NAACP: Bank Giants Steered Blacks to Bad Loans

[BrokenAngel]

In order to say the banks are racist you need to get the figures on what percentages of whites had similar loans. For your argument to gain validity, quote the figures from a site that isn't "Black only" please. If you can back up your initial argument with more than just one article written on a site called "BlackNews.com" more people might be willing to listen to you.

Go to this website and you can do a search yourself, the information is publc


FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act

The NAACP has become a steam rolling group of media whores who don't seem to have anyone's best interests in mind. They just want to promote people being lazy and they seem to want to promote the degradation of the race they claim to love.

BS, its the media that are the black man's worst enemy with all their negative all portrayal of black people and making whites look like the good people. The NAACP doesn't promote laziness, can't see any evidence of that, what a jackass of a statement.

Ok I was not being a jackass but rather being honest. I really don't try to go head to head with you Bass. I am far from trying to walk on you but I have a hard time seeing how the NAACP does good. I would support the premise.. the idea of what it is supposed to accomplish but the methods are awful. They alienate rather than unify this country and it feels like whites are being singled out as racist if we bring up race and a coward if we don't. It feels like if a white man were to commit a crime and a black person happened to be on the recieving end, just because of chance, that it would be counted as a hate crime.

I keep pleading with you to see BOTH sides of this coin because if you are willing to understand where I am coming from I would love to hear your support for what you say. Telling me I am wrong and calling me a jackass doesn't do anything to sweeten my opinion of the NAACP. I called you out in a previous post on a different thread that you never responded to despite me asking.

The reverse racism is growing stronger and stronger and with the hate that is still growing in the black community I am honestly afraid that within a few generations someone is going to decide that "whitey" needs to be put in his place. What happens to my children's children then? I want a community where they don't have to be afraid or judged because of the color of their skin just like I don't want to judge another human being on anything other than who they are and what they stand for.

This will be the last time I ask you to be reasonable... I won't bother responding to one of your threads or posts in the future if you don't start working with rather than against me.

btw.. can't look up the link on this laptop.. have to wait till my boyfriend wakes up so I can use the actual comp. So sorry I didn't respond to that portion of the post.

 

[Ravi]

The lawsuits could force banks to divulge closely guarded information, such as how banks can determine the race of a loan applicant and how federal bailout funds are being spent.

I think the article is true, except for using the word "force." People are no more forced to take bad loans than banks are forced to make them.

That said, it is racist to charge people higher rates simply because they are black.

I would like to know myself how the banks can determine race from an application...

 

[KittenKoder]

The lawsuits could force banks to divulge closely guarded information, such as how banks can determine the race of a loan applicant and how federal bailout funds are being spent.

I think the article is true, except for using the word "force." People are no more forced to take bad loans than banks are forced to make them.

That said, it is racist to charge people higher rates simply because they are black.

I would like to know myself how the banks can determine race from an application...

Aaahh ... and there is one of the keys to why this claim is skewed. They simply can't. It's illegal for them to even ask.

 

[editec]

The NAACP is accusing Wells Fargo and HSBC of forcing blacks into subprime mortgages while whites with identical qualifications got lower rates.

"I was blown away," said Weaver, an NAACP member. "I didn't have any choice (but to sign) ... it made me feel violated."

Tighe estimated that "tens of thousands" of blacks had been forced into bad loans, but said it was difficult to gauge the scope of the problem because banks keep much of their internal data private.

I don't think anyone put a gun to their head.
Exactly how were they FORCED?
Why didn't they go to another lender?

Forced?

Swindled more likely.

 

[Ravi]

The lawsuits could force banks to divulge closely guarded information, such as how banks can determine the race of a loan applicant and how federal bailout funds are being spent.

I think the article is true, except for using the word "force." People are no more forced to take bad loans than banks are forced to make them.

That said, it is racist to charge people higher rates simply because they are black.

I would like to know myself how the banks can determine race from an application...

Aaahh ... and there is one of the keys to why this claim is skewed. They simply can't. It's illegal for them to even ask.

I think that is the point of the lawsuit. The banks are acting in an illegal manner.

 

[KittenKoder]

The NAACP is accusing Wells Fargo and HSBC of forcing blacks into subprime mortgages while whites with identical qualifications got lower rates.

"I was blown away," said Weaver, an NAACP member. "I didn't have any choice (but to sign) ... it made me feel violated."

Tighe estimated that "tens of thousands" of blacks had been forced into bad loans, but said it was difficult to gauge the scope of the problem because banks keep much of their internal data private.

I don't think anyone put a gun to their head.
Exactly how were they FORCED?
Why didn't they go to another lender?

Forced?

Swindled more likely.

