Bailout Bills, Illegal Aliens, and Weird Lending Practices

by Hans Bader on September 24, 2008 · 1,268 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal, Politics as Usual

The proposed $700 billion bailout is “dangerous, inflationary, unnecessary, and unconstitutional,” funds left-wing special-interest groups, ignores less costly ways of propping up financial markets, and fails to consider regulatory reforms that might reduce the need for a bailout.  It’s not clear why we should trust federal officials with $700 billion to buy up bad loans, without any clear standards or judicial oversight, given that governmental incompetence and government regulations (such as affordable housing mandates) helped spawn the mortgage crisis.  Many economists oppose the proposed bailout.

But some lending practices are hard to explain.  Why did so many lenders make loans to illegal aliens without steady jobs, who are now defaulting by the thousands, as Michelle Malkin notes?  Is it because of the societal (and governmental) obsession with diversity?

When I and my wife, a legal alien, bought our house, the mortgage company told me that if my wife were an illegal alien, rather than legal, we would have qualified for certain loan programs with big banks.  But because she was a legal alien waiting for her green-card (which she had recently applied for), we didn’t qualify.

Mark Krikorian, an activist against illegal immigration, argues that “we’re in this mess, ultimately, because our political elites thought it was good social policy to encourage banks to give mortgages to uncreditworthy people, resulting in what Sailer months ago called the “Diversity Recession” (if this doesn’t work, make that the Diversity Depression). In other words, if poor people in general, or blacks or Hispanics in particular, were less likely to be approved for a mortgage, the only possible reason was racism or classism or whatever. Thus ‘creditworthiness’ was an illegitimate, dead-white-male concept, like middleclassness. Because, after all, isn’t everyone entitled to credit?”

Another strange lending practice also popped up when I purchased a home.  I ultimately left my wife off the mortgage entirely, because I was told that since she had no credit history (despite being thrifty and having savings and no debts), putting her on the mortgage would actually get us a worse, higher interest rate than if I alone applied (I received a rate of 5%, a low rate by historical standards).

Why on Earth were we treated as worse off if my wife co-signed the loan, which makes no sense economically?  It’s not like having her on the loan would have made me any poorer or less able to pay.

People I’ve talked to have theorized that it is a byproduct of two things: (a) discrimination lawsuits, and (b) courts’ indulgence towards junk science.

If the bank gave loans to white people like my wife with no credit, or bad credit, the bank would later look bad if was sued for discrimination, even if it was innocent.  If a “fair-housing” group later sued the bank accusing it of discrimination, supported by a misleading “regression analysis” of the bank’s lending decisions, the bank could end up having to explain, at great expense, why it loaned money to my wife, but not to many minority borrowers who also had no credit or bad credit (never mind that my wife would have had a co-signor with good credit — me).

Why should such misleading regression analysis matter?  The Supreme Court may have opened the door to such junk science in its Bazemore decision, which allows plaintiffs to bring discrimination lawsuits based on obviously flawed statistics, such as regression analyses, as long as the plaintiff claims that the analysis includes all “major” variables, even if “minor” variables that also matter are deliberately left out, unless the defendant can prove that even major variables have been omitted.

Topcat September 24, 2008 at 1:56 pm

We live in a world where there are always contributing factors to a problem. So how does one decide which factor contributes the most? In other words, how do you decide upon the essence of a problem versus that which is tangentially contributory? Here, we are at a site where the subprime problem has been variously blamed on illegal aliens, greedy borrowers, stupid borrowers, politicians, the GSE leadership, and even Hollywood. To Cons, there is always room to blame the media. Entirely absent from the list is anybody who marketed, wrote, underwrote, or insured the loans. All were 'forced' into lending to the unworthy, or so the story goes. Nowhere were mortgages written at the teaser rate of 3%, with a balloon rate of 12% buried in the footnotes.An insane answer. So please, please answer just ONE question: Who put the gun to the head of Wall Street to invent the endless layer of derivatives that ULTIMATELY drove this debacle? This was the structural pillar that made all of this possible, and their creation both preceded this fiasco, and occurred entirely outside the GSE boardrooms. What irony: Cons blather on about the loss of individual responsibility in modern society, while simultaneously blaming everybody but themselves for their lead role in this mess. And then to have the balls to call Main Street ignorant and stupid for calling them on their BS.

