Skip to comments.NY Times Hides Blame in Mortgage Market Collapse
Posted on 05/13/2009 11:59:53 AM PDT by AIM Freeper
In a story today, The New York Times tries to explain the subprime lending crisis and why so many minority mortgages ended up in default. But full disclosure would have implicated the Democrats.
The paper notes that there have been higher default rates for blacks and Hispanics than whites. Thats because, in the boom years of mortgage lending, minorities were more likely to get subprime loans. The Times reports that in 2006, 17.5% of white homeowners got subprime (below the prevailing interest rate) mortgages, compared to 52.8% of blacks and 44.9% of Hispanics.
Because these were loans to borrowers who in many cases lacked the ability to repay them, when they defaulted, it had a ripple effect on the housing market and the banking industry.
The Times neglects to tell us the political origins of the crisis. It was the papers favorite party that forced these risky practices on lenders.
(Excerpt) Read more at boycottnyt.com ...
Defending democrats AGAIN? Hmmmm.
They would not mention that Obama had actually sued Citibank to force them to make more bad loans to minorities. It is a bad sign when politicians force bankers to make loans, it is worse when left-wing activists have been enabled to do so...
Wrong. The low interest rate wasn't the problem with subprime's, it was the NO DOC or LOW DOC process pushed by Congress that insured loans to unqualified buyers who vote 80% democrat.
Nah...it’s easier to blame it on Bush....
When is the old gray whore going to finally do her last trick?
So in answer to the question, "Why would anyone give someone a mortgage who couldn't pait it back?" Simple, they could sell it the next day to Fannie Mae (or Freddie).
Two words—Barney Frankenwhine
The democrats guilt is coming out....
I thought that the interest rate was actually higher for subprime loans. I thought it was the “lendee” that was subprime. (And the chances that the loan would be paid back.)
From the article:
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
"From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry."
In James Taranto's phrase, "Two papers in one!" ;-)
>>The Times reports that in 2006, 17.5% of white homeowners got subprime (below the prevailing interest rate) mortgages, compared to 52.8% of blacks and 44.9% of Hispanics.<<
I wonder how many members of Congress got subprime loans and how many defaulted.
All of this started with Fannie (both) and was instigated and pressured by Congress (Democratic Congress - hey give those poor folks loans). It’s just too bad that the press refuse to print the truth even as our government goes down with the economy.
I guess that they think that as long as they support the right side (left to them) that they will overcome...heh. Boy, are they in for a surprise. Well, maybe not since they will be bankrupt before the government...