Quote:
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.
|
I'm sure that there is no need to explain to you what redlining is....
acorn threstened banks that would not lend in inner city areas, which were predominate minority areas. there is a connection that these areas had lower income residents. these instances of redlining were based on pure discrimination.
did acorn threaten lawsuits if the bank would not lend to unquaified borrowers? that is the argument that you appear to make, and it is not supported by any facts. if you could produce any backup to support your assertion, let's see it.
the point that I have made is the lenders became more aggressive in making sub-prime and alt-a mortgages, both to minority and non-minority borrowers, in low income areas and non-low income areas, as they saw the profit margins involved. that is why so many lenders made these loans, these lenders did not make these loans due to pressure from acorn. sub-prime and alt-a mortgages were made in a variety of areas and to a variety of borrowers, borrowers who were low, middle and upper incomes. these designations have to do with credit, not with income strata.