That is rather weak KC and opinion without credible source. The article states: The Disabilities Act of 1990, amended the Fair Housing Act of 1968, adding disability and family status as non-discrimination criteria in mortgage lending. In effect, legislation that forced banks to make risk secondary to social factors helped set the stage for the subprime problem???
First off the percentage of disabled people that could even qualify for mortgage, based on functional disabilities, is less than 10% The Disabilities act primarily discourages banks and other institutions from discriminating against the disabled, Not forcing banks to loan more money than a person could afford. These are just lame excuses for corporate failures and a pathetic attempt to blame government. It doesn't make any sense that because the government wants disabled people to be able to get a mortgage that a bank would lend more than what the person could qualify for. Does this make any sense kc? JOE the BANKER says "The government's Disabilities Act says I need to give mortgage to this paraplegic person, who earns only $800 per month, so I gave him a loan for $100,000 with a low interest rate that could go up later (ARM). I don't know where he is going to get the money to pay for it but the government "Forced" me to do it". It's so ridiculous! Anyone can see that it doesn't make any sense whatsoever! Let's face it. Lending institutions were just irresponsible. The "Majority" of sub prime mortgage loans were not for disabled people. We should also take into account the billions of dollars that banks made simply processing loans and collecting mortgage fees. People were making 6 figure incomes processing sub prime loans. I will hold those people who took ARM loans responsible as well due to the fact that they simply "gambled" that rates would not go up. ARM loans are deceiving, too risky, a waste of time and should be discontinued. On Mar 4, 9:53 am, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > Slip, > The language of the law is not the problem, how the law is implemented > is the problem. I could go back and find all the articles I've read > on it. I did a quick google search though, and this one does a decent > job of laying out the history of regulating the financial > market.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/02/198_38147.html > There are better ones, but I don't have a ton of time to look them all > up. > > On Mar 3, 5:14 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Coerced? LOL, No KC, that 's not right. The EHO's mission first and > > foremost is to create equal housing opportunities for all persons > > living in America by administering laws that prohibit discrimination > > in housing on the basis of race,color, religion, sex, national origin, > > disability, and familial status. > > Secondly the EHO administers federal laws and establishes national > > policies that make sure all Americans have equal access to the housing > > of their choice.http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/index.cfm > > Fair Lending: > > Discrimination in mortgage lending is prohibited by the federal Fair > > Housing Act and HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity > > actively enforces those provisions of the law. The Fair Housing Act > > makes it unlawful to engage in the following practices based on race, > > color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap > > (disability): > > > * Refuse to make a mortgage loan > > * Refuse to provide information regarding loans > > * Impose different terms or conditions on a loan, such as > > different interest rates, points, or fees > > * Discriminate in appraising property > > * Refuse to purchase a loan or set different terms or conditions > > for purchasing a loan > > >http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/lending/index.cfm > > > I'm still searching for the part where the government "Coerced" banks > > into provide sub prime mortgage loans to people who otherwise could > > not afford them. > > If banks are in the Business of "Making Money" then why are tax payers > > having to bail them out for their poor performance? Bank of America > > ran into the wall when they purchased Merrill Lynch for a wopping $50 > > billion and then stuck it's hand out for a $45 billion dollar > > government bail out. > > I know your sweet on GW but the boat is not floating. If a bank > > cannot project the long term inability for a homeowner to maintain > > payment then that is really "pathetic". Financial wizards? or Income > > debt ratio idiots? > > I was offered a mortgage $60,000 over what I chose to owe. But I was > > able to do my own number crunching to realize that it wouldn't work > > for me and that is why I'm still able to comfortably make the monthly > > payment. However, as I said before, many people are not able to > > understand finance and many get stuck owing more than they have the > > capacity to pay. I have a Conventional Fixed at 5.75% and I would > > still not want the pressure of covering an extra 60 grand. I was also > > offer an ARM but think people are crazy for taking them unless they > > are capped at an affordable maximum. I'm not in anyway a financial > > expert but I don't think it takes all that much to figure out that > > someone cannot pay more than what their income debt ratio will allow. > > I don't see how you can say banks haven't any responsibility in all > > this. If you want to offer some evidence to refute this then that > > would be good. > > > On Mar 3, 12:04 pm, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Slip, > > > Are you serious? You think its the financial institutions fault? You > > > really think they would have lent to people that they knew wouldn't > > > pay them back out of their own free will? The institutions were > > > coerced to do what they did. Equal Housing Opportunity, imposed by > > > the government, is what brought this whole thing to fruition. The > > > institutions would not have lent to people that could not afford to > > > pay the institutions back. They are in the business of making money, > > > not throwing it away. > > > In fact, at the beginning of Bush's administration, he brought the > > > problem before the then