« Back to story "Citigroup Has Announced Its Plan to Rework Mortgages and Stop Foreclosures"

Story Comments

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

80%
Charlson1 year ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

Do you honestly think banks would have reorganized their mortgages on their own? And are you still trying to blame this problem on Acorn?

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
20 Replies

loading ...
- TFLComment removed: Hard Banned19 Replies
  - 80%
    Charlson1 year ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    Something about Acorn's advocacy of affordable mortgages for the lower income prospective homeowners. Which is an attempt to blame the mortgage crisis on them instead of the speculative buying and selling of mortgages amoung investors.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    9 Replies
    
    loading ...
    - TFLComment removed: Hard Banned8 Replies
      - stalemateComment removed: Retracted by user7 Replies
        
        80%
        Charlson1 year ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        A drop in the bucket compared to the real culprits. Your attempt at diverting the blame is reprehensible. And it seems that the bailout so far has only helped the bankers and mortgage companies who are hoarding the money instead of working to reduce foreclosures. You must be very proud of yourself.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        stalemateComment removed: Retracted by user5 Replies
        
        86%
        Charlson1 year ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        I am very solvent and have no problems meeting my obligations. But I do have an empathy for the little man and not the wealthy and powerful, unlike you. Bet you claim to be a Christian too. If you're not, I apologise in advance.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        stalemateComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
        
        100%
        Charlson1 year ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Calling you a Christian is what you consider an insult? lmao.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        83%
        Charlson1 year ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        It would seem that you'd give a free ride to the scammers (mortgage companies giving mortgages to those less educated and unable to understand the fine print and then bundling mortgages and selling them with inflated worth to investors) and punish the scammed, those who paid into the mortgage system until the balloon payments became too large for them to afford and then losing their homes along with their investment in that home, plus the gullible investors who bought those mortgages. Now who ended up with nothing and who ended up with something?
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        stalemateComment removed: Retracted by user
  - stalemateComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
    - TFLComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
      - stalemateComment removed: Retracted by user
      - stalemateComment removed: Retracted by user
    - stalemateComment removed: Retracted by user
  - 20%
    nostalgia1 year ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    Barack Obama along with others sued Citibank on behalf of ACORN in 1995 claiming the bank was not making mortgages to poor and minorities
    
    The Chicago Sun-Times reported an initiative led by ACORN's Talbott with five area lenders "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit history
    
    ACORN went to Congress to protect the CRA from GOP reforms and to expand the reach of quota-based lending to Fannie, Freddie and beyond. What resulted was the broadening of the "acceptability of risky subprime loans throughout the financial system, thus precipitating our current crisis."
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    3 Replies
    
    loading ...
    - 100%
      willottica1 year ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      What was the lawsuit over again? Was it because they weren't making mortgages to poor and minorities? Or because they refused mortgages to minorities with identical incomes as mortgages they approved to non-minorities. Or they did this based on the neighborhood.
      
      I suggest you look into the exact reasoning of the lawsuit before claiming it was just because poor and minorities couldn't get loans (with the implication that they were too risky to lend to).
      
      Maybe the lawsuit went the wrong way - maybe the result should have been rescinding the mortgages of the risky white borrowers. The lawsuit was over racism and discrimination, which there was evidence of, not because the banks were refusing to give bad loans.
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      2 Replies
      
      loading ...
      - 25%
        nostalgia1 year ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Maybe mortgages should have standards - verified income, at least 10% down, credit checks and debt load. It shouldn't matter whether you are a minority or not - meet the requirements or no loan
        Wouldn't that be refreshing?
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        100%
        willottica1 year ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        That's actually the way they are in Canada. :-) (Though 5% down mortgages are still available, but you must buy default insurance for <20% down.)
        You need verified income, your mortgage can be no more than 30% of that income, with your total debt obligations no more than 40% of your income.
        
        "Credit checks" are a bunch of BS, in my opinion. The credit score is far too dependant on what others have been willing to lend you, and too little on what you actually repay, and bad marks hurt your rating for too long.
        
        I also disagree with your down-payment idea. Unless rental rates are significantly lower than mortgage rates, it can be very difficult to save for a downpayment and pay rent. I support low-downpayment options, but would make it illegal to walk away from an upside-down mortgage. No debt forgiveness. And if you were to walk away, then you should never be able to qualify for a mortgage again (at least until you paid back the debt you left behind).
        
        Your score is better if you owe 10-20% of your debt potential than if you owe nothing. Furthermore, someone with "bad credit" should not be forced to pay higher interest rates (which may then cause their credit to worsen). The credit score system is set up to reward those who need credit the least, and punish those who need it the most.
        
        As posted below on this thread, I think it is wrong to charge different rates based on credit scores (though the total amount loaned SHOULD be dependant on the score plus income security).
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...