Meanwhile Trump has said and done thousands of worse things in the past year.
C'mon, it is absurd to give this a headline. 2008. An ambiguous comment. C'mon, do better.
5
Can we be honest with ourselves?
Bloomberg has had a severe case of foot in mouth syndrome going on three decades. He's an oligarch trying to buy an election.
He told an employee to kill her fetus when she got pregnant.
He's a serial womanizer.
He was de facto for redlining and other racist policies while mayor of NYC.
His behavior is well documented and not far off from Trump's. So why does he get a pass from all the people clutching their pearls these past three years?
Have we really sunk this low?
11
I read Bloomberg’s comment, where’s the racism? All I see is a factual statement that doesn’t mention race made by a man who didn’t pretend to be Native American to get un-WARRENted and undeserved special treatment to get a leg up in life.
2
Poor people have more precarious credit. Poor people are less likely to pay their mortgages. Are more people of color poor? Perhaps. But that does not make the relationship between being poor and financial instability racist.
3
Bloomberg has made some mistakes to be sure he has apologized. it's important on this city around the black community forgive and help this guy win otherwise your without a doubt going to have 4 more years of trump and we all except certain wealthy people will suffer the consequences o other Democrat stands a chance to unseat this maniac. I keep reading articles like this written by people who will shoot themselves in the foot rather than see the bigger picture remember no other candidate stands a chance take his apology and a leap of faith and help defeat Trump. I know it's a lot to ask but please!!!
Bloomberg isn't our cup of tea but we look at him as the lesser of two evils. Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk was less about getting guns off the streets than showing minority communities who had the power. Bloomberg's comment about redlining is his true thoughts before he decided to run. African Americans are pragmatic folks and they will hold their noses and vote for anybody who runs against Trump.If Bloomberg is able to overcome his misdeeds he will be expected to atone for them.The Democratic party always come calling every four years and then disappears for another four years. I doubt if that tactic is going to work again in 2020.
1
Billionaire Bloomberg is a Republican who bought the mayorship of NY. In a September 2018 interview with this paper, he criticized Democrats’ “attitude” toward big business, singling out a proposal by Senator Warren to break up ever-larger Wall Street banks as wrongheaded. He also defended the wholesale harassment of black and brown men on the streets of their city with zero probable cause. And now the defense of red-lining and blaming the victims of the banksters’ mortgage securities fraud that crashed the economy. No thanks.
11
Steve Bannon says Democrats do not understand that Trump and the Republicans see themselves as being at war -- with the Democrats and that the Democrats don't get it. The Democrats with their circular firing squad and the Sanders crowd's holier than thou attitude word everyone else will re-elect Trump. Sanders as the nominee would be McGovern 2.0.
I want all of Bloomberg's (and Steyer's) resources put to use to defeat Trump and as many Republicans as possible at every level.
It is clear that Trump and his party do not believe in democracy, do not believe in our Constitution, do not believe in the rule of law for "conservatives" and whites.
I honestly believe our democracy is at stake in this election. I am not up for a purity test. I am up for a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic Party-controlled House and Senate by wide margins.
2
Mr. Bloomberg's remarks about banks being unable to discriminate against "black and brown" people as the cause of the 2008 financial crisis might have been politically incorrect but he spoke the truth. Government pressure which prevented discrimination in lending to those groups caused banks to make a lot of unsound loans, which they knew to be unsound, and which they promptly packaged along with other assets and sold as quickly as they could; this was in effect a game of financial musical chairs. When the music stopped many banks were left with quantities of doubtful loans on their books which dragged them down--one thing then led to another. Mr. Bloomberg might be a political opportunist, but when he speaks about financial matters he should probably be listened to.
1
Banks didn't make bad loans because of their love for underserved minority buyers. They created the financial crisis through greed and by creating financial instruments that divorced the institutions making loans from the risks of default. Bloomberg knew this and may simply have been nothing the irony that just at the time redlining ended for some communities it actually allowed those communities to become vulnerable to irresponsible financial industry loaning practices. Disproportionately large numbers of minorities lost homes in the financial crisis. They could not pay back the loans they had taken. Most should not have been given those loans to begin. Bloomberg may have been making a racist statement or he may be quoted out of context making an ill considered remark. We need to know if this is a belief he started more than once or if this was simply a poorly expressed thought.
19
Bloomberg blames the victims: It was irresponsible poor people who made the mortgage crisis, not Countrywide handing out NINJA (No income, no job) mortages like they were candy. But we're all sure he'll beat Trump, so let's all agree that "his heart was in the right place."
2
Bloomberg's choice of words on this topic are terrible. But interest-only mortgages were a big factor in driving defaults and they hit poor neighborhoods hardest. The government encouraged these loans.
In 2004, I was working at a Bronx nonprofit. A paid college intern was running a real estate agent business on the side in our office, facilitating mortgages. I found this out when the intern's mortgage paperwork for a client got mixed into my work documents on an incoming fax.
I glanced at the first page of the loan agreement before realizing the mix-up. The loan-to-value was ridiculous, and the client's annual income provided no comfortable level of ballast should the real estate bubble collapse, as it did.
I think Mike's learned his lesson. Do we judge the Mike of 2008, or do we judge the Mike of 2020. He clearly cares about the poor and the middle-class. I wish the Times would stop blasting him because he's a wealthy candidate.
He did a superb job as mayor. He's smart, knowledgeable, and is getting backing from some key African American leaders. Go Mike!
1
He doesn't know what redlining means and doesn't know what caused the housing crisis.
People want very badly to believe that billionaires are smart. They are not. They are some mix of lucky and amoral, is all.
3
What if it's true? Maybe making loans to people who can marginally afford to buy contributed to the collapse. Maybe it's not. Prove it.
In all this political correctness, if no one can say something that might be correct but politically incorrect, we are finished.
Trump can lie and say say whatever sick thing he wants. A Democrat or anyone else has to pass some fake purity test every time they open their mouths.
What a joke this article is.
1
I read Bloomberg’s comments. He did not say that he supported red lining. He simply stated a fact which is that pressure on banks to make loans to people who cannot pay them back was a factor in the mortgage crisis.
2
What this articlece actually reports is that Bloomberg said that along with the elimination of redlining came a loosening of credit standards so that loans were made to people with weaker credit. In fact bad loans were at the root of the financial crises. Bloomberg did not say that loans to black and brown people caused the crises, nor food he say that such people were deadbeats. Warren, apparently desperate to save her failing campaign, and loosing on the merits of her positions, chooses to falsely imply that her fast rising opponent is a racist.
My mixed (by marriage) family got a tiny check from Countrywide to settle a class action Discrimination lawsuit. Around a hundred bucks (what a laughter). But red-lining really hurt some people. Kinda like the recession/financial crisis you never see the real culprits go to jail.
1
Folks rationalizing Bloomberg’s record on race in New York because they are so convincing he can beat Trump in November need to understand that it is precisely that kind of logic that allowed stop-and-frisk, predatory lending, and many other discriminatory policies and practices to continue until a higher authority put an end to it.
Remember this as much, much more of his record is opened up for debate.
Also, expect more foot in mouth responses by Bloomberg. Tone deafness is symptomatic of being super wealthy.
12
The false and racist narrative that black and brown poor people were the reasons for the financial crisis has been politically expedient for Mr. Bloomberg in the past while excusing Wall Street for their outsized role in the debacle. The overwhelming comments here agreeing with this narrative is illustrative of the bias amidst the liberal/moderate community. Mr Bloomberg is well aware that most of problematic subprime loans were actually sold to homeowners who actually qualified for prime loans. It’s called predatory lending.
Regarding voting for Mr. Bloomberg: Many African Americans have had to vote and consider the lesser of two evils all our lives. This tortuous consideration is not new.
9
Bloomberg is out of touch with his redlining comments. Back in the '90s a lot of older African-Americans lost their homes due to predatory lending in places like Bedford Stuyvesant which has since been gentrified. Many of these people did not have money to make renovations only to be scammed into taking out loans that the lenders knew they could never afford to repay. Now they are pitching reverse mortgage. Once you are retired and living on a fixed income common sense suggests that it's highly unlikely you could afford any major loan to repay. The end result is you will lose your home. I had a free checking account with WAMU. They got caught up in predatory lending. One article mentioned they gave a loan to a street violin player whom they knew could never repay the loan. Predatory lending went beyond redlining and race. These were the "toxic" stocks on Wall Street that investors lost their life savings on. The greedy bankers did not care about what color your skin is. If they could dupe you into attaining the American dream they did it. One would think someone of Bloomberg's caliber would have known better than to spew the same racist meme blaming black people for the collapse of the housing market because "banks were forced to loan money [to blacks and brown people] and there was nothing they could have done about it." The fact is unscrupulous bankers used investment money to give out loans while they themselves made commissions upfront regardless if the loan was repaid.
4
Do we want to beat Trump? Or do we want to pat ourselves on the backs because nominated someone who satisfies Elizabeth Warren’s purity tests? Wake up people.
5
These comments show that Bloomberg is not the answer to the Democrats hopes of beating Trump.
7
Linking 2008 crisis with not-redlining??? Seriously, this suggests an incredibly sinister mind state and the Democratic party needs to get off this train at all costs.
4
Just like stop and frisk, it is necessary to look at the basic rationale behind policies as well as the impact. Prior to 2008 banks were making loans that were not sound based on the value of the homes and the individuals ability to pay. Those bad mortgages were bundled into bonds as if they were good loans. When this whole house of cards collapsed corporations went broke, the credit market locked up and we had the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Perhaps black borrowers were hurt worse than others? But calling the situation what it was should be praised rather then demonized.
Stop and frisk is a practice adopted by many large cities (though maybe not by that name) was implemented to stop runaway crime in areas that were statistically identified as high crime areas. In fact, it worked which made those neighborhoods more livable.
8
It's good to see the Times looking closely at Bloomberg's statements on this financial crisis which, as someone comments in the article, seemed designed to deflect blame from his friends on Wall Street. I look forward to similar investigations of his three terms as mayor: his opposition to unions, his cuts in social services (even limiting eligibility for food stamps when those stamps were paid for by the federal government), his rezoning of huge swaths of the city for the benefit of developers, his stifling of dissent with private contributions to nonprofits, his wasteful outsourcing to private businesses (remember the scandals with the upgrades of 911 and the city payroll system?), his campaign contributions to Republicans in the state senate who opposed rent regulation (he said they were supporting policies that were good for the city), and so on . Put it all together, and he certainly doesn't look like a promising Democratic candidate for president.
6
Seems to me it WAS linked. Like so many things, there is a middle road. Yes, redlining in and of itself is wrong and should be illegal. However, good underwriting is necessary, and the banks went crazy with their loan criteria - or lack thereof.
4
Well, data. The highest foreclosure rates were in Nevada, Arizona, and Florida. Hardly bastions of urban redlining.
This article gets it only partially right, and Elizabeth Warren gets it completely wrong. She is the one who should disqualify herself on ignorance alone, not to mention her egregious twisting of facts. This is a complex problem which not in anyway specifically targeted people of color. Redlining was around before Mike Bloomberg was even a millionaire - with an 'M'.
When Congress forced FNMA to be willing to buy $300 billion in subprime mortgages in the Clinton and Bush Administrations that opened the door to sleezy sales practices in states with lax mortgage lending regulations. It was all about commissions. The financially unsophisticated borrowers, duped by the promise of the rising value of their homes, never had a chance when interest rates began to rise. If any of you remember the term NINJA, or take the time to look it up, you will quickly learn the truth and be disgusted by the irresponsibility of mortgage sales practices.
Thanks for being in this race, Mike, and don't forget Joe as Secretary of State when you get to the White House.
6
Offering mortgages to borrowers of every race who were unable to demonstrate sufficient income and fiscal responsibility to meet the mortgages for which they were approved caused the crisis.
It is not racist to say that people should not purchase what they cannot afford.
10
"Mr. Bloomberg’s comments echoed conservative talking points that were popular at the time," the time being 2008, just as George W. Bush was finishing up helping the U.S. economy bottom out. That would be the same Bush called "the best man for the job" in 2004 by....Michael Bloomberg, from the stage at Madison Square Garden. But ending redlining was the real problem with the mortgage crisis, right Mike?
Its disturbing to see the top comments here defending what Bloomberg said and going so far as to say that he was right. Redlining was outlawed in 1968! It had NO effect on the collapse of the real estate market 40 years later. This is a vicious conservative lie that was started to deflect blame from wall street. I heard it for the first time in 2008, on the day that Lehman Brothers collapsed, on the Rush Limbaugh radio show. They had it queued up and ready to go, because somebody had to take the blame and as Rush will tell you, conservatives are never wrong.
6
I was an assistant general counsel at one of the GRE’s before the 2008 debacle occurred. Bloomberg should never have used the hot button word redlining. Stupid, stupid.
Before the 2008 meltdown, lenders started making loans to people who had bad credit. Also, unscrupulous lenders made loans to people who they knew would not be able to pay. It is an undeniable fact that a disproportionate number of these borrowers were people of color and that some of the homes were located in areas that had been previously redlined.
I know for a fact that both Fannie and Freddie stopped redlining in the seventies. When I was there they bent over backwards to provide lending to people of color. They aggressively sought low income borrowers.
Congress requires both Fannie and Freddie to make a certain percentage of loans to people of low income. Many are people of color.
Both Bloomberg’s redlining statement and the statement about putting cops where the highest crime rate is were incredibly stupid on Bloomberg’s part. I do not think Bloomberg is a racist.
4
“We also have to ask ourselves what it is that we actually want to achieve,” he said. “What does it mean to defeat Trump if we don’t defeat Trumpism? And Trumpism is that some communities are better than others, we can pit communities against each other, and some communities are more deserving than others.”
Maybe... but defeating Trump would also help an awful lot to defeat Trumpism. And, you know, to save the world.
2
The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977. Wall Street had 30 years before the financial crisis to learn how to lend responsibly to formerly redlined communities. Which it did through dedicated lending desks/ groups and conventional underwriting procedures. If anything, the financial crisis was more a result of the government's failure to regulate the derivatives market (e.g., swaps) and the banks' lending arms more generally, which suffered from a complete breakdown in underwriting best practices. It would have helped if someone had been policing the mortgage and real estate brokerage industries as well, as we now know that there a ton of bad actors in those markets as well. In the end, the borrower was but one in a long line of reckless and greedy parties who each took their cut from each toxic asset generated in the lead up to the crisis. They were all culpable. I am surprised Mike B. didn't make this distinction.
5
Bloomberg did NOT endorse redlining - he merely and obviously noted that in responding to the atrocious practice of redlining, restrictions on lending were overly relaxed. Elizabeth’s Warren’s disingenuous comments make clear she is absolutely unqualified to be dog catcher, let alone President.
15
Couldn’t agree more. Bloomberg's comments were a statement of fact. Of course in this politically correct world you can’t state the obvious for fear of upsetting some overly sensitive constituency. That is of course unless you are a Trump; a pathological liar, a self confessed molester, a crook, and who actually did discriminate against African Americans.
Wait for the NYT times to do a “ Hilary” on Bloomberg.
9
On the one hand, minorities were the most affected by the housing crisis. It was the 0 down loans that did many people in. Fact.
On the other hand, the government was not at fault for enforcing anti-discrimination laws. It was the banks and lending institutions who took advantage of people. Not the government.
6
Hanlon's razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" - should apply here. If you remove the word "redlining," Bloomberg's comments aren't all that unreasonable; I think it's more likely that he used the wrong term (redlining) than that he intended to suggest that banks not being allowed to discriminate against POC was the root cause of the financial crisis.
"It all started back when there was a lot of pressure on banks to make loans to everyone...[previously] banks took whole neighborhoods and said, ‘People in these neighborhoods are poor, they’re not going to be able to pay off their mortgages, tell your salesmen don’t go into those areas.’
And then Congress got involved -- local elected officials, as well -- and said, ‘Oh that’s not fair, these people should be able to get credit.’ And once you started pushing in that direction, banks started making more and more loans where the credit of the person buying the house wasn’t as good as you would like.”
Seems like an accurate summary to me. Though obviously Bloomberg needs to go back and re-learn what redlining *really* was, and how the FHA and US gov were involved.
8
Pointing out some unfortunate truths about the mortgage crisis meltdown does not one make one a racist. Bloomberg is simply stating a fact. Cries of racism and bigotry take his comments out of context and serve to smear his candidacy. Who's behind the smear? Trump. Beware jumping on Trump's bandwagon - it could come back and bite you.
16
No, Ms. Warren, Bloomberg's comments on redlining and his stop-and-frisk policies should NOT disqualify him from running for president (similar disqualification language was used in an equally reactionary op-ed on cnn.com). These issues and his history regarding them should be examined, debated and discussed, and the voters should chose which candidate is most qualified for the nomination.
15
I predict we will see substantial people of color consider MB. As in any race segment, white, black, brown you pick it, you realize there are those in your race who don’t represent you, your accomplishments and the hard work put in to achieve a better life for your self and family. The press railing on specific observations and actions serves no purpose.
Those who are looking true positive strong leadership judge the body of work, not the missteps and learning process.
I respect his views and his understanding of our serious issues. We could do much worse and our current state reflects this. The Democrats have a generally weak slate with comers like Buttigieg and Kobashar showing real promise. Sanders is as Trump appears to be on the lunatic fringe.
.
5
Before criticizing Bloomberg, watch the original video. One should never buy criticism of people based solely on how they're portrayed in a newspaper article.
In the actual recording Bloomberg doesn't say that redlining should be legal or that it's a welcome practice or that it should be brought back. He's simply describing an atmosphere where government policy strongly pushed broad-based lending practices. Part of that story was the elimination of redlining practices, and part of the story was how an open approach to lending ultimately led to banks loaning to borrowers that shouldn't have gotten loans.
The actual statements, which were unprepared, off-the-cuff remarks made in a casual setting, while inartful, were nothing like how they're being presented.
Grow up people, unless you prefer 4 more years of Trump.
23
Bloomberg isn't trying to help Democrats. He is a Republican that has changed his affiliation multiple times to manipulate political races. He endorsed George W. Bush and helped get Republican Pat Toomey elected which in turn led to Kavanuagh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. He was on Face the Nation saying that he was against tax breaks for individuals in Trump's tax cuts, but wanted to keep the tax breaks for corporations. For anyone that doesn't think it could get worse than Trump, Mike Bloomberg says "hold my beer."
8
This is nuts. What Bloomberg said is absolutely right. Lenders went nuts and couldn't hand out mortgages fast enough to people who never got that kind of credit in other time periods. I know because we bought our house in the late 80s and with two decent salaries, fairly secure jobs, and little consumer debt, the lender made us jump through a whole bunch of hoops to get our mortgage. I'm wholly against redlining, i.e. a blanket refusal to consider loans in a particular area, but I don't think it's responsible at all to make loans to people who pose extreme risks of default. I worked at the FDIC throughout the crisis, up to 2014. I wasn't in consumer regulation but I sure saw a trend of reckless lending developing, and spent plenty of time helping dig out from the wreckage. I rely on the Times to get it right when the others are spreading smears and disinformation. I'm not going to keep paying much longer to see you print this kind of nonsense.
18
"More broadly, affordable housing advocates agreed that predatory lending practices, not the end of redlining, were responsible for the 2008 economic crisis. Though Mr. Bloomberg’s comments echoed conservative talking points that were popular at the time, experts noted that most of the problematic subprime loans went to people who were already homeowners who paid their loans on time, not new home buyers who were overreaching."
Despite this information and more in the article, numerous commenters here have tried to justify Bloomberg's erroneous stance. Facts and analysis count for nothing when the aggrieved parties are disposable people of color and the economically disenfranchised. The endorsement of white and class privilege reigns supreme, even among some liberals, who are cavalierly prepared to hand our democracy over to the highest bidder, aided by certain black elites. Apparently, a liberal, racist plutocrat is preferable to a right-wing, racist plutocrat, and plutocracy as a whole, is preferable to a commitment to progressive, democratic politics that can empower working families, minority communities, and the poor, while protecting our political process from corruption by big money.
