It's on!

[jimpeel]

You showed Obama involved ina lawsuit about denying people loans based on race. The lawsuit would force banks not to discriminate based on race.

Are you actually FOR discrimination based on race?

The lawsuit was about "redlining" which is where the banks would not make loans in certain areas because the people there regardless of race were below the poverty line and unable to repay the loans. In many of those areas there is a disproportionate number of minorities. That is not the fault of the banks.

Obama, representing ACORN in the lawsuit against CitiBank, turned it into a "race" issue by tying redlining to the CRA. It was the CRA which forced the banks to make the risky loans to people who never had a prayer of paying them back. The banks found a loophole in the law -- which ever law has at least one and that loophole will be exploited -- under which they were able to sell their questionable loans to Freddie and Fannie and Freddie and Fannie ate them up.

All attempts at reining in Freddie and Fannie, both run by democrats, was thwarted by the likes of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. We have posted the videos of the hearings -- where they tried to push the blame off on the regulators whom they had given nearly no power -- showing them stating that there was no problem with Freddie or Fannie.

You didn't address predatory loan practices at all.

Because there weren't any "predatory lending practices". That is a three-word soundbite. The banks were forced to make bad loans to people who would never repay them so they tried to do so by giving them terribly low interest loans which they might just have a prayer of repaying.

Did you watch THIS VIDEO where Obama states that he thought the loans were a good idea?

Try THIS VIDEO and watch Andrew Cuomo admit that the Clinton administration forced the banks to make these loans.

He admits that it was bank affirmative action.

He admits that there is a higher risk and a higher default rate on those mortgages. They knew this was going to eventually fall apart.

Watch Obama brag about his role in forcing these loans and learn how the Clinton administration forced Fannie and Freddie to absorb more of these bad loans.

I like the part where Huckabee calls them "NINJA" loans. No Income. No Job. No Assets.

Your guy did this; and you are depending on him to get us back out?

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[jimpeel]

HOLY CRAP! If I gotta ...

or perhaps you really don't have a good answer for the "ludicrous comparison."

and, no, it's not a ludicrous comparison. or, rather, it's no less of a ludicrous stretch than the one you are making constructing this MASSIVE CONSPIRACY.

I don't know where you got a conspiracy as none was ever posited.

You were the one who tried to tie Obama to the locals and how, if he were trying to create a nation of squatters, the police would be on his side -- an insipidly stupid assumption on your part.

What you posted was this:

um, jim, one would expect the police to be SUPPORTING ACORN if obama was

1) actually in love with ACORN like you think he is, and
2) using his official influence in inappropriate ways

see, obama is in the GOVERNMENT, like THE POLICE.

So first you assume that just because both Obama and the police are government entities that they would be in blind support of each other. Gubbmint be gubbmint and all that. Can't tell one from the other without a scorecard.

You then try to make this into my making up the fact that Obama is in love with ACORN. Obama's stimulus bill provides billions of dollars to ACORN. Can't you feel the love?

You then get even more ludicrous in your contention that he is using his influence in "inappropriate ways" something I never said. He is working wholly within the law; but, then, so did Hitler.

yes jim, obama's grand vision is a nation of squatters.

The references to Mugabe were satirical; but that apparently went over your head without so much as a "Whoosh!"

Tsk, tsk

 

[jimpeel]

These generalizations of yours never help.

How about some specifics then.

Seat belt laws.

Same height bumpers on vehicles.

The luxury tax which almost wiped out the aircraft and boating industry in America.

Firearms laws.

The mortgage fiasco.

Fannie Mae.

Freddie Mac.

I can give you more but I won't. It would be a waste of keystrokes.

 

[MrBishop]

You then try to make this into my making up the fact that Obama is in love with ACORN. Obama's stimulus bill provides billions of dollars to ACORN. Can't you feel the love?

Wow...you are a spin champion. He's providing money to a type of group, one of which is ACORN.

the stimulus bill wending its way through Congress provides $4.19 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities."

He said the money was previously limited to state and local governments, but that Democrats now want part of it to be available to non-profit entities. That means groups like ACORN would be eligible for a portion of the funds.

That includes churches, the salvation army, sun youth, and even the KoC.



