bigdaddy2003;1112075 wrote:Right. So lets get back to the issue at hand. I believe we were all waiting for you to give a valid reason why the black vote stays where it does.

Actually I'd like to see one valid reason for the black vote to endorse a candidate who wants to go back to the 1950's.

Al Bundy;1112070 wrote:I am a democrat, but that doesn't mean I don't think people shouldn't have a basic education before buying a home. You are basically saying that it is the banks fault that someone can't do middle school math to figure out if they can afford a home. Most people can do the math, but they live in an entitlement society and feel that everything should be given to them. It really isn't that hard. If your take home pay is $2,000/month, you shouldn't sign a mortgage for more than around $600/month. If you can't afford that, you simply don't take the mortgage. I would love to have a million dollar house, but I know that I can't afford that. It isn't the fault of the government or the banks or anyone else that I can't afford, it is just an economic reality.

Oh yeh you're a Democrat, mock the education attainment of averge American and rave about the "entitlement society" tea partier all the way. These folks signed agreements with fine print that went into effect when their loans were sold away and ended up in some financial package bundled and sold by Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers. That is economic reality.

Al Bundy;1112070 wrote:I am a democrat, but that doesn't mean I don't think people shouldn't have a basic education before buying a home. You are basically saying that it is the banks fault that someone can't do middle school math to figure out if they can afford a home. Most people can do the math, but they live in an entitlement society and feel that everything should be given to them. It really isn't that hard. If your take home pay is $2,000/month, you shouldn't sign a mortgage for more than around $600/month. If you can't afford that, you simply don't take the mortgage. I would love to have a million dollar house, but I know that I can't afford that. It isn't the fault of the government or the banks or anyone else that I can't afford, it is just an economic reality.

Should a person buy a home that they likely can't afford? No.

But just like we know that people smoke or eat poorly or don't exercise despite knowing the potential negative effects of those things people don't really do that.

Is it technically in free market utopia the government or the banks problem? Not really. But back in the real world the most effective solution is just to make it so that banks shouldn't be able to loan to people they know are likely to default. And taking that even further, they should definitely not be able to pull the derivatives bullshit they did that brought about a lot of the current financial mess.

Who is hurt by banks not being able to loan to those they know should not qualify? Seriously, how is that an overbearing regulation?

bigdaddy2003;1112075 wrote:Right. So lets get back to the issue at hand. I believe we were all waiting for you to give a valid reason why the black vote stays where it does.

Again if you read the attitudes toward black people expressed on this thread and others at this site, you should know why blacks would vote for Obama. This site is skewed, overwhelmingly white, conservative Republican with patronizing and racist views toward African Americans. Reading the statements expressed here reflecting the opinion of "average" upper middle class white supporters of the Republican party could only help Obama with his base.

I Wear Pants;1112082 wrote:Should a person buy a home that they likely can't afford? No.

But just like we know that people smoke or eat poorly or don't exercise despite knowing the potential negative effects of those things people don't really do that.

Is it technically in free market utopia the government or the banks problem? Not really. But back in the real world the most effective solution is just to make it so that banks shouldn't be able to loan to people they know are likely to default. And taking that even further, they should definitely not be able to pull the derivatives bull**** they did that brought about a lot of the current financial mess.

Who is hurt by banks not being able to loan to those they know should not qualify? Seriously, how is that an overbearing regulation?

I would suggest for everyone's viewing pleasure the documentary "Inside Job". That really helps explain derivatives and bundling more than anything else I've heard , read or seen since.

It is interesting that in most cases when the consumer is scammed with false packaging and labeling most of us realize that it is the fault of the seller. But so many of us, gosh even people who claim to be Democrats. are so ready to blame the consumer when he is tricked by these sleazy mortgage providers.

stlouiedipalma;1112014 wrote:Nothing like a thread about the black vote to get you righties all worked up. I've yet to see one intelligent post explaining why Obama won't get a huge percentage of the black vote or, for that matter, what Republicans have done to attract the black vote.

The Republicans' answer to countering Obama's appeal to blacks is voter ID laws, brought on by the lie that voter fraud is rampant, but really a thinly veiled disguise for voter suppression. The R's have always been all about voter supression. They can't beat 'em, so they'll disqualify 'em. Isn't that how it works?

Moronic rant. I voted for the first time here in Tennessee and I was required to produce a valid gubmint issued photo ID before they'd let me vote. I didn't hear anyone complaining and there were plenty of blacks in line.

We have to produce an ID to cash a check, take out a loan, get on board a commercial airline, etc. Yet if we require a photo ID to vote you leftists cry racism, discrimination, or suppression. If suppression means preventing illegals from voting then I'm all for it.

As long as you have a gubmint photo ID verifying your citizenship I don't care if you're white, black, purple, or come from Mars you can vote. That's not suppression. It's common sense. :rolleyes:

isadore;1112017 wrote:Where ever deregulation began it was a horrendous mistake which is continued to be pushed by the Republcians. It is interesting that your sympathy is with the banks not with the working people who were taken advantage of by them.

The "working people" signed up for a loan they couldn't afford. The banks were wrong but the people were stupid.