Perhaps the most damning statement in the article is:
“It is a billionaire defending other billionaires and placing the blame on lower-income homeowners."
As a black woman dedicated to economic and racial justice, as well as the survival of democracy, I will not be voting for Bloomberg.
7
Bloomberg is simply explaining how the financial institutions exploited people of lesser means. A major contributor to the Great Repression.
He shouldn’t be vilified for say saying the truth.
Many of these folks were simply handled bundles of cash to buy overpriced homes that were under water the moment the contracts were signed.
My favorite quote from the fiasco is someone saying, “I wouldn’t lend me $500,000.”
12
Stop your yellow journalism- shame on you for discrediting a man who has done so much for our nation. While the other professional pols got elected by selling themselves to the highest bidder to get elected, he was busy in building a very respectable business from scratch creating thousands of jobs.
Our nation is at a dangerous point under the corrupt con man in the White House. He is destroying the basic foundation of our democracy as reflected by appointment of over two hundred corrupt and grossly incompetent federal judges who would run our judiciary as directed by the paymaster crooks. Judiciary will be governed by injustice for next 3-4 decades. Con man will fill the entire judiciary with the same morally bankrupt judges if he gets elected in 2020.
Bernie gave us Trump and he is planning to do the same in 2020 on a silver platter. Bloomberg is the only person who can appeal to voters across the isle in general election. The catastrophic mess created by Trump would require a seasoned administrator like Bloomberg to serve as our next President. Unlike the other candidates sold to special interests, Bloomberg spends his own money which is unique and commendable.
Instead of feeding propaganda to help Trump get re-elected, why don’t you practice honest journalism so that we can send the con man to a geriatric golf center in Florida for ever?
17
I guess the definition of redlining has evolved. In the old days it referred to restricting where brown and black could live (mortgages being the enforcement tool). Now it apparently refers to not granting mortgages to people of color without regard to geography.
1
The economic crisis was caused by financial institutions. They created trash and then they sold it and insured it. Loans were made by sharks who had no standards and just wanted to make a buck. Some minorities got loans they could not maintain but so did other people of all backgrounds.
I might vote for Bloomberg but this statement is disgraceful and a standard excuse given by wealthy Republicans for what caused the financial crisis.
6
Apparently, we are supposed to vote for the last Democrat standing.
Well, abandon hope all who enter here.
5
Candor is not the issue. Rather, perspective is the issue. And Mike Blumbetg’s perspective is myopic, that of a man of wealth and privilege who, when he had power, demonstrated his willingness to abuse that power and trample on people’s basic rights no less than the man he would replace as chief executive, and who, both as a public official and a private citizen, sees the world only through the prism of his billionaire status and the financial and opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal.
6
This is missing context.
If you watch the video (linked in the article) from ~18 minutes on it seems clear he's talking about the impact on the lending culture as a result of legislators pushing banks to make riskier loans one example of which is pushing back on redlining. In fact, the FHA which banned redlining was passed 50 years ago, he may have been referring to additional steps taken during the 90's but in either case it seems aggressive, if not dishonest, to claim, as many comments and many sources in the article are, that Bloomberg was drawing a direct line between outlawing redlining and the financial crisis.
If you watch the video you'll see he takes a more nuanced view arguing only that in an effort to stamp out redlining the government pushed banks to make riskier loans. He then discusses, among other things, the incentives and ignorance of bankers as causes of the crash. He even cites second-home/vacation homes as the clear problem area (not your typical red-lining locales!).
17
Mike Bloomberg has been wrong on redlining, stop and frisk, deregulation of Wall Street, the Iraq War, and recently defending President Xi as a democratic leader (despite Xi making himself "president for life").
Bloomberg is a neoliberal and is running a very UN-democratic campaign. He's decided that Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina primary voters don't matter to him. He's spent 1/3 of a billion dollars to clog the airways with feel good commercials, little policy and tried to block fellow candidates from getting donor money. Why replace one bad President with a slightly better one? There are better choices for middle and working class people.
6
There was a time when a story like this might have seriously damaged a presidential campaign but now that we are living in the political age of Trump, Bloomberg's campaign shrugs its shoulders and tell us that “redlining” and “stop and frisk” it isn’t as important as “beating Trump”. Bloomberg is a different kind of racist than Donald Trump. But as Bloomberg supporters are prone to say, “that’s ok,he’s our racist”.
We still have choices among real registered Democrats. And I realize that none of the candidates are “perfect.” But some candidates are more perfect than others.
Bloomberg is spending money as if he thinks he is going to win. The Democrats need to take that seriously. Who really believes that he is going to back the nominee if he doesn’t get the nomination himself? It sounds nice, but he’s not going to give money to candidates who don’t support his positions. And if his sole motivation for running is to knock Trump from his perch, then that is not a good enough reason for him to be President.
9
Out west, Bloomberg is largely an undefined figure. Apart from the recently discussed Stop and Frisk program, he is known primarily for his business acumen. So there are two schools of thought regarding the mortgage meltdown mess. There is one, championed by Elizabeth Warren, that banks, searching for that illusive cash flow, conspired to defraud investors, to issue loans to anyone with a breath. The other view is that people of color managed to outwit all sorts of lenders across the U.S. In this view, the least mortgaged people in American history conspired with Fannie Mae to cheat the system. If Mr. Bloomberg believes that the primary culprits were the mice in the ghettos, then I have a clearer picture of who he is.
4
Redlining is simply wrong. Bloomberg should admit to that. Drawing a line between the subprime crisis in 2008 with redlining shows how warped the worldview of the rich and privileged are, even someone supposedly as progressive as Bloomberg.
The subprime crisis was caused by loose mortgage underwriting rules. As a result, it drew in people who could not have afforded a mortgage. Redlining, on the other hand, prevented minority like blacks from getting a mortgage at all. How could Bloomberg now see this basic fact??
I suppose the only thing, which must have seemed so obvious to Bloomberg, is that both redlining and subprime crisis started out with people in lower income brackets. It must be so handy to blame the poor, the forever strawmen for everything ill under the sun.
1
No no no. The reason Bloomberg comes off as racist in this little story is that his entire explanation of redlining OMITS the racial—and racist—basis for it. It was never about banks being cautious of lending to “poor neighborhoods,” it was about the banks AND THE US GOVERNMENT specifically creating and upholding segregation. (No one in the mainstream press mentioned this in the sixties and seventies, when it came time to integrate schools—why were schools segregated in the first place? Because where people live had been deliberately segregated for decades!) For Bloomberg to omit the true history of redlining from his speech, ignoring how black folks were forbidden to move into “white” neighborhoods and towns, is racism.
4
That was the official (received) crackpot explanation for the economic crisis, that it was Barney Frank's fault for making"banks give mortgages to poor black people. It ignores the inconvenient truth that with so-called liars' loans, it is the brokers and lenders who are the liars. They profited exorbitantly from the loans they knew were doomed as they pedaled them.
7
Yes yes yes.
1
MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and all the mainstream newspapers issued a joint statement: "He may be a racist, but he's our racist and he's good for our businesses. A race between two racist billionaires will be hugely profitable for us."
2
Well, Mr. Mayor - even if you never became America's Mayor - and that's probably a good thing considering what that mayor has been up to - welcome to the real world.
As if Days of Impeachment were not enough - the Mayor has entered a Twilight Zone where he is now a marked man.
Our Mr. Romney was or course too candid and rather cavalier with his "35% of these folks will never vote for me" - and that was after he was our nominee.
And sure enough, more than 35% did not vote for him.
I know he will never credit our POTUS for actually having won a race to the White House.
But these travails of the Mayor point out the strength our POTUS brings to this election - and that strength is either own up to it like Hollywood Access - or be good enough to roar past it.
So, far this Mayor is failing both tests.
Sorry Mayor Mike but Redlining is against the law. It is wrong and racist to say that all person of one group: black, Latino, Asian, Catholic, or Jew can’t buy a home and live where they desire because of who they are. Mike is wrong to say that poor people ( blacks) crashed the system and caused the housing crisis. The crisis took place in all strata of incomes. More than three dozen counties across america where hit hard and many if not most were in upper- middle- class and well-to-do counties (see Oakland County Michigan)
As such bankers are supposed to lend to people based on their individual incomes and ability. The second part got away from lenders who were national and multinational banks and not regional or state banks. That means in many cases the lenders ignored the economics future in the regions they were lending in. Those banks were just bundling loans and reselling them for a quick profit. One would think that a billionaire would know all this before opening his big racist mouth. Heck even our US Treasury secretary knows this and has bought thousands of foreclosed homes to flip for profits. Now where do you think those properties are located?
And Mayor Mike own family faced discrimination and Redlined when no one would lend money and sell to his parents because they were Jewish. It took an Irish Catholic family to make the deal for them so they could have a house and the America dream. Mike sure forgets his own family history. Mike is not a Democrat.
59
I find it very interesting this dichotomy:
1) When the rich game the system, people lavish them with praise and say, "Wow, he sure knew how to leverage his position and make money!"
2) When the poor game the system, or even take slight advantage when opportunity arises, people fire off criticism like, "Look at these takers who scam the system! Criminals who need to be locked up!"
And then the likes of people like Reagan declare a non-existent "welfare scam" and pass laws restricting access to services the poor genuinely need.
And on the other hand, reduce or eliminate regulations preventing financial schemes orders of magnitude larger.
Save a few hundred so a few million can get scammed by the "right" people. Like the IRS incessantly hounding wage-earners "bringing down $35k/year" while allowing millions to be scammed by limited liability partnerships.
Disgusting.
18
@Sendan I'm not sure what you're basing your comment on. At least from what I can tell from the quotes in this article, Bloomberg didn't say that redlining isn't against the law. He didn't say that it was right or appropriate. He didn't say that poor people crashed the system or caused the housing crisis.
7
@Sendan Worth considering: These ostensibly embarrassing stories of Mike Bloomberg's past statements maligning African Americans serve to solidify his law and order flank while he continues his apology tour. Similar to those supposedly unwelcome rumors about the Bushes and women.
The greatest Democratic skill seems to be sliming each and every candidate in their party after holding them up to purity tests that few individuals could survive. Those who would take down Michael Bloomberg before giving him a chance to articulate his positions on race and other sensitive matters will surely give Trump a second term.
14
NY Times - Find the good in people as opposed to continually attacking them for their errors. This is about the search for a viable and pragmatic leadership alternate to a scoundrel. It is not a search for an apostle.
17
Your writer and others conflate Redlining with racial discrimination. Correlation is not causation.That is , the misplaced relaxation of lending standards to less credit worthy borrowers during the financial crisis was not the same as choosing to be “less racist”.
8
What part of what he said was not true? Kinda sick of the perfect being the enemy of the good. Bloomberg is a data guy, he isn't about trying to assuage your tender little feelings.
Congress forced/pressured banks to give loans to people who could not afford them in the wake of redlining. His statements were never aimed at a particular race. Inconvenient Truth
Stop and frisk was about concentrating police in areas where violent crime was most prevalent. Stop and frisk was meant to discourage criminals walking around with guns and drugs. You put the cops where the criminals are, that is not about race, that is about data. Inconvenient Truth
13
Bloomberg did a lot of things with good intentions that may look racist or big-brotherly. People may find his approach grating, but he will deliver positive results on big ticket issues that he targets.
The stop-and-frisk, though painful to the recipients, probably saved thousands of lives. The pain it imparted was definitely increased by some of the not-very-finest who abused the law.
As a technocrat, he applied several data-driven approaches to governing. I have no problem with government trying to encroach a little into people's rights when trying to solve big problems, like obesity (and big gulps) or tobacco use.
8
As can be seen in the large number of negative comments about this article (the event described here took place 12 years ago!), there is still a large amount of unresolved anger among Democrats toward the MSM for its horrible coverage of Hillary and the Democrats (but her emails!) in the final two months of the 2016 campaign.
The pattern is the same, where the Democratic candidate gets nitpicked over some long past event, while Trump gets away with murder in the present time. Just yesterday he threatened the independence of the American judicial system, while here Bloomberg is attacked for something he said 12 years ago. What is the equivalency here?
As the comments indicate, Democrats will no longer allow the MSM's false equivalencies and both-sidesism to go unchallenged. We learned our lesson in 2016.
11
Good grief. Have you people lost your minds? The 2008 crash WAS caused by issuing loans to people who couldn't possibly repay them. Basically, banks moved from giving people no credit because of systemic racism, to preying on them through predatory loan practices. Both of these things are incredibly evil. But that also means Bloomberg was and is absolutely right that the end of redlining led directly to the housing crash. To be clear, denying otherwise deserving people credit because of their race is horrible, and so is ruining their financial lives through predatory lending practices. The real history here is that the end of one evil begat another, arguably even more insidious evil. Once you understand that, you really have to stretch to turn what he said into the idea that Bloomberg is some wild racist who thinks redlining was great.
16
Wow. I mean, wow. The more I read of these comments, the more I see that there are so many people out there that just want to blame everything on the poor, no matter their color.
You all seriously need to re-educate yourselves as to what caused the financial crisis of 2008.
Stop the victim blaming, already. And a question to all of you: have any of you struggled financially for an extended period of time? Believe me, I have. And by the tone of your comments, I would say that none of you have, nor do you have any empathy for those who have. These comments actually expose a huge rift in our culture about people who have and their opinions of people who don’t.
Pathetic and sad.
7
Mayor Sylvester Turner of Houston has just endorsed Micheal Bloomberg for President. Mayor Turner is Black. Like all major cities in Texas, Houston votes Blue. It's previous two term mayor was a Lesbian so we aren't as bad as you think. We are also one of the most diverse cities in the nation they like to say.
Notorious B is a cool name. It gives him street credibility. I hope he uses it in campaign.
9
Goodness, the censorship of comments about Bloomberg here in this esteemed publication has reached almost-Soviet proportions. I had expressed the mildest degree of skepticism about Bloomberg and his politics re. this latest information about him & it isn't allowed to be posted. Same goes for several other Bloomberg articles here in the past few days. Note the large majority of pro-Bloomberg comments. Coincidence or . . . ?
Okay, Bloomies- let’s see you try to spin this.
And to Michael Bloomberg: Save your billions and stop buying ad time. Spin master Trump will kill you with this. You can’t go toe to toe with Trump when you have this history of racist policies and beliefs.
1
White supremacists do not simply lose their cultural identities—except when they need more power to do what they've always dreamed of, like being Michael Blloomberg, self-funded political party.
1
All the apologists presenting themselves in these comments are just pathetic. You will rip into Trump, you will rip into Sanders, you will rip into Warren, but your dear Michael Bloomberg is just simply misunderstood.
Your defense of Bloomberg is no different than those who regularly defend Trump. He is nothing more than another clueless billionaire. And his act isn’t playing at all anywhere outside of New York. We can all see what you obviously have blinded yourselves to.
Deal with it already!
5
Who made you king?
1
This is a complete mid characterization of Bloomberg’s remarks — remarks that recapped history, not that stated his platform. If you — and I include the reporters here — do not see that you are being used as pawns in the games Republican strategists use to besmirch Democrats you are callow, naive or just plain stupid.
9
Go ahead Democrats, nominate a racist plutocrat... how could that possibly hurt your party?
3
It's amazing to compare the readers picks with the NYT picks here. the Times seems to have taken a deeply partisan position (vehremently Anti-Bloomberg) which is in stark contrast to the readership's most liked comments. For the sake of you paying customers and the nation, please just tell us why the editorial board hate him so much? (And yes, I read the Friedman piece) Because digging up passing comments from 12 years ago is not helping anything, especially in such desperate times.
Should we judge your paper by your Editorials from 2008? Have your ideas changed since then? What about 1998? or 1908?
Why so anti-Mike, NYT? It's a genuine question.
12
@jdub
Really, in some respects, the NYT bringing out this kind of information early, helps him know what kind of criticism to expect later. He is a late entrant into the race and spending enough to become recognizable as a candidate.
There have been numerous articles much earlier on about the other candidates that have been working the circuit for months. All their baggage has already been brought to light, posted and commented on. Not all flattering for them, for sure. But, it winnowed the field for those voting in the early states. Plus, they badgered each other in numerous earlier debates about their controversial statements. Been there, done that, many times.
So, now there is a newbie, Mr. Bloomberg, who has decided to put his hat in the ring. Why should the press not bring up past statements/ issues? If they did for the others, why is he now not fair game. Probably, the next debate will be one to view if Mr. Bloomberg is a participant. Those who have been running for sometime, will now challenge him with the hard questions, just like they did to each other. Until he debates prime time, multiple times, nobody knows if he is ready to assume a top position. Voters must be able to see if Mr. Bloomberg deserves to earn their trust and vote. It is a shame he didn’t get into the race earlier. That would have helped him earn greater credibility rather than lead some people to thinking he is an opportunist by jumping in after much of the time of scrutiny has passed.
3
OK, guess it's that oh so crazy perfect timing that Trump's dark ops team always has of releasing the not quite pc information that makes Dems go crazy while all the while Trump is the vilest thing that's ever held office. The Hillary emails that amounted to nothing and now . . .
Don't you think it's suspect that:
A) He basically got Uncle Joe out of the race. With a little help from Vlad and who know's who else.
B) Bernie's in the lead but doing so-so if you look at the stats and moderate America is freaking out over him as the lead candidate so there is authentic concern now for the need of a moderate contender that can actually fight Trump on his own level but with all the money in the world and willing to use it.
and
C) Bloomberg's ads are really taking a toll on the nightmare known as Trump, and Bloomberg is rapidly rising in the polls.
then
D) All the sudden these, yes, things I wouldn't say and don't really agree with, but nonetheless were said, by the one contender who Trump is wet pants scared of, start coming out.
Classic divide and conquer and our circular firing squad lines up in 5 . . .4 . . .3 . . 2 . .
9
Perhaps "stop and frisk" was a replacement. Not sure I'd vote for him against Trump, one is an idiot the other just plain a bad person.
Times continues to "race bait." What the heck does "people of color" even mean here. Say poor black and hispanic people. Did this apply to affluent or upper middle class black and hispanic people? Did it apply to Asians, South Asians, Middle Easterners, certain Israelis, people from Spain. Last time I looked all these groups were included in liberals idea of "people of color." SMH
3
Does the NY Times want Trump re-elected? Cut the ancient comment rehashing and lets get rid of Trump as the one true mission.
3
Such poor reporting. The whole video is quite good. https://www.c-span.org/video/?281174-1/urban-economics
3
i believe that redlining is a bad practice. however, the bank issuing the loan should make sure that there is a good chance of being paid. i understand that mr trump has defaulted on numerous loans over the years. $2 billion loss to deutsche bank.
as an investor i would hope that developers with billions in losses would be excluded from loans.
2
Redlining was a very common practice in New York City when I lived there in the 70’s . Real estate brokers redlined all housing for renters and buyers. And I would guess that in many parts of the country it is still practiced. Mr Bloomberg makes an absurd argument when he says that the end of redlining caused the recession. As this article points out: “Though Mr. Bloomberg’s comments echoed conservative talking points that were popular at the time, experts noted that most of the problematic subprime loans went to people who were already homeowners who paid their loans on time, not new home buyers who were overreaching.”
What this resurfaced red-lining comment suggests is my chief fear about Bloomberg: that he's as out as touch as the first George Bush. Blame the poor: not the greed and mindlessness of derivatives which didn't care about anyone's individual credit since everything was lumped together. In that, it was similar to red-lining in that an individual's credit meant nothing if that person was black and the neighborhood poor. No credit made everyone poorer. Bloomberg is smart but his easy explanation for the crisis reminds me of another "smart" billionaire who is never really wrong.
