Posted on 03/11/2002 3:19:13 PM PST by Exton1
As published on E-1 of the SF Examiner on Friday March 8 , 2002
This article basically says that over 30 years of civil rights laws have done nothing, which we all know is not true. It is hate speech and flames racism in America. Your Office has responsibility to stop trash like this from being published, by voicing your views in public. If it is true, than you are not doing your job, if it is not true than its propaganda. Only when American institutions put their foot down and stop this Marxist propaganda will we finally end racism in America. As you can see this is all opinion, no facts are given, and it does not say who or where the people were polled. THIS IS NOTHING BUT A HATE AMERICA ARTICLE.
REAL ESTATE
Americans say mortgage bias rampant More disclosure would level the field, advocates say
By Tim Haran, CBS.MarketWatch.com Last Update: 3:56 PM ET Feb. 28, 2002
WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Most Americans think that blacks and other minorities are discriminated against when applying for mortgages and other loans, according to a study released Thursday.
"By a 20 to 1 margin blacks think that if an equally qualified black man and white man apply for a loan, that the white man will get it," said Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, Democratic strategist and co-pollster. "By only a 3-to-1 ratio whites think they would be favored."
Of the 1,258 respondents, 48 percent said if a black man and a white man applied for the same loan, with all else being equal, the white man would be favored. In the same scenario between a Hispanic and white man, 47 percent said the lender would favor the white applicant.
The study's results "make the case overwhelmingly that something still needs to be done to equalize the lending process," said Republican pollster Frank Luntz.
More than twice as many blacks (26 percent) as whites (11.6 percent) said they had been discriminated against when applying for a loan, the study found.
The survey, conducted by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, was released in conjunction with a speech by comedian Al Franken at the National Press Club about access to predatory lending.
Other findings of the poll included:
76 percent of respondents think steering minorities and women to more costly loan products than they qualify for is a problem. 83 percent think the federal government should ensure that lenders make loans in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. 61 percent of blacks and 35 percent of all respondents think banks currently deny loans to creditworthy people based on race, religion, ethnicity or marital status. Subprime
In 2000 there were about 19 million loan records reported by 7,713 financial institutions, according to Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data. From 1993 to 1999 the number of subprime home loans increased to 856,000 from 66,000.
The subprime mortgage market serves borrowers with flawed credit histories. Rates are higher on subprime loans and minorities represent a disproportionate share of customers.
In two reports issued in October and November, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now took a look at what groups were getting denied prime and subprime loans. The studies showed that minorities and low-income borrowers were "very disproportionately" denied loans.
"The two reports seemed to paint a picture of a certain market out there that's being neglected by prime lenders and being aggressively targeted by subprime lenders or high-cost lenders," said David Swanson, ACORN spokesman.
Protection
Many believe that legislation is required to ensure that financial institutions offer loans fairly.
"We need to have real sunshine to see which banks are community servants and which banks are predators," said John Taylor, president of the NCRC.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents to the NCRC survey, regardless of race, "strongly agree" that financial services companies should be required to disclose the same data as banks currently do.
And about three-fourths "strongly agree" that there should be a law to make sure that banks don't deny loans to creditworthy people based on race, religion, ethnicity or marital status.
"We would like more data to be reported," Swanson said. "Right now nobody reports the quality of the loans they're making."
While lenders are required to itemize their loans based on location, income and race, they are not required to list the terms of the loans, Swanson said.
Advocates for all loan applicants say that certain terms and products should be banned, including single-premium credit insurance, prepayment penalties and mandatory arbitration costs.
In addition, regulation is being tightened in many places across the country on predatory lending, practices engaged in by a small number of subprime lenders that fleece borrowers.
Characteristics of predatory lending, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, include:
Making unaffordable loans based on the assets of the borrower rather than on the borrower's ability to repay. Flipping, or coaxing the borrower into refinancing often in order to charge higher fees. Engaging in fraud or deception to conceal the true nature of the loan from an unsuspecting or unsophisticated borrower. Tim Haran is a reporter for CBS.MarketWatch.com in San Francisco.
And this is the MOST serious line in this whole laughable article!
Anytime a bank makes a loan to someone who is creditworthy, they make money. It is, therefore, in their interest to make loans to ALL creditworthy customers, regardless of race, religion, or whatever.
If discrimination is rampant, then the minority "civil rights" leaders should start their own bank. If discrimination is rampant, then they would be able to make loans to creditworthy customers who have been denied credit. They would then make a bundle of money, which they could use to give to "poor people", like they dictate to the rest of us. They could even hire homeless people, drug addicts, and gangsters, like they wish to require the rest of us to do.
But they won't do this, because they know that discrimination is not a problem.
If they started a bank and gave loans to people that other "racist" banks denied, then their bank would soon go broke since too many people would default.
Liberals are opposed to racism the way they are opposed to zits:
They don't like what they see in the mirror.
Guess my race.
I like the argument of a previous poster to this thread. If blacks feels they are being discriminated against, what's stopping them from opening their own bank? Of course, if they give mortgages to all those who were rejected by the other banks, they'd be bankrupt and they know it.
If minorities are victims of discrimination in lending, then the default rate on loans made to them ought to be lower than the default rate on loans to whites!
Well? Are they or aren't they?
This POS article deals only with opinions and perceptions. Not one fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.