Tea Party 4-18-11 Topic

swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 10/17/2010 7:04:00 PM (view original):
Where did I, or anyone else for that matter, accuse the banks of taking advantage of low income applicants?

Another lie from swamp. And one example of using a fancy-sounding word he doesn't know the meaning of, by calling his fabricated scenario a 'paradox'.

This is only for Baltimore but it runs down a list of banks being sued for not lending to blacks and hispanics. There are stories like this all over.

Another of Anton's lies disproved. Is that 8 or 9 times you accused me of lying and I came up with the data??

http://www.gbchrb.org/2mortlend.htm

10/17/2010 7:27 PM
moy23
Posts: 13754 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 110
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/17/2010 7:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 10/17/2010 7:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/17/2010 6:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by antonsirius on 10/17/2010 6:29:00 PM (view original):
I dunno. The ridiculous "the government forced the banks to give mortgages to poor people and that's what crashed the economy" meme caught on pretty damn quickly on the right. That's pretty blatant excuse-making.
The banks were urged to give loans to low income applicants. Now they are being accused of taking advantage of low income applicants.

And if someone points out the paradox it is an excuse?
swamp seriously.....  can you not see the fault of the banks?  They made the loans.  No one else did.

If your mother urged you to lend me money and you lend me $200 because I said I'd pay you back in a week... and I don't pay you back in a week.... who is to blame for you not getting back your $200?  Your mother, you, or me?

You lent the money!!!

The people borrowed the money. The people asked for the loans. The banks didnt initiate the deals.

Are you asking me if the banks shouldnt have done it, of course not.

I just dont see any malice of intent on the banks side.
really?

the banks charged exuberant interest rates to subprime lenders (higher than you or I would get) and approved them on very little documentation.    They failed to do their job because they were blinded by profits. 

If I come up to you on the street and ask for drugs and you give them to me are you saying that you are not in the wrong because I asked for them? I'm assuming you sell drugs for profit... like the banks sell loans.  greed is malice.
10/17/2010 7:37 PM (edited)
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect

Failed to do their jobs? That seems a little harsh.

People came to them asking for loans. Banks are in a delicate position when denying loans, afraid of lawsuits.

They did jack up the rates, so that if there were some defaults the difference would be covered.

You have to charge more for dangerous loans, right?

10/17/2010 7:37 PM
moy23
Posts: 13754 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 110
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/17/2010 7:37:00 PM (view original):

Failed to do their jobs? That seems a little harsh.

People came to them asking for loans. Banks are in a delicate position when denying loans, afraid of lawsuits.

They did jack up the rates, so that if there were some defaults the difference would be covered.

You have to charge more for dangerous loans, right?

Lets get this straight swamp - banks never HAD to lend to anyone.  They chose to.  I work for a bank.  I recall my LOs getting pretty excited that they could do subprime loans AND get paid more for them than if they did a conventional mortgage.  There was plenty of incentive to do these loans - none of them were a gun pointed at their heads.  Boeing gets sued all the time - look at their 10-k reports.  That doesn't stop them from producing planes and missles.
10/17/2010 7:44 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Lets get this straight, no one had to sign up for these loans.

Banks were weary of lawsuits and government action if they denied low income loans.

No one expected this crash. They assumed that only some of the loans would default and the extra interest would make up for it.
10/18/2010 3:34 AM
moy23
Posts: 13754 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 110
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/18/2010 3:34:00 AM (view original):
Lets get this straight, no one had to sign up for these loans.

Banks were weary of lawsuits and government action if they denied low income loans.

No one expected this crash. They assumed that only some of the loans would default and the extra interest would make up for it.
Jamie dimon sold all of jpm's positions in mortgage backed derivatives in 2005..3 yrs before the crash. He also stopped the firms subprime lending at that time. He said its too risky to lend to that marketspace. He was not concerned about lawsuits. The other banks remained greedy the next 3 years and it bit all of us in the ***. Now all banks are not lending to low income borrowers.... shouldn't they be concerned about all those nasty lawsuits? BTW... when you net $14 billion in a bad year you can afford to pay a damn good lawyer.
10/18/2010 10:53 AM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
No one expected the crash... jeebus. I guess Goldman Sachs was betting against the CDOs they themselves were selling based on a coin toss?

swamp, you have no ******* idea what you are talking about.
10/18/2010 11:02 AM
jiml60
Posts: 7131 (0)
Hall of Famer
131 99
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/18/2010 3:34:00 AM (view original):
Lets get this straight, no one had to sign up for these loans.

Banks were weary of lawsuits and government action if they denied low income loans.

No one expected this crash. They assumed that only some of the loans would default and the extra interest would make up for it.
I can't believe someone could be so stupid to even make these statements.
10/18/2010 11:20 AM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Would they have done better with or without the crash? Thats the only thing we need to know.

Acting reckless and screwing up happens.

The subtle implication that no one cared about the crash and they were going to make money eiher way isnt totally right.
10/18/2010 2:19 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Pop quiz!

Who's the most entertainingly incompetent Senate candidate:

a) Sharron "I don't know what a Hispanic looks like" Angle
b) Christine "I am not a witch!" O'Donnell
c) Alvin "Who, me?" Greene
d) Joe "Arrest anyone who asks me questions, boys!" Miller
e) Rand "All hail Aqua Buddha" Paul
10/19/2010 3:05 PM
jonas1102
Posts: 1016 (0)
Hall of Famer
35 1 24 43 11
Rookie
Greene is the most incompetent, by a pretty wide margin, but O'Donnell's incompetence is way more entertaining.
10/19/2010 3:48 PM
raucous
Posts: 8605 (0)
Hall of Famer
16 8 133 151 120
Prospect
Ye forgot Harry "racist" Reed, who may not beat a).
10/19/2010 4:01 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
There is nothing entertaining about Harry Reid.
10/19/2010 4:10 PM
raucous
Posts: 8605 (0)
Hall of Famer
16 8 133 151 120
Prospect
Well, except for voting no when he should have voted yes on a couple of occasions.  One was the health care bill.  He had to correct both of them.

Damn shame about Greene.  He will be one of many that won't defeat the incumbent.
10/19/2010 4:12 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by raucous on 10/19/2010 4:14:00 PM:
Well, except for voting no when he should have voted yes on a couple of occasions.

Maybe you should bother to learn something about Senate procedure before you go waving your ignorance in front of everybody like that.
10/19/2010 4:24 PM
◂ Prev 1...81|82|83|84|85...133 Next ▸
Tea Party 4-18-11 Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.