1
Please, lumping Trump with Bloomberg is a joke. Bloomberg is working on our hardest problems. Trump is not.
3
Guess what... he was right and he was in a position to know. A problem with socialism is that it replaces economics (supply and demand) with politics (whose friend are you). Giving loans to people who can't pay them back is bad business. At least Bloomberg was honest about it - unlike Clinton.
7
It’s a misrepresentation of what he said. The removal of redlining wasn’t the issue; is was positive pressure to lend in those areas. CRA was indeed a contributor to the crisis
5
Bloomberg should've attended the in depth exhibit on the horrible history of redlining that was on display at the Fed Fed building the past few months in Atlanta. Of course this was in 2008 so he couldn't have possibly known about finance or race then - he was just a simple private citizen just like all us regular folk back then!
Mr. Bloomberg profiles as a man although “to the manner born” sometimes breaches rather than observes the customs and practices of the “nice young man” image in his campaign ads.
He was fortunate to be born at a time and in a place where if he were being “tossed” the outcome would have been final.
His comments on redlining are arrogant and cavalier; he evinces a distant and incomplete grasp of life in the lower socioeconomic lot
2
Let’s all put our heads in the sand and never say anything again so we don’t offend each other.
3
Like it or not, Bloomberg was and is correct as noted in NY Times series: "The Reckoning: Pressured to Take More Risk, Fannie Reached the Tipping Point"---Oct. 8, 2008.
7
Bloomberg spoke the truth, and he is being ravaged for it. It is a fact that the economic collapse of 2008 was caused at least in part by the failure of mortgage loans which should have never been granted in the first place. Banks exploited people who could not have qualified for conventional mortgages by enticing them with low initial payments. Those low payments were based on below market or interest
only rates which were destined to rise substantially, or which would require "balloon payments".
When the moment of reckoning occurred, people could no longer afford their mortgages and could not refinance.
To promote home ownership among those in disadvantaged situations might have seemed like a laudable goal, but in reality, set up those people for eventual default.
So yes, Bloomberg was correct. If you want to call him racist for speaking the truth, go ahead. Such accusations seem to have become the final refuge for those who simply don't like the real facts, but cannot argue against them.
When all else fails, call someone a racist. It works.
6
Every single one of the candidates has race issue comments thrown back at them. So the end restlut is Trump gets voted back into power more enabled to rule this planet as a despot then ever. The reality is Trump got more people to vote in the New Hampshire primary than any other President. I find that spine chilling and do not understand why the Democrats are knocking Bloomberg when he has refused donations and spent over 300 mill trying to ensure someone can stand up to Trump on the economy and other matters in debates. Now is not the time for niceties when the world is on the brink of war and the US on the brink of a civil war.
6
It’s part of the primary process to determine the best candidate. No one should get a pass and we need to know all possible flaws to understand what kinds of attacks from Trump candidates will be facing.
It seems like with Bloomberg's rise, especially with African Americans, people are digging like mad to find where Mike might have discriminated. Bloomberg has evolved from a Republican to a Democrat; there's no question his stances on many issues evolved as well. We are in a fight for the soul of the country. I think it's wrong to dig up decades old comments in an attempt to sniff out a racist side to a candidate that has a legitimate chance to beat Trump. You want a REAL racist? Look no further than the White House, for Pete's sake.
8
He's a Republican, and a billionaire. I just don't see why any Democrat would even consider voting for him...
3
I saw the interview. Bloomberg was explaining what happened. It wasn’t an endorsement of redlining.
For goodness sake, it’s a fact that predatory banks wrote horrible mortgages to people who couldn’t afford the houses, in many cases ESL speakers who didn’t understand what exactly they were signing.
Bloomberg, a businessman, didn’t approve of it.
5
Redlining was and is wrong. This is only one of a large number of issue that contribute to Bloomberg's problems as this race proceeds. He is only now being vetted. He is not the great middil alternative to Sanders. His money will carry him far but after being vetted he will be much weaker than he appears now. The Democratic party must not nominate Sanders. His positions will destroy him and thus many other Democratic candidates down the ballot. Biden is yesterdays candidate. Mayor Peet will carry a very heavy burden into a general election due to sexual orientation and possibly his history on Wall Street which he has left so vague just as Trump has with his taxes and so many of his other dealings. Another candidate needs to emerge to save the Democratic party from its self.
1
@Robert Breeze, Could Amy do it? Or does every Democratic candidate have some fatal flaw? One thing Bloomberg leads the other candidates in is dollars deployed, but he, and all the other candidates so far have agreed to back whomever the Democrats' tortuous process nominates—and, Bloomberg adds, with money. I hope many citizens will make the same sacrifice, including the militant, and ideologically cocksure young. Because, as we can all see now (even Trumpers) Trump wants dictatorship and the Democratic candidates don't.
These comments are not new and the intent here is to paint Bloomberg as a racist. I can’t help but think that the timing is very interesting: the moment Bloomberg starts gaining ground, he’s accused of racism. Just like Biden had been accused (along with the whole Anita Hill) situation.
Be careful, Democrats; Bloomberg might be your best (and only) hope of getting Trump out of office. And I recommend you read Friedman’s Op Ed in yesterday’s NY Times where he points to a study that finds moderates tend to be the ones who put an end to extremist partisan politics (which is exactly what this country needs right now).
6
To paraphrase an old saying: "Billionaire is as billionaire does".
If anyone thinks for a moment that Bloomberg will make things better for the majority of Americans they're deluding themselves because they're so desperate for ANYONE to beat Trump.
Blaming the Crash of 2008 on ordinary, hard-working people instead of the banksters (of which he's one of), is classic oligarch! This highlights precisely who he identifies with, and that he not only has no empathy for what average people experience, but actual contempt. Not to mention revealing his true racist worldview.
In some ways he's more of a danger than Trump. At least with Trump we can see the damage he's doing and the danger he represents. But with Bloomberg, it's far more subtle and hidden. This is a guy who will tout the virtues of Soylent Green as a health product, making sure that no one finds out the ingredients. He's the "savior" for the Establishment because he'll ensure that our "trickle down" system that has eroded the well-being of the 99% for decades remains in place, and will even look to expand it. Under his "leadership", we will see a continuation in the downward life expectancy for Americans, the continuation of jobs and wages being suppressed, a continuation of the for-profit, rapacious health and pharmaceutical industries, a continuation of Big Business calling the shots on everything.
Yes, he might be able to beat Trump, but that's like beating the Devil and winding up with Lucifer.
2
Making loans to unqualified borrowers brought about the financial crisis and yes many of these borrowers were African-Americans that would have otherwise not qualified for these loans.
If banks had made decisions base sound banking principles such as credit worthiness and collateral there would have been no crisis.
I fail to see a race issue anywhere. How about making loans to qualified applicants and not have race as a factor? Would that be racist?
4
Reality check time . NO ONE ever said Bloomberg was a saint or perfect . But the simple fact is ... much as one might love or support any of the other Democratic nominees ... Bloomberg is the only one capable of bringing over Republicans sick of Trump and Moderates . All of whom along with Democratic votes are necessary to DEFEAT Donald Trump ..
... which is and must be the sole goal for the 2020 election . Resoundingly defeating Trump removing him and all his cronies from office .... as well as protecting the future of the SCOTUS
So grow up my fellow Liberals , Progressives and Independents . This is not the time to make a statement . This is the time for action
So drop the agendas , closet busting and ghost chasing ... and focus on the one candidate who will defeat Donald Trump ... returning the US to some semblance of normalcy ... thereby allowing us the freedom to work on all the issues at hand
6
Except Bloomberg is NOT the candidate to beat Trump.
He needs to be vetted just like everyone else.
2
I guess the point of this article is to take every position and statement Bloomberg ever said and cherry pick and report on the ones that generate the most clicks or drama.
What I want is to know what his policies and actions - in total - are, then judge from there.
This article seems to put an extremely negative and biased slant on something that was widely - and, i believe, incorrectly - held by many, including Bloomberg. True, the end of redlining did give lenders free reign to prey upon minority borrowers who couldn't afford what they were buying. However, lenders did this across the country and across racial/ethnic segments, driven largely by the ability of lenders to bundle their mortgages into securities and pass the risk off to investors.
You imply this was racist... I don't know what was in Bloomberg's heart, but I don't see it as such. I believe he saw it as simply predatory lending at its worst.
6
Mike Bloomberg may not be as smart as he is rich. The loss to foreclosure of 3 million homes during the Great Recession was caused because 8.2 million people lost their jobs. Mike owns a business news channel; he should know better. Either his tendencies lean toward racism or he, like Trump, is a woefully ignorant individual who profits from the brilliance of those in his employ. He may stand "shoulder to shoulder" with Trump with regard to trading insults but we don't need his zingers, We need a President with integrity who has lived the experiences that we live. We need someone who has had to find the funds for mortgages, health care, car and home insurance, utilities, and groceries. It would be nice to have someone who has had to tell their children "No, we can't afford it this week but when I next get paid..., maybe". Perhaps that's what it was like in Bloomberg's formative years but it doesn't seem like his experience was transformative.
2
Out West, Bloomberg is largely an unknown. His role as Mayor is a blank slate. He is better known for his business acumen than any policy. But, there are two views of the mortgage meltdown. In one, held by Elizabeth Warren, banks conspired to debauche the mortgage system in a criminally negligent way. In the other view, the Pedro Gonzálezs and Harriet Tubmans conspired to steal money, to defraud Wall Street. If Bloomberg believes that Pedro and Harriet are the primary culprits, then you’ve added a lot of color to my picture of Mr. Bloomberg.
1
Didn’t Trump’s company actively discriminate against minorities?
Shouldn’t The Times be a bit more careful in their headline? Loosening of lending standards did contribute to the financial crisis - redlining while a different beast altogether did have an impact to the extent once it was eliminated, lower income households, including minorities, were now able to get loans.
3
I keep hearing people say "Bloomberg isn't perfect." That he is not perfect is not the argument and is as dumb an analysis as the one's made for the current occupant of the White House. The low bar too many voters have is something unacceptable to a good many of us. Espousing racial tropes because you either don't get out enough to know, have bad advisors, or simply lean toward your natural racial tendencies is just not acceptable. The trying to divert the queries by simply saying "that is not who I am" or "perhaps I said it wrong" are overplayed hands for a low bar electorate. The problem of Bloomberg is created by the problem with lies Americans are happy to tell themselves instead of making the hard choices and doing the work. So much for American claims to exceptionalism.
1
Rashad Robinson is cited in this article is saying about Bloomberg:
“The fact that he and his campaign would try to redefine this rather than talk about how they’re going to solve it speaks to . . . a level of tone-deafness about this moment that we are in.”
He and his campaign? This moment we are in? The Bloomberg quote is from 2008. That’s in the first sentence of the article.
So, Mr. Robinson, I have a question and a suggestion:
1. Have any of your opinions changed over the past 12 years?
2. Don’t comment unless you know basic facts. As all sides should know, facts matter.
3
In what world is Bloomberg a Democrat? He certainly looks like a Bush era Republican to me.
1
Extending large loans at predatory interest rates to people who cannot afford them is racist, making sure loans are not predatory is not racist.
2
If you’re a centrist you should vote for Klobuchar. She’s the real deal. I’m voting for Bernie. But Amy Klobuchar rakes in the centrists. She’s for free community college. Let’s give younger voters something...
3
There's an old story about the butcher shop and a woman buying a fresh chicken for dinner. Woman asks to examine the chicken - she spreads the legs, wings, pokes the flesh and sniffs the cavity. The butcher asks, Lady could you pass such an inspection?
The same with Bloomberg. Of course he, as we all, have a made choices that were valid at the time, but have proven to be less successful than hoped for. And as time has passed culture has changed. So, it is absolutely counter productive to pillory Bloomberg for minor past comments.
We must judge him, and all others, on the CV. Bloomberg's is the best there is.
1
Best for what?
Being a successful billionaire businessman. Yes!
Being the best nominee?
Absolutely not!
Well, finally the Great Moderate Hero who will save the Democratic Party (as shouted to the rooftops by all the usual suspects in the NY Times, Washington Post, MSNBC etc) takes a hit! And a pretty big one at that. Even though I had left NYC by the time he took office, and thus don't know every crook & curve of the doings of his administration, I have never been a Bloomberg fan. To me, he's a Republican in a Democratic sheep's clothing. I seriously doubt that he would challenge his hedge fund and investment banker pals in the way they should be challended, and I have my doubts about his commitment to help middle class and working people. This bone-headed and just plain wrong diagnosis of the cause of the financial crisis of 2008-1010 shows how out of touch he is. So no Bloomberg, no thank you.
2
We are burying our heads in the sand! Poorer people OF ANY RACE will have a harder time paying back a loan, which is why we don’t all have equal interest rates, this is one fact. The other fact is that crime statistics in NYC are irrefutable in showing that there is more crime in certain neighborhoods where minorities are prevalent. This isn’t racist talk, it’s factual talk and you can’t help people by PRETENDING that everyone should receive the same credit or that crime is equal in all neighborhoods. That’s just nonsense. To make neighborhoods safer you have to target those that have more crime. To help people get out of poverty, you don’t push them into loans that they can’t afford to repay. Plain and simple.
5
This is where the truth and wishful thinking run directly into each other.
Bloomberg is RIGHT!! Previously redlined borrowers were a HUGE untapped market! Why is that so hard to imagine, and why does it have to be racist? I wonder why, this week, the press is so eager to call Bloomberg a racist? Someone is getting nervous that Bloomberg will be the Democratic nominee.
3
Yeah- that's gonna leave a mark.
There certainly were some risky loans made to poor people, often on harsh terms for the borrowers. However, the real reason the crash of 08 happened was outright fraud in investment banking, the sale of derivatives and an absurd housing market for middle and upper class markets.
Plus, of course Clinton's idiotic agreement to allow the Repeal of Glass-Steagal and by then 8 years of totasl lack of oversight by Junior.
2
And the discriminatory remarks and past actions just keep on coming!
2
I understood Bloomberg’s comments on redlining to mean the banks were knowingly making irresponsible loans to folks who would not be able to pay them back. Misleading reporting here.
3
How many times has Trump apologized for anything? This time-and it's a desperate time- the Democrats can outspend the Republicans! Because of Bloomberg. People need to put their thinking caps on and realize..this is not a negative. And Bloomberg isn't spending stupidly. Unlike the other candidates and the frustratingly pathetic Democratic party as a whole, Bloomberg and company have an exceptionally successful businessman's grasp of marketing, advertising and PR. And an unlimited budget to do what they think will beat Trump. If the Democrats can keep from doing Trump's work for him, ensuring defeat by bludgeoning their own best candidates and convincing each other to stay home on election day. Trump and Putin must love this!
2
Another brilliant piece of work by so-called progressives. Circle the wagons and shoot inward.
Good work - let's take down the most viable candidate for defeating Trump, and see where the next four years lead.
7
Bloomberg has been writing checks to buy support for so long he doesn't know what pushback is.
That has led to his extreme arrogance and hubris.
1
Does the Times want to make the case that ill-judged, reckless housing loans didn't contribute to the financial meltdown? If so, make it. As I read what Bloomberg reportedly said about red lining, he was only speaking the truth, however harsh it was.
5
Bloomberg candidacy is done. He just does not know it yet. Plenty of fellow readers trying to look for mitigating circumstances when there is no hiding behind the fact that Bloomberg is a hypocritical racist.
For those of you inclined to buy the story about the financial crisis: it’s basically a joke. Fannie Mae and Freddy MAC were only financing prime lending. Their losses were kept low. The real trigger lied in the private subprime market and the repackaging and selling of securities into the institutional market.
But anyway, please stop trying to defend the indefensible. Bloomberg is a racist and believing that this man will beat Trump is, well, very sad.
1
I've always thought Bloomberg had racist ideas when it came to people of color, and my opinion has never changed. He can talk that talk now, but I haven't forgotten. This very idea that lending to poor people in redlined communities caused the financial crisis is absurd. Wonder what he calls it when banks made loans to people like Trump, who has filed bankruptcy numerous times. If he wins the Dems nomination, then I'm left with choosing between a bigoted fool and a bigot. At the least, Bloomberg doesn't tweet lies and insults.
@NolaMel, "Wonder what he calls it when banks made loans to people like Trump, who has filed bankruptcy numerous times." Good question. We know Bloomberg has repeatedly called out Trump for it, but without research, I'd say he's said nothing at all about Deutsche Bank.
If you want your rent to triple..
Mike will get it done.
If you want your young people tossed against the wall and frisked by the cops..
Mike will get it done.
If you want the mom and pop businesses in your town replaced with Starbucks, CVS and Chase bank branches..
Mike will get it done.
If you want 2 term limits to be abolished..
Mike will get it done.
If you want 20 year tax breaks on luxury condo towers and the burden of property tax left to the middle class..
Mike will get it done.
Bloomberg for President. 2020 hindsight.
5
No matter what Bloomberg said or did, no matter what he says now and no matter how Trump tries to paint him and insult him, we know that he will be better than Trump, fairer than Trump, less dismissive of persons of color and ethnic and religious minorities and woman that Trump. How dare Trump call anyone a racist.
So while minority home ownership was being decimated by the outrageous and downright criminal behavior of the billionaire banking class, Bloomberg waxed nostalgic about a historically racist policy that directly contributed to the creation of a permanent black underclass. Today, he panders for the African-American vote. Disgusting.
Between this and the obvious callousness in the way he defended stop-and-frisk, Bloomberg should do himself a favor by dropping out of the Democratic primary and switch his party registration back to Republican. The GOP has demonstrated that it is clearly a better fit for racist billionaires.
2
If you want to attract the vote for liberalism-as-racism-with-a-kind-face, you'll nominate Bloomberg to oppose Trump. Then you'll have a nicer Trump with more suavity and a little more support for the environment. Bloomberg's record as mayor for the entire dozen years was consistently pro-rich and anti-poor, anti-black, anti-Latinx, and anti-poor-women.
So he regretted the end of redlining. What did you expect from someone with his mayoral record? In snagging his third term, he showed, like Trump, his contempt for the law, namely the city charter that the voters supported which gives the mayor only two terms. If you want Bloomberg, you just want a nicer Trump.
2
Just because a disproprotionate number of blacks and Hispanics are stopped and frisked or are denied loans doesn't mean that these actions are racist. You have to look at each individual's underlying behavior.
If a disproportionate number of blacks/Hispanics are speeding or driving with broken headlights, etc., or have defaulted on previous loans, that could explain the disproprortionate number of blacks/Hispanics getting stopped by police or rejected by banks. Banks are in the business of making money. Why would they reject an opportunity to make more?
2
Bloomberg was right. The subprime crisis started with Clinton pressuring banks to loan to borrowers that wouldn’t otherwise qualify to increase homeownership. The heart was in the right place but the economy of it was wrong and that let to over-borrowing by people that cannot hope to pay back their loan.
The same for the current student loan crisis. Banks loan hundreds of thousands to people studying majors that traditionally don’t have high compensation.
6
And it was terribly exacerbated by the Bush administration who let companies trade derivatives. Please don’t try to re-write history. It was Bush’s fault. End of story.
1
Uh, it was Bush II.
1
@Dave
Huh? What kind of academic discussion ends with “end of story”? The unwillingness to admit mistakes and refusal to see contrary evidence is why this country is so politically divided.
1
His statement read to me as if he was speaking factually about a policy rather than defending the policy or giving his opinion on the policy. Perhaps context is needed.
12
Yes, he’s just trying to explain one aspect of the 2008 crisis. He didn’t say low income loans were the only cause. Bloomberg’s critics aren’t being fair.
5
Bloomberg never said he was okay with redlining.
It is wrong. Still is.
Yet, he is correct in that people were given mortgages they could not afford. They were scammed.
That does not make Bloomberg a racist. Just logical.
