Why does Hot Air think that this is a new revelation?


I do not get it, something that I have known for the past 4 years is a new revelation to the people at Hot Air. This is a revelation involving the Class Action Law suit against Citibank involving Obama. The clients in that law suit got virtually nothing but the lawyers got more than $1,000,000. Ultimately this story is related to the whole sub-prime lending scandal and it is the evidence that Obama was behind the collapse in 2008.

If you do not know the story then I will have to give just a synopsis of the background. The whole story goes back to the Presidency of Jimmy Carter. It was under Carter when the rules for lending began to change. Next came the demands that banks were to be forced to give loans to people who could not meet the repayments. The crisis in the mortgage industry began to build at this particular stage until it reach global financial crisis proportions in 2008. I am leaving out a lot of detail in this synopsis. One thing that I have known for the past 4 years was that Obama actually went to D.C. to push through the legislation that led to banks being forced to make these loans under penalty of law if they did not comply.

The banking regulations in the USA became a joke in the 1990s because that is when the sub-prime mortgage market really took off. This history of this blight sheets down to a few people, and all of them are well known such as Franklin Reynes, and of course one leading contender for notoriety over this subject has to be Barack Obama. He had a leading role in the whole fiasco. Franklin Reynes and his cronies ripped off the money but Obama helped to create the whole scenario.

I have to add here, that Australia followed the same path when the financial institutions began lending to low income families to purchase homes that they could not afford. Yes, I have been at the other end of a bank’s discrimination when we wanted to purchase a second-hand car and we were told we could not have a loan for a very small amount of money because we did not own our home at the time. So yes, I do know what that feels like, but I also know that there are finance companies that charge a very high interest rate to lend to people in a similar situation (my husband had a steady job at the time).

The law suit was based upon “racial discrimination” but the fact is that such was not true, because the criteria for lending money had not been about race, but affordability. The banks have to assess each loan application based upon what the client can or cannot afford to pay.  That has nothing to do with race.

As a matter of fact, I have faced discrimination from one bank based upon my gender. In that instance, I already had a credit card and I wanted to change from one institution to the other, but that other institution refused my application based upon the fact that I was a married woman “and I might get divorced and then how would I pay back the credit card” or words to that effect. Yes that really did happen to me around 1988. I am not joking at all. That is exactly what I was told and I did hit the roof over it, since there continues to be a lot of this kind of discrimination. It is the real thing… but I have not attempted to sue anyone over such remarks. (as a matter of fact that institution no longer exist).

However, back to this story that has found its way into the Daily Caller and Hot Air, because what has surprised me is that so few had even known about the Obama connection to the whole sub prime lending fiasco, even though I knew about it 4 years ago!!

Advertisements

Comments are closed.