Recently homeowners in my corner of Harlem held a soiree in someone’s garden. We form a warm group of 130 people who represent the changing neighborhood — black old-timers with a growing number of whites. Everyone brought a dish or bottle and the talk over the macaroni was cheerful. Did anyone know a good contractor? How did the Little League do this summer? A door prize, a box of Godiva chocolates, was awarded to the longest resident — Dina Morrison, 93, who has lived with her older sister in the same place for 67 years.  No one mentioned foreclosures.

Foreclosure crisis? What crisis? Not in Harlem.

Harlem is full of the sort of people who are losing their properties all over New York City, namely little old ladies and working-class African-American families. But the nation’s black capital has been insulated from the sub-prime meltdown by the very thing usually blamed for destroying communities of color — gentrification.

While the dreaded G word has priced some residents out of the ‘hood, we’ve seen a paradoxical upside. The house values that have skyrocketed over the past 15 years in Harlem scared off many predatory lenders who targeted other black areas. These $1-million-plus price tags have also given homeowners who are struggling to keep apace with mortgage payments the option of selling out before the bank closes in.

“There tends to be a tight connection between property values and foreclosures,” explains Josiah Madar, from the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University.

He and other experts understand little about the mechanisms of abusive lending, other than the stark racial component.  Eight of the ten top neighborhoods hit by foreclosures in the city are overwhelmingly non-white. A map representing the worst afflicted areas — among them Bedford-Stuyvesant, East New York, North Bronx, South Jamaica — says it all. Each filing is a dot, and the aforementioned areas resemble solid metastasizing cancers, with several hundred foreclosures each.

Yet the area comprising Hamilton Heights, which claims some of Harlem’s most prized Victorian brownstones, had just eight foreclosure notices, so few one can discern the individual specks.

It appears that the conmen who besieged other black neighborhoods steered away from Harlem, wagering that anyone who lived in a valuable townhouse would be too financially sophisticated for their tricks. Unlike in the outer boroughs where the racial demographic is similar but house values lower, Harlem residents didn’t report a barrage of flyers pushed through mail slots that promised zero interest rates. The scam artists who solicited people to over-borrow just didn’t approach Harlem as aggressively. Take a look at the numbers. Only 0.8 percent of all home-purchases mortgages in the Hamilton Heights area in 2006 were sub-prime, versus 34 percent in Bedford-Stuyvesant and 39 percent in East New York. (EDITORS — These are the latest available figures.) Refinancing loans from risky lenders were likewise lower here.

“It was all a matter of the assumptions of the predators,” said Dwayne Jones, lending director of the Parodneck Foundation, a housing advocacy group. “They did not come to Harlem.” He credits the large concentration of organizations like his, as well as social networks like our homeowners’ association, for raising awareness among less savvy member of the community.

Those Harlemites who did borrow more than they actually owned could take the money and run. That’s what our next-door neighbor did. Literally a week before the bank jumped to possess her 1888 row house, she sold the property for a nice packet to a white family and found something cheaper. Granted, it’s disruptive to move but she was spared financial ruin.

The added positive effect is that properties like hers do not sit vacant during New York’s long foreclosure process. We see a vicious cycle in foreclosure-hit areas, where empty houses sink the cost of those nearby. As anyone who lived through Harlem’s dark ghetto days knows, no one wants to live next to a boarded up building that tempts drug dealers to loiter. Moreover, few people want to buy a boarded up building with a leaking roof, which is often the case as banks rarely maintain the properties they seize.

This is not to say that gentrification is great for everyone. Of course it has a bad side. Most Harlemites rent apartments and do not dwell in fancy mansions. The locale is losing its status as the last outpost of affordability in Manhattan. Those suffering are victims not of the white professionals who buy shells and fix them up. No, the destructive forces are the big developers who scoop up rent-stabilized apartment buildings and then try to force out tenants by doing improvements and jacking up the price. Some of these investors borrowed more than the value of their properties, and now risk default. Then what happens to the residents living on the premises?

For the time being, though, homeowners like Dina Morrison are in a good place. There’s talk among the homeowners of a jolly Christmas party, just like every year of plenty.