To swindle means they were tricked into it completely. With loans they have to go in with the intent to take one, so that doesn't fit either. They went into the bank asking for a loan (or called them or mailed them ... whatever) and therefore had the intent to get it already. The bank then assess what the risk is based on the numbers (generally finances and credit rating because there are too many people willing to take advantage of a loan if given the chance). The rates they get are generally based on how much of a risk they are which is formulated by their past and present situation. The banks however were forced by law to give loans to really high risk borrowers, thus they were really the ones forced to take chances. When banks are forced to take these chances it never works out, period, and we who aren't stupid enough to live beyond what we earn are the ones that have to pay for it the most.

 

[editec]

Jackass, people who are denied loans from one bank when they really need money go to other banks to get loans. If qualified people are denied loans based on race and are forced to take subprime loans thats called mortgage discrimination and racial steering to subprime loans when none is needed. Please explain why those 40% of blacks who took subprime loans were denied better loans with cheaper rates when they actually were qualified for cheaper mainstream loans if discrimination played no part? The thieves are the subprime lenders who knowingly charge higher interest rates to people who qualify for much cheaper rates, that happens when there is little to no government monitoring of lending practices.

I love it: If banks don't lend to blacks because their credit stinks (and it usually does), they're racist. If they DO lend to blacks, they're racist because they fooled the poor blacks into taking a loan.

Wha?

The bottom line is that blacks in America have TERRIBLE credit, and this goes a long way to explaining... a lot. Blacks are present-oriented people, not future-oriented people, so the concept of "pay the loan back on time" does not register with them. Actually, the concept of doing anything on time does not register with them.

That's not whites' fault.

Oh what fucking nonsense, William.

And you claim to be a laywer? Where did you learn your applied logic? Certainly not in law school.

If it can be shown that statistically Blacks with similar credit rating to Whites were given significantly different mortgage rates, then the ststistics are proving that something about the way that bank conducted business produced RACIST OUTCOMES.

 

[KittenKoder]

Jackass, people who are denied loans from one bank when they really need money go to other banks to get loans. If qualified people are denied loans based on race and are forced to take subprime loans thats called mortgage discrimination and racial steering to subprime loans when none is needed. Please explain why those 40% of blacks who took subprime loans were denied better loans with cheaper rates when they actually were qualified for cheaper mainstream loans if discrimination played no part? The thieves are the subprime lenders who knowingly charge higher interest rates to people who qualify for much cheaper rates, that happens when there is little to no government monitoring of lending practices.

I love it: If banks don't lend to blacks because their credit stinks (and it usually does), they're racist. If they DO lend to blacks, they're racist because they fooled the poor blacks into taking a loan.

Wha?

The bottom line is that blacks in America have TERRIBLE credit, and this goes a long way to explaining... a lot. Blacks are present-oriented people, not future-oriented people, so the concept of "pay the loan back on time" does not register with them. Actually, the concept of doing anything on time does not register with them.

That's not whites' fault.

Oh what fucking nonsense, William.

And you claim to be a laywer? Where did you learn your applied logic? Certainly not in law school.

If it can be shown that statistically Blacks with similar credit rating to Whites were given significantly different mortgage rates, then the ststistics are proving that something about the way that bank conducted business produced RACIST OUTCOMES.

While some of what William states is pretty lame, you however missed the point that they don't have any such data. Statistics can always be manipulated for political agendas, and this is a clear case of one side decided to manipulate it while the other is just going WTF.

 

[Ravi]

I don't think anyone put a gun to their head.
Exactly how were they FORCED?
Why didn't they go to another lender?

Forced?

Swindled more likely.

To swindle means they were tricked into it completely. With loans they have to go in with the intent to take one, so that doesn't fit either. They went into the bank asking for a loan (or called them or mailed them ... whatever) and therefore had the intent to get it already. The bank then assess what the risk is based on the numbers (generally finances and credit rating because there are too many people willing to take advantage of a loan if given the chance). The rates they get are generally based on how much of a risk they are which is formulated by their past and present situation. The banks however were forced by law to give loans to really high risk borrowers, thus they were really the ones forced to take chances. When banks are forced to take these chances it never works out, period, and we who aren't stupid enough to live beyond what we earn are the ones that have to pay for it the most.

The banks weren't forced to give loans to high risk borrowers.

 

[KittenKoder]

Forced?

Swindled more likely.

To swindle means they were tricked into it completely. With loans they have to go in with the intent to take one, so that doesn't fit either. They went into the bank asking for a loan (or called them or mailed them ... whatever) and therefore had the intent to get it already. The bank then assess what the risk is based on the numbers (generally finances and credit rating because there are too many people willing to take advantage of a loan if given the chance). The rates they get are generally based on how much of a risk they are which is formulated by their past and present situation. The banks however were forced by law to give loans to really high risk borrowers, thus they were really the ones forced to take chances. When banks are forced to take these chances it never works out, period, and we who aren't stupid enough to live beyond what we earn are the ones that have to pay for it the most.

