oh wow breh, can you give me a source for that?:yasure: not fox news though :youthink:
How much responsibility do overzealous homeowners bear for the 08 crash?
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
ergo "rich" when stated in contrast to the word "poor" must be talking about education and not wealth? since stating "educated" vs "uneducated" would be too...convoluted? go it:yasure:
game? you ain't even in the stadium :youthink:
He wasn't the lead lawyer, but the fact remains some civil lawsuits filed on the notion of racism which lead to a relaxing of lending practices.
snopes.com: Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People
1. I didn't say doctors were rich. But they're by and large NOT poor
2. I'm correlating the presumption that you'd expect some members of society to at least have the wherewithal to not succumb to CERTAIN practices.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/loans.asp
wow, breh you're crashing faster than usual today
have you had your coffee?:yasure:
[/QUOTE]
Did you read the commentary?wow, breh you're crashing faster than usual today
have you had your coffee?:yasure:
Barack DID serve on the case and that lawsuit and many others like it DID have the unintended effect of relaxing lending practices.
@tmonster
The Loan Arranger
Claim: Barack Obama filed a lawsuit to require banks to "make loans to poor people."
MOSTLY FALSE
Example: [Collected via e-mail, September 2008]
In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against CitiBank, demanding that loans be made to poor people, and others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back. The basis of the lawsuit was the14th Amendment, which requires 'fair and equal' treatment for all citizens.
The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor/indigent/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.
Now, it's easy for some people to point the finger of blame at Pres. Geo.Bush for this crisis, because he's sitting in the hot seat.
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.
Origins: This item seeks to dump much of the blame for America's current economic woes on Barack Obama by claiming that as a young lawyer, Obama filed a lawsuit requiring financial institutions to lend money to "poor people" and "others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back." Although there is a (very) vague element of fact underneath this politicking, the piece quoted above is woefully wrong in all its particulars.
The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with requiring lenders to do business with people "who could not show proof that they could pay the money
back." The case was a class-action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings initiated by a black Chicago woman, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who claimed she was unfairly denied a mortgage based on her race. The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, and other business institutions refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., based solely on the geographic area in which the applicant lives (a practice that commonly excludes minorities in inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of their income or ability to pay). Specifically, the lawsuit charged that Citibank "rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories." The case was eventually settled out of court, with some class members receiving cash payments and Citibank agreeing to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages.
Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter. He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case:
Obama admits he played a mostly behind-the-scenes role at his law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland. He researched the law, drafted motions, prepared for depositions and did other less glamorous work during his three years full-time and eight years "of counsel" to the firm.
"He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss.
Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.
"I don't recall him ever standing up and giving an impassioned speech — it was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff," said Fay Clayton, the lead lawyer on the case.
"He was the very junior lawyer in that case," said attorney Robert Kriss. "He had just graduated from law school. I don't recall him being in court at any time I was there. I was the lead lawyer for Citibank and he was not very visible to me."
Kriss, Clayton and every other co-counsel and opposing counsel interviewed for this story praised Obama's legal ability, temperament and everything about his courtroom demeanor, even though, they agree, he didn't say much in the courtroom.
On Feb. 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client, and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank — which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees — $467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165.
Miner commanded the higher rate of $285 an hour. During his appearance before the judge, Obama said he would need more time to file a response to a motion, and the judge agreed. That was all Obama said during the half-hour hearing.
His final bill on the case was 138 hours, or $23,000.
Last updated: 5 September 2012
-----------------------------------
but this is besides the point.
My argument is that there are often stop-gaps in place that folks want removed.
Theres a reason people wanted low interest mortgages they'd never pay off with any common sense.
But lets blame the banks for that.
And i'm NOT referring to the illegal shyt they did.
The Loan Arranger
Claim: Barack Obama filed a lawsuit to require banks to "make loans to poor people."
Example: [Collected via e-mail, September 2008]
In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against CitiBank, demanding that loans be made to poor people, and others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back. The basis of the lawsuit was the14th Amendment, which requires 'fair and equal' treatment for all citizens.
The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor/indigent/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.
