Why did Obama sue Citibank to force them to make bad loans and then say lenders should not make bad loans?

Question

"In a 1995 case known as Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, Obama and his fellow attorneys charged that Citibank was making too few loans to black applicants and won the case. As one commentator noted in May 2008, legal "successes" such as this were probably responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2007 AND 2008. That is, banks were not loaning to blacks whose credit was poor. When the law forced them to lend money anyway, the inevitable collapse occurred."
http://clearinghouse.wustl.edu/detail.php?id=10112&search=source|general;caseCat|FH;orderby|caseName;
http://clearinghouse.wustl.edu/detail.php?id=10112&search=source%7Cgeneral;caseCat%7CFH;orderby%7CcaseName;

http://www.vdare.com/pb/050105_hiddenclue.htm

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/05/09/obamas-early-legal-career-heavy-on-advocacy-for-blacks/print/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/05/09/obamas-early-legal-career-heavy-on-advocacy-for-blacks/print/

Additional Details

They were not red-lining.

They were not giving loans to people with bad credit.
Period. Deal with truth not fiction.

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Obama''s baby the notorious ACORN, trained by BO, strong armed the bank loaners to not only loan to bad creditors, but people with NO JOBS!

Answer 2

I love it how you Republicans twist things. They were talking about not giving loans out because of "race discrimination", not forcing them to make bad loans. My God.

Basically, the people had the credit rating to be approved for the loans, but were denied based on their color. Make any sense to you?

Edit: "They were not giving loans to people with bad credit."

There you go! You got it! Not all black people have bad credit. Citibank was denying them on discrimination, not because of their credit. You need to face the facts, not us.

Answer 3

You would think the media would be all over that.

Answer 4

You sound racist. It's called red-lining. It's illegal to not lend money to a person because of his race, religion, etc. It has nothing to do with the corruption and greed with the subprime housing market. Keep your websites and racism to yourself.

Answer 5

First, you are evidencing nothing more than a race war. And those same banks lent to white applicants with the very same credit stats, while not lending to blacks - which is clear discrimination. If the banks don't wish to lend to blacks of a certain credit rating, then they had better not lend to whites of the same credit rating class.

Further, the vast majority of failed loans are white recipients. Finally, loans unforced were made at usury rates to low income minorities, and out the ying yang:

http://www.planetd.org/2007/11/07/subpri…

"Status as a high cost subprime loan is the strongest predictor of a loan foreclosing:
-High cost home purchase loans had 816% greater chance of foreclosing.
-African American borrowers at all income levels were 2-3 times more likely to receive high cost subprime loans than white borrowers."

Do not make arguments like this again. Don't support thieving racist bankers ever again.

Source(s):

Mortgage Banker

Answer 6

It is just "Reparations" for the poor people that have been held down by the evil whites.