Michael Powell and Janet Roberts, New York Times, May 16, 2009
{snip}
But the storm has fallen with a special ferocity on black and Latino homeowners, the analysis shows. Defaults occur three times as often in mostly minority census tracts as in mostly white ones. Eighty-five percent of the worst-hit neighborhoods—where the default rate is at least double the regional average—have a majority of black and Latino homeowners.
{snip} In New York City, for example, black households making more than $68,000 a year are almost five times as likely to hold high-interest subprime mortgages as are whites of similar—or even lower—incomes.
{snip}
Years ago many banks drew red lines on maps around black neighborhoods and refused to lend; more recently, some banks began taking aim at those neighborhoods for the marketing of subprime loans, say consumer advocates.
{snip} A dozen banks and mortgage companies, almost all of which turned big profits making subprime loans, accounted for half the loans given to the region’s black middle-income borrowers in 2005 and 2006, according to The Times’s analysis. The N.A.A.C.P. has filed a class-action suit against many of the nation’s largest banks, charging that such lending practices amount to reverse redlining.
{snip}
Original article
(Posted on May 18, 2009)
Comments
Whites can’t afford to give up their homes no matter how unaffordable their price may be. For if they did they’d be forced to live near the folks they love so much.
Only the NYT’s could “spin” a story making look like the culprits for the mortgage debacle were actually the “victims”.
What we are going to witness - one might wager - is a new housing program actually creating mortgages for people who have lost their homes in order to buy new homes via a new government program. It is simply a very expensive game of “musical chairs.” And only real estate agents and loan pimps will profit, just as before.
What we must decide is if we want to stabilize low income neighborhoods through home ownership or support a tenament slum-lord economy for the poor. Either way, tax payer money gets spent. In the case that may be created we will simply be allowing the same villains to screw all of us again because we can’t stand helping poor people have more decent lives. But there is a danger in keeping the poor on their knees, especially in a nation where the rich become richer, etc. Ultimately, they grow strong in numbers and rise up - history demonstates this well enough - it has never failed. Thinking that it couldn’t happen here almost guarantees that it will.
What is likely to be coming our way will be worse than the ’60s riots because there will be so many more people of all races involved and so fewer military to enforce martial law. That is unless the government actually fills the ranks with immigrants that have been “fast tracked” into citizenship via military enlistment.
Foreign mercenaries shooting Americans on American streets; Something to think about before you condemn bailing out the poorest investors in America today.
Minorities are affected the most because that is who the One Party, Two headed obmination know as the Democratic-Republican Party, caused. First Clinton and the Democrats pushe banks into giving loans to people who could not service them, and then Bush did the same. No more mysteries here. It just amuses me when the talking heads from both sides omit this stuff, and instead talk about the “problems of Capitalism.” The only problems capitalism has ,are caused by the representatives of the one-party two headed system.
Oh, cry me a river! This article is just more New York Times liberal claptrap. Is there ever ANYTHING that goes wrong for blacks that isn’t the fault of The Man, the White folks, or the Republican party?
Let’s face it: A lot of this mortgage mess originated with the federal government, starting with Jimmy Carter, putting heavy pressure on banks to lend money to people they knew were unlikely to ever pay it back. Those used to be called “bad loans.” Now they’re called “leveling the playing field.” Well, it’s going to be level, all right: Level, and totally devoid of the homes that have been bulldozed, figuratively or literally, by this addle-pated notion that everybody in the U.S. should own their own home. No, they shouldn’t. People who won’t even bother to pay their rent on time, most certainly won’t make their mortgage payments.
Isn’t it true that lots of times blacks lack foresight? Instead of making sure they have the mortgage payment 3 weeks from now, they’re blowing money on 40s and KFC or whatever. The word “budget” is probably not in their vocabulary.
And what a catch-22. If these people were turned down for loans, the NAACP would be all over the banks like white on rice. Now they’re whining because the loans were approved.
Our Minority is really nice.
The N.A.A.C.P. has filed a class-action suit against many of the nation’s largest banks, charging that such lending practices amount to reverse redlining.
Give them the money they as for and you loose, DON’T give them the money they ask for and you loose!! Deal with blacks, and yo loose.