©2008 Judith Matloff

About the Author:

Judith Matloff is the author of Home Girl — Building a Dream House on a Lawless Block (Random House.)

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – How Gentrification Saved Harlem

Remarks on predatory lending

Tags used on this review:crisis,economics,finance,housing,subprime

Related posts

• Cause Subprime Mortgage Crisis (0)
• 2007 Subprime Crisis (0)
• Wikipedia Subprime Lending (0)
• Wikipedia Subprime Crisis (0)
• Wiki Subprime Crisis (0)
• Wiki Subprime (0)
• Why Subprime Mortgage Crisis (0)

Question: where do you go to file a lawsuit without a lawyer?

i want to know how do i file a lawsuit without a lawyer? for predatory lending practices an harressment an diress

Answer: You can go to your local county court house and tell them you wish to file a civil suit; a legal aid will give you the proper paperwork and send you in the right direction. With this type of civil suit you’ll most likely want an attorney to do it for you, they’ll have a better chance at getting a judgement in your favor; the lending companies lawyers will rip you apart.

Joplin, Missouri Predatory Lending Lawyers – The Hershewe Law Firm

Tags used on this review:finance,housing,mortgage,realestate,subprime

Related posts

• Subprime Foreclosure Rates (0)
• Us Subprime Mortgage Market (0)
• Subprime Vs Prime Mortgage (0)
• Subprime Vs Prime (0)
• Subprime Real Estate (0)
• Subprime Personal Loans (0)
• Subprime Option Arm (0)

CRA blame for housing bubble is racist scapegoating baloney

Tags used on this review:predatory lending wikipedia

Related posts

• No related posts.

Predatory Lending, Elder Abuse, Option Arm Loans

No tags for this post.

Related posts

• No related posts.

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan on Obama’s new Consumer Financial Protection Agency

Tags used on this review:ahcd,bookmarks,business,predatorylending,realestate

Related posts

• Mortgage Help In Pa (0)
• Mortgage Help In Canada (0)
• Mortgage Fraud Training (0)
• Mortgage Fraud Seminar (0)
• Mortgage Default Servicing Industry (0)
• Mortgage Default Assistance (0)
• Loss Mitigation Training Institute (0)

Question: Does anyone else find this curious?

Here is a link to an article from the NY Times… dated September 30,1999.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Bill Clinton was still President.

Please note who is “applying pressure” in the third paragraph.

But that isn’t the best part…

Take a look at the eighth paragraph. Here we have Peter Wallison already talking about how a bailout will be necessary when the subprime market inevitably collapses.

I know the Bush administration proposed legislation to fix the predatory lending situation, but was stopped by the Dems in Congress. Although I admit I don’t have all the details on that particular issue.

Thoughts? Does anyone have any more information on this?
Artguurl: What about the talk of the bailout in 1999? That is the part I’m more interested in.

Answer: The Bush administration never proposed legislation to fix the predatory lending situation. He never did anything to stop it. He supported it by helping deregulation the business even more. You’re right, you don’t have the details on that particular issue. You don’t even have the facts.

February 23, 2004: Instead of heeding warnings, Federal Reserve leadership promotes non-traditional mortgages over fixed rate products in a speech to the Credit Union National Association annual conference. “American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage.the traditional fixed-rate mortgage may be an expensive method of financing a home.” [Remarks By Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, 2/23/04]

October 8, 2003: Bush administration objected to a proposal to have an independent regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be an independent unit of Treasury, much like financial regulators housed in the agency that oversee banks and thrifts. The Bush administration also objected to a proposal to have the Department of Housing and Urban Development have oversight over the companies’ business activities. The independence provision has broad support from committee Democrats and Republicans. The HUD provision was pushed mostly by Democrats but had been accepted by Oxley and Baker as a compromise needed to move the bill forward. [Washington Post, 10/8/03]

February 24, 2004: At a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Norman Rice, President and CEO of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle questioned having low-income Americans use ARM’s to finance their homes. In addition, Senator Sarbanes questioned the Federal Reserve’s promotion of alternative mortgage products over traditional fixed rate mortgages:

* Norman Rice: “Particularly if you’re talking about serving an underserved constituency. Adjustable rate mortgages for a low income constituency is a nightmare.”

