Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The government does have some culpuability here, but the problem originated with the bankers. They figured out a way to make money by loaning money to people they knew couldn't pay. They bundled the debt into a "complex financial instrument" and sold it to suckers.
Actually no.
It started in 1993.
Pay careful attention to the date the article was published National Review, Dec 27, 1993 | Robert Stowe England
QUIETLY, behind the scenes, the Clinton Administration is preparing for the biggest regulatory crackdown of recent years. Attorney General Janet Reno is linking up with banking regulators and with HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to end the supposed epidemic of discrimination against minorities in making home loans. The implications for society at large are ominous.
Here, as in affirmative-action efforts in hiring, college admissions, and the drawing of voting districts, the Washington establishment is obsessed with "disparate impact," which it equates with racism. In the mortgage-lending area, there is ample evidence of disparate impact to feed this obsession. Data collected by the Federal Government reveal that in 1992, while 16 per cent of white applicants for mortgage loans were rejected, 36 per cent of black applicants were rejected.
snip
What the Clinton administration did was force banks to lower lending standards, all in the name of racial justice, they had to or risk the wrath of Janet Reno.
What the Clinton administration did was force banks to lower lending standards, all in the name of racial justice, they had to or risk the wrath of Janet Reno.
Sorry, nice. This is only a part of the narrative. This started in the 80s with derivatives. The government was at fault for not regulating this, but Wall Street was pushing HARD for derivatives to be not be regulated.
I suspect this woman knows exactly what she is doing. A serial refinancer who is now calling for mortgages to be written down to current home values. How incredibly convenient.
I suspect this woman knows exactly what she is doing. A serial refinancer who is now calling for mortgages to be written down to current home values. How incredibly convenient.
She's got the nerve of a Wall Street banker, doesn't she?
The Occupiers sure do know how to pick people to support don't they?
Ms. Richardson acquired 1479 Quesada in 1999 from John Pereira with a recorded transfer price of $215,000. In 2002
In 2002, Ms. Richardson refinanced the home with a $281,250 mortgage.
In 2003, Ms. Richardson refinanced the property with a new first mortgage for $318,760. And in 2004, Ms. Richardson refinanced the property with a new first for $381,000.
In early 2005, Ms. Richardson added a second loan to the property in the amount of $39,750, a loan which was paid off later in the year when the property was refinanced with a $500,000 first.
In March 2006, Ms. Richardson refinanced her home with a first mortgage for $556,000 to which another loan for $50,000 was added that October.
In July 2007, Ms. Richardson once again refinanced her home with a $590,000 first mortgage. At the same time, Ms. Richardson also secured a second for $74,000.
By the end of 2008, Ms. Richardson was already $14,695 past due on her first mortgage. And in May of this year, the bank foreclosed on the property with $728,129.33 in principal, fees and accrued interest due on that $590,000 loan alone.
Given that these same whiney azz Occupiers want the taxpayer to pick up the bill for their $100k art history degrees, what do you expect?
I wonder if she is going to pay any income tax on that windfall money?
Of course not.
She's not going to get that windfall, nice. She's not too big to fail. She will get kicked out of her home -- and really, rightfully so. Now if only there was a way to kick bankers out of their banks rather than just giving them tax payer dollars.
This is the face of future America. They do not do any research and just go on what they are told as "the truth".
Doesn't that scare you ? It should.
Hey i was in real estate for a very long time, if i told you things that went on, it would scare you i think.
All is not on the up and up in real estate, or the Loan Industry. I will leave it at that.
And yes the face of future America, if on the same track, does scare me.
Hey i was in real estate for a very long time, if i told you things that went on, it would scare you i think.
All is not on the up and up in real estate, or the Loan Industry. I will leave it at that.
And yes the face of future America, if on the same track, does scare me.
We all know the stories, California. Things went haywire in the lending industry because for a brief period there, the industry made money even if they made loans to people who could not pay the money back. They found a way to sell that bad debt to suckers for a profit. Those days are over. The lending industry isn't engaging in that particular fraud anymore. The days of waking up a homeless guy on the street and asking him if he wants to borrow a million dollars are over. It's a damn shame that one of the biggest heists in American history was pulled and no one went to jail. Instead, people want to ***** about small potatos like old ladies who refinanced their house.
Damn I made a lot of money off of idiots like that lady during the salad days.
Want a 40ft Canary Island date palm in your front yard?
No problem just tap the atm machine of the front of your house and I'll be back in the morning with the crane and crew.
Awww the good ole days.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.