29
That’s it. I’m not ever voting for him. I may even vote for Trump. At least Trump wears his racism on his sleeve, where everyone can see it. Bloomberg is one of those liberal racists. You know, the type that wants to vaguely help people of color while also never sending their kids to public school, never letting poor folks move into their neighborhoods, stepping over the guy sleeping on the subway grate, and never ever wanting to be seen as being soft on crime.
4
@walter Buckner no ones buying this. You would rather vote for a racist who is also a traitor, who is also a serial sex offender, who has also destroyed the credibility of our country, who is power mad to the point that he pardons criminals and threatens his own justice department. If you were a democrat you would vote for anyone but trump
I’m not a Democrat. I’m a Socialist. Maybe four more years of Trump is exactly what this country needs, since Americans have a nasty habit of never doing the right thing unless all other options have been exhausted.
Boy...he's just kicking a and taking names. He should just switch parties and go back to being the billionaire conservative he started out as.
8
He’s not wrong.
8
It shows a shocking ignorance that Bloomberg said "95% of homicides are committed by minorities"..and that the attempt to stop racism in loan practices led to the financial crises..
-It shows and obvious ignorance & prejudice by Bloomberg to traffic in such bigoted propaganda.
..-- I'd considered voting for him. But I now doubt he has the right character for President.
4
My hope as a New York Times reader is that your reporting will be accurate. You even have the quote "Mike’s saying that something bad — the financial crisis — followed something good, which is the fight against redlining he was part of as mayor", which is all his actual quote suggests, yet the title of your article is the inflammatory "Bloomberg Once Linked 2008 Crisis to End of Redlining Bias in Home Loans" and then talk about the troubling "elements of his record and persona". Perhaps you could find a real story.
17
Quit apologizing for him. It’s pathetic. All of you Bloomberg lovers. He’s just another clueless billionaire.
1
Reporters are not being fair here.
1
Keep on exposing Bloomberg! There's more where this comes from. The man is a racist and should not become president.
8
Pretty sad to watch the NYT become a muckraker. Any stellar resume of someone who has accomplished so much over a lifetime will most likely contain some issues debatable among educated people. Still so much better than someone with no list of accomplishments or successes. NYT, stop trying to be The NY Post, you just may succeed.
6
An off-the-cuff comment from 12 years ago - before he (or we) knew enough about the crisis - provides no insight at all into whether or not Bloomberg is a racist.
9
May I add to the discussion:
When Bloomberg was Mayor of NYC he had a problem on his hans. Homeless housing was full of rodents, mold ...
Asked by his critics he replied that this is a) not his problem (...) and b) that not everybody can be born on to the sunny side of life (...). Similar to a time when there was a heavy blizzard in NYC. Neighborhoods in Brooklyn complained that they didn’t see a plow for days in their neighborhood.. Bloomberg answered: stop wining and go and see a Broadway Musical........ This to people who did not earn a penny if they (couldn’t) didn’t show up for work....
No way is Bloomberg a man who should be president. Too rich, too distant, to far away from any middle, lower class, too out of control...
And my dear fellow Americans, why do you always „admire“ when someone has made a lot of money? Shouldn’t we also look at what kind of company he has created? Is Bloomberg‘s company anything we will ever use, or even be useful for us regular people? His „clientele“ are his friends and those are the people he serves. Just look at NYC today; the playground for the rich...
He should donate his money for good causes and let others be president!
9
Please look at what he’s been spending his time, money and energy on since leaving office as mayor. Critics are unbelievable.
Any surprise here?
"Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton (right) shared a phone call weeks before Trump kicked off a presidential campaign, reports The Washington Post. Also pictured are former New York City Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg while at Trump National Golf Club in 2008"
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-doesn-attack-gop-debate-article-1.2315217
Bloomberg, Trump, Clinton, Guiliani...........they must be laughing all the way to the bank.
There is absolutely nothing to differentiate these egotistical, power-hungry, wealthy and unethical old white men from each other.
Those claiming Bloomberg is some kind of savior/hero need their head examined.
7
You guys are going to make Trump win again. I get sick about these moralizing self-righteous articles.
You didn't learn anything about both-sideism in 2016? Amazing. The emails!!!
You deserve 4 more years.
5
Yep, if the Dems don’t nominate Bloomberg there is no way they will beat Trump. Left needs to stop tearing down the only one that can win.
1
When all else fails, you can call your opponent a racist and the Warren's comment is an example of such conduct. Redlining applied to poor white communities as well as to poor communities of color and for your reporter and his editor to ignore that point is puzzling.
Bloomberg's observation that the mortgage meltdown started in that part of the economic spectrum is, for lack of a better word, correct.
10
The mortgage meltdown was not the fault of poor borrowers. It was the fault of unscrupulous lenders. All of you Bloomberg apologists need to put down the Kool-Aid.
3
Warren is using race to divide. Little wonder why she’s on her way out. Dems need to learn how to win without using divide society.
4
To be clear, he was describing the post-redlining lending world, in which unscrupulous lenders grotesquely preyed upon aspiring homeowners.
The New York Times needs to stop regurgitating opposition research dumps and report on the issues that really matter. Unless the increasingly unhinged slant of the NYT editorial board speaks to a resolute opposition to any moderate candidate, in which case I can cancel my subscription now.
12
Bloomberg’s own racial bias is going to sink him
4
It seems Bloomberg’s biggest problem is that he tells the truth, even if it’s politically incorrect! The NYT seems to be doing its level best to torpedo Bloomberg’s candidacy, and probably enable four more years of Trump!!
6
Another tendentious article by Matt Stevens. I thought the last one was enough to get him seng back to the school paper
4
Well I guess telling the Truth is vorboten now.... nice to know we can't even discuss reality without being labeled in 2020....
5
Yes, reality is off limits.
He’s clearly a moderate racist
Move on
He doesn’t belong in today’s Democratic Party
4
Is anyone good enough for today’s Democratic Party?
First the NYT had endless articles About Hilary’s private email server, as though that was the worst thing in the world. Now the articles about Bloomberg. Does The New York Times want Trump to be reelected?
4
Congratulations to the Times on jumping to the fore of those promoting 2020's version of the time-honored Democratic Circular Firing Squad. There's laughter in Hell...and at the White House.
3
Probably did contribute.
So?
Am I racist now?
4
Tom Friedman - are you reading this? You just wrote a huge Bloomberg support Op-Ed in this very newspaper called "Paging Michael Bloomberg."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/opinion/bloomberg-president-2020.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Paging Tom Friedman.
Can you really still support Mayor Bloomberg?
6
Friedman is right on. Nominate Bloomberg or its four more years of Trump.
2
Bloomberg isn’t the answer. Your money is no good is offensive and Bloomberg doesn’t want to be beholden to your donations.. You think he will play nice with your party? He just wants the library and state funeral just like Trump’s getting. Bloomberg simply wants what Trump has and can’t believe Trump got there first. Trump is no Republican, and Bloomberg is no Democrat. Get off social media, and hope your party can put it together for their turn in the White House in 2024. Even then it wouldn’t surprise me they won’t screw it up when it’s theirs to lose.
1
Here we go again. Slicing and dicing Bloomberg’s words to fit your agenda and then selling it under a headline that is questionable, at best. Kind of like a “journalistic” CDO. I imagine Maureen is working on her clever column already.
2
You can't say honest things anymore, it's not allowed. Liberals have a race fetish.
5
In two days Bloomberg has gone from the Democratic savior to your crazy wing-nut uncle circa 2009. It's kind of tempting to see a mega billionaire New Yorker get in a flame war with a one billionaire (?) New Yorker.
1
Strike 2
6
So typical. Let's blame the struggling poor for the financial collapse. Just like so many white/elite/right-wing/business bootlickers blamed the poor for "buying homes they couldn't afford."
As if THIS caused the crisis. As if striving to own a home has been anything BUT reaching for the American Dream. Totally wrong.
During the housing boom, those with modest (and low) incomes saw home prices going further and further out of sight. And anyone who knows anything about real estate knows, it's usually really hard buying your first house. You do EVERYTHING you can to scrape together a down payment, and then work your butt off to make the monthly mortgage. But if you do it and you stick to your plan, over time, your income has grown and your mortgage payment no longer so onerous. And in that time, your house value has GROWN! You now have EQUITY!
This is what our parents and grandparents did. It wasn't easy, but it was the path to prosperity and a secure future.
But the working poor in the country had even tougher times buying homes. Thus the interest-only loan. And teaser rates. But if you wanted a house, you did what you had to. And when you accumulated EQUITY, you sold & upgraded or refinanced into a more suitable home loan.
If these people on the margin of homeownership didn't act then, they would be left behind. And current RE pricing proves exactly this. Now it's worse: the poor can't even afford rent.
Stop blaming the victims!
5
These sound like "inelegant comments" that came out different from intent. You would need to believe that Bloomberg is a total idiot to say something like this in 2008 at a university lecture. However his team's response just makes it worse. Rather than saying "yes, this was poorly worded, here is the whole context and how it should have been worded" they are doing a Clintonesque parsing. Depends on what is means, I guess....
21
did you not see his comments in reference to stop an frisk in 2015? 2015.
@Groovygeek
It was politically expedient in 2008 to repeat this narrative. It is politically expedient now to call it poorly worded. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
1
Bloomberg, a newly anointed politician seems to initially tell it like it is with respect to the granting of unaffordable mortgages to those unable to afford them in order that the profit motive associated with the bundling of the paper and its sale to non-discriminating Government entities unconcerned with credit worthiness continued to its logical default to the detriment of Society . There is something of the Stop and Frisk lacking in the blatant handling of the mortgage issuance given the reasonable suspicion that should have been engendered by the professional observer wholly absent in the assessment function.
He had a case of Wall Street-itis. That culture is averse to (a) regulation and (b) responsibility to consumers. He's over it now. Warren (and Krugman and other heroic economists) had it right, Bloomberg had it wrong. But he has moderated his view and would not make that mistake again. He's still a better candidate than Warren.
1
Well, he was right. It might not be comfortable or woke enough to say it in today’s cancel-culture but it was one of many factors that fueled the crisis. Facts aren’t always friendly things.
6
Let’s assume that Bloomberg’s analysis is partially correct that just before the crisis, entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac strongly encouraged banks to lend to “people in these neighborhoods” who were poor. I wonder if Bloomberg has ever given it a thought that because there is only so much money to go around and he alone has about 55 billion dollars of it, the poor we will always have.
Unfortunately, Bloomberg omitted some other policies, besides ending redlining, that gave too much credit to borrowers who couldn't afford it. His mention of redlining showed an investor's perspective, looking at it as a practice that controlled financial risk, not as a way to exclude blacks from home ownership. An investor is happy to invest money wherever it will yield a return. The modern interpretation of redlining as an anti-black policy misses the actual motivation behind redlining as a policy to reduce financial risk.
The big, underreported story about Bloomberg is his vulnerability to China as his company tries to succeed in that market.
His exposure there is exponentially larger than trump’s.
2
@trblmkr
Interesting.
Specifics?
@John
The whole business model of Bloomberg LLC hinges on increasing subscriptions among investment professionals.
The only market of substantial size in which the population of investment professionals is growing is China (COVID-19 notwithstanding). Additionally, Bloomberg LLC requires access to all capital markets data in order to be of value to its clients and justify the steep subscription fee.
Bloomberg(the person) can’t do anything now, or as President that would anger China and imperil his business.
Also, since Bloomberg LLC is a private company and almost all of Mike’s wealth is in non-tradeable stock, he has to either find a buyer off market or borrow against his holding in order to raise cash to fund his campaign.
Any buyer or lender will want to be certified that Bloomberg LLC’s prospects remain strong. That means not losing its biggest potential market, China.
You follow?
When challenged about his positions against gun control Sen. Sanders said in the last debate, that his earlier votes had reflected his constituents, that the world had changed, and so had his views. Today when news comes out of Bloomberg's linking of the end of redlining to the mortgage crash, he and his campaign claim he only noted a correlation in time, nothing more. As with stop and frisk, we get more evasion and more dissembling. This man should not be the Democratic candidate. I am sure that the numbers of people who prefer Warren, or Sanders, or even Klobuchar, can dig deep into their own pockets and come up with a billion dollars. We don't need a billionaire former Republican.
3
The real trouble with Mike B's comments has to do with the underlying premise that "Banks Know Best". Under-regulated banking led to both the Great Recession and the Great Depression. Banks are prone to risky lending at punishing interest rates on credit cards, mortgages, and anywhere else they can. "Well, if times get bad, the Fed and taxpayers will bail us out!"
Redlining was institutional racism/classism and the banks were winning participants, ready to blame 'those people' for loan failures instead of their own reckless lending practices. Derivatives and other ways to mask bad loans led directly to 2007-9.
As Alan Greenspan said, “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organisations, specifically banks and others, was such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders,”.
Redlining created toxic neighborhoods, and per standard banking 'wisdom' highest rates are always given to those least able to pay.
5
Here's the problem with what Mr. Bloomberg is doing, waiting so long to get into the race. All of this damaging stuff comes out and there's not enough time between now and the election to correct, explain, or otherwise describe what was going on. The vetting process for Mr. Bloomberg will happen, if he's the nominee, by Mr. tRump on the debate stage and he will be eviscerated.
That was then. This is now. We learn. We grow out of one era into another.
We need Mike desperately.
Stop looking back
Look forward!
1
None of the Democrats running for president are perfect; they all have flaws that can be exploited against them during the campaign.
Bloomberg's flaws are no worse than the flaws of the other candidates.
Bloomberg is the only Democrat that can beat Trump.
None of the other Democrats can beat Trump.
I will vote for anyone who can beat Trump.
Four more years of Trump is unacceptable.
3
No offense he’s not wrong. You might not like it but it’s true. The same goes for stop and frisk.
Being politically correct isn’t go to solve the problems.
1
@PM Which is why crime spiked immediately after stop and frisk ended.
Wait, what? It has continued to decline over the past decade?
Maybe Bloomberg was wrong after all.
He should read one of his fancy news terminals once in a while. A study of bankruptcies and credit scores showed is was the middle class flipping houses and otherwise speculating that caused the crisis. It is an old trope of the right that Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act was to blame. But it was the banks that made out like bandits until their securitization and loan fraud lead us to the Great Recession.
1
A candidate who supported redlining and stop and frisk is not going to win the Democratic primary, especially when he held those positions as recently as 6 or 7 years ago.
2
If I was overflowing with money, I know I’d loan it to anyone who applied for a loan. I share that nondiscriminatory trait with everyone else here outraged by Bloomberg’s attempt to bring some semblance of common sense to the lending process. How dare he suggest that money should only be loaned out to those who are well positioned to repay it? It’s not his money is it? It doesn’t even have his picture on it. Given the choice, I’m more apt to trust the authors of this article with my money than Bloomberg. Who’s with me?
As a millennial who does not watch TV, what exactly is the appeal of Bloomberg as a candidate here? Some vague notions of electability and moderate-ness? The general American desire to be ruled by the wealthy?
All I see is a version of Trump who believes in climate change, and one who will be totally unable to drive voter engagement from core Democratic constituencies (African-Americans and young people) that will be necessary to the success of any Democratic candidate.
4
What Bloomberg CORRECTLY said, if you care to listen intelligently, was that giving loans to people who could not afford them, those often in "red lined" lower income areas, could result in severe defaults. THAT, AND HAWKING LOANS TO ANYONE WHO COULD SIGN AN "X" FOR A $1,000,000 loan on a $20,000/yr salary is what led to the 2008 crash. I was there; I saw it. So did wise economists like Sheila Bair who raised red flags all over the place - and she was correct. Had it not been for Obama's economic response, by the way, the WORLD economy would have tumbled - us included. Trump would have stolen why he could and bailed. Instead, he took credit for Obama's wise decisions and economic curve - the continuation of which we are now experiencing. You'll see a lot more failure as Trump's lax banking laws take effect.
Bloomberg was not endorsing red lining - that's all Republican lies and propaganda to get at Bloomberg. If they can't find truth, thy make it up or distort truth to their needs. Watch for a LOT more of this in the months to come from the disreputable and treasonous Republicans. If any "good" ones exist , they're now Democrats.
15
Unfortunately, more revelations like this are going to surface about Mr. Bloomberg's decision making as mayor of NYC.
Yes, We must do all we can as citizens to prevent DJT a second term.
But if Mr. Bloomberg were to be elected, we are essentially changing seats on the Titanic in terms of the things Mr. Bloomberg would do for the needy, and the middle class, getting a fair shot at being able to afford to live in this country without being chronically anxious about making ends meet. Health care, housing, education, child care, retirement are pressing issues for the average American.
I would very much like to see a woman elected President Nov 2020, as it will be 100 years on August 18, 2020 that the U.S. Constitution granted American women the right to vote. So please go for Warren or Klobuchar. We need a woman in the WH!
Besides, Mr. Bloomberg is worth an impossible fortune exceeding $50 Billion. Try wrapping you mind around that.
Becoming President would be so déclassé for him.
6
The scariest thing to Trump would be a dem party that starts shrugging off the sins of an nyc (three time mayor) billionaire (self made and top of Forbes) candidate for the sake of wanting to truly make America great again.
It worked for Republicans it can work for us.
6
NYT, I am disappointed that you are using a straw man argument to attack Bloomberg. His statement is being taken out of context - he never says he is in favor of redlining. He is merely saying he is opposed to making loans to people who can't pay them back.
Bloomberg is 100% correct that the extension of loans to borrowers who were not credit worthy was a major driver of the 2008 crisis -- independent of race. Any economic paper of historical document about the financial crisis will confirm this fact. Banks and other financial institutions should have better monitored this and are the ones to blame.
22
@JZ Perhaps this article was an effort to offset the growing number of reader accusations that NYT is pushing content written by people who have some affiliation or another with Bloomberg? I mean, we all know that this paper leans left and over-sensationalizes each movement of nose hair belonging to Today's Most Relevant Person. They would run out of stuff to say otherwise. I'm afraid we'll see strawmen abound in the coming months.
What Bloomberg said about the loans to people of lower income and the cause of loan defaults happens to be true. What’s the problem?
14
Its a poor choice of words but he's right. The bubble was due to pushing "B" loans (securitized as AAA subprime bonds) on anyone and everyone to ramp up sales and accelerate closings. Redlining has nothing to do with it - it was done everywhere.
8
We all know by now that folks who have shaky finances shouldn't be approved for mortgages, and that no one should commit to a mortgage without at least minimal legal advice. What exactly did Bloomberg do incorrectly this time?
9
You seem to be implying hear that Bloomberg approves of red lining. Though of course, you don’t actually say that.
Based on my own sketchy knowledge of economics, which comes from reading this very newspaper, I have the idea that the lending bubble and the end of red lining are indeed connected. Unfortunately.
Just for the record, I’d like to say I hope for more money to be made available to minority communities. Just done right.
1
Redlining and predatory loaning practices are completely different. Redlining is defining loans to qualified people on the basis of race or perceived socio-economic status and the predatory loaning practices involve duping people into loans that they cannot afford and risking their bankruptcy to make a profit. Neither of these caused the financial crisis. The crisis was caused by banks being overly agressive in lending.
4
Redlining is discrimination. Loaning money on the basis of individual credit worthiness is not.
Trying to paint Bloomberg - who has done more for affordable housing than any of the current Democratic candidates- as a racist is going to backfire.
I hope.
Bloomberg is now looking good to get my vote.
6
As someone who left NYC during Mayor Bloomberg's administration because my housing costs became unsustainable, I question just exactly how Bloomberg has done anything at all to promote or provide affordable housing, because he sure didn't do that as Mayor.
4
@C.L.S.
Where are you getting your "information" from? If you actually lived in New York you would know that it was Bloomberg who made the city unaffordable for the middle class by selling out the city to real estate developers who put up hideous towers that were sold to the wealthy (often foreign) individuals and corporations who didn't even inhabit them most of the time. He also gave variances to put them up in landmarked areas of the city that even the execrable Giuliani didn't do.