* Senator Sarbanes: “[The Federal Reserve] is pushing adjustable rate mortgages.and throwing this risk back on the consumer.” [Senate Banking Committee Transcript, 2/25/04]

June 30, 2004: After encouraging the use of non-traditional mortgages, many of which re-set with rising interest rates, the Federal Reserve begins to raise rates-17 consecutive, 25 basis point increases that take the Federal Reserve Funds rate from a 46-year low of 1 percent in June 2004 to 5.25 percent in June 2006. [Market News International, 4/29/08]

October 26, 2005: House of Representatives passed regulation reforming the GSE’s. The bill passed the House 331-90 (Republicans: 209-15; Democrats: 122-74), and would have given the new regulator broad authority over setting capital requirements and limiting portfolio size. Senate Democrats picked that bill up and offered it, but the Administration opposed that legislation. According to Mr. Oxley, the White House gave Congress and the GSE reform legislation “a one-finger salute.”

* “We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr. Oxley says.” [Financial Times, 9/11/08]

February 7, 2007: Federal banking regulators released their voluntary Guidance on Nontraditional Mortgage Products for mortgage lenders. However, the guidance did not apply to subprime mortgages. [Senate Banking Committee Transcipt, Prepared Statement of Martin Eakes, 2/7/07]

March 22, 2007: Senator Dodd laid out how the Federal Reserve was responsible for the “perfect storm” sweeping over American homeowners. At a Banking committee hearing Dodd said, “By May of 2005, the press was reporting that economists were warning about the risks of these new mortgages. In June of that year, Chairman Greenspan was talking about “froth” in the mortgage market and testified before the Joint Economic Committee that he was troubled by the surge in exotic mortgages.” [Senate Banking Committee Transcript, 3/22/07]

August 6, 2007: At a White House morning press briefing, in response to a question whether the housing market is correcting or in crisis, President Bush says that the economy is stable: “[I]t looks we’re headed for a soft landing.” [Remarks By President Bush, 8/9/07]

November 15, 2007: Senator Reid asked unanimous consent to pass the FHA Modernization Act, but Republicans objected. [Congressional Record, 11/15/08]

December 4, 2007: In response to a question about whether the Administration was too slow to recognize the subprime problem, President Bush said: “We’ve been working on this since August.” [Remarks By President Bush, 12/4/07]

December 6, 2007: Senator Reid asked unanimous consent to pass the FHA Modernization Act, but Republicans objected. [Congressional Record, 12/6/08]

October 4, 2007: At a news conference on Wednesday, House and Senate Democrats outlined a plan to help low- and middle-income families keep their homes.” [New York Times

Congressman Kanjorski on Anti-Predatory Lending Legislation on House Floor

Tags used on this review:legislation,lending,predatory,subprime,whynotdodd

Related posts

• Stop Predatory Lending Practices (0)
• Predatory Lending Mortgage (0)
• What is Predatory Lending? (0)
• Subprime Predatory Lending (0)
• Subprime Guidance (0)
• Predatory Lending Subprime (0)
• Predatory Lending Remedies (0)

There is a great quote regarding history that goes – those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.  However, it seems that even as we are watching history play out, we are seeing people repeating it again and again.  A huge portion of our current economic crisis was caused by subprime mortgages and predatory lending practices.  Unfortunately, some companies are going back to the subprime concepts.

Toll Brothers Inc. is using a subprime tactic to lure new home buyers, offering a 3.75% interest rate for seven years on conforming loans. Many companies are expected to copy the concept, in spite of how badly the economy collapsed because of it.  During the housing boom, home buyers were tempted by loans that offered shockingly low rates, only to see them reset higher, sometimes very quickly, which resulted in crippling payments two and three times the original amount.  People who were banking on a home increasing in value were sorely disappointed.  This tactic is once again being used by mortgage companies to attract prospective homeowners, ignoring how this very tactic crushed large portions of the nation’s economic vitality.

