Gard: Your anecdote raises some questions and illuminates your thought processes.

Why does a 90 year old women have a mortgage?  Did she just buy the house? (with a 30 year interest only mortgage perhaps, an extreme optimist!)  Did she have an income to pay a mortgage?  So Fannie Mae held the mortgage... Was she competent to enter into a contract?  Why do you imply that her actions are connected to the Fannie Mae Board members.  I have an issue with FM's Board compensation too.  But it has nothing to do with your example.

If you want sympathy, it's in the dictionary. 

Sub - Prime borrowers are sub prime for a reason.  They don't have the earnings to repay a loan.  Misplaced sympathy and greed are emotions that got us here.  Votes should not be placed in the same way, else the mess spreads.

So are every other legitimized words. This particular one is what helps determine the difference between animals and mankind. It also resides between two words people won't want to read in this forum.

Gard

Very funny!  I wish had thought of that!

Marla

The reason that banks engage in suicidal practices is that the federal government passed a law requiring them to do so.  When Citicorp and others tried to ignore the law in the best interests of the American people, Obama sued  in federal court, forcing the banks to extend credit to un-creditworthy borrowers.  I am so disgusted with politics and politicians that I could just spit.  I think it is genetically impossible for a politician to tell the truth, be they black or white, male or female, democrat or republican.  We would be better served by a bunch of trained chimpanzees.

Marla

From someone interested in facts, A lot of innuendo about GWB is being spewed.

I remember a certain vote in Congress authorizing that same war.  How can it be "Unilateral" ??

I only blame GWB for a poor job of educating the public of "Why we fight".

I want to take a moment to thank Dave for allowing a free exchange of Off-topic comments.  It takes expensive bandwidth. But our country is better for the discussion, if facts are spread and ideas are tested...

I Appreciate everybody for keeping it civil and friendly.

Marla ... Forgive my butt-in-sky ... If I overstep, you may feel free to push me back.

Rose:   Marla never said a court order was issued forcing the banks to make imprudent loans.  What actually happened was a settlement between two parties.  Obama was a lawyer for the plaintif that alleged Citibank was engaging in "red-lining"  The case never came to trial.  The "settlement" was agreed to by Citibank.

Like a lot of law suits, the corporation is more concerned with costs over principle.  You'll find your insurance company will settle a few thousand $$ on a injured tresspasser in your pasture even though they were unlawfully on your property.  So Citibank settled and proceeded to make loans they really didn't want to do to avoid further "COST" & hassle

Here's a site that quotes the specific case citation for you to look up.  

http://www.redcounty.com/sarasota/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra/

Bottom line is Obama sued Citi-bank and won. Forcing Citi-Bank to make loans they didn't want to. Welcome to America.

So Rose ...  Citibank was in a position of damned if they do and damned if they don't by Obama et al.    

So they placed money into areas they didn't want to place their money.   I consider that getting forced to make loans.

As you know (judging from your posts) a fair price is determined by a willing seller and a willing buyer.  If any party is forced by a third party, the price is skewed in some direction...  Ergo SUB-PRIME LOANS or known to the taxpayer as a "Crap" Sandwich

So by that.. You mis-spoke.  You meant America's unilateral war.

A key distinction is being ignored.  War is different that Crime.  Crime is only responded to by society after the fact.  A person can say mean things to you all day, But you can't stop him.  Only after that person says something that steps over the lawful line can society act.

In a war (And we are at WAR.  More Americans were killed 9/11 than the other sneak attack at Pearl Harbor) society MUST act preemptively to protect us.  A primary purpose of the gov't as written in the preamble of US CONSTITUTION is to protect us from enemies.  That is fact, not opinion.

Would you rather our gov't do nothing until a mushroom cloud appears over your city?  There is no Liberty for anyone when your throat is slit on Youtube.com.  Our CONSTITUTION places a duty on the gov't to ACT.  That is fact, not opinion.

What the law, however imperfect, attempted to do was to take race, religion, marital status etc out of the loan business.  It also attempted to reverse a tendency of financial institutions to steer certain ethnicities to certain areas of a city.

Now I have no problem with closing out the lending business.  Let everyone pay cash for whatever they want to purchase.  That way, everyone's money would be the same.  If you have the cash, you can buy the item.  Unfortunately, most people in this country cannot pay cash for big ticket items, such as homes, vehicles and so forth. 

hosspuller:  When you did your experiment with the request for a $400,000 loan, and received the information that 12 lenders would consider making this loan, did you feel sorry for the lenders?  Did you feel you were taking advantage of the lenders?  Or that they were willing to take advantage of you?

What this "imperfect" law tried to do was to ensure that every American who wanted to own their own home could do so, whether they could pay for it or not.  When all those people who overreached their abilities failed to pay, me and you and every other responsible American got to pay for them.  I resent the HELL out of that.

Marla

Hello Rose ... "The Road the Hell is paved with good intentions."  That was a saying way before my years on Earth ... Humanity hasn't changed much in thousands of years.  Our technology has greatly amplified our efforts, but the controller between our shoulders is still the same.

While the law attempts to "take race, religion, marital status etc out of the loan business" current events have shown where it has lead. 

Do we still want to tread the same path or attempt a correction?

That's the whole point of my experiment with that site.  Months after the first banking debacle, lender are still willing to deal in "CRAP" sandwiches.  I choose the loan criteria to specifically make it CRAP.  I wouldn't lend money to myself under those criteria.  Yet, the financial system is still making it attractive for lenders to eat it.  The recently passed "CRAP" legislation hasn't changed anything. (well,  maybe added a earmark garnish or dozens.)

Further... Your last question to me seems to imply that "taking advantage" is unseemly. 

Rose, are you a lawyer or skilled as one?  The Law system is essentially adversarial.  Everybody gets to court and battles against each other.  Each struggling for some advantage over each other.  Justice is not fair.  It's what a skilled lawyer can make it to be.  Why not banking then??

I can't explain it, but I can tell you that profiling works 90% of the time, the other 10% of the time people get their feelings hurt, I would guess all these laws are for those 10% that get caught up in a bad profile, you know, the guy with the tatoo on his neck not being considered for the receptionist job.

Rose... your question is a non sequitur.  It doesn't automatically follow that your two borrowers are equal with the exception of marital status.  Do both men have equal job tenure? Job stability? How many residences in the past ten years?  Tenure in the area?  Assets vs liabilities.  Previous home owner?

These questions are asked on the Uniform Residential Loan Application of Fannie Mae form 1003 10/92

What about the declarations of that same form?

"Priced in line with income" what does that mean to you?  It meant to me a home loan I could carry with ZERO income for 1/2 year when I relocated to Atlanta...  That durn realtor keep trying to up sell my wife and I.  (finally fired her! and found another realtor that listened to the price range I wanted) 

The borrower in my on-line experiment would have to default on the mortgage loan when the paperboy collected for the month.

Yep, that is me for sure...I have been trying to drink myself rich for years now...maybe it will now pay off.

Thanks!  Feel free to 'but in' anytime!

Marla

From my too long of a post above:

It has been my experience from both sides of the courtroom (representing plaintiffs and defendant insurance co/companies, as of now for 29 years) that most corporations do not settle "nuisance" suits because that encourages other "nuisance" suits. I have also participated as a witness for a barn owner in a lawsuit against the barn owner of horse, that a prospective purchaser involuntarily dismounted receiving a rather serious injury. The prospective purchaser stated a riding history of "barrel-racing." Further, the claimant could not describe what the horse did wrong. That case was ultimately withdrawn by the plaintiff, after pending for over 5 years. The barn owner's insurance company did not offer a settlement on the case. IMO CitiBank knew it had liability, and contained its potential loss. This is a far cry from "forcing" banks to make imprudent loans.