The banks weren't forced to give loans to high risk borrowers.

Um ... yes they were. Look back at what Clinton did. I liked the guy but some of his policies were just wrong.

 

[dilloduck]

Forced?

Swindled more likely.

To swindle means they were tricked into it completely. With loans they have to go in with the intent to take one, so that doesn't fit either. They went into the bank asking for a loan (or called them or mailed them ... whatever) and therefore had the intent to get it already. The bank then assess what the risk is based on the numbers (generally finances and credit rating because there are too many people willing to take advantage of a loan if given the chance). The rates they get are generally based on how much of a risk they are which is formulated by their past and present situation. The banks however were forced by law to give loans to really high risk borrowers, thus they were really the ones forced to take chances. When banks are forced to take these chances it never works out, period, and we who aren't stupid enough to live beyond what we earn are the ones that have to pay for it the most.

The banks weren't forced to give loans to high risk borrowers.

If they didn't they would face trouble. Do you know any businesses that ask for trouble ?

 

[KittenKoder]

To swindle means they were tricked into it completely. With loans they have to go in with the intent to take one, so that doesn't fit either. They went into the bank asking for a loan (or called them or mailed them ... whatever) and therefore had the intent to get it already. The bank then assess what the risk is based on the numbers (generally finances and credit rating because there are too many people willing to take advantage of a loan if given the chance). The rates they get are generally based on how much of a risk they are which is formulated by their past and present situation. The banks however were forced by law to give loans to really high risk borrowers, thus they were really the ones forced to take chances. When banks are forced to take these chances it never works out, period, and we who aren't stupid enough to live beyond what we earn are the ones that have to pay for it the most.

The banks weren't forced to give loans to high risk borrowers.

If they didn't they would face trouble. Do you know any businesses that ask for trouble ?

Affirmative Action at it's best ... *sigh*

 

[editec]

I love it: If banks don't lend to blacks because their credit stinks (and it usually does), they're racist. If they DO lend to blacks, they're racist because they fooled the poor blacks into taking a loan.

Wha?

The bottom line is that blacks in America have TERRIBLE credit, and this goes a long way to explaining... a lot. Blacks are present-oriented people, not future-oriented people, so the concept of "pay the loan back on time" does not register with them. Actually, the concept of doing anything on time does not register with them.

That's not whites' fault.

Oh what fucking nonsense, William.

And you claim to be a laywer? Where did you learn your applied logic? Certainly not in law school.

If it can be shown that statistically Blacks with similar credit rating to Whites were given significantly different mortgage rates, then the ststistics are proving that something about the way that bank conducted business produced RACIST OUTCOMES.

While some of what William states is pretty lame, you however missed the point that they don't have any such data. Statistics can always be manipulated for political agendas, and this is a clear case of one side decided to manipulate it while the other is just going WTF.

Statsitics can always be manipulated?

Well that explains everything doesn't it?

If we don't like what the evidence seems to indicate , then we just say the evidence is false.

No point even trying to discuss the issue if we don't have any evidence we can count on, is there?

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh what fucking nonsense, William.

And you claim to be a laywer? Where did you learn your applied logic? Certainly not in law school.

If it can be shown that statistically Blacks with similar credit rating to Whites were given significantly different mortgage rates, then the ststistics are proving that something about the way that bank conducted business produced RACIST OUTCOMES.

While some of what William states is pretty lame, you however missed the point that they don't have any such data. Statistics can always be manipulated for political agendas, and this is a clear case of one side decided to manipulate it while the other is just going WTF.

Statsitics can always be manipulated?

Well that explains everything doesn't it?

If we don't like what the evidence seems to indicate , then we just say the evidence is false.

No point even trying to discuss the issue if we don't have any evidence we can count on, is there?

Um, yeah .... thanks for conceding at least.

 

[editec]

While some of what William states is pretty lame, you however missed the point that they don't have any such data. Statistics can always be manipulated for political agendas, and this is a clear case of one side decided to manipulate it while the other is just going WTF.

Statsitics can always be manipulated?

Well that explains everything doesn't it?

If we don't like what the evidence seems to indicate , then we just say the evidence is false.

No point even trying to discuss the issue if we don't have any evidence we can count on, is there?

Um, yeah .... thanks for conceding at least.

Yeah, no problem.

No point wasting our time if we can know nothing for sure, right?

 

[KittenKoder]

Statsitics can always be manipulated?

Well that explains everything doesn't it?

If we don't like what the evidence seems to indicate , then we just say the evidence is false.

No point even trying to discuss the issue if we don't have any evidence we can count on, is there?

Um, yeah .... thanks for conceding at least.

Yeah, no problem.

No point wasting our time if we can know nothing for sure, right?