Do we have to be continually fed the lie that somehow this is “racist”? The REASON is that nonwhites got these homes who had bad credit, low income or no income (SSI, Welfare,etc.) NO down payment, and why was this the case? BECAUSE of the racial groups amd organizations that pushed it! The government complied and the Justice Dept said it would prosecute banks and lending institutions if they did not comply! What would be the charge?? Racism and discrimination, of course! So whose fault is it? The morons that got these loans in the first place with the help of the “ethnic lobbies” and the traitors in government.
This is a case of damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. The NAACP cries discrimination if these banks DON’T lend to minorities, then when they DO lend and it all goes bad, they are STILL crying foul. You just can’t win with these people.
Years ago many banks drew red lines on maps around black neighborhoods and refused to lend; more recently, some banks began taking aim at those neighborhoods for the marketing of subprime loans, say consumer advocates.
Yup, banks got sued by the “consumer advocates” for not lending enough to minorities. So the government twisted the arms of the banks and loosened standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to get more mortgages made to blacks and Hispanics. Now that the consumer advocates and the people like Barney Frank got what they demanded, and the inevitable consequences have come about, the banks get blamed again.
Let’s be honest. The NAACP and any other minority advocacy groups could care less about the people they “represent”. It’s all about how much funding they can get to support their own lifestyles.
That’s a good one reverse redlining. You dont’ give them something or you do give them something it still comes out the same, racism and victimization. It’s just like in the hood when crime goes through the roof they complain they do not get the same protection as the normal areas. So the City responds and sends in more police & guess what? you got it cries of a police invasion and brutality. One just does not know what to do to please these folks.
“In New York City, for example, black households making more than $68,000 a year are almost five times as likely to hold high-interest subprime mortgages as are whites of similar—or even lower—incomes”
And they wonder why the New York Times almost went under.
Who wants to pay to read their lies and distortions?
Only the NYT’s could “spin” a story making look like the culprits for the mortgage debacle were actually the “victims”.
“Culprit” is a bit strong. Accessories, or accomplices, maybe. It wasn’t NAMs who decided to open the easy money floodgates, was it? Nope, it was overwhelmingly Caucasoids who did that. The diversity pimps are to blame for this, and they’re mostly Caucasoid.
Do we have to be continually fed the lie that somehow this is “racist”?
OF COURSE we do, comrade. Otherwise we might, somewhere between the teevee and the fridge, cotton on to the fact that all of this is really the result of “ANTI-racism”. And we can’t have that, now can we?
I wonder how many of these foreclosures were not only subprime, variable-interest loans, but also did not have the usual 20% down-payment.
Without a 20% down-payment, one must pay for mortgage insurance. Insurance sounds good, right? Not in this case; mortgage insurance merely insures the bank’s losses if you default, and not your own. It’s just like the “forced-place” auto insurance a car finance company will add to your monthly payment if you drop (or lose) your own auto coverage; it protects your financers and not you, thus it is basically money down the toilet. I think mortgage insurance ends up being something over 10% of the monthly payment, which is merely an added financial burden in a soft economy.
An added twist to the whole subprime loan story is the large number of people who finance their vehicles, rather than simply buying them outright. If you have a monthly car payment to make, that shows up on your credit score as existing debt, which means your terms for a home loan won’t be anywhere near as good. I suppose a leased vehicle looks even worse in this respect, because you are paying for a car you won’t even own in the end, and thus will be in the market for another one in a few years, well within the amortization period of the home loan you are applying for. Do we know of any ethnic groups who are fond of leasing blingmobiles they can’t really afford?
Then there’s the question of where the rest of one’s budget is going. We are endlessly told that blacks dress better than whites. Perhaps, but nice clothing costs more than the cheap Wal Mart blue jeans and free T-shirts I wear. Hair extensions and glued-on fingernails aren’t free, either. Eating fast food is more expensive than bringing a sack lunch or a frozen “Budget Gourmet” to work the way my wife does. When I was still a shooter one of the guys I used to know once griped that I always had the rarest guns in the best condition and it seemed I was showing off. I pointed out that he had a new Dodge truck, two snowmobiles and a trailer for them, while I didn’t. It’s all a matter of spending priorities. Part of the problem is that the ability to prioritize the allocation of limited resources - such as one’s income - is IQ-related.
MCS:
Another reason for the once upon a time mandated 20% down was so that you could start the mortgage with skin in the game, thereby giving yourself equity and therefore a motive to pay the notes. Also it means that if you default, the bank wins if they can sell the house they foreclose upon for anything higher than 80% of the price you bought the home for, less than that if you have made payments.