As I recall, a major issue with the 2008 meltdown were loans given by banks and mortgage companies to people who couldn't afford it. I didn't read in the quote anything about redlining, what I read was, essentially, "greedy lenders gave loans to people who couldn't repay them".
Mr. Stevens, who is listed as a reporter, seems more like an opinion writer.
7
@Jumank Wow, good catch. It's kind of scary that I didn't notice that this piece isn't filed under Opinion. I assumed it was and didn't bother to read the whole thing.
1
This is the second revelation of Mr. Bloomberg's bias toward minorities and especially African Americans. The first was Bloomberg's statement about stop and frisk practices when he uttered remarks clearly stating his belief that African American young men were stopped and frisked because that group of young men is primarily responsible for violent crime.
Both of his recent statements are reprehensible and unforgivable. Mr. Bloomberg believes, wrongly, that he can buy his way to the White House. He also believes that his support of stop and frisk was correct. He only refuted his previous statements when he began his quest for a place in the Democratic candidate nomination.
In my view Mr. Bloomberg's comments on stop and frisk and his linking of redlining to the 2008 financial crisis are clearly not just mis-steps, but also very revealing of Mr. Bloomberg's true heart. I believe Mr. Bloomberg is not just a former mayor defending a few ill conceived remarks. I believe that deep down Mr. Bloomberg harbors bias and prejudice and great animus towards African Americans. The remarks are blatant racist remarks.
We cannot look past Mr. Bloomberg's remarks. He said them. He meant them and he defended them until it was politically expedient to disavow his intent to be discriminatory. Being a blunt speaking mayor is one thing. Being racist, bigoted and tone deaf is another. Mr. Bloomberg has no understanding how his remarks have hurt our black communities and citizens.
6
@Jack Frost
Okay, nail him on stop and frisk, but he just stated facts about predatory lending.
You want gun control or not?
1
And he was right. What’s wrong with that? Those loans were unsustainable for many and should never have been given as such. Bloomberg doesn’t sugar coat reality and you should give him a break, but ask him about the future.
6
Linking the end of redlining, where entire neighborhoods were excluded from qualifying for mortgages and irresponsible lending to anyone who could sign their name regardless of credit worthiness conflates cause and effect here. Redlining is wrong and discriminatory; blaming minority borrowers for a financial crisis brought on by lenders failing to vet borrowers is blaming the victims while letting the banksters off scotfree for their wrecking the economy.
4
I never loved Bloomberg so I hope he does not win the nomination, we will see. I do love his money for anti-Trump ads, though. I also love how he puts Trump down and is not bothered by Trump's insults.
Fact: most of the money lost in the housing crisis was lost on properties owned by qualified borrowers in "nice" neighborhoods. Not subprime loans, and not borrowers the banks otherwise didn't want to lend to but were "forced" to lend to because of do-gooder laws and regulations.
Wall Street, it's various lackeys in the media and Republican politicians tried to control the narrative from the start of the crisis, pushing this bogus line about the poor widdle banks being forced to lend to "people who couldn't afford homes and mortgages". It was a con job pushed to avoid facing the consequences of rampant financial services deregulation.
The regulatory structure put in place by FDR begat a 50-year period where there were few bank failures, no financial panics or depressions, no asset bubbles and no housing-led recessions. Don't be conned by Wall Street lies (which Mike Bloomberg unsurprisingly spewed in the past).
5
Somehow, none of the Bloomberg supporters are mentioning the deceptive und unscrupulous practice of offering APR loans, which are all well and good as long as interest rates are low and stay low. For lenders they are a bonanza when interest rates shoot up, and for borrowers they can be the kiss of death and ruin. Most Americans are not schooled in the machinations of high finance, and once Wall Street decided to get in on the mortgage boom, lenders pushed APR loans to people who had no idea what they were getting themselves into. Yes, you can cynically say, "buyer beware," but to me, the tactics used by Wall Street to push APRs, bundle mortgages into tranches, and then re-sell them at a huge profit ought to be illegal, because these folks are obviously aware that they are taking advantage of other people's financial ignorance. I am scandalized by the growing number of cons and scams being pushed upon Americans in the hopes that their ignorance, confusion, or even dementia can be exploited. Elizabeth Warren was right in founding the Consumer Protection Agency, and it needs to be given more and bigger teeth. There are fewer and fewer honest businesses in this country, and it is because the law turns a blind eye to their amorality and greed. And it does so because legislators and other politicians are bought and paid for by industries seeking to protect themselves at the expense of everyone else.
7
Democrats should criticize Republicans, not other Democrats. Bloomberg would be an excellent president. He has given away billions of his own money, not yours, to poor people of all colors.
Bloomberg has told the truth some of which isn’t politically correct when phrased carelessly and judged by today’s standards.
He is the only one who can beat Trump, and beating Trump is the only thing that matters.
6
@ Kevin Cahill-
One problem with your argument: He’s not an actual Democrat, just a mercenary looking for the easiest way in to the party. Period.
Mike Bloomberg was mayor of the most diverse city in America for 12 years.
So anyone looking will find many things he said and did to criticize. He has many enemies.
The Trump campaign has a ton of stuff ready to dump on him when he confronts the psychopath.
In spite of these attacks and distortions, which Mike is no stranger to, he will prevail.
I am so grateful that we really have someone who will destroy Trump and send him and his goons packing.
We need to get this faker out. He has done too much damage already.
Mike is the only one to get it done.
He will.
We need to all support him for using all his resources and intelligence to support us.
He recently said, Trump is a bully and I won't let him bully you.
4
@ Simon Sez-
“I won’t let Trump bully you. Let me bully you instead.”
I sense from recent articles in the NYT about Mike there is an undercurrent attempting to make him out a racist, anti-minority candidate or trying to buy the nomination as exemplified by an earlier story about campaign salaries he's paying employees, or the well supplied campaign rallies he's hosting. Don't vilify Mike because of his money or some of his actions as Mayor of New York. To beat Trump you better have a candidate who is a hybrid like Mike. A mix of conservation and liberal with deep pockets who owes nothing to special interests and already has Trump tweeting insults, a sure sign Mike poses a big threat to his bid for reelection.
2
"I sense from recent articles in the NYT about Mike there is an undercurrent attempting to make him out a racist, anti-minority candidate or trying to buy the nomination as exemplified by an earlier story about campaign salaries he's paying employees, or the well supplied campaign rallies he's hosting."
Nobody would come to this conclusion by reading the Opinion pages, where Charles Blow is the lone, sane, anti-Bloomberg voice!
1
Just like Warren. Give more money away to buy votes. She is the shameless one..
2
Here is why the Warren campaign is struggling. Her critique is spot-on in refuting Bloomberg’s attempt to shift blame away from greedy banks.
She and others point out the undeniable historical fact that redlining was not an “excluding poor people” policy but an “excluding black people” policy.
But then she adds, “Predatory lenders steered families of color into the worst loans and those families lost billions.”
This, too, is true...but it leaves out the fact that predatory lending (unlike most redlining) ALSO steered large numbers of whites into the worst loans and THEY lost billions as well.
The comment gratuitously turns of the millions of white victims of greedy bankers.
Why do that?
4
There were many causes of the foreclosure crisis — and plenty of blame to go around among mortgage lenders, regulators and, in some cases, the borrowers themselves. But as the crisis accelerated, it also swept-up families who, through no fault of their own, lost or were in danger of losing their homes.
The loss of homes numbered in the 10s of millions! Predatory lenders made tons of money and left swaths of re-possessed homes in mostly minority neighborhoods abandoned and boarded-up. For home owners who did not go bankrupt and continued (and continue) to live in those neighborhoods, their homes are nearly valueless and many, many families are underwater with debt in order to continue paying those long-term predatory mortgages while supporting their families in isolated run-down communities.
So, what is the answer to this issue?
What was the answer when Bloomberg made his comment? What was the answerer when some of the current candidates were in political positions at that time? What was the answer when Trump was a building owner and sub-prime housing landlord at that time?
...
Home ownership is what most Americans strive for ... but how big a risk should families take ... especially when so many banks and monied predators are willing to leave minority (and poor white) families forever bankrupt! And neighborhoods forever condemned!
Matt Stevens, isn't it your responsibility as a supposed journalist to let the reader know immediately that Mike Bloomberg's description of "red-lining" in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, is blatantly inaccurate, that "red-lining" was not about keeping out poor people, but rather about denying credit and keeping out blacks and latinos who could presumable afford the properties otherwise for sale. This fact isn't mentioned until Sen. Warren is quoted much later in your piece, making it seem like this is an opinion or debatable concept.
Do your job. Are you looking for a job at Bloomberg when his campaign crashes?
2
Now is not the time for "workers of the world unite" stuff. Biden or Bloomberg.
That way Trump can share a cell with Stone so either will be in solitary confinement.
It's not surprising to me that Republican Michael Bloomberg made those comments.
2
But please continue to fill your editorial pages with “Bloomberg is our only hope” narratives. I know, I know - newsroom and op-ed are completely separate. Maybe it’s time to bring some new voices.
2
Keep up these character assassinations and you risk my subscription. I have had enough of moles being turned into mountains just to sell ink.
6
This is lightweight, out-of-context gotcha reporting at its worst. How did these comments surface, pray tell? If the Associated Press found them by scouring the archive, congratulations. But if they were handed to the media by someone's opps research team, you should say so. And proportion, please....We have a president who is a racit bully, and you come up with this? And the worst part is, he's right. One of the causes of the financial crisis were policies that provided incentives for banks to lower lending standards, combined with lack of supervision of what they did with the loans.
Now, could you please go tell us what business deals Donald Trump's boys have been doing overseas since January 2017? Could you tell us what he and Putin talk about when they meet? Please?
5
Eh, no-one's perfect.
2
Bloomberg was right then, just as he would be now in stating this. No one should be given a 30-year mortgage unless they prove they are capable of paying said mortgage.
However, If there is proof that a person walked into a bank/lender and was discriminated against in their pursuit of a mortgage solely based on their zip code, even if they met all the financial criteria, then there’s a problem.
But of course it’s not about financial ability and/or zip codes, is it NYT? As usual, it’s about stirring up racial animus.
The Times is beyond obvious as to how they dispense ‘news’ to try to influence opinions at timely junctures...aka political primaries and elections.
If you want to focus on something productive that could actually help people struggling financially in the here and now, how about a thorough investigation into how insurance companies are legally allowed to charge higher premiums based on credit scores?
4
Mr Bloomberg's comments on the mortgage crisis were exactly correct. The Democratic politicians thought everybody should own a home. As a result of their efforts literally anybody who applied for a mortgage got one. It was insane and Bloomberg correctly characterized the situation. Anybody who believes that these were racist comments is clearly a racist and should look hard in the mirror. Do you really believe the only poor neighborhoods are those of minorities? There are far more poor white people than minorities. The liberal ultra left would have you believe otherwise and they are wrong and divisive to attempt it.
4
Additionally, there is a published study that clearly states that the brunt of the foreclosures in 2007/2008 were not subprime loans, but speculative real estate loans taken out by borrowers that would not have likely been redlined.
Furthermore, that study concluded that the resulting loan reductions to subprime borrowers made it unlikely that they could have taken advantage of the market correction in home values that would have allowed disadvantaged buyers to finally afford a home. Bloomberg had it wrong twice.
2
Anybody who has lived and actually taken positions has made mistakes. Besides looking at the person's motives at the time, one has to look at whether he learned from them, apologized and didn't repeat them. Bloomberg made some, apologized and moved forward. Contrast this with Trump who never admits, apologizes or learns - just, doubles down.
4
While he may not have been eloquent, Bloomberg is absolutely correct.
To be clear, I believe redlining should be illegal. However, there was a concerted effort by Democrats in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s to use the power of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure anyone and everyone who wanted a home loan got one, whether or not it was well deserved.
Their intentions were noble but the consequences were disastrous. Unfortunately, not everyone should be a homeowner and the loose lending standards pushed by the Democrats largely helped unravel the housing market.
I believe that’s what Bloomberg was alluding to. I don’t think he meant that minorities should be discriminated against.
12
Bingo. Well said
1
Research proved that the housing crisis was caused by two things: 1) incorrect credit risk ratings, 2) housing speculators and flippers. The way things have been characterized, poor naive people taking out big loans, was not a leading factor. It’s just easier to understand and fits a narrative people were expecting.
@Marcus
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae loosened their lending standards with major push from President Clinton, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd.
Here is a direct quote from Barney Frank:
“I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing."
That is what Frank said in September 2003 when he was warned about the possibility that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were precipitating a subprime-mortgage crisis that presented a systemic risk to global finance.
The issue of race and racism is, of course, critical for the Democratic party and its nominee for president. Today's attacks on Michael Bloomberg seek to paint him as a racist. But, is he anymore a racist than Joe Biden with his prior record opposing school busing and authoring the crime bill that incarcerated tens of thousands of minorities? Is he any more racist than Pete Buttigieg who's never really given a clear answer to why he fired a black police chief? Or, is he any more racist than Amy Klobuchar who clearly bungled a case that improperly has jailed a black teenager and who's been asked to resign from the race by those in her hometown? It's beginning to sound like every major Democratic candidate has a race issue that will limit turnout by the core African-American community essential to defeat Trump. And, do any of these Democrats come near to the blatant, cruel racist white nationalism of Trump? Perhaps the Democrats need to confront this issue before it weakens their nominee and allows a real out-and-out racist to be re-elected.
101
@Paul Wortman Sounds to me like none of those four candidates should be the nominee, then.
And as bad as the "not good" race records of Biden (Obama proximity notwithstanding), Buttigieg, and Klobuchar are, I don't think any of them compare to overseeing, and then defending until it was no longer politically expedient to do so, a system of race-based profiling that deprived millions of people of basic civil liberties for a decade.
7
@Paul Wortman
It's beginning to sound like every major Democratic candidate has a race issue that will limit turnout by the core African-American community essential to defeat Trump."
What are the deficiencies of Senators Warren and Sanders or Steyer in the matter of race? Mayor Pete's and VP Biden's problems are well known.
5
@Paul Wortman yes he is more racist, because now he's been caught twice actively promoting explicitly racist policies, and expressing them in a racist manner. That's different than say, negative or unwanted side effects of poorly designed policy. One is a mistake and the other is targeted racism.
5
When I was young and started to earn a steady income in the theater business, I was constantly offered low cost loans to buy property. I asked my father about the deals. And he pointed out that buying a house was more than making a mortgage payment. It was the overhead. And more than likely I could never afford. I didn't buy a house. Friends did. Great investment. All. All lost their properties and ruined their credit.
8
Interesting that all this is coming out now. I assume Trump's people are furiously digging up anything they can find. Next up, Georgina and Emma Bloomberg tied to Burisma!!!
I'm not saying Bloomberg is perfect, but he's not the clear and present danger that Trump is.
8
@K10031 I see him as clear and present danger. I wouldn't pick a new improved version of trump.
3
Well, I am sure that Mike is spending tens of millions of dollars to dig up dirt on Trump. So, let him get taste of his own medicine.
Right on. Russians have started already on MB
I wish the media would stop writing negative articles about the Democratic potential candidate. Please just stop. My first choice is not Bloomberg but I will vote for him should he be the nominee. I want Trump out of office. For the sake of my children and grandchildren please stop.
8
@KLM Its quite literally the job of news outlets to report both good and bad things about candidates, even if its not flattering to your preferred political party. Journalists cannot and should not report only good things about someone to achieve a political end. There's a word for that.
You want to muzzle the press and suppress the first amendment, prevent the truth so that a billionaire can get elected to beat Trump? This country is in danger of becoming like Russia.
Hopefully Bloomberg candidacy is done now.
Warren said it best. “I’m surprised that someone running for the Democratic nomination thinks the economy would be better off if we just let banks be more overtly racist... we need to confront the shameful legacy of discrimination, not lie about it like Mike Bloomberg has done.” Senator Elizabeth Warren for President 2020
12
Why all Democrats candidates are expected to have totally squeaky clean record throughout their entire life?
Stop knit-picking.
Why the media never pursue the fact after reporting Trump's thousands lies and gives him a free pass?
7
Is this supposed to be scandalous?
These comments, like his frisking comments, are not expressing racist views. He did not set out on an overt racist campaign to trample on the rights of minorities. Cut the guy some slack.
I keep asking myself what's the point of all this? That the best-positioned candidate to defeat Trump should be cast aside because of decades-old comments? Why are these comments being construed to reflect Bloomberg in the worst possible light? Do people think he's actually a terrible racist?
I don't get a vote in your election, but like the rest of the world I am watching with increasing anxiety as the Democratic party cannibalizes itself because it can't get past these self-imposed purity tests. Not a winning strategy. There is no other candidate right now that can realistically win against Trump and actually govern your country.
Of course Bloomberg isn't perfect. If he wins I can guarantee that he will disappoint many people in a variety of ways. That's what we get out of a democratic system. But the key to this election isn't finding a perfect candidate with all of society's solutions; the key is preserving a liberal democracy that has led the world in a half-century of peace. Believe me, Trump is bad news for other nations whose right-wing parties are emboldened by his antics and are mimicking his behaviour. Give him 4 more years and all bets for the future are off. This election is bigger than stop and frisk and 'redlining'
17
I don't care. He's far from a perfect person or leader, yet he still is a man that I respect and that respects everyone. The current person in the white house has no respect for anyone unless they can do something for him and then if they say anything untoward about him, he says he's never known that person. The current person in the white house is a known criminal.
Mike also has the billions to beat trump. He has my vote.
9
one of the issues with redlining in its usually practiced form, was how it was used to simply ignore everyone of a certain neighborhood, ir color. meanwhile, plenty of people of either are worthy customers you just need to look. plenty of GIs after WW2, failed on paying off their houses, even with the GI advantages they received. they bought too much house, lost jobs, succumbed to their vices, etc...most cane from poor backgrounds, and all they had was GI loans. but the rates were fair, the banks helped them in times of crisis. but those days are gone. now its dont slip an inch, or youre gone! and if you're brown and slip 1/2 inch, you're doomed.
The housing meltdown was caused by the loosening of lending standards, driven by Republicans. Many people were affected but especially minorities. People were given loans with “undocumented” finances. Loans they couldn’t afford. Affordability was not even considered.
Mr. Bloomberg’s comments show an embarrassing lack of insight into how lending is done and into what redlining is. Never to late to learn, though. I think he has shown that.
1
The entirety of his comments haven’t been publicized. Of course redlining was (and is) a despicable practice. However, the mortgage crisis that contributed to the Great Recession was caused by banks giving mortgages to people—of all colors— who could not afford them, then selling those mortgages to investors. I mean, mortgages without 3 years of tax returns, without proof of reliable income, without good credit...I would think that he was trying to make that point, but I don’t know, since the entire discussion wasn’t provided.
1
"Oh yeah, but he's not a racist!," the moderates will cry.
As Bloomberg's ridiculous candidacy continues, how many more times will moderates equivocate any sense of ethics, morality, and common sense in favor of what this man has actually said and done? And who should that equivocation remind us of? For me, it is completely analogous to the Republican Party's capitulation and rationalization of Trumpism, nothing more or less.
Democrats, we can do far better!
5
@Joel On second thought, I'm pretty sure that some of the comments to this article, and the one from yesterday about Bloomberg's stop-and-frisk comments, have been made by bots. Maybe bots deployed by the Bloomberg campaign, and maybe by some other entity (not going to speculate, but 2016 should make us all wary).
Tryin' not to be paranoid, but I'm sure if the NY Times did some research into its Comments app here on the site, it probably would be true. Now that'd be a story!
Mike is wrong. Red lining was not in my opinion the primary cause of the 08 crash.