If you would like to witness for yourself just how bad the financial carnage is, go to the office of any loan modification attorney and see the long lines of people hoping they can get some help in avoiding foreclosure and stay in their homes.  People with ARM loans which have adjustable interest rates watched their monthly payments spike, often sapping them of any financial security they had.  People paying two or three times as much for their monthly mortgage payment meant less money spent on food, clothes, healthcare, cars, etc.  This hurt homeowners as well as the economy as a whole.  The number of foreclosures in certain neighborhoods, especially in California, went through the roof, as people from San Diego to Eureka and from Needles to Santa Monica had to walk away from homes they’d lived in for years.

California loan modification attorneys have seen serious fallout from all the foreclosures; people who were once pillars of their community had to move to lower income housing in other neighborhoods because they could no longer afford their mortgage payments.  Sometimes, whole communities seemed to be uprooted, and entire blocks were just covered in “for sale” signs.  City and state governments were crippled because they were not bringing in property taxes and as a result municipal services shut down.

Much of this was caused by subprime mortgage practices, and the thought of these practices returning is terrible.  California loan modification attorneys have been working night and day since the economic crisis began to help people affected by the subprime mortgage crisis, and other homeowners as well.  Foreclosures ruined entire communities, and even with loan modification attorneys working tirelessly, sometimes it seemed like a never ending battle.  For many people facing foreclosure however, a California loan modification attorney might just be their best friend.  Loan modification attorneys can negotiate with lenders, file paperwork and effectively fight to keep people in their homes and off the streets.  Trying to do a loan modification on your own might be a losing battle because of how much work it takes.  However, having a seasoned loan modification professional could save you tens of thousands of dollars in the long run.

Visit us at http://www.feldmanlawcenter.com or call 800-588-0425.

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained herein is provided for general information and advertising purposes only and is not intended to convey a legal option nor legal advice for any particular case or situation. Nothing in this article shall create an attorney-client relationship. Nothing sent to this law office via e-mail shall constitute an attorney-client relationship. Nothing contained in this article shall be construed to be a guarantee or prediction of result. Prior results are provided for general information purposes only and do not guaranty, warranty or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.   Results achieved depend on individual circumstances and not everyone will qualify or be successful in restructuring their mortgage loan.

Author: Greg Feldman

About the Author:

We are the #1 website for FREE loan modification help and mortgage assistance programs to stop foreclosure. Loan Modification Help Center has information about loan modifications and resources to help you with your home loan modification Learn what agreement, and government help is available today!

Source – Feldman Law Center – Are Subprime Mortgages Returning?

Related posts

• No related posts.

Question: Why are republicans so intent on destroying America?

First Bush and his republican rubberstamp Congress dereulate the banking industry.Which led to predatory lending.Basically putting many unqualified buyers in the real estate market.
Thus creating the boom in the economy for the first 6 years of Bushs’ presidency.
Also while this was happening Bush took a budget surplus and turned it into deficit spending.Spending more then ALL the other presidents combined!
Now that democrats want to spend money here at home all you hear from the republicans is whining about the deficit they ran up!
Oh and let’s not forget about how they didn’t bother investigating the worst terrorist attack ever on America for more then a year!
Warren you didn’t even try to answer my queestion.Why because I’m right?

Answer: It’s called selfish greed, and it comes in all sizes and shapes. We are seeing what a strict free-market system has wrought, and while capitalism is still the desired choice, said capitalism must be tempered by oversight and rules. Since the markets were deregulated by bush/gramm, we are now paying for it–you, me, everybody else (even including the non-answerer, warren). Republicans don’t really want to destroy america so much as they just want all her money and power, but they should be careful what they wish for, as the saying goes.