You make it sound like there's a cheque with the name "ACORN" on it, with a whole whack of zeroes and Obama's personal JHandcock on it


*MrBishop buys stock in tinfoil manufacturing companies.

 

[2minkey]

yeah jim so many twists and turns to your raging intellect... how can you expect any of us to understand????

 

[spike]

The lawsuit was about "redlining" which is where the banks would not make loans in certain areas because the people there regardless of race were below the poverty line and unable to repay the loans. In many of those areas there is a disproportionate number of minorities. That is not the fault of the banks.

No Jim, the lawsuit was about race based discriminatory lending practices.

" rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories "

Because there weren't any "predatory lending practices". That is a three-word soundbite. The banks were forced to make bad loans to people who would never repay them so they tried to do so by giving them terribly low interest loans which they might just have a prayer of repaying.

No Jim, there actaully was tons of predatory lending going on. It's a known fact.

Your guy Bush and the republicans tanked this economy. This all occured under his watch with a republican majority in congress for most of his presidency.

Bush pushed the Ownership Society and America's Home Ownership Challenge and even a Zero-Down payment Initiative.

And yet you still make excuses for him.

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[spike]

I can give you more but I won't. It would be a waste of keystrokes.

It sure would be a waste, because you're not proving anything.


Could you answer this question?

You must have thought Gonz trying to tie Obama to city police in this thread was utterly ludicrous then. Right.....Right?

 

[valkyrie]

or perhaps you really don't have a good answer for the "ludicrous comparison."

and, no, it's not a ludicrous comparison. or, rather, it's no less of a ludicrous stretch than the one you are making constructing this MASSIVE CONSPIRACY.

yes jim, obama's grand vision is a nation of squatters.

*cough*wanker*cough*

watch out, dude, those ACORN community activists are gonna come and strongarm YOU motherfucker!!!!

JimPeel is all about conspiracy theory, dude.

I love the way the Far-Right is making Obama to be this almight superhero/villain!

Oh, Jim... you need to do your research on the loan/mortgage lawsuit. You look silly.

Y'all need to watch Maxed Out. It's a documentary on the credit industry in America. It will open your eyes. People who can't pay their loans back to the banks/credit companies make up the vast majority of income for these companies. You would think it's those that DO pay... but those that pay the bare minimum or just under it will keep paying years in interest and late fees to the banks. They are also the people who pay nearly 30% in interest on their credit cards. This is where the profits are... not in people who pay their low interest debts with no penalties.

 

[jimpeel]

yeah jim so many twists and turns to your raging intellect... how can you expect any of us to understand????

I don't expect you to understand. I only expect you to keep up.

 

[jimpeel]

No Jim, the lawsuit was about race based discriminatory lending practices.

NO! Obama and ACORN made it into an issue of race based discriminatory lending practices. What it was REALLY about was using the CRA as a bludgeon to beat up the banks and make them give out bad loans so they would not appear "racist". The CRA was about REDLINING until the Obama Acorn lawsuit.

" rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories "

That is what the LAWSUIT said but it is NOT what the CRA said. The Obama ACORN lawsuit turned it into a racial issue.

No Jim, there actaully was tons of predatory lending going on. It's a known fact.

The banks, after being forced to make these bad loans, sold them to Freddie and Fannie. That is all they could do. After all, Freddie and Fannie had the full power and monetary might of the U.S. government backing them so what could go wrong?

Your guy Bush and the republicans tanked this economy. This all occured under his watch with a republican majority in congress for most of his presidency.

Bush pushed the Ownership Society and America's Home Ownership Challenge and even a Zero-Down payment Initiative.

And yet you still make excuses for him.

Bush tried to rein in Freddie and Fannie. He wanted loans to reflect the ability of the borrower to repay them. I posted the videos of the democrats, in their own words and in their own voice, admitting that they caused this debacle yet you choose to ignore their confessions od mismanagement.

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Don't you ever make up any of your own shit? Why do you always mimic others in nearly every post -- like a parrot?

 

[jimpeel]

It sure would be a waste, because you're not proving anything.

You asked for specifics and I gave them to you. As usual, you have chosen to ignore them.

Could you answer this question?

You must have thought Gonz trying to tie Obama to city police in this thread was utterly ludicrous then. Right.....Right?