The cause was the change in policy which began under President Clinton. We heard "Every American deserves a decent house.". Freddie and Fannie were directed to buy up poor quality home loans in support of this policy. Banks followed the new rules - loaning money to people with little down. Sure some were African Americans...so what?
It was not racially motivated...just normal Democratic socialist nonsense. And it hurt us all.
5
@SEGokorsch Might want to read the NY Times' own reporting on this issue:
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html
Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
By Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Stephen Labaton
"...Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.
"As early as 2006, top advisers to Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn. As recently as February, for example, Bush was still calling it a 'rough patch.'
"The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis."
Bloomberg is assaulting our sense of reality by pretending to care about income equality but he is the poster boy for income inequality and racism. We don't need a closet trump in the white house, there are many other viable candidates #neverbloomberg
3
If he insults 100 religious or ethnic groups every day, he still will never catch up to Trump before the election.
6
That Bloomberg said it is one thing, that his campaign spokesman is playing fast and loose with the truth in a Trumpian manner is despicable.
2
Don’t bring me no bad news. Bloomberg may be ancient but he’s a buddy of all Democrats.
What is most disturbing wasn't his support of racist hyperbole reminiscent of Trump. What is disturbing is that he did so to cover for the real reason, excessive leverage used by investment banks through synthetic MBS. The blame wasn't on loans that defaulted. The blame belongs on leveraged bets on those mortgages. Bloomberg was deflecting blame from his investment bank clients and onto borrowers. Shameful.
5
NY times thanks for doing your part in making sure we all know Bloomberg isn’t perfect. Please do your part in making sure Trump is the last man (not using that term literally) standing.
If trump wins re-election we won’t have a country that even resembles the USA and I doubt if you’ll have a newspaper.
Trump has met his nemesis. Can we just leave it at that for now?
9
Who cares anymore? If, and it’s a big if, Bloomberg is best positioned with his resources to beat Trump then we are still better off.
The big changes will have to wait. That’s the cost of playing stupid politics in 2016.
We are in a full blown constitutional and moral crisis that threatens the very democracy and human rights principles we all depend on. In a word, many are fighting for their lives.
Bloomberg, Klobachar, Pete, Sanders...whoever. It can’t be Trump.
NYT would be better served explaining in detail why Trump cannot be elected a 2nd time and discuss tactics on how to beat him.
5
Why don't articles about Sanders refer to him as a "millionaire" and "owner of three homes?"
13
Now that Moneybags Bloomberg has shown himself to be a staunch advocate of racist policies such as Stop And Frisk and Redlining, can someone please explain to me the thinking of African-American leaders who flock to his banner? This utterly flummoxes me.
1
Shame on you Elizabeth Warren. You, as a professor, know exactly what government policies created the demand for subprime mortgages and that is what Mayor Bloomberg was discussing.
Once again, trying to get some leverage against an opponent unfairly.
13
"he argued that “ninety-five percent of your murders — murderers and murder victims — fit one M.O.” Specifically, he said, they were “male, minorities, 16 to 25.”
Before we enter the condemnation cycle it would surely be good to know whether his numbers were correct, whether he was misinformed or whether he was simply politically incorrect. It is unconscionable and bad journalism that Stevens does not supply us with the actual stats.
11
Gretchen Morgenson, business columnist for The New York Times, wrote in her book Reckless Endangerment that the 2008 financial crisis was caused by imprudent home mortgage lending promoted by the Clinton Administration. That wasn’t race-based, but it helped many who were harmed by red-lining. So there's some truth in Bloomberg’s claim.
6
The truth is not always politically correct.
12
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-11-30-9311300111-story.html
“…I have run across what appear to be several classic examples of political incorrectness and insensitivity by a major political figure…
“…So shocking are they that I hesitate even repeating them here for fear that they might cause widespread shrieking and fainting on the part of the politically proper…
“…Consider this statement:
“…nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then (I) look around and see someone white and feel relieved…
“…Or this observation about street danger in the cities:
“…This killing is not based upon poverty; it is based upon greed and violence and guns…
“…Let us examine what might be considered wrong with these remarks…
“…First quote: It could be viewed as racist for someone to say he hears footsteps, fears robbery, look over his shoulder, sees that it is only a white person, and feels relief…
“…Second quote: Greed? Plain nastiness? That flies in the face of the belief that only social conditions cause our widespread street violence…
“…You would be run off many college campuses for such simplistic offenses. Most public radio producers would hyperventilate if a guest uttered such heresies…
“…But these statements came from one of this country's best-known public figures….
“…No, it isn't Sen. Jesse Helms or any other...right-winger….
“…Would you believe Rev. Jesse Jackson…
3
What people fail to understand is that redlined black communities were economically diverse, with poor and middle income families. Being a qualified buyer who is discriminated against because of race and and being a lower-income prospect preyed on by banks two very different wrongs.
The myth that black people are NEVER qualified for mortgages is a lie that needs to be put to rest. Bloomberg is a racist, just like Trump. The problem is racism is no longer a red line. There are probably people who will gravitate to Bloomberg because of his unearthed racist beliefs.
3
These is some truth to what Bloomie said. The government, specifically HUD, did encourage banks to lend money to sub-prime individual borrowers and when the borrowers could not repay the loans the loans, the banks and the real estate market tanked.
And do we know who was the actually behind that? It was none other than our dumb governor Cuomo who headed HUD at that time.
There is a hardly a single individual who has caused more damage than this whining clown Cuomo.
https://www.villagevoice.com/2008/08/05/andrew-cuomo-and-fannie-and-freddie/
5
Hizzoner is all but redlining himself from having any chance to bag this nomination. First the stop and frisk and now this. I for one would hope that he would have some guts to stand up to this scrutiny and speak the truth - unvarnished, w/o any silly apologies. And they call Trump the biggest liar.
BTW, Does anyone want the Democratic Nomination at all? I mean all of these guys are looking like milquetoast now. Biden has fallen asleep and gone into a coma. Warren is running out of breath and money and we aren't even in March yet. Mayor Booti has scored two lucky touchdowns and the angry old man who combs his hair with a balloon is looking angrier every day. And from the White House, the reality star is enjoying the show and throwing stones and thumbing his nose at the Justice Dept.
God help us all in November. No one else can.
1
Lending was very loose prior to the housing meltdown. Let me share a personal story: My wife and I have very good friends of 20 years. They are illegal immigrants from Mexico, one who never went to school and one with a third grade education. He works as a landscaper and she is a stay-at-home mom. Back in 2006 or so they purchased a $700,000 (!) house with a "NINJA" loan (no income, no job and no assets). These loans were real. Of course they lost it quickly. Bloomberg is not too far off in his comments.
9
Bloomberg was asked "How did we get here. What are the root causes?"
Bloomberg has never been known to be the most eloquent speaker. His reply was certainly not the most articulate way of putting it, but I think he was simply drawing an historic line of bad practice after bad practice in the housing and mortgage industry. I do not see it as him blaming the financial and housing crisis on ending of redlining.
The push to end redlining, which needed to be ended, beget looser lending standards, until ultimately we got to the early to mid-2000s, and anyone with a pulse could get a mortgage for more than the house they were buying was worth.
I find it extremely hard to believe that Bloomberg in any way supports or ever supported the idea of redlining.
12
Yes, agree with many of the comments. Just because some truths are unpalatable does not make them lies. There should be a relentless march towards a more just and equitable society, but ignoring facts, and shutting down speakers of truth is not going to change any fundamentals. In this world that has seemingly lost it’s mind, appearance has become more important than reality. I know no end of passionate young Bernie supporters whose Starbucks and Whole Foods bills are still being paid by their parents...because, hey, their virtue-signaling looks so good on social media. Who’s got time to work? Or actually rationally apply one’s mind?
5
Bloomberg is describing what Redlining is here. How is this offensive in any way?
The portion of this speech quoted in the article was a description of the practice. He does not appear to have defended or advocated for the practice.
Am I missing something here?
13
Bloomberg is an authoritarian Republican. The fact that establishment Dems are more comfortable with him than Bernie Sanders is quite telling.
4
If there is any hope at all of terminating Trump's tenure in office this November, it is going to be the nomination and election of Mike. So of what value is all of this smearing of Mike? It only helps Trump. Bernie will not defeat Trump.
5
I’m sure Trump and friends will be running with all the negativity on Bloomberg, hoping to help the Democrats nominate Sander’s. Then they can suffer another four years, on how they didn’t get it right, again.
5
It amazes me that people find it reasonable to compare what Bloomberg did to what Trump has done and is doing.
9
When you compare what Bloomberg has accomplished in the public and private realm versus any other democrat in the race (and certainly against Trump) he is more impressive by a factor of at least 10.
13
"The hope among his advisers is that Democratic voters who see him as the best chance to defeat President Trump will be inclined to take a forgiving view of the elements of his record and persona that they find troubling."
Is he really the one best positioned to beat trump? First it was stop and frisk, and now its redlining. He strikes me as a very wealthy man with a very wealthy man's POV.
With FDR, he was at least willing to go after his peers (that's why the wealthy of that time considered him a traitor to his class). Warren is similar in that she was a highly regarded registered republican and a corporate lawyer who argued for the very interests she is now going up against (e.g. Wall Street).
Bloomburg doesn't strike me as someone yet who will go up against his peers; or if he tries, with the same ferocity as Warren or Sanders have. His dismissive attitude towards trump sounds like a member of the hoi polloi stating "dear boy, you are mistaken."
How Bloomberg handles himself at the upcoming debates will determine whether his money to date has been well spent.
I hate to say it but I keep seeing more and more of these historical incidents come out.
If moderates what to push someone palatable to progressives, I would push klobuchar or Buttigieg, not Biden or Bloomberg
1
Sometimes good intentions (end redlining) lead to bad results. It happens. Subprime lending, in housing and elsewhere, was a racket, and it's that racket that's partly to blame for 2008. Those racketeers didn't live in those neighborhoods, they just preyed on them from computer terminals.
2
It would be nice if the politics of inclusion were used to defeat the Republicans rather than having the politics of race divide the Democrats.
8
Just one more reason why the Democratic Party leadership should keep looking for a moderate candidate, and not settle for third-best, which is what Bloomberg is -- if that.
1
In the quote provided in this article, Bloomberg DEFINES the context of his statement. "Redlining, if you remember, was the term where banks took whole neighborhoods and said, ‘People in these neighborhoods are poor, they’re not going to be able to pay off their mortgages, tell your salesmen don’t go into those areas.’” Lenders do not care what you look like. All they ask is are you profitable, or not?
5
I can't belive anyone except the already well-off is even thinking of supporting Bloomberg. He is clearly in the corporate billionaires' corner, reinforces the status quo, and will bring no relief to the millions of victims of income inequality.
2
@Allison
Do your research. He advocates raising taxes significantly on the wealthy.
This view by Michael Bloomberg isn't really surprising. It's a little bit surprising that he allowed himself to be recorded as saying it, but he seems to have been so clueless on why racial discrimination is wrong that he couldn't understand that he was saying something bad. If he at least partly knows better now, it's only because he understands that the people whose votes he needs mostly think differently. Remember that Mr. Bloomberg's political history is as a Republican. Unlike Elizabeth Warren, there's no sign at all of Mr. Bloomberg's having an "aha" moment, when he understood that his previous beliefs were mistaken. He's only running for the Democratic nomination because he can't run for the Republican nomination with even the slightest hope of success, and he really wants to be president both because he just really wants to, and because he wants to help keep the world safe for billionaires (who, by no accident, are overwhelmingly white males).
It isn’t presented as his view. He was describing redlining, not ascribing to it, or saying it was good. Get a grip.
When I read and re-read Bloomberg's quote, I see only description, probably accurate if not complete, of a complex situation. I see no blame, and no prescription. He's seems to me to be looking at things the way a scientist does.
Warren and others just look silly, saying things like "the end of redlining didn't cause the 2008 crash", when Bloomberg never said it did.
10
No one is surprised. Those views are common in Bloomberg circles. Stealing just because it's there is not a virtue. What the bankers did is take advantage of a situation that was created by ill intentioned real estate brokers. All of those people are friends of Bloomberg.
1
Bloomberg and Biden have both done questionable things. Biden really hurt millions of African American families through his push for mandatory minimums and the like.
Biden was the TBTF Democratic point man pushing the 2005 Bankruptcy reform bill that made it nearly impossible for every citizen to clear their credit history through Chapter 7, all the while allowing big corporations to keep that right and this all created giant profits for banks and credit card companies while turning American workers, who suffered 40 years without inflation-adjusted wage growth into defacto wage slaves.
Biden is to be the establishment choice of the TBTF, the military-industrial complex, big pharma, GMO, and other major Wall St. interests in my opinion.
His positions on our massively racist incarceration injustice system are as much a violation of the spirit of the Constitution and this nation as is Bill Barr and his subservient commitment to whatever Leonard Leo and his puppet Trump want.
I don't know much about Bloomberg but I don't want another billionaire in office. In my view, no one should have that level of concentration of wealth and after 10 or 20 million, whatever a person generates should go to the common good of our fellow Americans and U.S. companies should pay taxes on money they make from any division or factory they may have overseas.
There is so much hypocrisy and willingness to spin stories without looking at all the facts.
2
Since no one agrees with anyone on everything, let's not nominate anyone and let Trump run unopposed. That'll solve nothing.
6
Are we to believe a morality tale that claims the least economically powerful people in America caused an *international* financial crisis?
If you keep digging, I'm certain there will be evidence to be found on every candidate.
For most minorities- housing discrimination is just part of the American-fabric-of-life; we aren't surprised or amazed by the *news* in this piece.
But just remember who WAS actively discriminating against blacks seeking housing. Remember who was fined: Remember whose family member owns tens of thousands of poorly maintained rentals in minority-dominated communities.
Remember; remember. Remember.
4
Yesterday's NYT said only Bloomberg could "save".the Dems from progressive candidates. Today we're reminded that 1/5 of Democrats would never vote for Bloomberg, the lifelong Republican
I can’t believe what I’m seeing in this comment section. Democrats defending discriminatory lending practices and blaming the housing crisis on the poor. Democrats are also excusing the same candidate for militarizing the NYPD for the purpose of occupying minority neighborhoods. We have seen so much moral compromise on the right for the sake of standing behind Trump. I don’t want to see the democrats take the same path with Bloomberg.
I don't think Mike Bloomberg is a racist. I do, however, think that he harbors some racist ideas about black people in particular, and not consciously.
While I find this offensive on a personal level and problematic from a policy perspective, I very much doubt these stories will negatively impact his campaign for the simple reason that I think his views reflect those of most Americans. In my experience, even Democratic voters have some deeply held racial prejudices, as we also suffer from deeply rooted misogyny. Articles like this will ultimately do very little to derail a Bloomberg candidacy.
28
@firefly
"I don't think Mike Bloomberg is a racist. I do, however, think that he harbors some racist ideas about black people in particular, and not consciously. "
These two sentences make no sense. Harboring racist ideas is, indeed, a qualification that makes one racist.
20
@firefly
Ah, I really get that. But why is it so difficult to really let it sink in, the impact he had on minorities and the impact he had on many women whom he worked? It seems like it would take so little and do so much just to acknowledge it publicly in a meaningful way.
5
@firefly
Sorry..trying to psychoanalyze the "deeply held racial prejudices" of Democratic voters is idiotic.. But I guess you're trying to give a pass to the 'unconscious racial ideas' of Bloomberg. (By the way, conscious or not..its still racist).
... it may not derail his candidacy, but it should raise some serious questions about his character..
--And he has lost my vote.
5
Bloomberg is right in this respect - lenders handed out loans like candy to anyone and everyone. No checking of affordability. Housing prices were going skyward and the lenders gave anyone who came in a mortgage because the lender could always sell the defaulted property at a profit.
Was it because of attacks on redlining? No, but in an obtuse way, yes, because the potential buyers who were redlined out were now fair game for the abuses that took place during the bubble leading to the recession. But so was anyone else fair game. All warm bodies could apply and be given a loan, ability to pay the loan back was a minor consideration and unimportant detail.
I understand Bloomberg’s comments from a business perspective. I disagree with the assertion he thought redlining was a fine policy. It was not, still is not and housing discrimination continues unabated.
55
@ArtM
Well stated. I also think Bloomberg meant his redlining comment in terms of a business perspective. The housing crisis was largely caused by real estate professionals and lenders pushing loans on people who had little hope of keeping up the payments (unless they 'flipped' it), in pursuit of their own commissions. I have feared something similar now, with Trump pushing for lower and lower interest rates which make it easier to borrow and make people feel richer, but which must inevitably rise. We could easily be facing another bubble, with millions unable to maintain their loans in a higher interest rate.
5
@ArtM
Really though? They made huge money on subprime loans and many many middle lower middle class and middle class white people. The mortgage brokers, the banks were responsible for that.
3
@ArtM Well said. Thanks. Bloomberg isn't my 1st or 2d choice, but I find the attacks troubling. The fact is, he wasn't running for President all his adult life (unlike some others) and he didn't choose every word he ever said with a view to the be-100%-politically-correct-or-you're-cancelled mentality of 2020 progressive politics.
Lots of good people are going to be precluded even from seeking public office if this mentality continues.
5
I went to buy a VERY nice car my second year out of college. After reviewing my savings and weekly income the bank said no. Years later I wanted to make an offer on a nice home. I needed more money than my meager salary could cover so I had to find a much cheaper house which I did.
1
Many years ago I worked as an auditor and the client was a popular savings bank which had the best record of lending in these areas. When the savings banks were going under, the bank was thriving. The reason: if you could make the mortgage payments you got the loan. People in these areas would always pay their mortgages before anything else. These were transit workers, nurses, police, and firefighters, among others. In those days banks held the mortgage until it was paid off.
What changed was the banks selling mortgages and combining them into investments. Banks didn't have any skin in the game. Back then, bankers would go to any length not to foreclose: they would say: "We're not in the real estate business". Put the blame where it belongs, on the banks.
20
Bloomberg is correct. Indiscriminate loans contributed heavily to the 2008 crisis. My Admin was approved for a $250,000 loan on a property which she never could have made the interest payments for. The property was offered at a greatly inflated price due to the ease of getting loans even if unqualified. Today that property is worth less than half. Fortunately, I talked her out of the purchase.
18
This is like the adage of how gaff is defined: when a politician accidentally says something true, that everyone else is afraid to say. Many minorities and poor people brought lawsuits after the housing crisis, literally complaining that the banks made loans to them that they had applied for - but couldn't really afford. So, the banks get in trouble if they don't lend to people in the lower class (which will invariably affect black people more), and they get in trouble if they do loan to them. It would be nice to see some statistical analysis of this, but instead we get glib quotes from progressive "experts" that Bloomberg's comments are "without evidence" (says who?) or the banks' practices are racist no matter what they do.
117
@R.P.
I used to do such statistical analysis.
One thing we found was that most of the subprime lending (which led to most of the foreclosures) was done by mortgage companies, not banks -- although many banks had mortgage companies as subsidiaries.
The much maligned Community Reinvestment Act, for which the right likes to blame the mortgage crisis, only applied to banks, not mortgage companies.
In short, by far and away most of the foreclosures were from loans made outside of any influences of the CRA.
17
Let's face it is unfair when you deny the loan to the people based on where they live rather on basis what is their ability to pay.
4
Here we go again. Just as in 2016, the press “discloses” isolated actions and statements that have only the most trivial relationship to a democratic candidate’s accomplishments and qualifications, presented in placement and tone as if something major has been unearthed. Thus good and imperfect people are made to appear equivalent to the truly evil, all in service of some twisted idea of fairness.
203
@Dan
Yes, how dare the press report on a presidential candidate's "words" and "record". Bloomberg is not an "imperfect person". He's a racist, classist, oligarch.
11
This seems pretty in line with what we know about Bloomberg, rather than some one off trivial statement though.
