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.
Mr. Marks’s nonprofit organization, the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, has $10 billion in funding from Bank of America to make loans on its own terms over the next decade. It does not require down payments. It does not consult credit scores. Its loans all carry interest rates below 4 percent.
It has enough money to mint about 50,000 homeowners, but Mr. Marks has a larger goal. He wants to show that it is possible to lend to lower-income borrowers on terms that are profitable and sustainable. He wants to expand homeownership. He wants to redeem the original idea behind subprime lending.
Vouchers don't improve schools; they just make the "bad" schools worse, by pulling away more students and funding.
Taxes are sort of a "chicken and egg" thing. Taxes are high in impoverished areas because the tax base is small. So, to cut taxes, would necessarily require cutting services. (and, by services, I'm not talking about welfare, as that comes from different sources)
This is true but so what? Can't help everybody. Save those that want to be saved.
The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor, unemployed people was, on it's face, a discriminatory act by lending institutions. Thousands of loans were processed, and of course many went into default, in part explaining why we're in the financial mess we're in.
It's easy for some people to point the finger of blame at Pres. Bush for this crisis. What many people don't know is the suit was filed during the Clinton Administration. The lawyer filing the suit was none other than Barak Hussein Obama.
Obama: Who cares if they can't pay the borrowed money back.
Wrong. Your claims have been debunked time and time again.
Those loans were guess what issued to whites with poor credit with the loans having been written for those with good credit whereas blacks with good credit were given subprimes meant for those with bad credit.
The claim that such loans caused the crisis time and time again has shown to be false time and time again. 18 of the 20 financial institutions that went under didn't issue loans to unemployed people or people from low income neighborhoods because they weren't doing CRA loans.
Community Reinvestment Act had standards you had to prove you could pay back the loan. Guess what CRA loans had a higher repayment then standard bank loans. Meaning they were repaid back more then other bank loans which were issued to corporations, other banks, businesses, homes etc.
Here is the thing about redlining. Whites with crappy credit history got approved for loans whereas blacks with the same history or better credit history got their applications for loans denied. So why were whites with the same history or worse then blacks getting money which according to you their history showed they had no ability to pay back whereas the black history showed they could pay back weren't getting the loans?
Vouchers don't improve schools; they just make the "bad" schools worse, by pulling away more students and funding.
Taxes are sort of a "chicken and egg" thing. Taxes are high in impoverished areas because the tax base is small. So, to cut taxes, would necessarily require cutting services. (and, by services, I'm not talking about welfare, as that comes from different sources)
I believe in school choice, parents should be allowed the option to choose to send their kids to a good school, a voucher system allows it.
I understand your second point, but if you want to bring well paying jobs to an area that poor people can benefit from then you need to give them an incentive to set up in those areas.
The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor, unemployed people was, on it's face, a discriminatory act by lending institutions. Thousands of loans were processed, and of course many went into default, in part explaining why we're in the financial mess we're in.
It's easy for some people to point the finger of blame at Pres. Bush for this crisis. What many people don't know is the suit was filed during the Clinton Administration. The lawyer filing the suit was none other than Barak Hussein Obama.
Obama: Who cares if they can't pay the borrowed money back.
OK, so what case is being made? For the last decade we heard that banks were somehow "racist" for lending money to poor people, minorities in particular, without first evaluating their ability to pay the money back. Now that they are losing their homes due to non-payment, the banks are at fault. Yet when banks apply the same lending standards to minorities that they do to others, based on income, debt load, etc, they are "racist" for not lending to minorities due to these standards. OK whiners, which is it?
For the last decade we heard that banks were somehow "racist" for lending money to poor people, minorities in particular, without first evaluating their ability to pay the money back.
can you name one person who has said that "Banks lending money to minorities is racist" ?
it can be a poster on city-data, or a politician, a celebrity, an economist, a janitor -- anyone. just one example.
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.
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.