Here's the thing, by relying on statistics you have completely ignored logic, this is why statistics are proving bad for our country. Especially those released by any media. Those are the ones most likely to be altered. Now, here is the logic:

No one was forced or tricked into getting a loan.

Anyone who gets a loan they know they can't pay off is a thief.

Anyone who gets a loan without knowing whether they can pay it off is an idiot.

Banks make money only if the loan is paid off.

Banks do not want to give loans to people who are not likely to pay it off because they lose too much money that way ... and wind up where most are falling now.

NAACP is interested in making a fuss, for as long as people think they are needed they will continue to get money themselves.

Most advocates are either paid for their work or crave attention so they will say anything outrageous to get these.

People taking loans they cannot or do not intend to pay back are what ultimately caused the largest portion of the financial mess to be as bad as it is.

Money has to come from somewhere, all debts must be paid for the system to work at all.

It is not the banks fault if someone with a certain skin color has a history of bouncing checks, not paying people back, or some other less than intelligent habit.

The only way humans can succeed is if they first "stand up" themselves, and the more they are told that they are being oppressed the more they will oppress themselves.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

To swindle means they were tricked into it completely. With loans they have to go in with the intent to take one, so that doesn't fit either. They went into the bank asking for a loan (or called them or mailed them ... whatever) and therefore had the intent to get it already. The bank then assess what the risk is based on the numbers (generally finances and credit rating because there are too many people willing to take advantage of a loan if given the chance). The rates they get are generally based on how much of a risk they are which is formulated by their past and present situation. The banks however were forced by law to give loans to really high risk borrowers, thus they were really the ones forced to take chances. When banks are forced to take these chances it never works out, period, and we who aren't stupid enough to live beyond what we earn are the ones that have to pay for it the most.

The Bass yet to see any law that *FORCES* banks into giving loans to high-risk borrowers, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

To swindle means they were tricked into it completely. With loans they have to go in with the intent to take one, so that doesn't fit either. They went into the bank asking for a loan (or called them or mailed them ... whatever) and therefore had the intent to get it already. The bank then assess what the risk is based on the numbers (generally finances and credit rating because there are too many people willing to take advantage of a loan if given the chance). The rates they get are generally based on how much of a risk they are which is formulated by their past and present situation. The banks however were forced by law to give loans to really high risk borrowers, thus they were really the ones forced to take chances. When banks are forced to take these chances it never works out, period, and we who aren't stupid enough to live beyond what we earn are the ones that have to pay for it the most.

The banks weren't forced to give loans to high risk borrowers.

If they didn't they would face trouble. Do you know any businesses that ask for trouble ?

BS, only in the case where there was any type of discrimination and or predatory lending could trouble be made, but there is no law that states any bank can be "given trouble" for denying someone a loan.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

To swindle means they were tricked into it completely. With loans they have to go in with the intent to take one, so that doesn't fit either. They went into the bank asking for a loan (or called them or mailed them ... whatever) and therefore had the intent to get it already. The bank then assess what the risk is based on the numbers (generally finances and credit rating because there are too many people willing to take advantage of a loan if given the chance). The rates they get are generally based on how much of a risk they are which is formulated by their past and present situation. The banks however were forced by law to give loans to really high risk borrowers, thus they were really the ones forced to take chances. When banks are forced to take these chances it never works out, period, and we who aren't stupid enough to live beyond what we earn are the ones that have to pay for it the most.

The banks weren't forced to give loans to high risk borrowers.

Um ... yes they were. Look back at what Clinton did. I liked the guy but some of his policies were just wrong.

Post evidence of what Clinton did, your accusations don't count as definitive proof. The Bass posted evidence that information can be obtained about the race and gender of the those borrowing money and their credit history, that information comes from the government, not the media.

 

[KittenKoder]

To swindle means they were tricked into it completely. With loans they have to go in with the intent to take one, so that doesn't fit either. They went into the bank asking for a loan (or called them or mailed them ... whatever) and therefore had the intent to get it already. The bank then assess what the risk is based on the numbers (generally finances and credit rating because there are too many people willing to take advantage of a loan if given the chance). The rates they get are generally based on how much of a risk they are which is formulated by their past and present situation. The banks however were forced by law to give loans to really high risk borrowers, thus they were really the ones forced to take chances. When banks are forced to take these chances it never works out, period, and we who aren't stupid enough to live beyond what we earn are the ones that have to pay for it the most.

The Bass yet to see any law that *FORCES* banks into giving loans to high-risk borrowers, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this.

You really are short sighted. Every time someone proves something is different than what you want it to be you dismiss it, no matter how definitive the proof is. This is why there is no burden, you will ignore it completely anyway, just as I now ignore all your "proof" as well, the difference is I have a logical reason for ignoring what you have posted, where-as you have shown no such logic.

You have also not proven that anyone was ever forced to sign a loan.