2
@Dan - nail on the head, Dan.... NY Times did a great job of undercutting Hilary in 2016 helping give us the joys of trump.... looks like they will give us Bernie as the nominee who is the one guy that Trump is absolutely salivating to get in the general....
great job being fair and balanced NY Times.....and helping America die in the process.
12
Nothing remarkable here. It is by now well known that the single most important factor in the 2008 financial crisis was the banks’ extending of loans to borrowers who could not afford them — and that the prime villain who pressured the banks to do so was HUD Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo.
60
Well actually, it wasn’t the loans that were the problem. It was the banks ability to slice and dice questionable loans and sell them off as AAA. If they hadn’t been able to sell the loans at an attractive price, they wouldn’t have made the loans.
9
Yeah, because they have the loans such people as Trump who was really bad in paying loans and yet got them anyway. But Bloomberg was not talking about Trump, right?
2
@Ken M.
That is frankly just a part of the story. The banks gave loans to people who couldn’t afford them and then quickly packaged those mortgages and sold them on the market. They knew exactly what they were doing. No one forced them to any of that. They wanted to make as much money as possible.
4
The man is a Republican. People need to understand that. He's a Republican. Ask Senator Toomey and the Republican Senate majority.
43
@BarryNash He was a Democrat before he was a republican. He only became a republican because it was easier to win Mayor as a republican. Everyone knows that!
2
No Barry Nash. He’s not a Republican, Democrat or Independent. Those are labels one must wear to run for office. Bloomberg is Bloomberg. Twelve years as mayor of New York and not a hint of scandal; no corruption, no self dealing; no pay to play, etc. From nothing he made more money than everyone on this planet save several capitalists and members of some royal families—I’m guessing a dozen or two. He strikes me as someone who has ethics and morals. In short, the opposite of Trump, who has been a joke in NYC for forty plus years. The coasts are too savvy to be suckers to Trump’s con. Flyover states, not so much with the savvy. Plain ‘ole common sense might be good for planting soybeans, but not for assessing character.
3
Bloomberg was discussing one of the reasons for the 2008 crash. This being the questionable practice of providing mortgage loans to folks who had limited resources with a meager downpayment.
This amounted to banks holding loans that could not be paid back. The banks were well aware of the risks. The banks should have known better. Some called it predatory lending. I'm not sure why Bloomberg is being blamed here for simply stating facts.
50
Because he is not blaming the banks for their bad practices, but rather prefer to blame the people whom the bank denied the loan because of the location of their home.
2
@Paula Jo Smith
No, that's not what he said. He blamed redlining, which is about race, not resources. Read the first paragraph of the article again.
2
Yes, Mike is a horrible human being. Thanks for letting us know.
You tried the same tactic with Pete and look how it backfired.
Trump's campaign has even more dirt on him if the NY Times wants it. Just ask them and they will be happy to oblige.
This terrible person was a mayor of the largest, most diverse city in America, worked as a valet parking cars to get through college, is one of the leading philanthropists in the world ( major supporter of Sierra Club, number one fighter for gun control+), and is working overtime to fund the largest effort currently to remove Trump from office.
He spent $80 million dollars to flip congressional seats ( 20 of 42 so that Pelosi is now the leader there) vs.Bernie's PAC which flipped zero seats.
For this he needs to be condemned by the Times.
Good work for such outstanding journalism.
I don't buy it.
Mike is going to be our nominee and boot Trump out pronto.
184
Bernie created momentum to flip the seats. Don't forget that all money could not safe Dems from compete defeat in 2016
6
@Simon Sez Well said. The Times is really hoping for a second Trump term it seems.
6
Thank you Simon. Well said.
4
Michael Bloomberg is an affront to all those who are not in his economic class
This is from 2018. Mike Bloomberg: Raising Taxes on Poor People is "a good thing because the problem is in people who don't have a lot of money"
Let's hope this ends up in a Sanders ad and goes viral
https://youtu.be/Mkf_Wc_WaCU
Michael Bloomberg is an affront to people of color. Stop and Frisk and broken windows policing Tare unforgivable lapses in moral judgment and a sign of authoritarianism that cannot be forgotten or ignored. As president, what authoritarian policies would his bent push him toward in a nation that already has a big problem with authoritarian rule?
Bloomberg is running as a democrat because, again, he couldn't win as a Republican. His beliefs are oligarchic not democratic. They are selfish and self-serving. They are sexist (today's news is that he rejoined a racist and sexist club quietly after being forced to quit in 2001). And, yes, they are racist.
Expressions of regret one month before announcing are invalid.
46
"The problem" he was referring to was obesity, which is exacerbated by sugary drink consumption. He suggests that taxing sugary drinks will cause the people hardest hit by obesity- the poor- to drink fewer sugary drinks.
According to a NY Times article from 3 days ago: "By 2030, nearly one in two adults will be obese, and nearly one in four will be severely obese." The article also states: "the sugar and beverage industries have blocked nearly every attempt to add an excise tax to sugar-sweetened beverages."
Sounds like Bloomberg is taking on big business to work on an urgent problem in this country, and you are taking his words and intentions completely out of context.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/10/well/live/half-of-us-face-obesity-dire-projections-show.html
6
@Rima Regas
Time passes. Affronts are softened by apologies. Political contexts evolve. Contexts not all of Bloomberg's making.
Change is manifest here.
Return in two/three months. Re -assess.
I see virtue here now.
And how to allow and broaden the access to the demise of Trump.
Have you established certainty?
1
@Rima Regas
You support Bernie, it appears from your over the top language.
I recognize it well since I was a card carrying member of the left for 30 years. I, too, used to yell fascist and racist at anyone who disagreed with me.
We are dealing with a genuine racist and fascist in Trump. To suggest that a Socialist ideologue is going to send him packing is ludicrous.
Mike is a blessing from on high.
I seriously doubt that we have a chance to get rid of Trump without him stepping up to the plate.
5
In the spirit of what I believe my democratic party's core values are - compassion, empathy, and forgiveness, and in light of the fact that black congresspeople have come out in pragmatic support of Bloomberg, despite stop-and-frisk, I am willing to forgive you, Mr. Bloomberg, if you have changed your ways, and if you will stand up to Mr. Trump. You are not my first choice, however. I would much prefer to see Bernie Sanders nominated and elected. But, perhaps pragmatism is the only solution in desperate times.
21
@OnABicycleBuiltForTwo Good comment. I believe Bloomberg was referring to the banks becoming greedy through predatory lending that in turn had another adverse effect on low income people in former redlined areas. Then the predators cashed in again when bankruptcy or mortgage defaults snatching up the former low income neighborhood properties and “gentrifying” and the poor are pushed out again.
2
@OnABicycleBuiltForTwo
Yes. Good. OK.
1
So perhaps we should just do character assassination on every candidate until there’s no one left? I’m already so sick of all this. No one is perfect, and expecting otherwise is a sure recipe for disaster. I expect this publication to be far above average, but I’m more and more disappointed by the constant negative coverage of seemingly every candidate, every day. Can’t you find anything positive, on occasion, to write about these people? All of them are braver than I will ever be, because I’d never have the courage to step into the snake pit of politics today. Nothing and no one is sacred or safe anymore. As for me, I like Mike. I also like Joe, and Amy, and Elizabeth, and Pete, and yes, even Bernie. So please. Stop leading the circular firing squad. You make me weep for my country, what’s left of it.
189
@T Garrow They aren't negatively covering Warren and Klobuchar as much as the rest because the Times has endorsed them.
8
@T Garrow Reporting what a politician has said is in no way "character assassination." That's absurd. Bloomberg said these dumb things, and people should know!
8
@T Garrow I completely agree with you. It seems these columnists just take enormous glee in tearing down every Democratic candidate, one by one-- except maybe the two they've endorsed. Way to go to help us lose the election.
9
Any day now Bloomberg is going to pride himself on being a very stable genius. Each day he sounds more LIKE Donald Trump, not a reliable departure from him. The DNC should redline Bloomberg from the primaries and the convention.
19
@teach
Do that and ensure a win for Trump.
Unlike all the worthwhile candidates now running against each other-despite their positive talents/qualities...insufficient grasp for their reach...there is Bloomberg.
More than equal to the travesty that passes as president.
Watch him do the thing that we need.
2
Few things were more disgusting about the economic collapse than Wall Street types peddling the damnable lie that ordinary homeowners and not themselves were responsible for all the trouble. It turns my stomach to hear that.
Bloomberg has no more empathy for ordinary Americans than Donald Trump. Everybody knows it.
37
I don’t think anyone blames “ordinary homeowners” for the financial crisis. Banks and mortgage companies extending credit to people who could not afford to make the payments (which is a pretty valid, and factual, point by Bloomberg) is (1) still placing blame on the banks and mortgage companies; and (2) has nothing to do with the average homeowner who can afford their mortgage. Subprime borrowers, irresponsible use and extension of credit, and lending people more money than they can pay back has quite literally nothing to do with your comment on “ordinary homeowners.” Please do some reading on the financial crisis and re-read Bloomberg’s comments, which however not PC are blatantly true.
1
Well, the circular firing squad is blasting away. In another month or two, there won't be anyone left standing but Trump.
Bloomberg was wrong about the start of the crisis. But in 2008, no one knew how the collapse got started. It took years of investigations to uncover the incredible complexity of credit default swaps, AIG selling policies over and over again, the massive leverage in the system, and all of the other sordid details that blew up the banking system. The people that used these purported foolproof financial instruments had no idea how they worked. They only knew that they were making a fortune until it all blew up.
Bloomberg's comments back then were largely based in ignorance, tainted with a dose of rich guy superiority, motivated by frustration. Conservative media was pounding this excuse day and night. Looks to me like Bloomberg fell for it.
But the circular firing squad must have more ammunition. It will purify the candidates till no viable ones are left. That's what Democrats are good at. Self immolation.
But you know what? Statements like these will be well received by pre-Trump Republicans. Bloomberg could very well gain more votes from them than he loses for being a sometimes insensitive rich guy. That is, if he survives the circular firing squad. Trump must be enjoying this.
69
@Bruce Rozenblit
Oh, please. The housing bubble was noted years in advance by people like Dean Baker, and it was no secret the market was surfeited with bad loans, solicited and written by huge mortgage companies like Countrywide.
All this sounds like a reprise of the "nobody knew Sadaam didn't have WMD". Lots of people knew, and said so. It's just that some didn't care to listen, because it interfered with their program.
24
@Bruce Rozenblit
Bloomberg shot himself--enough already, please, of the tired "circular firing squad" trope.
Redlining was a well-established, well-known practice and he knew exactly what he was talking about and supporting.
Smug, self-satisfied blowhards don't make good Saviors.
4
Another spot on comment from Bruce. Doubters should read The Big Short by Michael Lewis. Or see the film.
3
This article totally fails to present a convincing argument why his point was racist or inaccurate. It just quotes a bunch of people who say so.
33
Yes, Mike Bloomberg's record as mayor warrants investigation, airing, and debate. But my question is this: Why did the New York Times and other news outlets give Trump a pass in 2016? If you had done your job then, we might not be suffering the remarkable threats to our democracy we are now. As a native New Yorker, I certainly knew that Trump was and is a vicious amoral narcissist, a crook, and a liar. Perhaps you should have alerted the rest of the country.
33
@AndreaW: I'll defend the Times here, because they printed plenty of negative stories about Trump, from his stiffing of contractors, to his hiring of undocumented workers, his bankrupting of casinos, his denial of housing to black families, his marital cheating, his multiple marriages, his sexual assaults on women, his paying off porn stars, his deceptive PR, and so on. I wouldn't know about any of these things had it not been for stories in the Times. It's not the Times' fault that people didn't read them or pay attention at the time.
2
None of this is particularly pleasant, but amidst a culture where black people are automatically blameless on everything they do or don't do, with woke excuse factories ever at the ready to address every deviation from strict black achievment parity, this trip down memory lane with grouchy old Mike's candid grousings is refreshing.
8
Redlining. Stop and frisk.
Save the billions, perhaps start a charity. Ain’t no way Bloomberg will be president.
4
@Full Name (required)
What? OOOH!
Wait.
I understand why the moderate, neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party is now breathlessly supporting Bloomberg for President. Biden is sinking fast and they are scared. Bloomberg may be acting evolved and woke now that he’s running for public office. But that’s the problem, it’s just an act. He has shown through his own words and actions over many decades that he is a racist, even if he insists he’s not, even if it’s deeply imbedded in his subconscious. He is a racist.
9
@Dabney L
The burden is on him to convince us that he has had an epiphany, like St. Paul on the road to Damascus.
I think the Dems should eviscerate Bloomberg. Four more years of Trump will free us all from the onerous rule of law. We will no longer have to be ashamed of the contradictions in our nation's history because our institutions will be in shambles and the philosophy behind the American experiment forgotten.
11
You know, instead of all the dire Times anti-Democrat headlines (“chaos” in Iowa, “panic” over Sanders, the racism of Bloomberg, etc., etc.), why doesn’t the editorial board just come right out and endorse Trump for office now so that the owners can continue to get their massive personal tax breaks and generate even more revenue from ongoing coverage of the Trump daily circus.
33
What I said is in no way indicative of what I mean.
Michael R Bloomberg
If that isn’t a politician, I don’t know what is...
8
I look forward to hearing what he has learned since then. I would welcome a President who learns from his/her mistakes.
18
whomever is finding these clips is getting a promotion. without the black vote you cannot win. regardless of what money you have. Keep talking bloomy.
1
"Redlining" which is the actual basis of our fake credit reporting system, is a name that comes from the practice of actually drawing a line in red ink on a map to designate where black people will not be allowed to live. It's the real estate "white's only" sign.
It was never about actual creditworthiness. The system of midwestern banks that post WWII started making this denial about credit because it was getting less and less acceptable to be racist to someone's face in professional settings used that excuse to avoid having the direct discussion of why they were denying perfectly decent people the ability to buy a home where they wanted to. It was a way to pretend they weren't doing anything wrong.
That system is the origin of the credit reporting system the republicans took national and imposed on us and gave them legal authority over our lives that they should not have in the reagan admin.
So once again Bloomy is a lyin weasel.
2
drip drip drip
1
Tired of the Time’s candidate bashing. How about covering substantive policy positions and issues instead of tabloid style journalism?
23
Please stop intentionally bashing the only Democratic nominee with a real shot of beating Trump. It’s pretty alarming that you don’t publish articles challenging the two candidates the Times did endorse.
20
Another example of NY times' unbiased news coverage. Great reporting!
CNN, MSNBC, FOX, are you listening?
4
Mike Bloomberg is a racist pure and simple. He not only has insulted blacks but also the Irish. He made a derogatory comment in 2011 that was quite insensitive. He is not fit to be president.
2
@KMW
And you forget that he said that he was short changed at a Korean market in 1974 while shopping.
So he is also a racist pig who hates Asians.
In 1998 he said that he wasn't fond of watermelon if it wasn't chilled so therefore he is denigrating stereotypes of black people and is a racist.
Keep it comin' Bernie people.
We have your number and on election day will let you know our response.
2
The end of “redlining” DID link the 2008 housing crisis to that year’s market slump. Of course, redlining was wrong, unfair, and unAmerican. However, its removal let unscrupulous mortgage brokers create loan packages beyond the finances of a lot of poor people who showed no ability to repay their mortgages. No-doc loaning practices ruled. When a buyer suggested a mortgage was beyond their paycheck, slick mortgage brokers assured them that their new home was a piggy bank. “Your $300K home will be worth $400K in a matter of months. You can borrow more to pay off the mortgage. You will get rich.” Fools rushed in. The prices of homes fell, and the mortgage fiasco destroyed America’s economy for a while. Mike Bloomberg told the truth, and the truth hurt a lot of innocent people, but don’t punish the messenger. Lock up the slick mortgage bundlers who created the mess (of course, that never happened; hucksters rarely get hurt by stepping on poor people).
10
And, don't forget:
Bloomberg was mayor of New York City when Wise, Salaam, Richardson, McCray, and Santana were exonerated. From the beginning, he vehemently argued that the City and NYPD had acted with probable cause in charging, prosecuting, and incarcerating the five teens. Further, his administration spent nearly $6 million over a decade to fight the Exonerated Five’s lawsuit against the city. As late as 2012, (Bloomberg left office in 2013), his administration continued to defend the City’s and NYPD’s actions. (https://www.essence.com/feature/michael-bloomberg-central-park-five-statement/)
59
@Evelyn Yet Trump is destroying America brick by brick. I don’t think this even compares a tiny amount to the destruction that trump is doing to our once great country.
2
Oh my goodness, NY Times. Let's rake Bloomie over the coals because he SAID THE TRUTH. And, to be clear, Bloomberg's comment was NOT about redlining, which is racist in intent. Rather, his comment was about congress relaxing lending standards so that people without money or with bad credit can buy homes. It has NOTHING to do with race and everything to do with pandering congressmen who risked the destruction of the world economy just so they could secure the vote of the low-income bloc in their districts.
If character assassination is your goal, you'd better try harder.
36
This “redlining as financial crisis cause” comment is disappointing coming from Michael Bloomberg. I just reread an excellent article by Barry Ritholtz in Bloomberg News, Sep 15, 2018, titled “10 things people still get wrong about the financial crisis” and redlining is one of those bogus causes. Everybody’s favorite scapegoat is on that list. I’m looking for a paper by Willen and Foote of the Boston Fed in the same vein but Ritholtz suffices here.
25
@Hamilton Lagrange And do you think all of the nuances of the cause were clear as day in September 2008, when Bloomberg made these comments?
2
Was he wrong ?
"In the 1990's under the administration of Franklin Raines, a Clinton Administration appointee, Fannie Mae began to demand that the lending institutions that it dealt with prove that they were not redlining. This meant that the lending institutions would have to fulfill a quota of minority mortgage lending. This in turn meant that the lending agencies would have to lower their standards in terms of such things as down payments and the required incomes. These subprime borrowers would be charged a higher interest rate. Having put the lending agencies into the position of granting subprime mortgages Fannie Mae then had to accept lower standards in the mortgages it purchased. That set the ball rolling. If a bank granted a mortgage to a borrower that was not likely to successfully pay off the mortgage then all the bank had to do was to sell such mortgages to Fannie Mae. The banks typically earned a loan origination fee when the mortgage was granted. The lending agencies could then make substantial profits dealing in subprime mortgages.
Thus the lenders could write the mortgages as adjustable interest rate mortgages knowing full well that an upturn in the interest rates could easily throw the borrower into insolvency. "
San José State University Department of Economics
The Nature and the Origin of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis
https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm
92
@Jintung Yes, he was wrong. Do you understand _everything_ in your mortgage agreement? Do you understand that you're saying "the global economic meltdown was caused by poor (and in the case of repealing redlining, black) people who wanted to own homes and generate wealth for the first time and not the banks who preyed on their vulnerability?"
10
@HX276 .M2782 If you read the transcript from the video, you can see that Bloomberg was citing the movement against redlining as a catalyst for banks to make loans to places they used to consider too risky. Once they started to do that, the banks kept on making more and more risky loans. That accelerated the RE bubble. Bloomberg was a bond trader and understand this history very well. I read his comments as historical in nature and not that he thought ending red-lining caused the financial crisis.
10
@Jintung Sorry, but Fannie Mae did not cause the mortgage crisis. The overwhelming majority of subprime loans were not made by banks and were not sold to Fannie Mae. They were made by non-bank lenders and sold to Wall Street conduits and sold to investors by those Wall Street banks. And the vast majority of borrowers that defaulted on their mortgages are white (else there wouldn’t have been the huge government response designed to keep defaulted borrowers in their homes). Ending discriminatory lending certainly did not cause the mortgage crisis. Simple greed on Wall Street did.
2
What about ending Glass-Steagall as a cause? Please, let's not blame everything on the poor. And the poor didn't get bailouts as did the banks, either.