Nancyf September 24, 2008 at 8:23 pm

It is my considered opinion and from what I've seen from some local business crooks and their cronies in gov. programs is that they are putting lots of the green stuff in their pockets. Most of these illegals don't speak English, don't understand our laws and rules and don't care to….especially when these crooks have supported them to cover up their theft, especially of public funds. And shielded them from the deportation they deserved for breaking our laws. Among OTHER laws they break. Why should they respect it when they didn't in the first place and those people made it possible for them to do? No wonder they just decided to invade us stupid Americans and take the whole cake! I doubt very much if they ever even EXPECTED them to pay off those loans, indeed, I think the whole thing was planned. They already had a 'bail-out' scheme put together 2 FREAKIN' WEEKS before anyone knew anything was happening. No, this is a scheme by rich crooks to rip-off anyone in their path and they saw big goobers in the government; if they can push them hard and fast and plan to laugh all the way to THEIR bank. Or another country in case somebody gets wise, no doubt. Yes, it's hard to believe people can be that dishonest and immoral and hateful…..but that's exactly what we got here.

Nancyf September 24, 2008 at 8:27 pm

I say let them go without. I believe our country will survive and grow stronger and we can turn this titanic around, but not if we keep letting them bend us over. The only danger is to the rich crooks that did this in the first place. THAT'S the terrorism they are so terrified of!

Nancyf September 24, 2008 at 8:28 pm

BTW; isn't that what Capitalism is all about anyway? Good companies survive and thrive and the bad ones goes six feet under. Just like they deserve. This had little to do with Americans. Very few of them anyway.

doctor431 September 25, 2008 at 12:29 am

Nancyf, I hope that (and they should) fail; other SWF (sovereign wealth funds) from China and S.A. DON'T come in and buy up U.S. assessts.

TT September 25, 2008 at 2:56 am

Description/History: Calling customer service for “Corporate America” (credit cards, banks, telephone and cable companies, etc.) can become a very time consuming, frustrating and stressful experience.  Talking to an automated telephone system that doesn’t always understand what you are calling for (you end up cursing the system) Listening to music (between 5 and 10 minutes) after being put on hold by the automated telephone system Finally, talking to an agent who is speaking with a heavy foreign accent that can’t be understood and can’t understand you Ask for management/supervisor, only to be put on hold for another 10 minutes; end up speaking to another person “with a heavy foreign accent that can’t be understood” You find out that these calls are being taking from India, the Philippines, etc., and for example the bank is located in the state of Delaware.. To top it off: If you are using your cell phone you end up using a full hour or more of your minutes with no results.Question: If our unemployment rate is so high, why is “Corporate America” giving these jobs to people overseas???????????

flenser September 25, 2008 at 4:59 am

"Who put the gun to the head of Wall Street to invent the endless layer of derivatives that ULTIMATELY drove this debacle? "I love your automatic assumption that "Wall Street" equals "conservatives". If you spent twenty minutes at Open Secrets you'd find that Wall Street loves the Democrats. The heads of Freddy, Fannie, Lehman, etc were all good liberals. So is the banking industry in general.

Jon September 25, 2008 at 6:25 am

Your comments are interesting except for the fact that the vast majority of residential real estate now in forclosure was purchased by INVESTORS AKA FLIPPERS. It was the lax lending standards to investor owners and not owner-occupied homeowners that lead to this catastrophie.

Small-Gov-Conservati September 25, 2008 at 8:05 am

The problem is that what happened was the fault of government regulations forcing affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws onto lending practices.here's a good primer on that:http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_diversi…..

Nancyf September 25, 2008 at 11:08 am

Nothing new, the crooks are trying to use our laws against us when they used the laws to 'legally' loan money to people who weren't even citizens. No wonder they screamed and cursed us for calling them 'ILLEGALS'! If the Whole LAW had been adhered to, this would not have happened. Don't blame this mess on black people I would bet my last two cents there were a hell'va lot more illegals on those lists than blacks. These real estate guys are crooked as a hound's back leg. They need to go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do NOT collect two hundered dollars….

chukalukabus September 26, 2008 at 3:12 am

Typical left wing logic. The Clinton goal was to enforce a 50% rule on banks…. that is, 50% of all new mortgages had to be for "protected" classes. This plan was implemented under the threat of legal action. So, what is a bank to do? You would do exactly what they did. You would try to limit your risks. The mortgage backed securities served this purpose. So blaming the effect of a blantently stupid socialist government policy as the "structural pillar" is just plane wrong.