And, sorry, but the Rs didn't support forcing the banks to loan to people who normally wouldn't qualify for housing loans. You are incorrect, once again, on that one.

Typical disingenuosness of democrats who try to pin the "blame" on someone/something and perpetuate victimhood to gain votes.( see post #14 of this thread) Yeah, let's blame thebanks/ corporations for simply following the direction of government. Started by Clinton and continued by Bush.

So, if you need to blame someone, then be sure to realize that as far as loans to unqualified individuals , the ball got rolling and received its greatest push from the Clinton administration, and was proudly trumpeted in their 1996 presidential campaign.
http://www.4president.us/issues/clinton1996/clinton1996housing.htm

More over, the mandate issued by Clinton era HUD was for lenders to be 'creative' in providing loans for first time home ownership for low income people.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

To be fair, the process was truly bi-partisan.

...and why should this be an issue that would want to make 'black people' as a group want to vote democratic? This particular event affected low income people of all colors. I would think that in a truly colorless society, the person votes their best interest. I would like to know why we keep perpetuating the idea that 'black people' vote as a group. Why are we keeping them locked into a voting bloc?
Oh wait...I already know the answer.

I Wear Pants;1112008 wrote:

HMMMM The face of the son of a famous American imigrant who had to deal with many prejudices back in his day . Ironic isnt it

Great post. It shows how America is a great land of opportunity for people of all races if they don't allow themselves to be ensnared/trapped by victimhood.

jmog;1112117 wrote:The "working people" signed up for a loan they couldn't afford. The banks were wrong but the people were stupid.

And, sorry, but the Rs didn't support forcing the banks to loan to people who normally wouldn't qualify for housing loans. You are incorrect, once again, on that one.

Gosh it is always interesting where people’s sympathy lie. Some support the victims and some support the predators. Offering working people home loans at a reasonable interest rate is a good thing. Using deceptively low introductory interest rates and then hiding the potential for massive increase in interest in the fine print. Then bundling all these loans made on a questionable basis, selling them on the bond market with a triple AAA rating from a thoroughly corrupt rating agency to another set of victims. Some people cheer for the Christians, some cheer for the lions. Deregulation pushed by the Republicans lead to this disaster.

isadore;1112174 wrote:Gosh it is always interesting where people’s sympathy lie. Some support the victims and some support the predators. Offering working people home loans at a reasonable interest rate is a good thing. Using deceptively low introductory interest rates and then hiding the potential for massive increase in interest in the fine print. Then bundling all these loans made on a questionable basis, selling them on the bond market with a triple AAA rating from a thoroughly corrupt rating agency to another set of victims. Some people cheer for the Christians, some cheer for the lions. Deregulation pushed by the Republicans lead to this disaster.

I am off to do some shopping today. I hope I can survive the lion attacks. If I buy things that I can't afford, it must be the fault of the evil companies and the government. I was considering checking my finances to get an idea of how much I can afford to spend, but why should I do that when it is easier to cry about being a victim? If the lions attack, can I hope that the all powerful chosen one in Washington will save me?

HitsRus;1112130 wrote:Typical disingenuosness of democrats who try to pin the "blame" on someone/something and perpetuate victimhood to gain votes.( see post #14 of this thread) Yeah, let's blame thebanks/ corporations for simply following the direction of government. Started by Clinton and continued by Bush.

So, if you need to blame someone, then be sure to realize that as far as loans to unqualified individuals , the ball got rolling and received its greatest push from the Clinton administration, and was proudly trumpeted in their 1996 presidential campaign.
http://www.4president.us/issues/clinton1996/clinton1996housing.htm

More over, the mandate issued by Clinton era HUD was for lenders to be 'creative' in providing loans for first time home ownership for low income people.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

To be fair, the process was truly bi-partisan.

...and why should this be an issue that would want to make 'black people' as a group want to vote democratic? This particular event affected low income people of all colors. I would think that in a truly colorless society, the person votes their best interest. I would like to know why we keep perpetuating the idea that 'black people' vote as a group. Why are we keeping them locked into a voting bloc?
Oh wait...I already know the answer.

Banks do not give people anything. What we do have is banks enticing people into loans with hidden terms that can lead them to economic catastrophe. Why would blacks support a party that has leaders who oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting rights Act that extended basic rights to Black Americans.

Al Bundy;1112186 wrote:I am off to do some shopping today. I hope I can survive the lion attacks. If I buy things that I can't afford, it must be the fault of the evil companies and the government. I was considering checking my finances to get an idea of how much I can afford to spend, but why should I do that when it is easier to cry about being a victim? If the lions attack, can I hope that the all powerful chosen one in Washington will save me?

When you go shopping there are government regulations that protect you from harmful products. The banking regulation have been gutted leaving borrowers open to abuse. We had the threat of lion attack here in Ohio because of the lack of regulation on the ownership of exotic animals.