Bank of America – credit card pushers

Tags used on this review:banks,bofa,Debt,economy,latino

Related posts

• Subprime Losses Banks (0)
• Subprime Boat Loans (0)
• Mortgage Relief America (0)
• Would a Reverse ARM be Helpful in Resolving the Subprime Mortgage Problem? (0)
• Why Subprime Mortgage Crisis (0)
• Why Subprime Crisis Happened (0)
• What Would You Do If You Want to Walk Away From Your Mortgage? (1)

Regulation of lending institutions is handled primarily by individual states, and this growing industry exists atop an active and shifting legal landscape. Lenders lobby to enable payday lending practices, while opponents of the industry lobby to prohibit the high cost loans in the name of consumer protection.

Payday lending is legal and regulated in 37 states. In Georgia and 12 other states, it is either illegal or not feasible, given state law. When not explicitly banned, laws that prohibit payday lending are usually in the form of usury limits: hard interest rate caps calculated strictly by APR.

In the United States, most states have usury laws which forbid interest rates in excess of a certain APR. Some payday lenders have succeeded in getting around usury laws in some states by forming relationships with nationally-chartered banks based in a different state with no usury ceiling (such as South Dakota or Delaware). This practice has been referred to as “rate exportation”, the “lender/servicer” model, or the “rent-a-bank” model. Under the legal doctrine of interest-rate exportation, established by Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. 439 U.S. 299 (1978), the loan is governed by the laws of the state where the bank is chartered, regardless of the borrower’s state of residence. This is the same doctrine that allows credit card issuers based in South Dakota and Delaware states that abolished their usury laws to offer credit cards nationwide. As federal banking regulators became aware of this practice, they began prohibiting these partnerships between commercial banks and payday lenders. The FDIC still allows its member banks to participate in payday lending, but it did issue guidelines in March 2005 that are meant to discourage long term debt cycles by transitioning to a longer term loan after six payday loan renewals. As a result, no federally insured banks engage in the business of payday lending as of 2007 using an agency model.

For usury laws to be effective, they need to include all loan fees as part of the interest. Otherwise, lenders can charge any amount they want as fees and still claim a low interest rate. State laws in the United States generally preclude charging of fees other than those expressly permitted by law, and the federal Truth In Lending Act requires disclosure of all fees. Payday loans, because of their simplified pricing structure, do not contain hidden fees or charges.

Some states have laws limiting the number of loans a borrower can take at a single time. This is currently being accomplished by single, statewide realtime databases. These systems are required in Florida, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Virginia. These systems require all licensed lenders to conduct a real time verification of the customer’s eligibility to receive a loan before conducting a loan. Reports published by state regulators in these states indicate that this system enforces all of the provisions of the state’s statutes. Some states also cap the number of loans per borrower per year (Virginia), or require that after a fixed number of loan renewals, the lender must offer a lower interest loan with a longer term, so that the borrower can eventually get out of the debt cycle. Borrowers can circumvent these laws by taking loans from more than one lender if there is not an enforcement mechanism in place by the state. Some states allow that a consumer can have more than one loan outstanding (Oklahoma).

Federal regulation

In the US, although payday lending is primarily regulated at the state level, the United States Congress passed a law in October 2006 becoming effective on Oct. 1, 2007 that caps lending to military personnel at 36% APR as defined by the Secretary of Defense. The Defense Department called payday lending practices “predatory”, and military officers cited concerns that payday lending ruined low-paid enlisted men and women’s finances, jeopardized their security clearances, and even interfered with deployment schedules to Iraq.

Some federal banking regulators and legislators seek to restrict or prohibit the loans not just for military personnel, but for all borrowers, because the high costs are viewed as a financial drain on the working and lower-middle class populations who are the primary borrowers.

About the Author:

Get Fast Payday Loans

Visit Online Payday Loans Now !

Source – Regulations For Payday Loans And Their Effect On Payday Lending

Related posts

• No related posts.

Behind the Scenes: A Statewide Tour to Fight Foreclosures and Preadatory Lending Practices in Michigan

No tags for this post.

Related posts

• No related posts.

Question: Ameriquest Multistate Settlement in PA?

I have been one of the many thousands of individuals that had the misfortune of refinancing my home through Ameriquest Mortage. Due the predatory lending tactics of these scumbags, I was forced to sell my home to avoid foreclosure and futher damage to my credit.