Tom Simpson September 26, 2008 at 9:43 am

It is all an elitist plot.Tom SimpsonCertified Conspiracy Crackpot

RonG September 27, 2008 at 4:45 am

It just proves that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Dick September 27, 2008 at 9:30 am

If you think illegals didn't get in on the subprime housing give away, …., well, um …. You're just flat out wrong!!!

Bup September 27, 2008 at 10:22 am

Isn't it about time we REBUILD our government and return it to by the people for the people. We already pay too much in taxes. Time to reinvent the Boston Tea Party. The rich just get richer and the poor get to starve.

kat September 27, 2008 at 3:54 pm

I agree.

N. Hayes September 27, 2008 at 8:14 pm

If the current direction on more fed goveernment control continues with us taxpayers continuing to be taxed more for others mistakes, others swindles, aliens)illegals), giving away taxpayers money to incoming foreigners in the form of loans, welfare programs, ect. I would expect a civil was soon. I oppose the federal government buying junk mortgages to save individuals/companies. I opposed giving New Orleans residents anything but minor assistance. They did not give Iowa farmers who feed the country welfare for bad weather/crop failures. I have to carry insurance on my home. If it is destroyed I must deal with the insurance compay. The government is not going to give me one dollar. I feel must like the Australians. This is our country. If you came here uninvited leave. If you came here leagally, learn to speak ENGLISH or shut up and leave this country.

Eric September 28, 2008 at 8:01 am

The real culprit in this financial disaster is Acorn. Look up <a href="http://www.acornhousing.orghttp://www.acornhousing.org<br />These 'affordable housing' non-profit corporations (Democrat low income advocacy groups) have been loading up FNMA with 'toxic' loans for years. It came crashing down when they took out equity lines and spent it all. Ask anyone in the mortgage industry (you probably know someone since half the country either was in the business or supported it.) and they will tick off several of these groups. They are the reason this happened. They are the sales force of toxic mortgages. Get a house and vote Democrat.

judy September 28, 2008 at 12:08 pm

you are absolutly right! We see and saw and the past few years this practice.I am a Realtor, almost 19 yrs. in the business and I left my last broker becauseI felt he was over the line or so close to it I didn't want to be a part… yes, there was a threesome, he and his family all in the business, the lender, and he absolutly would not go to anyone else and they had to close at (his) titleco…the closer also, had purchased a few investment homes through him..the did the texas two step all over the place….and the builders are not withouttheir share of blame..for their greed..they allowed this broker/agents to salemany of their homes in one sub div. to the point that the orginal home owners were almost immediately upside down.. all were leased out to Katrina victimson FEMA Vouchers… …many many homes were left in deplorable conditions(these were new homes) Of course the investors were greedy also, many bought sight unseen with this broker as he traveled around the country doing his seminares…..soo greed all around…I am totallly against Acorn Housing getting any slice of the pie if they are beinginvestigated for Housing fraud and voter fraud…..you don't hear that they give a lot to the obama campaign……why NOT?

thom September 29, 2008 at 5:10 am

I as a citizen agree! Stop the bailout ! Stop illegal aliens ! Secure our borders& ports! Build the fence on our southern border ! These people are smuggling weapons that average citizens can not get,they cost a fortune and we have to have a special lic. to aquire. The citizens can not help much if our National Guard & reserve get in trouble with these thugs that smuggled AUTOMATIC WEAPONS across our boarders,not to mention the drugs thats ruining our Nation and our Children.

Jimbo September 29, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Several years ago, a mortgage broker who specializes in providing loans to people from the latino community with little or no verification of income or legal status moved into a strip mall here in Las Vegas, where a friend of mine has a retail store. The mortgage broker advertised his ability to provide such loans and his business was booming. His clientele spoke little english and his brokers were all bilingual. I remember it was hard to find a parking space after he opened shop. His customers kept parking in my friends parking spaces and because no one spoke eanglish it was hard to get them to move their cars. Business musty have been really booming as I had heard he was looking to expand into an adjacent storefront. I just drove by the the strip mall the other day and he has converted his mortgage business into a buiness that helps people with their foreclosures. Smart guys. He got paid to put people into bad loans they could ill afford and now he gets paid to help them with their foreclosure. What a system! The only way this happened was because democrats pushed legislation that forced banks to ensure loans like these were available to people who couldn't afford them and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy up those risky loans. And mortgage brokers, like this guy, took full advantage of it. He was pushing out the loans as fast as he could process the paperwork. You only have to look as far as Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Barack Obama to see what caused this. These three guys got more campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other politician. And they fiddled while Rome burned. Don't even think of trying to pin this on the Bush administration. Pushing banks and lending institutions to make loans or guarantee loans to low income people (who overwhelmingly vote democratic) may be good intentioned, but was bad business and these guys knew it and din't care. These days politics seems to be all about the buck you grab or the vote you buy.