Now, it's easy for some people to point the finger of blame at Pres. Geo.Bush for this crisis, because he's sitting in the hot seat.
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.
Origins: This item seeks to dump much of the blame for America's current economic woes on Barack Obama by claiming that as a young lawyer, Obama filed a lawsuit requiring financial institutions to lend money to "poor people" and "others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back." Although there is a (very) vague element of fact underneath this politicking, the piece quoted above is woefully wrong in all its particulars.
The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with requiring lenders to do business with people "who could not show proof that they could pay the money
back." The case was a class-action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings initiated by a black Chicago woman, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who claimed she was unfairly denied a mortgage based on her race. The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, and other business institutions refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., based solely on the geographic area in which the applicant lives (a practice that commonly excludes minorities in inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of their income or ability to pay). Specifically, the lawsuit charged that Citibank "rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories." The case was eventually settled out of court, with some class members receiving cash payments and Citibank agreeing to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages.
Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter. He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case:
Obama admits he played a mostly behind-the-scenes role at his law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland. He researched the law, drafted motions, prepared for depositions and did other less glamorous work during his three years full-time and eight years "of counsel" to the firm.
"He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss.
Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.
"I don't recall him ever standing up and giving an impassioned speech — it was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff," said Fay Clayton, the lead lawyer on the case.
"He was the very junior lawyer in that case," said attorney Robert Kriss. "He had just graduated from law school. I don't recall him being in court at any time I was there. I was the lead lawyer for Citibank and he was not very visible to me."
Kriss, Clayton and every other co-counsel and opposing counsel interviewed for this story praised Obama's legal ability, temperament and everything about his courtroom demeanor, even though, they agree, he didn't say much in the courtroom.
On Feb. 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client, and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank — which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees — $467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165.
Miner commanded the higher rate of $285 an hour. During his appearance before the judge, Obama said he would need more time to file a response to a motion, and the judge agreed. That was all Obama said during the half-hour hearing.
His final bill on the case was 138 hours, or $23,000.
Last updated: 5 September 2012
-----------------------------------
but this is besides the point.
My argument is that there are often stop-gaps in place that folks want removed.
Theres a reason people wanted low interest mortgages they'd never pay off with any common sense.
But lets blame the banks for that.
And i'm NOT referring to the illegal shyt they did.
you implied it by contrasting them to "poor" people
and your continuing denial is more than intellectually dishonest , it's pathetic
so at this point you are correlating to your own presumption in the face of ignoring unambiguous direct statements
this is a monologue breh
you don't need us
but I will be sure to use you well before I leave you to your madness
Last edited:
did you read your own posts?:zfg:
you are now admitting that there were forces outside of the control of poor people
and this was not their fault
thanks for playing:yasure:
Did you read the thread title?
This is PRECISELY what the fukk I'm talking about.
In your world, the consumer did NOTHING wrong.
Stay on topic.
you implied it by contrasting them to "poor" people
and your continuing denial is more than intellectually dishonest , it's pathetic
so at this point you are correlating to your own presumption in the face of ignoring unambiguous direct statements
this is a monologue breh
you don't need us
but I will be sure to use you well before I leave you to your madness
1. doctors ain't poor but I don't see how you expect me to contrast billionaires to poor people when we're talking about simply mortgages
2. doctors TEND to be more educated where I'm from and less likely to fall prey to some of the schemes used on the masses.
Me: Lets talk about the consumers. 
Everyone else: Nah, lets keep circle jerking about the financial institution!
Everyone else: Nah, lets keep circle jerking about the financial institution!
I don't see how you expect me not to
since only one particular set is the mortgagor and one is the mortgagee and their degree of wealth assignates their capability to being either class or of leveraging the connections to create the mortgage scam you speak of :yasure:
and there is the unsubstantiated low hanging fruit strawman gauntlet, you stand your ground young one, stand your ground! :youthink:
and the capitalization has begun,
we are approaching defcon 4:sweetjeezus:
Last edited:
poor misunderstood youMe: Lets talk about the consumers.
Everyone else: Nah, lets keep circle jerking about the financial institution!
