[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

This is an easy blanket statement for you to make, because you know that it is difficult to do.

What we can do, however, is apply common sense. We know that ACORN threatened litigation against banks that wouldn't lend to lower income borrowers. Now, if these loans were so profitable and banks knew that they could make more money making them (as you assert), then why would ACORN need to threaten litigation? If what you suggest were entirely true, it doesn't seem that any coercion would have been required.

I'm not saying that greed by the banks can be taken entirely out of the equation, but it seems illogical that you'd have to coerce a bank into lending practices that were more profitable.

*bump*