I have received paper work from the State Attorney General’s office in Pennsylvania in regards to the restitution payment I am able to receive under the multistate settlement against Ameriquest. The minumum amount I am eligible to receive is $320.62, which certainly does not feel like “restitution” to me.

I am curious as to how many Ameriquest borrowers in the state of PA will participate in the multistate settlement or seek other legal action ? Does anyone know of a law firm in PA that has filed for a class action law suit against Ameriquest ?

Regards,
Chris

Answer: Approximately 15,000.
http://www.ameriquestmultistatesettlement.com/index.htm

Howard Nassiri LLP, Predatory Lending

No tags for this post.

Related posts

• No related posts.

Question: Isn’t the Bush administration responsible for creating the imminent depression?

In 2003 the Bush administration’s Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC), a part of the Department of Treasury, invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to preempt state laws against predatory lending, thereby rendering those state laws inoperative.

The OCC also formulated new rules prohibiting states from enforcing any of their consumer protection laws against national banks.

So anyone who saw what was going on and wanted to try to stop the predatory lending had their hands tied by the Bush administration.

So basically, the Bush administration gave a green light to their financial buddies on Wall Street to rob Americans blind, and drive the US into a recession in the process.

What a big surprise, considering that Bush has ties to the financial industry.

So shouldn’t we be thanking the Bush administration for creating our next depression?

Answer: It is his policies which are at fault, so, yes, Bush would be responsible for the mess that we are currently in.

As far as those who are trying to blame Clinton (don’t worry, Clinton has enough blame which should be placed on him with NAFTA) BUSH could have STOPPED whatever Clinton put into place! Another words, Bush is responsible for implementing it. I know that Bush stopped all the clean air laws from going into affect…this is no different!

Is it not interesting that right around 2003 is EXACTLY when we first started having problems with the housing market? Things that make you go, Hmmmmmm.

Rep. Frank – Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act

Tags used on this review:economics,mortgage,ping.fm,reform,subprime

Related posts

• Wikipedia Subprime Lending (0)
• Total Subprime Mortgages (0)
• The Us Subprime Crisis In Graphics (0)
• The Subprime Primer Cartoon (0)
• Subprime Slideshow (0)
• Subprime Securities (0)
• Subprime Rates (0)

Imagine borrowing $50 from your brother to pay the phone bill. The following month your brother comes to you and says you now owe him $450. I know this sounds absurd but I just read an article citing a lady living in Ohio borrowed money from her local Payday Loan lender to buy her child school clothes. She obviously didn’t understand the terms or nature of the note and failed to pay the borrowed amount back on her following payday. The article went on to bash lenders and how they are the vultures of the financial services world. A bit harsh but many legislators and politicians share the same view.

This creates a unique situation. On one side of the divide, you have consumers generally cash poor and in need of services like this. Lawmakers and politicians wage a warlike protest against predatory lending practices in which they believe is the foundation of payday loan lending. Then we have the actual lending companies. They provide the service, make the money and take all the heat.

Do cash advance companies provide a valuable service? Well that depends on who you ask. I find it interesting that the people in opposition of these loan types are for the most part financially well off. Ask the consumer needing money to pay a light bill if he is ok with the finance charges and you’ll know what I’m talking about.

The bottom line is that the poor lady that borrowed the $50 did not pay back the loan as agreed to. In situations like this, it would have been better to not take out the loan. Unfortunately not everyone takes the time to read and/or understand the financial terms.

The good news is that there are many credible payday loan companies that make extra effort to educate their consumers on the ins and outs of personal finance and payday loan basics.

The key to not falling into the same unfortunate trap as the lady mentioned above is to understand your options before you actually need it.

Things to remember:

1. A payday loan is meant to be a short term solution to your emergency cash needs.

2. Be sure to plan for the payback. The loan is borrowed against your next paycheck so you’ll need consider that amount gone from your wages. Many payday loan companies offer an extension option. Be careful! This is where it becomes expensive. You’re better off biting the bullet and paying back the loan in full plus finance charge.