MoralsMan September 29, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Bailout – Who Is Responsible For Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Crisis(The following are all quotes from the following articles. Note the dates on the articles. See my comments as well as links to full articles at end of email) President Clinton Pressures Fannie Mae To Give Risky Loans New York Times Excerpts September 30, 1999 Footnote 1 (footnotes contain link to entire articles in this email)"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people."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.'' "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings. "In July [1999 under Clinton presidency], the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups."Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent…In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent." Fannie Mae Resists Hiking Risky Loans Los Angeles Times Excerpts – May 31, 1999 Footnote 2"The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now [1999] required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable."But with discrimination in the banking system not yet eradicated, maintaining the momentum of the 1990s will also require a continuing nudge from Washington. One key is to defend the Community Reinvestment Act, which the Senate shortsightedly voted to retrench recently. Clinton has threatened a veto if the House concurs."Barry Zigas, who heads Fannie Mae’s low-income efforts, is undoubtedly correct when he argues, “There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] can’t push [the banks] to produce.” Bush Recommended Regulatory Overhaul of Fannie & Freddie In 2003But Barney Franks & Congressional Democrats Defeated the ProposalNew York Times Excerpts Sept 11, 03 [Under Bush's Administration] Footnote 3"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. "Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. ''These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'' [Barney Franks is Chairman of the Banking Committee and received huge sums of money from Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac and is the one pushing this bailout bill through the House] Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. McCain Co-Sponsored A Bill to Prevent the Fannie and Freddie CrisisBloomberg News Excerpts from article entitled "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis September 22, 08 Footnote 4, 5 & 6"It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end. "Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes… The Securities and Exchange Commission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even “on the page'' of allowable interpretations. Then [2005] legislative momentum [S.190 which McCain co-sponsored] emerged for an attempt to create a “world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe. "The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie “continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. “We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.'' "What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets. "Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190 , the bill that would have averted this mess. See footnote 5 for link to McCain's speech on the floor on this bill and footnote 6 for text of bill. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarch….. (Note: Senate Democrats blocked the passage of the Bill and while it passed in the House it failed in the Senate because of the Democrats.] Powerful Democrats Receive Huge Levels of Financial SupportFrom Fannie Mae and Freddie MacBloomberg News Footnote 7"But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years. "Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000. "Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix. You Tube Video Explains Obama's Involvement in Creating Crisis You Tube Footnote 8Obama was one of the lawyers in a firm that sued banks for not giving enough subprime [risky] loans to low income people. He received 49 times as much money from Frannie & Freddie as John McCain received. Obama received 4 times more money per year than any other senator; and in three years collected more money from Fannie & Freddie than John Kerry did in over 20 years. See this link for this video: http://www.youtube.com/TheMouthPeace My CommentsDid More Regulation (Government Control) or Less Regulation Cause the CrisisIt is clear there was regulation mainly by the liberal Democrats – the type of regulation that forced risky loans and caused the crisis. Now Democrats are blasting the Republicans saying Republicans are to blame for the crisis because Republicans wanted less regulation, implying that the free market and capitalism is the culprit in this situation. The truth is the Republicans wanted less regulation in the areas that were causing the problems (forcing banks to give risky loans) and more regulation to correct the problem. But as usual, the liberals have so clouded the issue that the citizens can't discern whether too much regulation or too little regulation caused the problem. It took several hours to get to the bottom of this, so I understand the dilemma citizens face in deciding who to believe. Most people don't have the hours it takes to get to the truth, so the liberals, backed by the media, continue to spread their propaganda to support their government control and socialistic practices. I see nothing in the bailout bill that will rectify the problems that caused the crisis. With liberal Democrat Barney Franks, Chairman of the Banking Committee, pushing this bailout through the house, it is obvious whose philosophy has shaped the bill and who will enforce the bill. The liberals had slipped a measure into the bailout bill to send some of the profits from the sale of distressed assets the government buys into to ACORN (Association Community Organizations for Reform). ACORN is known to many as a liberal/socialist organization involved in voter fraud and advocating the risky loans. (Recently, Milwaukee's top election official announced plans to seek criminal investigations of 37 ACORN employees.) Obama was a member of ACORN and actually trained members on grievance techniques. "Obama's campaign apologized for failing to report $800,000 in campaign payments to ACORN. They were 'accidentally' filed with the Federal Election Committee as money sent to 'get-out-the-vote' and 'advance work.'"After several days of rage from conservative activists regarding this provision, the ACORN provision was removed. See footnote 9 for link to article on matters in this section. Liberals Try To Slip in another $56 Billion For Give-A-Way Programs In Midst of "Pearl Harbor" Financial CrisisEven in the midst of the financial crisis which is costing taxpayers 700 billion, a crisis called a Pearl Harbor financial crisis by some, the liberal Democrats tried to slip in a $56 billion plan to expand more give away programs like food stamps. The bill was blocked by Senate Republicans. See this link for full article: http://www.nwanews.com/adg/National/238470/ See Footnote 9 for link to articleI thought when our nation became destitute the liberals would finally understand they had to cut programs, but now I see they will just push the deficit up and up until we become so bankrupt that we lose our nation to China and other foreigners who are lending us the money. Documentation Footnotes: Links to articles quoted above1. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=….. President Clinton Pressures Fannie Mae To Give Risky Loans2. http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn…..Fannie Mae Resist Hiking Risky Loans3. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=…..Bush Recommended Regulatory Overhaul of Fannie & Freddie In 2003But Barney Franks & Congressional Democrats Defeated the Proposal4. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarch…..McCain Co-Sponsored A Bill to Prevent the Fannie and Freddie Crisis5. http://www.theminorityreportblog.com:80/blog_en….. McCain's speech on the floor 6. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s….. S.190 S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 can be read at this link:7. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarch…..Powerful Democrats Receive Huge Levels of Financial Support From Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac8. http://www.youtube.com/TheMouthPeaceYou Tube Video Explains Obama's Involvement in Creating Crisis titled "You'll Never Guess"9. http://sadbastards.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/wha….. and http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/vie…..ACORN in bailout bill and Obama's role in ACORN 10. http://www.nwanews.com/adg/National/238470/ Liberals Try To Slip in another $56 Billion For Give-A-Way Programs In Midst of "Pearl Harbor" Financial Crisis

