House Republicans Hand Warren Buffett Big Win On Expensive Loans To The Poor

[RiverLover]

House Republicans Hand Warren Buffett Big Win On Expensive Loans To The Poor
4/14/15



WASHINGTON -- House Republicans approved a set of lucrative perks for Warren Buffett on Tuesday, passing legislation to help his mobile home empire secure government protections on high-interest loans to poor people.

Buffett, the world's third-richest man, is by far the biggest operator in the mobile home industry. His Clayton Homes company sells more mobile homes, also known as "manufactured housing," than any other company. The two largest mobile home lenders are both Buffett companies -- Vanderbilt Mortgage and 21st Mortgage and Finance.

The industry targets the poor. More than 84 percent of the industry's customers earn less than the median household income.

The Buffett enterprises have faced allegations of predatory lending and collection practices, most recently detailed this month in an investigation by the Seattle Times and the Center for Public Integrity. Nevertheless, Buffett's empire has had great success pressuring Congress to let it charge very high interest rates on mobile home loans while still qualifying for government protections from predatory lending lawsuits.

The GOP bill that passed on Tuesday would allow companies to charge very high interest rates on mobile home loans -- up to about 14 percent in the current market -- while still getting the benefit of the doubt in court for predatory lending cases. High-interest borrowers would lose key consumer protections, like mandatory housing counseling, and be exposed to a host of other predatory lending terms, including penalties that prevent homeowners from refinancing into less expensive loans. The bill also would allow mobile home salespeople to receive kickbacks for steering customers into high-cost loans....

...The bill passed by a margin of 262 to 162. Only one Republican, Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), a frequent opponent of favors for financial firms, voted against it.

A total of 22 Democrats supported the bill, including Reps. Brad Ashford (D-Neb.), Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), John Carney (D-Del.), William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), John Delaney (D-Md.), Gwen Graham (D-Fla.), Ron Kind (D-Wis.), Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.), Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), Scott Peters (D-Calif.), Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.), Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.), David Scott (D-Ga.), Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).

Republicans shot down an amendment proposed by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) that would bar any lender that had "been found to have engaged in unfair, deceptive, predatory, or abusive lending practices, or convicted of mortgage fraud" from taking advantage of the bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/manufactured-housing-republicans_n_7065810.html

So much for Buffett being one of the "good" billionaires.

[jwirr]

1. Interesting and if he is doing that I hope he pays for it. However, one statement in this OP is

not particularly true. They say he targets the poor. Okay I think he probably does attract the poor but that is because those of us who are poor usually cannot get loans for any other kind of housing. The mobile homes are cheap compared to other housing. That is what attracts us to them.

[merrily]

2. "Buffett's empire has had great success pressuring Congress" Gee, I can't imagine how he succeeds.

When I call about things that would help people instead of skin them, I don't have any success. let alone great success.

Look at how sick this is. He is a multi-billionaire. He is up in years and will never run out of money for his own needs. He does not believe in leaving wealth to his family. (Not saying this is a bad thing. Bear with me.) His granddaughter was on Oprah, to announce she was working as a nanny because she got nothing from her family. He has committed to leave his estate to the Gates's for charity. (Again, not saying this is a bad thing.)

Yet, he has to skin people who need to borrow anyway.

I realize he is trying to make the most possible profit for his investors, but jeez, where does the need for predatory greed end?



And where does Congressional failure to stand for the interests of the 99% begin? I mean, isn't that what we pay them for? Isn't that what both parties will be promising us in 2016 given that the public is finally beginning to wake up to the role of government in economic injustice?
tu
They got donations from the rich so they can attract our votes. Once they do attract our votes, they screw us in so many ways so they can keep getting donations from the rich so they can attract our votes next time. What's wrong with this picture?

BTW, good on Waters, another liberal member they tried to run out of office.

[RiverLover]

3. Excellent Q. I don't get why they can't put protection in place for PEOPLE

but instead protect the lenders for when the bad loans they shouldn't have approved to begin with go bad & the rich get their MH back to sell again, leaving the people financially ruined & homeless to boot.

Waters amendment wasn't asking too much. But it could cut into profits & maybe penalize for the fleecing of the poor. Can't have that! Warren Buffett needs more money to give to Bill Gates! Its not predatory, its all for charity!

[merrily]

4. Thanks. Mention charity and government in the same breath to a rightist.

They will tell you charity is voluntary, not your government taking tax money from you to benefit someone else.

Well, you coulda fooled me. Seems like government's been taking our taxes to work for us and then benefitting the rich instead for quite some time now.

And everyone is fine with that, as long as some needy person can't get "welfare as we know it."