Fenton
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 29,771
- Reaction score
- 12,231
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
[QUOTE 1063309773]False narrative ? Yeah, redlining never existed. And Reagan's DOJ and HUD didn't look the other way when banks were basically ignoring the anti-discrimination requirements in the CRA. I guess they were all too busy deregulating the savings and loan industry, a move that led to widespread real estate speculation, hundreds of failed institutions, and a massive federal bailout.
>>The Democrats first, decided that the Private Sector standards, used by Banks for decades to keep the Housing markets stable where innately racist.
No, the standards were not racist. Many of the people applying them were. Did I say that? No, I got confused. Racism in America? Hasn't existed for at least a hundred years.
Answer this question.
If banks were actually guilty of discriminatory lending practices, that is they were actually refusing to lend to people based solely on the color of their skin, why did the Clinton administration force banks to lower their lending standards ?
HUDs 1995 Afordable Housing Goals for the GSEs mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up a increasing number of loans made to low income borrowers.
40 percent of their loan purchases had to be from low income borrowers.
Janet Reno in 1998 bragged about her 13 successful " Fair lending " lawsuites against banks and vowed to sue even more lenders.
Why would the Government fight legitmate discrimination by telling banks if they didn't lower their standards they were going to be subject to DOJ action ?
Are you telling me Minority loan applicants with Good credit scores received Sub-Prime loans ?
The way you fight legitmate discrimination based solely on color is you simply warn the banks to extend credit out to credit worthly applicants regardless of the color of their skin or else.
Use your brain man.
>>The Democrats first, decided that the Private Sector standards, used by Banks for decades to keep the Housing markets stable where innately racist.
No, the standards were not racist. Many of the people applying them were. Did I say that? No, I got confused. Racism in America? Hasn't existed for at least a hundred years.
"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro …" "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
[/QUOTE]Answer this question.
If banks were actually guilty of discriminatory lending practices, that is they were actually refusing to lend to people based solely on the color of their skin, why did the Clinton administration force banks to lower their lending standards ?
HUDs 1995 Afordable Housing Goals for the GSEs mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up a increasing number of loans made to low income borrowers.
40 percent of their loan purchases had to be from low income borrowers.
Janet Reno in 1998 bragged about her 13 successful " Fair lending " lawsuites against banks and vowed to sue even more lenders.
Why would the Government fight legitmate discrimination by telling banks if they didn't lower their standards they were going to be subject to DOJ action ?
Are you telling me Minority loan applicants with Good credit scores received Sub-Prime loans ?
The way you fight legitmate discrimination based solely on color is you simply warn the banks to extend credit out to credit worthly applicants regardless of the color of their skin or else.
Use your brain man.