about weeding out people of color regardless of financial ability to honor their part of the agreement, therefore it is illegal.
Look up the Community Reinvestment Act. It compels banks to led to anyone irrespective of their credit or color. When you make loans to people who cannot afford them you will eventually be in trouble. And section 8 took care of redlining. Section 8 puts low rent trash in neighborhoods that do not want them on our dime.
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods.[7] The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business.[3] The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions.
And that i support, the problem with redlining is that it is all about weeding out people of color regardless of financial ability to honor their part of the agreement, therefore it is illegal.
There you go with racism again. The Democratic dance. As I SAID, white, black, yellow I don't care if you're credit history, income, whatever shows that you unable to honor your part of the deal then redline away.
So you're turn, go back to claiming racism. That is all you know how to do.
There you go with racism again. The Democratic dance. As I SAID, white, black, yellow I don't care if you're credit history, income, whatever shows that you unable to honor your part of the deal then redline away.
So you're turn, go back to claiming racism. That is all you know how to do.
Bottom line, in case you didn't know. IT CRASHED!
Read my post again, I said I support that. I am against redlining because redlining was about color and nothing else. You obviously have no idea what redlining means or the history about it.
Think of a map, then take a black neighborhood and draw a redline around that neighborhood and make it so no bank issues any loans to anyone that is looking to get a mortgage for that neighborhood even if they are financially safe to loan to. That is what redlining means.
There is no racism here, it just sounds like you have no idea what redlining means.
My wife's career has only gotten better these past years. She started out working for a contracter position in the military not making that much money, and now is working for a private company making well over double what she was making.
As for direct positive influence due to Obama's policies, she benefited from having extended coverage of health insurance.
I am better off because I understand that companies, banks have policies for a reason. Banks had those policies because they believed it helped them weed out people who will go into forclosure. I understand that if they are forced to go against those policies it will not be good and that was proven.
I am better because I understand that government only causes problem with subsidizing. I understand and take responsibility of my own not expecting the government to do it for me.
Government always causes more harm then good. So NO, I don't believe in big government and believe in each person taking responsibility for their own choices.
Nothing, nada, to do with Obama. All he is doing is making it harder for us. Any politician that believes in raping the people via higher taxes to funnel to the government will NEVER get my vote. We pay enough.
So you're point is?
My point? You are the one asking the question, and I answered it, and then I asked you the same question. I didn't say anything about Obama, other than I did not vote for him. I am much better off today, but I think I would be in the exact situation if McCain had won in 2008, so I don't credit everything to the president either, and nor am I naive enough to blame presidents for every ill.
Read my post again, I said I support that. I am against redlining because redlining was about color and nothing else. You obviously have no idea what redlining means or the history about it.
Think of a map, then take a black neighborhood and draw a redline around that neighborhood and make it so no bank issues any loans to anyone that is looking to get a mortgage for that neighborhood even if they are financially safe to loan to. That is what redlining means.
There is no racism here, it just sounds like you have no idea what redlining means.
So what is the value of the property? Would they qualify but the banker does not want to lend for the property?
Obviously it was up to the bank. If someone came to you and it looked like they were capable of holding up their end of the bargain but wanted to buy something you felt would not protect you then would you lend the money. Remember, those banks have to also believe if the borrower does default they can sell the property and not lose money.
I would have thought you were smarter than that and I would not have to explain this to you but you are on a mission to claim racism.
My point? You are the one asking the question, and I answered it, and then I asked you the same question. I didn't say anything about Obama, other than I did not vote for him. I am much better off today, but I think I would be in the exact situation if McCain had won in 2008, so I don't credit everything to the president either, and nor am I naive enough to blame presidents for every ill.
I also would have been in the same situation if McCain but all this president does is campaign for higher taxes and just yesterday, for money. I'm not sure the American people would have tolerated if McCain were doing the same thing.
So what is the value of the property? Would they qualify but the banker does not want to lend for the property?
Just go study the history of redlining if you want the answers to those questions. Unless you want me to answer questions based nothing specific.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
