Everyone gets the same incredible terms, including the below-market interest rate, regardless of their credit score or other factors.

As for Marks, he brags of being an “urban terrorist.”  As Michelle Malkin observed in her column about Marks last year [emphasis added]:

Here is the face of the entitlement culture gone mad: “We will go to their neighborhood, we will educate their children on what their parents do. They should be ashamed,” said Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA) founder Bruce Marks in a nasty warning issued to employees of both banks.

This isn’t an idle threat. Bruce Marks is no harmless lone nut. He has a record of showing up at children’s schools and bullying them because of their parents’ employment. All in the name of “social justice,” of course, and securing loans for every last bad risk on the face of the planet. He’s so proud of his behavior, he calls himself a “bank terrorist.”

So why would NACA be lending at great rates to people with bad credit? Simple: they’re lending other people’s money. A bit more digging on the NACA site reveals this about Marks and the source of the group’s funding:

Marks’ role as an aggressive crusader for reform of the powerful banking and lending industry has its representatives up in arms. On May 5, 1999 from the Senate floor, Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), head of the Senate Banking Committee, attempted to portray banks as victims of Bruce Marks. Gramm described Marks as, “… someone who graduates from college, goes to graduate school, and goes to work for the Federal Reserve in acquisitions and mergers, quits and goes into business, spends four years harassing banks and bank presidents, and finally the bank (Fleet Bank) caves and gives them $1.4 million, gives them $200,000 to set up their organization; they now have twenty offices, lending $3.5 billion…” Senator Gramm continued, “There is a CRA protester who calls himself an “urban terrorist” who used those charges against a bank, harassed them for four years, went to a speech of the president of the bank (Fleet Bank CEO Terrence Murray) at Harvard University, disrupted the speech, made this man’s life miserable for four long years.” Bruce Marks wears this personal attack as a badge of honor.

Under Marks’ leadership, NACA has garnered commitments of over $6.7 Billion for the best mortgage product in America. NACA now has 31 offices throughout the country and will double in size within the next 12 to 18 months. NACA has become the largest housing services organization in the United States.

In other words, Marks went after banks and government entities, and managed to secure credit lines he can now extend to others. Some questions:

• what are the historical default rates on loans made by NACA?
• what is NACA and/or Bruce Marks’ financial exposure on bad loans NACA makes?

The website goes on to claim that Marks is leading the fight for legislation and regulations addressing “sub-prime and predatory lending.” But isn’t an organization like NACA, which brags of lending to people regardless of credit score, the very prototype of a sub-prime lender? GMA also rolled tape of a street demonstration organized by NACA against banks that are “not helping struggling homeowners refinance their mortgages.” Again, isn’t this part of the same pattern that got us into the current fix: pressuring banks pressured to lend to borrowers who are not credit-worthy?

Naturally, none of this came up in the GMA segment. Instead, ABC followed the time-honored MSM tradition in these situations: find a sympathetic anecdotal case, and use it to make the argument for more government spending. ABC’s Bianna Golodryga interviewed an African-American couple from Queens who are in danger of losing their home. The wife recently lost her job, and the husband is working seven days a week to make ends meet. Golodryga’s opening question set the tone: “Are there moments when you just want to give up?” Both brushed away tears in the course of the interview.

A bit later, interviewing White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, Robin Roberts concern was whether the government was spending enough on housing help:

ROBIN ROBERTS: The $50 billion designated for homeowners. But $50 billion, as Diane just said, by the year 2012 we could have 10 million Americans facing foreclosure. So if you do the math, that’s about $5,000 per family. How is that going to help them?

And this one made me laugh. Roberts did cite House Republican leader John Boehner’s two criticisms of the stimulus: that it is slow-moving and contains wasteful spending. But when it came to questioning Gibbs about it, she ignored his concerns about wastefulness, asking only: “so what about the slow-moving charge?”

Right. Who cares if it’s money badly spent?   We’re just worried you might not be spending it fast enough!