democratic controlled congress. They gave him > > > a big middle finger and told him not to mess with their Equal Housing > > > Opportunity pet project. He backed off, and that is why we are in the > > > mess we are in now. If he would have went after that as aggressively > > > as he did Iraq we might not be in as big of economic mess now. > > > > On Mar 2, 9:27 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I apologize for the belated welcome but nevertheless, Welcome! > > > > What you have to understand, wood, is that many people have not the > > > > slightest idea of financial calculation and are "told" by financial > > > > experts that they "can" afford the house, the car, the credit card. > > > > We cannot blame the people alone but more so the financial > > > > institutions that have taken advantage of those who cannot perceive > > > > their own financial worth and capability of repayment. The US > > > > unfortunately is full of sharks that have taken control of government, > > > > taken control of the poor situations in which people live. > > > > Who of you out there would not want to have a better home, car, and > > > > other amenities in life? > > > > What is happening now is an "Atrocity" perpetrated by the wealthy in > > > > control of the government. > > > > > On Mar 2, 8:02 pm, wood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > As much as I would love to blame, the government for this mess, but > > > > > the government is not entirely to blame—The problem is closer to home. > > > > > People only have themselves to blame for putting themselves into > > > > > situation they could have avoid only if they were mentally stronger, > > > > > and not be blinded by false dreams and value. In trying to live the > > > > > “American dreams” people makes premature decision; buying house they > > > > > know they cannot afford, cars they can’t maintain… All for what? > > > > > People need to change their outlook on life and stop falling victim to > > > > > mind imprisonment. In the drive to establish independency and > > > > > individuality, everyone has become the same. > > > > > > On Feb 26, 4:17 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > "... Now our government is trying to keep deadbeats in houses they > > > > > > can't afford and shouldn't have gotten loans for in the first place. > > > > > > It's asinine." - DJ > > > > > > > What is even more 'asinine' and is not being talked about at ALL in > > > > > > any media is that those of us who don't even own a house, whether we > > > > > > could afford one or not ...and rent or...whatever, live on the > > > > > > street, > > > > > > at parent's home etc. are among those who are PAYING the banks to > > > > > > help > > > > > > keep people in homes! It's not even asinine, it is criminal! > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 2:42 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Government is the problem because they manage the tax code. It's > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > confusing the guy hired to be in charge of it can't figure out > > > > > > > how to > > > > > > > pay his taxes. Let's make it easy. How about a flat tax on all > > > > > > > income and consumption? Without the loopholes that are so > > > > > > > abundant > > > > > > > for the extremely wealthy to avoid taxes. I love the idea. Of > > > > > > > course, this would eliminate Congress's major power of > > > > > > > reward/punishment ability so it will never happen. The > > > > > > > bribes...oops, > > > > > > > I mean campaign donations... would dry up. > > > > > > > > dj > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:45 PM, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is fran. Today many who pay a lot in taxes, not > > > > > > > > percentage > > > > > > > > wise, but in amount based on a large income don't mind at all. > > > > > > > > Only a > > > > > > > > select vocal few are heard in the media to the point that such > > > > > > > > propaganda about the government being the problem > > > > > > > > (Ronnie)....has > > > > > > > > become a common myth. I've said it many times...when I was a > > > > > > > > kid, my > > > > > > > > father paid 91% of his income in taxes...and, we did VERY > > > > > > > > well....no > > > > > > > > complaints. Today, in most cases, the poor pay a higher > > > > > > > > percentage of > > > > > > > > their income in taxes than the rich. Robin Hood aside, this is > > > > > > > > absurd > > > > > > > > no matter the argument. > > > > > > > > > On Feb 25, 9:28 am, frantheman <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Don's - of course - purely rhetorical suggestion about the > > > > > > > >> non-payment > > > > > > > >> of taxes seems to echo a certain US American mythology that > > > > > > > >> there's > > > > > > > >> something un-american about paying taxes, as well as there > > > > > > > >> being > > > > > > > >> something inherently suspect about (central) government. > > > > > > > > >> Nobody likes paying taxes and very few would even consider > > > > > > > >> paying more > > > > > > > >> than they absolutely have to - including me. But I must also > > > > > > > >> acknowledge that taxation is the basic method for paying for > > > > > > > >> things > > > > > > > >> which a country/community/society feels need to be organised > > > > > > > >> collectively. It belongs to the basic ideas of self-definition > > > > > > > >> of a > > > > > > > >> country/community/society to decide what these collective > > > > > > > >> tasks are > > > > > > > >> and how far they should be funded by the common purse. > > > > > > > > >> Even as a non-US American, I seem to remember that the > > > > > > > >> rallying cry > > > > > > > >> for the American Revolution was not, "No taxation," but rather > > > > > > > >> "No > > > > > > > >> taxation without representation." The USA established itself > > > > > > > >> on this > > > > > > > >> basis as a representative democracy. Everything else flows > > > > > > > >> from that. > > > > > > > >> To use the language of 18th Century political thinkers, that's > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > >> basic social contract and there's no way to opt > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