Nope. I'm not gonna participate in your wild goose chase. Go to the post that he says that in, right click on the post number, click on "copy link location" (Firefox) or "copy shortcut" (IE) and then paste the link here. I will then go to that post directly and answer your question.

 

[jimpeel]

JimPeel is all about conspiracy theory, dude.

I'm the only one who does not use the word yet I am the one that everything is all about.

Oh, Jim... you need to do your research on the loan/mortgage lawsuit. You look silly.

Here is a source that you can register with that has every detail about the case including external links and news stories. After you actually go there and do a bit of legwork and research maybe then you can talk down to me. Have a nice read.

The Civil Rights Clearinghouse of Washington University of Law.

SOURCE

Case Name Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance

Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011

State/Territory Illinois

Case Summary Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

This case has received a good deal of press and blogger attention because one of the plaintiffs' lawyers was Barack Obama, then just a couple of years out of law school.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the plaintiffs' suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank's loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The parties settled the case on May 12, 1998, with an agreement that provided for waiver of some fees for class members, should they reapply for a loan, and also for various procedures to ensure that Citibank followed its own loan policies in a race neutral way.

Andrew Nash - 06/02/2008

By the by ... here's the complaint. http://clearinghouse.wustl.edu/chDocs/public/FH-IL-0011-0001.pdf

 

[randomJACKASS]

The point you miss entirely Jim is that Obama was acting as an attorney, and while he may have agreed with the cause, he was not an economist at the time and perhaps he didn't even fully agree with the cause. Sometimes it boggles the mind how people assume that every case and cause an attorney works on or for they are 100% in agreement with. Attorneys are supposed to put aside personal prejudices and beliefs and represent their clients as zealously as possible. The only bounds is that they need to try to stay within the law, which at best is a grey area up for interpretation.

So let's assume Obama was fully on board with the lawsuit and it was exactly the thing you tell us it was. In hindsight he may see how or why it was a mistaken cause. Politicians as a rule do not publicly go announcing mistakes, but all the same many learn from mistakes and try not to repeat them. I am 100% sure that Obama is trying to do what he feels is best for the country right or wrong. I actually think Dubya himself was too, but his administration, I do not believe had the best interests of the country at heart. Regardless Obama has shown nothing at all that makes him some kind of evil demon. You can think what you will of his policies, every scandal the right has tried to come up with about Obama fails to even come close to showing him as some power hungry lawbreaker out to pervert the country.

For that matter none of that stuff was ever proven about the Bush administration, but the nature of the two parties, policy aside, is that the right is at all times hell bent on finding dirt about the left and will try to manufacture scandal if they cannot find a real one. The left on the other hand ignores a lot of the bullshit on the right so as to not "rock the boat", and is hesitant to even start serious proceedings unless they are 99% assured of victory. Neither party is perfect, but as far as moral character the right since the Bush (Sr.) administration, has been deeper in the toilet than the left, by far!

 

[2minkey]

you expect jim to be able to follow the tangents and eddies of his own confabulation, er, raging intellect???

 

[Gonz]

The last trading day of the full Republican Congress
December 29, 2006 12,463.15

The last trading day before Democrats completely took over Congress
December 31, 2008 8,776.39

Today
Index Value: 7,270.89

Damn those Republicans.

 

[spike]

NO! Obama and ACORN made it into an issue of race based discriminatory lending practices. What it was REALLY about was using the CRA as a bludgeon to beat up the banks and make them give out bad loans so they would not appear "racist". The CRA was about REDLINING until the Obama Acorn lawsuit.

No jim, it was clearly about race based loan discrimination. You wishing it was about something else doesn't make it so.

That is what the LAWSUIT said but it is NOT what the CRA said. The Obama ACORN lawsuit turned it into a racial issue.

The lawsuit Obama was involved in thaty you referenced clearly WAS about a racial issue. Sorry Jim.

Bush tried to rein in Freddie and Fannie. He wanted loans to reflect the ability of the borrower to repay them.

Sorry buddy. Bush pushed the Ownership Society and America's Home Ownership Challenge and even a Zero-Down payment Initiative. You trying to ignore his role is ludicrous.

Don't you ever make up any of your own shit? Why do you always mimic others in nearly every post -- like a parrot?