3. Communicate with the lender. Ask questions. Make sure you understand what you are committing to.

About the Author:

Randy San Nicolas is the managing partner of Launchpad Marketing, LLC and owner of http://www.fastmoneyfinder.com and http://www.ultimatecashfinder.com. The sites provide consumers with a Payday” target=”_blank”>www.fastmoneyfinder.com/howitworks.aspx”>Payday Loan matching making service designed to connect lender and borrower.

Source – Debt That Goes From $50 to $450 In Just 30 Days

Predatory Lending In Ohio

No tags for this post.

Related posts

• No related posts.

There are times when people complain about the number of laws there are in this country. How is anyone to keep track when Capitol Hill keeps adding new laws to the statute books? Even the lawyers find it hard to stay on top of all the changes. That leaves ordinary people with no chance at all. Yet, in some areas, the laws can be very helpful to ordinary people. They may not even need to know if government changes the way in which business is regulated. The people can be protected without them ever being aware of it. So the lobbyists start to work. This is big government not little government. This is the nanny state not the rugged individualism that made the US such a great place to live. People should be allowed to stand or fall on their own without the state having to get involved. We have all heard it all before. And the reason this time? Well, there is a bill in the Senate proposing a national cap on the interest rates charged on consumer loans. The maximum annualized rate would be 36%. Needless to say, the loan industry is up in arms. It seems no-one can lend money and make a profit if interest is pegged at such a low figure. So will the law change? Let us go back to 2006 when the Department of Defense persuaded Congress to impose the same cap on all loans made to military personnel. According to the DoD, the families of those in active service were being victimized. Many families were being forced to pay 400% and more in annual interest. Curiously, no-one chose to see the same rates being charged on loans to ordinary people. As it stands, only fifteen states have stepped in to protect their citizens. When people take cash advances against their next pay check, they are so easily caught in a spiral of debt they cannot escape. Those promoting the current bill justify the general cap by saying there will be no cost to the taxpayer and it will save billions of dollars from being sucked out of the pockets of the poorer members of our society. We need to be clear about one thing. Payday loans do serve a useful function. When many are denied access to bank overdrafts and their credit rating is not good enough to get generous limits on their credit cards, these loans can bridge people when there is a financial emergency. The facility is available with few formalities, the money deposited in the bank account the next working day. It is a quick an easy solution to a short-term problem. But, as it stands, the lenders are acting in a predatory way, abusing those who are dependent on their loans. If the bill passes, the maximum interest chargeable on a payday loan will be 36% but states can enact lower limits. In Arkansas, for example, the cap is 17%. Help is on the way so long as the lobbyists do not sideline this protective measure.

About the Author:

David Mayer is a frequent contributor to http://www.one-click-payday-loan.com/where-are-the-laws-in-all-this.html and is a highly regarded writer, having professionally dealt with numerous subjects. Visit the site to read David Mayer’s contributions.

Source – Where are the laws in all this?

Related posts

• No related posts.

Question: Does this issue by Nader against Obama reminds you of someone now under indictment?

In an interview with CNN on Monday, Nader accused Illinois Sen. Barack Obama of name-calling and challenged him to “address the issues.”
“Above all, explain why you don’t come down hard on the economic crimes against minorities in city ghettos: payday loans, predatory lending, rent-to-own rackets, landlord abuses, lead contamination, asbestos,” Nader said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/us/politics/14rezko.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=e1200b3bd12fba7c&ex=1339473600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/25/nader/index.html

Answer: Maybe because when all each fails to get rid of a pest…a cochroach…they bring in the bazooka.

Nader is there to “save” america and rid us of this evil “perfect” muslim/christian man.

You are right battman. Obama is a chameleon. He changes colors like underwear.
NOW we are finding out that he changes religions the same way.

Hearing on Predatory Lending: Kucinich Opening Statement

Tags used on this review:economics,housing,mortgage,realestate,subprime

Related posts

• Predatory Lending And Minorities (0)
• Us Subprime Mortgage Market (0)
• Underwater Mortgage Bailout (0)
• Under Water Mortgage (0)
• Subprime Vs Prime Mortgage (0)
• Subprime Vs Prime (0)
• Subprime Real Estate (0)