Some support the victims and some support the predators

You mean...some create the victims and invite the predators. Your party should look in the mirror and take responsibility for its complicity as well as the tactics that keep the victims under your thumb. Democrats are about blame not personal responsibility...not even their own.

isadore;1112066 wrote:....big banking institutions that have used and abused them. If you do not believe that those institutions with their resources and greed can provide glittering offers that can trick average working people into bad investments then you either blind or supportive of these blood sucking financial institutions.

Expecting people to know and understand what they're signing - you know, only the biggest and most important financial decision of their life - is too much to ask? So, what you're saying is we need the govt to protect people from their own ignorance/stupidity? Big Gubmit knows best?

1977 Jimmy Carter pushes for and signs the Community Re-investment Act to help banks reach out to low income families.
1995 Bill Clinton expands the CRA by requiring banks to meet a quota for low income loans and increasing punishments to banks who did not make enough loans to the economically disadvantaged.

As Isadore so aptly noted..."Banks don't give people anything"( because a business needs to make a profit)...that profitability issue was addressed in...
1999 Bill Clinton signs the Graham Leach Billey Act(passed with bi-partisan support) which allowed banks to merge with insurance and investment companies provided they met the government's mandated quota for low income loans.

HitsRus;1112208 wrote:You mean...some create the victims and invite the predators. Your party should look in the mirror and take responsibility for its complicity as well as the tactics that keep the victims under your thumb. Democrats are about blame not personal responsibility...not even their own.

The continuing refrain from the right blame the borrower, protecting them from predatory lenders does not make one complicit in the crime. Keeping consumer from buying an unsafe product is positive act by government whether it be a pound of hamburg or a home loan.

Al Bundy;1111987 wrote:I am a registered democrat. I just don't understand how someone can't calculate how much they can afford to pay for a mortgage. I know how much I make, and I know how much I can afford to pay for a mortgage or rent. If I sign a deal that is beyond what I can afford to pay, that is my fault.

Just a question for you Al. Have you ever signed the closing papers on a mortgage? I've bought 2 homes in my lifetime, and I learned a valuable lesson after the first one.

I am college educated, with a degree in business administration...a minor in economics. The mortgage legalese papers were comprised of over 35 pages. It would have taken over 6 hours of reading all the fine print and probably 3 days to understand every nuance stated. Whether you think so or not, the documents are "bank loaded" in the small print, and I was verbally lied to regarding the penalties for early payoff. I was burned....and it cost me thousands. Why? Because I trusted the bank people...and that was a mistake.

Ultimately, it was I who had signed the papers....and I had no recourse.

Now...let's fast forward to the housing crisis and sub priming. Same 35 pages of fine print...same people trusting the banks to be honest and fair. Well, if they can verbally hoodwink a college educated, business degreed, trusting customer, just imagine what they could do with the GED crowd...en masse. Keep in mind the following...

Closing mortgages are "front loaded" for the bank salesman in garnishing commissions. His own financial well being is based on mortgage closings, It is not in his/her interest to be forthight in explaining imminent caveats to those that cannot really afford the home in the first place. Mortgages are secured...with very little risk on the bank's end. True, foreclosed properties have a reduced value, but in the long run, banks do not stand to lose much...compared to those that are, in many cases, forced into bankruptcy.

It's easy to say...buyer beware. But in the real world, the banking industry is loaded with crooks...that care much more about putting new business on the books, versus looking out for the personal well being of their own customers.

gut;1112212 wrote:Expecting people to know and understand what they're signing - you know, only the biggest and most important financial decision of their life - is too much to ask? So, what you're saying is we need the govt to protect people from their own ignorance/stupidity? Big Gubmit knows best?

well gosh a ruddies when the financial institution can afford to have the loan terms prepared by the best and brightest they can trick just about anyone.

Keeping consumer from buying an unsafe product is positive act by government whether it be a pound of hamburg or a home loan

In this case it was the government that legislated and encouraged these loans.

isadore;1112248 wrote:The continuing refrain from the right blame the borrower, protecting them from predatory lenders does not make one complicit in the crime. Keeping consumer from buying an unsafe product is positive act by government whether it be a pound of hamburg or a home loan.

I have no issues with the government monitoring food safety or regulating abusive/predatory loan practices, but in the end it's the consumer's responsibility to make informed buying decisions.

"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." - Ronald Reagan

isadore;1112259 wrote:well gosh a ruddies when the financial institution can afford to have the loan terms prepared by the best and brightest they can trick just about anyone.

That's the sort of victim mentality the liberals love to see!

What is it, exactly, about "Adjustable Rate Mortgage" that is so difficult to grasp? Seems to me when people can't or won't read that you don't need to go to any great lengths to "trick" them. Just admit it - you believe it's the responsibility of the taxpayer and the job of govt to protect people from their own stupidity/ignorance/laziness.

You want your nanny state to have some big 'ol titties to suck on. Is that the jist of it?

believer;1112278 wrote:I have no issues with the government monitoring food safety or regulating abusive/predatory loan practices, but in the end it's the consumer's responsibility to make informed buying decisions.

"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." - Ronald Reagan

It is the consumer's responsibility to know that hamburg is falsely labeled and eating it will kill him. It is the consumer's responsibility to know that deceptively prepared loan agreement will destroy him financially. No.