That's fucking hysterical coming from the guy that mostly posts other people's opinions like a parrot.

 

[spike]

You asked for specifics and I gave them to you. As usual, you have chosen to ignore them.

Wrong Jim, I didn't ask for specifics. I said your generalizations are useless and they are.

Most of your "specifics" are laughable but even if they weren't they don't prove the silly generalization you made.

Nope. I'm not gonna participate in your wild goose chase. Go to the post that he says that in, right click on the post number, click on "copy link location" (Firefox) or "copy shortcut" (IE) and then paste the link here. I will then go to that post directly and answer your question.

No wild goose chase. The link I gave you has Gonz clearly indicating that local cops are involved in some "coming Fascism" related to silencing anti-Obama crap. So answer the question.

 

[GrandCaravanSE]

OH, it is soooo on

 

[Frank Probity]

The government told them, starting with Jiminy Carter, to give loans to those who can't afford it.

And, if you had read the next line, you would know those loans during that time frame were successful. But then, the deal went through the era of Ronald Reagan.
"On Regan's behalf, Richard Pratt, Reagan's first chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, drafted the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, which included a provision, Title VIII, that enabled lenders for the first time to issue adjustable-rate mortgages and other exotic loans, such as those requiring interest-only payments. The provision was aimed at helping rescue the savings and loan industry by allowing thrifts to respond to the volatility in interest rates that prevailed in the early 1980s, but it would be precisely these types of loans that brought about foreclosures on hundreds of thousands of home mortgages in 2007 and 2008."
www.alternet.org/workplace/125575/h...erica)/?comments=view&cID=1128442&pID=1128279



The choice was, lend, "by your own free will" & Fannie & Freddie will buy your bad debt. Or, let us write law that will force you to lend & you'll be on your own. It only made sense to give loans-the government wanted 'em, the people wanted 'em & the banks weren't gonna get hurt. Until Fannies & Freddie overstayed their welcome & went tits up. Gee, whooda thunk it?!?! Giving Freddie Bartender & his gal pal Susie the Hairdresser a $649,000 loan, with a 125% morgage, was a bad idea?

All of which go back to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board instituted during the Reagan era designed to help the failing savings and loan business. It gave carte blanche for banks to screw anybody they could, any way they could and no need to worry about consequences. Sort of like President Bush and the bank bailout. Yes the borrowers had a certain responsibility, but the banks were not held accountable either thanks to President Reagan.

The program was increased under Clinton. However, none of that matters. Unless you had a gun pointed at your head when you applied for a loan that was out of your reach & had the inspections done & had the appraisals done and took time off work to o down to the title company to sign your life away, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. 2, 3, 4 mortgages. YOU. Interest only. YOU. 125LTV. YOU.
Greedy motherfuckers (wrong word. Uninformed or inexperienced are a better fit). who knew their home wasn't worth 3 times market value still signed their life away. The were looking to get somethign for nothing. Sorry, *bzzzzzzt*, wrong answer. Ain't nothing free. And I, for one, am pissed at having to go through all this shit because some piss ant politician & his socialist friends with no idea how to run a business decided that helping the poor by forcing lender to give loans without ID or credit checks or even proof of income was a good idea.

GOOD !! Take it up with President Reagan 'cause he's the one you should be pointing the finger at. Not Carter or Clinton. By the time the Clinton administration came on the scene, the damage had been done. BUT, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, screw it, go ahead, blame Clinton. The proof is in the history of the president whose "greatness" and policies we are all paying for now. And that includes his freaking tax cuts!

The lenders may have been scum. The ones whose name was on the SIGNATURE line were far worse.

Somehow, I can't help but feel there were quite a few people who got sucked in because they were not as intelligent as Gonz. Not everybody caught up in this situation was irresponsible.

.

 

[Frank Probity]

Obama's stimulus bill provides billions of dollars to ACORN[/URL]. Can't you feel the love?

UHHHHH! jimpeel, ACORN is not mentioned in the stimulus bill. And the article you reference, well it says, ACORN could be eligible and that is a far cry from reality.

The reality is, there are one or two possible categories where ACORN is eligible to enter competitive bidding but even at that, those projects do not total more than one hundred seventeen million dollars and neither is there a guarantee ACORN will be low bidder.