16
I guess he forgot to mention Wall Street banks, Ivy league educated executives who decided it would be a good idea to take those subprime and Alt A loans , combine them with AAA rated loans and sell them to investors marketed as AAA investments.
There really are two sets of truth in this country.
16
Although retired now, as an attorney I saw the devastating fallout during the recession arising from loans to people who were not creditworthy and that stemmed in many cases from outright fraud by unscrupulous lenders who preyed on lower income people. I think Bloomberg’s comments are being distorted in order to harm his viability as a candidate. He didn’t praise the practice of redlining, but observed what actually happened. Keep up that circular firing squad and Trump is assured 4 more years.
110
Predatory lenders and credit default swaps created the mortgage crisis and Bloomberg know that but explained it badly.
Bloomberg should have anticipated this and his little op ed last week should have included a plan to address those harmed but never bailed out.
4
Let's face it, we will soon get more and more comments made by Bloomberg that, while technically correct, displays all the warmth and compassion of Mr. Burns of the Simpson.
12
How else does one become a billionaire?
1
That’s the standard Republican defense of bankers during the housing crash. The truth was that banks ran amok everywhere pumping up the market until it popped with fake appraisals, fake applications, and fake mortgage-backed-securities peddled as AAA investments. As a result, millions were foreclosed, and families, their wealth, and their neighborhoods were shredded. Then, banks bought back those houses for the fair market value they denied former owners, turning owners into renters. The former Mayor of New Yorker will have a hard time defending himself on this one.
2
@Sherry i read him to be saying the same thing as you.
That this so-called financial genius seriously attributed the housing bubble and mortgage packaging scam to wily poor people, who evidently duped the best analysts and engineers at American investment banks, along with the rest of the finance and banking industry, tells you exactly what to expect from a Bloomberg presidency.
There's no need for other people's money to corrupt Mike Bloomberg. His own has already done it.
4
The Fair Housing Act ended redlining more than 40 years before the 2008 housing crisis. There was no connection.
1
It is so easy to create confusion when we mix up closely related topics... then we can deflect blame. Many people of color, and many lower income people, were encouraged into betting their life savings to buy homes at inflated prices with 'creative' financing. The lenders profited handsomely; too many of the buyers lost forever the chance to enjoy the American Dream. The blame is on the predators, not the people they victimized. Just because you have financial sophistication and power does not give you the right to take advantage of others.
9
Bloomberg may have been inartful in how he said it but the fact is that banks did start lending to people whose income couldn't support repayment.
One of the reasons this happened is because mortgage lenders ran out of qualified buyers—meaning at the time making a 20 percent down payment and having an income sufficient to cover monthly mortgage payments, with an interest rate determined by the borrower’s credit score.
Having tapped out that stable market still with tons of homes to fill, they started cutting corners. Subprime mortgages to people with low credit scores exploded in the run-up to the 2008 crisis. Down payment requirements for those mortgages gradually dwindled to nothing. Lenders began turning a blind eye to income verification. Soon, there was a flood of very risky mortgages designed to get people into homes who couldn’t typically afford to buy them.
That's what Bloomberg was talking about.
The guy who actually did racially "red line" was Trump and his father.
31
This article makes several criticisms of Mike Bloomberg. But we should remember that all politicians make mistakes. Joe Biden, for example, pushed tough on crime policies responsible for high incarceration rates in the US. The incarceration rate in the US is 14 times as high as in Japan, for example. And those prisoners include many who are black.
What worries me about the coming election, however, are the factual misconceptions which are prevalent among followers of Sanders:
1. The US has enough resources to both provide universal health care to its poor and provide open borders for the poor of the third world.
2. Global warming can be fought without considering its cause, which is population growth.
Regarding 1, the population of Guatemala grows by about 340,000 per year. Just to deal with the growth, we would have to accept that many immigrants from Guatemala, and that's just one country!
We already have homeless encampments in LA and Seattle. Imagine what it will be like if we have a stock market crash and a recession! Where exactly do all the new immigrants go? In the 19th century they could move West, but West from where I live is the Pacific Ocean.
Democratic candidates all say that global warming is the most serious problem confronting the US.
But use of fossil fuels keeps increasing because population growth overwhelms attempts to shift from oil to solar and wind.
Bloomberg doesn't have solutions, but at least he won't lead a march based on fantasy.
6
@Blaise Descartes Won't he he led a March claiming that he had to undo the peoples vote on term limits because were were in such a dire financial crisis that only 4 more years with the nanny state could solve. It was a bold faced lie and he became enraged at a reporter who pointed out that the the numbers seem to point to an end in the "crisis" He snarled "You're a disgrace" at the reporter who he wrongly picked as one of the reporters he had planted there to deceive the public. He is just as bad as trump in my view #neverbloomberg
2
The financial crisis was created by a network of greed, a class of wealthy financial officers who profited wildly off of risky lending practices allowed due to deregulation.
Instead of acting as a safe guard against bad loans, providing sound with financial advise and helping the public, bankers and loan officers made bad loans for short term gain.
Bloomberg conflates this with a discriminatory lending practice, a lazy way to avoid bad loans that leads to our poorest individuals being shut out of an important part of our society.
Bloomberg is wrong and his greed is showing. Like most conservatives, he shares the view that if only we deregulated more, society would correct itself, if we stop policing these bankers they would stop being greedy.
History has shown this to be untrue.
2
Ok, so he was simply saying that in the effort to get rid of redlining, some people who were a poor credit risk got loans they weren't qualified for. What's the problem? What he said was true. Redlining was bad, but some got loans they shouldn't have. This is just scared opponents trying to smear Bloomberg. I'm having none of it.
12
So people of color are now responsible for the 2008 financial crisis -- must be all those bad derivative credit swap deals they were involved in. Oh no, almost forgot -- that was the banks. Give me a break.
24
For anyone interested in learning about housing discrimination should read “ The Color of Law” by Richard Rothstein. This informative book goes into detail about the policies of how US governmental policy encouraged housing discrimination to disfavor African Americans,Hispanics, and Jews.
These policies along with others have produced the residential and income inequality that exist to the present time.
Bloomberg is an opportunist who, -like countless politicians past and present, Democrats and Republicans- have exploited racial anxiety for political advantage. Few recall President Johnson’s truth when he said” if you tell a white person that he is better than a n...” you can pick his pocket. America has a long history of such politicians.
14
Mike Bloomberg was simply pointing out the financial facts and unintended consequences of the matter.
Banning redlining resulted in banks issuing riskier mortgages at higher interest rate to compensate for the extra risk.
Those mortgages were very fragile and were the first to shatter when the bubble burst.
80
I think Bloomberg would do us all a service if he would put aside his own personal ambitions to occupy the Oval Office and instead use his billions to help Democrats take control of both houses of Congress. A small act of selflessness, a huge benefit for our democracy.
31
@Stevem
I agree. We don't need to trade one narcissistic Republican oligarch for another.
4
"There is no shortage of material from Mr. Bloomberg's past for his opponent-- and the media --to comb through." How about June 2, 2017, ..."Michael Bloomberg has offered $15m to UN efforts to tackle climate change after president Donald Trump announced he is pulling he United States out of the Paris Climate Accord". There is NO "material" more important than the commitment to address Climate Change, which will impact all of us and, in particular, poorer communities.
29
@Moose There are skeletons in the closets of them all. If we're going to do archeological purity testing and disqualify people about things in the past there's plenty there. Warren was a Republican, Bernie gave speeches that inflammed anti-americanism and wrote a shockingly misogynistic article, Biden voted for wars, and on and on. Anyone who was active in those years did many things they would never do today. LBJ's use of racial slurs would disqualify him for sure, despite him working to pass landmark civil rights legislation and succeeding.
The only two questions I care about is whether they have changed their ways and what constructive things they have done. Climate change tops my list.
Since I'll be voting Blue for one of them in November, I want to look at what's going to happen going forward for each of them.
3
@Moose
Or how about all that money he gave to Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania -- helping to assure the Senate stayed Republican?
Bloomberg can beat Trump, and he has the capacity to be a good president. Bloomberg has proven capacity to lead large organizations, both business and government. Bloomberg has made mistakes in the past, but he owns up to his mistakes, and he has proven with his own actions that he is willing to take on the most difficult problems...climate change and gun violence to start. To defeat Trump and company in November, let Bloomberg and Sanders and the others compete in the realm of ideas right now, regarding what we are facing right now. Both Bloomberg and Sanders and the other Dem candidates are honorable people, let the best person win through ideas and experience. What Bloomberg is quoted as saying does not imply that he supported redlining, it implies that he had a theory on what helped fuel the crisis...and it is a proven fact that corrupt lending practices was part of it. He should be asked about his comment, but it's not right to say he supported redlining.
45
I was a realtor in 2008 and what Bloomberg says is true. The federal government, and Barney Frank and pals, required lenders to loan to minority buyers regardless of their ability to pay. Lenders used to be very cautious until the federal government decided everyone should own a home.
I ran into some of these potential buyers at open houses; in some cases their level of financial comprehension was heartbreaking. The lenders were business people, some unscrupulous, who would follow the requirements if they had to, but they sure weren’t about to lose money doing it.
78
@KLM
So that would suggest that vast majority of bad loans were made to minorities. But oh dear -- that's not remotely true. Because your description of the Federal requirement is deliberately incorrect, as is your conclusion. The banks caused the crisis, not government policy.
16
I am a lawyer and did work for a local bank that was pressured by the feds during this period to make loans to minority borrowers who were unqualified. Guess who later was retained to foreclose on homes and to repossess vehicles?
9
Actually, it was all of the above: the banks and the federal government, and Wall Street, and to a certain extent borrowers, who caused the crisis. It took a whole lot of bad behavior from a whole lot of people to cause the 2008 crash. Not everything is black and white you know. Sure, the largest share of the blame belongs to the banks and Wall Street, but you can't discount the other participants and their negligent behavior.
9
“It probably all started back when there was a lot of pressure on banks to make loans to everyone"
Oh those poor banks. All that pressure led them to create mortgage backed securities.
The taxpayers should have bailed out those poor banks for those bad loans that were forced upon them.
Wait, we did.
Now, about those student loans......
14
I'll vote for the lights in my living room ceiling if they have the best chance of beating Trump in November, but I would feel heartsick if Bloomberg gets the Democratic nomination. We don't need four years of Trump-lite in the White House.
6
Wow, the populists on the left and the right must be in a total panic over Bloomberg’s rise. Every day that goes by there seems to be a new attempt to disqualify him. I can’t wait for Super Tuesday. Go Mike go!
91
@Allan Go Structural/Institutional/Personal Racism Go!
5
@Allan I noticed Trump "endorsed" Sanders, saying he was the best candidate to run against him. The Fox talking heads have picked up on this line of thought, slipping it in here and there.
This seems a sign that he's afraid of Bloomberg. It also seems a covert message for Trumps followers to vote democrat in open primaries.
4
@Kathleen I think it is just as likely that it is a sign that he is afraid of Sanders and believes his (Trump's) endorsement will hurt Sanders.
The more I read about Bloomberg, the more voting for him would be like jumping from the fry pan into the fire. Billionaires didn't get to that status by being nice guys...
30
@Psyfly John
And no one gets to be a senator or president by being a nice guy or gal. It's a blood sport.
1
@marks I shudder to think of all the blood shed by Jimmy Carter in his ruthless pursuit of the Presidency. How the man sleeps at night, I'll never know...
And Obama? Practically a mobster.
1
Bloomberg's comments on redlining are all the more outrageous because redlining and other blatant forms of housing discrimination have not ended. They continue to deny African-Americans fair access to housing, as Newsday recently documented occurs on Long Island, and when African-Americans can get mortgages it is often at disproportionately high cost.
The Trump-like spin Bloomberg is trying to put on his redlining comments is of a piece with the way his campaign ads take credit for the previously uninsured New Yorkers who got health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.
Billionaires who are out of touch with how most Americans live are not the political leaders we need. They never have been. And Bloomberg's poor performance as mayor of NYC -- even in his supposed realm of greatest expertise, high technology, he arrogantly made decisions that wasted huge amounts of taxpayer money -- will emerge more clearly with every passing year.
Never forget that Bloomberg made his money servicing Wall Street. As his redlining comments show -- Hey, stop blaming a greedy financial services industry for its callous exploitation of a corrupt system -- that is where his true allegiance lies. "Mike will get it done" for his Wall Street cronies, not America.
21
Mr. Bloomberg, your problem with stop & frisk was not '“taking too long to understand the impact” that stop-and-frisk policing “had on Black and Latino communities.”'
Your problem was that the practice violated two Amendments of the Constitution: the right to be free from unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
If you STILL cannot fathom that what you did was not just hurtful but illegal, then you are not fit to be president.
14
He states it somewhat in artfully but the bones of what he said is absolutely true.
From The New York Times, October 4, 2008
"...Fannie Mae’s new chief executive, under pressure from Wall Street firms, Congress and company shareholders, took additional risks that pushed his company, and, in turn, a large part of the nation’s financial health, to the brink.
Between 2005 and 2008, Fannie purchased or guaranteed at least $270 billion in loans to risky borrowers more than three times as much as in all its earlier years combined, according to company filings and industry data."
19
With redlining there was a deficit of investment in certain communities which had adverse consequences for the residents. It was Clinton who pushed for mortgages and the sub-prime crisis imploded for unwary home buyers who purchased without stringent requirements.
4
"The hope among his advisers is that Democratic voters who see him as the best chance to defeat President Trump will be inclined to take a forgiving view of the elements of his record and persona that they find troubling."
Why should I take a forgiving view? Bloomberg has not even debated the other candidates yet. He hasn't even earned my support, let alone my forgiveness. A barrage of unchallenged, well-produced ads isn't enough to convince me that this is the ONLY person, out of several other competent options, who can take on Trump. Everyone thought Joe Biden was unbeatable until he got on the debate stage, and now look how he's doing.
He can prove himself against the other candidates first, and then we'll see about forgiveness.
40
@Elizabeth He did not qualify for any of the previous debates because of the DNC rules. It's not like he could have debated, but chose not to.
2
Bloomberg’s description of red lining, about banks not lending money to minorities because they might not be able to pay off their home loan, is not the definition of red lining. Banks and the real estate industry decided they could maximize the value of homes if they segregated the buyers. So, areas of cities were red lined to make that happen. Bloomberg’s explanation makes it sound like it was a risk aversion strategy of banks. No, it was about profit maximization across all home buyers.
23
@Bascom Hill
Whatever it was it resulted in banks issuing riskier mortgages at higher interest rate to compensate for the extra risk.
Those mortgages were very fragile and were the first to shatter when the bubble burst.
Bloomberg was simply stating the financial fact of the matter.
11
@Bascom Hill I believe you are correct. In the 1950's and 1960s, if a person of color would move into a non-redlined neighborhood, the result would be the beginning of "white flight". Hence the phrase, "there goes the neighborhood"...
1
@Bascom Hill
No. Redlining was about reducing risk. The neighborhoods were already segregated. Redlining pertains to lending, drawing red lines on maps where banks would not lend. They drew lines around areas that were already segregated.
Read American Apartheid, Chapter Two, Construction of the Ghetto, by D. Massey and N. Denton, 1993. Or better yet Crabgrass Frontier by Kenneth Jackson (Chapter 11).
It was risk aversion based on a (racist) self-fulfilling prophecy that neighborhoods would decline and housing would not hold value and therefore loans were risky.
2
Missing here is the more prevalent cause of the Mortgage crisis. And that was the fact that many a home owner started pulling on home-equity lines of credit which charged a non-fixed rate of interest that changed mostly every month as the variable rates were the way these loans were structured.
A lot of people drew on these equity loans and before they knew it they owed more on the equity loans and their first mortgages than their homes were worth.
23
@Jean,
In 2008, a friend and family on their way to visit relations in Detroit called, and asked for some help. A generic letter from one of our largest American banks wanted to put her house in escrow. Stressed, she added that the mortgage due had been rendered in time for the last twelve years. She did not need a loan.
More details followed, and I told her, the Bank does not care about you or me; we are 'tools' and this is happening to millions of people. This is their computer glitch, we are going to overwrite the Bank, the error is theirs and should be rectified. It has a reputation to safeguard, and a 'robotic-toned' letter will point this out.
The letter was sent certified, the matter was settled, with an apology on the Bank's part. Bloomberg had nothing to do with this state of affairs, one that he would not condone, and this latest attempt to blot the former Mayor's reputation is a sign that The Trump Machine is in motion. Bloomberg is better than prepared, far more astute and reasoned, and above all, capable of smelling a rat from many miles away.
Thank you for your input on this unsavory loan policy that reeks of rancid political cheese.
3
Name the politician:
• Got elected in a series of flukes:
• Gives money and support to fringe groups with questionable bona fides.
• Billionaire.
• Oligarch.
• Kleptocrat.
• Election rigging to stay in power:
• Business interests around the country and the world that would inevitably violate the emoluments clause.
Answers:
No, not 45...BLOOMBEREG!
45 only accused, Mayor Mike is the real deal.
https://nyti.ms/2Sh2KM9
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newyork-bloomberg/ny-council-extends-term-limit-so-bloomberg-can-run-idUSTRE49M70J20081023
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/102015/how-bloomberg-makes-billions-hint-not-just-news.asp
36
Oh ye centrists this is your 2020 savior. Trump in a better suit.
31
@Little Old Me There are many big differences between Bloomberg and Trump. This isn't about a better suit.
4
@Little Old Me No comparison.
I don’t think Bloomberg actually believes banks should implement racist redlining policies.
The spirit of what he said was correct.
Congress did push to extend loans to people with poor credit and the private sector swooped in to profit and that, in part, resulted in the housing crash when many people couldn’t afford to pay their mortgages.
If you want to know what’s in Bloomberg’s heart look at his philanthropic record. He’s given away billions to fight climate change and reign in guns and provide education to underprivileged and minority students.
234
@John
None of Bloomberg's controversial comments were factually incorrect (nor is anyone attacking him on the merits).
He is fiercely independent in his thinking which drives his critics crazy.
It could also make him an amazing President (much like is run as NYC Mayor).
28
predatory loans are predatory loans regardless of skin color
18
@John
You're ignoring your own words to excuse Mr. Bloombergs views.
The financial crisis was created by a network of greed, as you say "and the private sector swooped in to profit", a class of wealthy financial officers who profited wildly off of risky lending practices allowed due to deregulation.
Instead of acting as a safe guard against bad loans, providing sound with financial advise and helping the public, bankers and loan officers made bad loans for short term gain.
You conflate this with a discriminatory lending practice, a lazy way to avoid bad loans that leads to our poorest individuals being shut out of an important part of our society.
Bloomberg is wrong and his greed is showing. Like most conservatives, he shares the view that if only we deregulated more, society would correct itself, if we stop policing these bankers they would stop being greedy.
History has shown this to be untrue.
26
Just the most rudimentary digging into Bloomberg’s record indicates he is entirely unqualified to seek the nomination of the Democratic Party. The fact that the DNC is encouraging his ascent should be an indictment on the party leadership’s moral failing.
There is one candidate uniquely capable of taking on Donald Trump. His name is Bernie Sanders.
78
Tell us exactly how Bernie is uniquely positioned to take on trump, using facts and figures. Thus far Bernie has not increased turnout in any way and in fact has lost over half of his votes from 2016. The youth are not surging for a revolution and are mostly sitting home.
132
CWS, while I agree with both of your points I would very much like the nation to engage in a true contest: a referendum on capitalism. It seems to me that this is the central question right now.
Will we as a people continue to allow roughly 100,000 wealthy individuals set policy that is harmful to most of the country? Or will we set on a different course and create policy that will benefit everyone?
A Democratic Party nomination contest between Bloomberg and Sanders would be of enormous benefit to the people.
For the first time in my adult life I am excited to be part of a country that is taking seriously the question, What is to be done?
22
How can you say that when we have only heard from Iowa and NH?
11