Chaz September 30, 2008 at 4:03 pm

How many loans were given to illegal aliens? How many illegal aliens are there in the US? The truth is nobody knows . They are guessing at 15 million illegal aliens. It could be much more.I personally know illegal aliens in SW florida who bought upper-middle class homes with mortgages. How many lies did they tell to get the loan? Plenty one surmises.Many of the lenders knew they were illegals but who aree especially sympathetic to Lantinos being Latino them selves. What do I see in Florida? One lie begets many. One crime begets many. Society crumbles.

Bernie Sliva October 2, 2008 at 4:35 am

If our so called government would use their heads for a change they would be able to determine that if we had jobs in AMERICA the people would have money to pay their mortages, buy cars, clothes and able to shop for any other item that they which to purchase. We had all this back in the 70's and 80's, what the hell happened. Too many Illegals WALKED into our country, lowered our standards and now we are paying the price besides a CORRUPT government. And what about OPEC, no one has mentioned them, clean their house and maybe something's might change. So let's get out and vote all these incumbents out and put new faces in, what the hell, it couldn't be any worse. We could always vote them out to.

Nancyf October 20, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Bet a dollar to a doughnut that it wasn't even LEGAL for them to make loans to illegal aliens. I believe that would be why they SCREAMED bloody murder when we called them that on the forums. I think they are scared to death someone will figure it out or find the law on the books that prohibit it. Any Americans who support open borders and illgal acts by aliens who intend to crowd out our culture with their's are openly supporting a mass genocide or class murder of a large section of Americans. Hmmm….I need to do a blog on genocide. To help explain it to the people. ThXs for this post. Good job.

Busby SEO Test January 13, 2009 at 11:31 am

“the mortgage company told me that if my wife were an illegal alien”. I think the mortgage have bad comunications :) . thanks.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1242 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: