Clinton says she will go after 'fly-by-night mortgage lenders' who prey on the less fortunate. Your thoughts?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070807/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_mortgage_lenders;_ylt=At6afrGBDZoagTw_3oLH.YmyFz4D

EXCERPT FROM ARTICLE WHERE SHE IS TALKING ABOUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S HANDLING OF IT (you know how Y!A Politics contributors LOVE credible links)

"They believe in letting everyone fend for him or herself. They believe in what the president calls an ownership society, which is really you're on-your-own. It's the yo-yo economy; some go up and some go down and the strings are pulled by other people," Clinton said, repeating a familiar theme from her campaign speech. "I don't think that's how America works best."

Do you agree with this? Or should those with bad credit and with a low income be more cautious when purchasing a home.

mariannddoc-- where on this question am I defending ANYONE? I asked a question. This is not a rant.

Answer 1

Leave it to a conservative to defend scam artists.

Answer 2

Do we go after car dealers who sell and finance people cars they cannot afford? NO! Home lenders are the same way. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and not depend on the government to bail them out every time they screw up. The Mortgage industry will feel the pinch when those loans go into default. If the government bails out homeowners, the mortgages companies will get paid and never stop their current practices. As more mortgages default, lenders will tighten their standards and predatory lending will be a thing of the past. All mortgage lenders get loans from banks so they can affect the overall market by making high risk loans that default. The market has already begun to correct itself without the help of Mrs. Clinton.

Answer 3

That was so inspiring. Have you ever seen the movie "pay it forward"? Watch it if you haven't . Another rewarding feeling is delivering a substancial gift anonomisly. Its an amazing feeling to know you brought someone a smile or good will and to watch from the side as they are rewarded.

Answer 4

Since default of these types of risky loans are, in a large part, what has undermined confidence in the market the last week or so, it would be a good idea for all sorts of reasons to restrict new ones and try to salvage some of the existing ones if feasible.


During the S&L bailout, many people were allowed to walk away scot-free after making ridiculously high risk speculations in real estate, all with the intent of vastly enriching themselves. I think that some low or zero interest money for people in trouble with mortgages on their own homes is a good idea.

Answer 5

I believe she'd do better to conduct national training classes on money managment. I'll bet you don't even know what 'the rule of 72' is.

The people she 'proposes' going after are probably operating within the confines of the present laws. IF you are so ignorant about money you get in over your head it's not the lenders fault.

Now if you want to do something about shady (but totally legal) deals by lenders, stop allowing them to write off bad debt on their income taxes. Make 10% APR the MAXIMUM you can be charged on any credit purchase. That will put a stop to shakey loans and easily obtained credit cards.

Answer 6

Oh sure this is a great plan . We let people extend credit to anyone backed in part by the government and they collect all the profit and when the homeowner can not pay any longer it divides families and leaves the debit on the American tax payer .

Our lending practices are being manipulated and used to make short term profits and create long term public debt .

Answer 7

I live in a city with one of the highest rates of foreclosure in the country. Predatory lending is a horrible thing and they prey on the lesser abled who still want a piece of their American Dream. When you see people losing their homes the way we do here, you would feel differently. Sure people with bad credit and low income should be more cautious but they are given a great sales pitch. They sign what looks like a great loan, are paying and then the loan "balloons" and they are way out of their league and the house goes into foreclosure. There are lemon laws on the books regarding cars - I guess we could say that anyone buying a car should take a crash course in auto mechanics before buying but that people would say - "how ridiculous." Same with saying it is the fault of the people falling victim to predatory lenders. People are losing their homes, people with children, people with pets, people with nowhere else to go and no more money in the bank. Have a heart and educate yourself about predatory lending and to people posting: STOP BLAMING THE VICTIMS. Predatory lenders are scum, period. And it ought to be criminal and ought to be regulated, not where they can screw people out of all their money and their homes and go about their merry way.

Answer 8

I don't think she needs to go after "fly-by-night" lenders, they're going under as we speak. What is happening now is lenders are not doing loans for anyone with a credit score under 800. So we have swung from one extreme to the other.

I know too many people who don't take responsibility for their credit situation and they are the type who need someone to prevent them from taking us all down with them.

But I don't want or need governmental babysitting.

I used to know a realtor that sold the same houses in a low income area over and over after foreclosures! It was a big joke in the office.

Answer 9

I agree with taking on the unfair lending practices, such as excluding taxes and insurance from the real cost of the loans. I did not see her specifically mention 'balloon mortgages' which I personally believe are unfair because many times they are written as "forestalling foreclosures".

I do not like that she is proposing bailouts, but does not specify any FCC regulations to curb unethical lending and collection practices practices. Did I miss the part where she condemned "vulture" practices of collection agencies that buy $2,000 debts for $100 and sue low-income consumers for $3,500? Instead, it appears that she is proposing (more) 'corporate welfare'. Google "Silverado" and "Resolution Trust Corporation" (RTC), we've been down this shady lane before!

Perhaps I'm casting a wide net here, but it bothers me is that she is speaking out against unfair lending practices, but remains silent about "vulture funds". She's known about that nefarious practice since 2000. These funds cost us millions/billions of taxpayer $s targeted for third world nations, but are diverted to billionaires' pockets instead.
http://www.jubileeresearch.org/jubilee2000/media/letter251000.html

Clinton has criticised the low taxes paid by executives at buyout firms and hedge funds, but stops short of calling for a halt to the practice. What does she have to lose by taking on the "vulture" hedge funds? http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article2072734.ece
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/business/25hedge.html?ex=1327381200&en=0fcb241a67086a97&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Answer 10

No one should ever fall victim to a "predatory" mortgage lender--it takes only a few hours to educate yourself about mortgages, how they work, how to calculate principal and interest payments, the differences between fixed-rate and ARM, etc.

If you are purchasing a home without any information at your disposal then you *deserve* to be scammed.

There are issues that are more important for a potential Presidential candidate to be addressing.

Answer 11

They are going to have to be dealt with. Yes, I suppose that those w/bad credit/low income should be more careful. But the mortgage industry traded on the desperate desire of those people to own homes, something those people never thought they could do. When folks are desperate to get that American dream, ie buying their own home, they can convince themselves of almost anything. Including that their conditions would improve and they would be able to meet those larger payments later on. What the mortgage industry did was underhanded and wrong in my opinion, and I worked for a few years for a mortgage company. They knew exactly what was going to happen, but all they cared about was the money in their own pockets. Taking advantage of people the way they did is despicable in my opinion. Think of it like this. People with bad credit or low incomes are challenged in ways a lot of folks aren't. If they were smart enough to pull themselves out of the holes they are in, they'd be smart enough to spot a bad deal when they see it. But that isn't the case, they made bad decisions. Something the mortgage brokers could count on them to do, given the bad way they have managed their money and lives to begin with. Did they deserve to be hoodwinked because they aren't too bright to begin with or was it the mortgage companies taking advantage of that very fact to make money? It's just morally wrong in my opinion.