4um: The thread where everyone attacks everyone else or you can gang-attack specific individuals or just say crazy or stupid things

Title: The thread where everyone attacks everyone else or you can gang-attack specific individuals or just say crazy or stupid things
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 11, 2008
Author: Me, me, me
Post Date: 2008-10-11 08:17:47 by a vast rightwing conspirator
Keywords: None
Views: 2667
Comments: 121

Yesterday, I posted a thread on Sarah's being outed as a power abuser. Most of you, demonstrating your inability to think rationally or coherently, took the opportunity to attack me, to call Obama a monkee, to restate for the millionth time that 'they all desame' or to try to demonstrate that discussing anything else other than 'the building seven collapse' is a waste of time and a distraction.

This is getting pretty old and boring and many threads on this site are looking like rants from a bunch of mentally-challenged, obsessive-aggressive mental patients, desperate, incoherent and off their meds. Because of this - the boring and predictable part - the frequency of my visits and important contributions has diminished greatly. So, please, use this thread for stupid posts so we can have interesting discussions going on other threads.

Use this thread, whenever you feel like attacking or insulting someone or whenever you have something stupid to say so that you can stay on the topic on the threads that actually have a topic.

It may be idea to have some other permanent threads where other interesting views such as 'they all desame', 'Obama is monkee', 'we're toast (or f___ed)' and so on can be explored continuously.

If reading the above made you mad, THIS thread is where you should express your disapproval, outrage or hate.

not one word from you on the numerous threads we've had here on the bailout/economic situation or the dire straits we find ourselves in? if you compare the articles and threads here to those of other forums, we have the most varied and the most topical. your interest seems narrowly tunneled. that's not the fault of 4um or its participants.

To stay in the spirit of this thread, what were those big discussions on the economic situation conclude?

Mortgage Practices Led to Woes: Study

In the late 1960s, unscrupulous mortgage bankers helped destroy Chicago neighborhoods. That situation may be happening again in the '90s, according to a recent study.

Twenty-five years ago, mortgage lenders made federally insured home loans to minority buyers who could not afford their monthly payments. When the buyers fell behind, the mortgage bankers quickly foreclosed on the Federal Housing Administration loans, throwing families out on the street and collecting their money from the government.

The houses then were resold to other unqualified buyers, or allowed to deteriorate until the city tore them down. It was clear the government's program to help lower-income families buy homes had gone astray.

Despite FHA reforms, high foreclosure rates and vacant houses remain.

Three mortgage bankers had foreclosure rates in excess of 7 percent in six selected Chicago neighborhoods: Austin, Chatham, Roseland, West Pullman, Chicago Lawn and West Englewood.

In comparison, LaSalle-Talman Bank - the city's biggest mortgage lender - foreclosed on only 2.8 percent of its FHA-backed loans during the same 1986-1989 period. LaSalle-Talman said it keeps foreclosures down by providing financial counseling to borrowers who fall behind.

According to a study by the National Training and Information Center in Chicago, a handful of mortgage bankers account for a large number of defaults and foreclosures on FHA loans in Chicago's minority neighborhoods. The center based its conclusion on four years of foreclosure data collected by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department.

"It's the same baloney," said Gale Cincotta, the Training and Information Center's director, who has lobbied Congress for changes in the way FHA operates. Mortgage companies don't do enough financial counseling with new buyers and then quickly foreclose on them, she charged.

That's not so, countered the Mortgage Bankers Association, the industry's trade and lobbying association.

"Just because you have a high default rate doesn't mean you're a bad lender," said Brian Chappelle, a spokesman for the association. "Lenders are getting hammered on not making enough loans to minority borrowers. When they do make loans and the rejection rate goes up, they're accused of ruining neighborhoods."

Of the three mortgage companies with the worst foreclosure rates, one (Field Mortgage Co. of Denver) has gone out of business and another (Heritage Mortgage of Chicago) has been banned from making new FHA loans. The third, Fleet Mortgage Co. of Columbia, S.C., said it also is puzzled by "the discrepancy in both delinquencies and foreclosure rates" in the neighborhoods identified by the Training and Information Center study.

When Fleet applied for a new state license, the firm reported a 1.24 percent foreclosure rate in Illinois during '91, but in the six neighborhoods identified by the Training and Information Center, its foreclosure rate was many times higher - averaging 7.2 percent - from 1986 to 1989.

Fleet, the second-largest mortgage lender in the country, has had two "very positive" meetings with Cincotta's group, said spokesman Charles T. Conway Jr. "Our intention is to continue to meet with groups like NTIC so we can find out what the root cause is and come up with solutions."

The continued attempt to blame on the Mortgage Lenders and Takers while totally avoiding the actual causes:

4. Intervention in the Market by the Central Government TO the benefit of the Central Banks.

All in a created environment of deindustrialization and flooding the economy with sub-market wage slaves from the Third World.

The entire "crisis" is a created one that has been hyped and over-sold in order for the Central Banks (their owners - Rotchilds and Rockefuckers et. al., ...) to consolidate financial and political power.

Hi OI, and none of what you posted is lost on any thinking person. That said, nothing is more effective at peaking the curiosity of an average sheeple than by showing them, with proof positive, that Joe Dark is receiving a financial benefit over Johnny White simply because of his/her color. The 60s have delivered their poisonous fruit and the sea of abandoned homes that litter the American landscape is a better object lesson than a discussion of the Rothschilds. For now at least.

That is a thesis begging contention which, unfortunately, I don't have time to tackle as I have to be gone in about 8 minutes.

Suffice that the roots run back long prior to the issue of forcing lending to uncreditworthy individuals - whose forbears had been credit worthy but were not allowed credit.

However, in the short time horizon I would agree that IN PART the problem is the enforced lending to those who could not rationally afford to repay the loans. But, we have to look at the whole picture and ask what were the policies and actions, which in a powerful economy, resulted in able bodied people becoming supplicant dependents? That also was created.

As well - the cost of buying out the bad mortgages would be less than 100 Billion. Therefore there is no need for 5 Trillion except for purposes not disclosed. Follow the money.