Wealth gap widens

[thereisnospoon]

One can not discuss the issues of today without understanding the context of those issues - for instance, the fact that whites in America had a 160 year history of building and inheriting wealth in the United States before the first black Americans were legally allowed to do so. The impact of that can not be understated. The policies of the time created the segregation that forced blacks into blighted urban cores with declining schools while whites were able to accumulate wealth via a low-interest 30 yr mortgage in a suburban town free from said blight.

Context is important.

I agree it is important in that aspect. But those born of my generation dont bear those burdens. Like my last sentence that you omitted in the quote, they had all the same opportunities I had.

No, they didn't. They didn't live in the suburbs where most Whites had moved. They didn't have access to the superior suburban schools. They didn't have a generation or more of culture that looked at wealth building as an achievable goal thanks to government programs such as the low interest, 30 year mortgage.

No one forced them to not do as I did.

of course someone did! The government did by forcing them into blighted neighborhoods that could not create strong schools because they had almost no property tax revenue.

YOU CANT MOVE FORWARD IF YOUR CONSTANTLY LOOKING BACK

You also can't understand the current if you don't put it in the context of the past.

You libs..It's all about making excuses rather than meeting challenges.
The liberal welfare policies of the Great Society and the New Deal did not "force" minorities into living in inner cities. As a matter of fact before the great suburban boom of the 50's and 60's cities were racially diverse.
At the same time when suburbs began to grow, welfare programs included in LBJ's Great Society made it easy and convenient for people so inclined to accept the government goodies. As the middle class escaped the cities, others stayed behind out of economic necessity or sense of community. Many blacks stayed in the cities because they could not bring themselves to leave.
To say that black people were "forced" to stay in cities is racist to it's core. You're busted.

 

[8537]

Yall just wanna throw money at it so you don't have to face it....sad

Where do you ever come up with this bullshit? Where has anyone said that? Or are you just continuing to assume things about others?

And BTW, you have no idea what other people face. What's sad is that you assume you do.

That's what we as a nation have always done. Not directed at anyone in particular.

You said "yall just wanna throw money at it so you don't have to face it". Now I admit I haven't lived in Texas in a few years, but I do recall that "yall" includes me and the other people to whom you are referring. You didn't say the nation's done it - you said we all want to do it.

 

[8537]

umm, Im discussing the problems of today not pre civil rights issues.

One can not discuss the issues of today without understanding the context of those issues - for instance, the fact that whites in America had a 160 year history of building and inheriting wealth in the United States before the first black Americans were legally allowed to do so. The impact of that can not be understated. The policies of the time created the segregation that forced blacks into blighted urban cores with declining schools while whites were able to accumulate wealth via a low-interest 30 yr mortgage in a suburban town free from said blight.

Context is important.

Here it comes....All you white folks must make amends for your ancestors.

What are you talking about? Who said that?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wrong.

Capital gains should not be taxed unless they are taken out as income.

But thanks for playing.

And thanks for the apology.

You are ignorant and have no clue what capital gains are. Capital gains are not "taken out".
Capital gains are from WHEN YOU SELL AN ASSET.
Do you even know what capital is?
And people DO NOT SELL ASSETS when capital gains taxes are high thus stagnating the economy.
How do people get the capital they invest in assets? Pick it from trees? Find it on the side of the road? Save it from hard work?
Everytime someone sells something they INVESTED IN and receive a profit that is a capital gain. The lower the chances of making a profit then the less capital goes into investing in assets. And that means less jobs.
If there were no capital gains taxes then how many people would sell their assets and how would that affect the economy? And why would folks sell assets if there were notaxes on them? And if there were no future capital gains taxes then guess where those folks would put ALL of their capital to invest? And what does capital in the economy do when invested?
Economics 101 is available at your local community college. You need it bad.

I made all A's in economics in college.

Capital gains should be taxed as income if they are not re-invested in one year.

Then they are income.

That's an opinion held by you and the rest of the class envy crowd.

 

[Charles_Main]

The wealth gap between whites and minorities has risen to a historic high, according to new census data analyzed by the Pew Research Center, as the collapse of housing prices more severely affected the net worth of African American and Hispanic households.

The report, which was to be released Tuesday, shows that the recession wreaked havoc on the wealth of all Americans but that whites lost the least amount as a percentage of their holdings.

Between 2005 and 2009, the median net worth of Hispanic households dropped by 66 percent and that of black households fell by 53 percent, according to the report. In contrast, the median net worth of white households dropped by only 16 percent.

The median net worth of a white family now stands at 20 times that of a black family and 18 times that of a Hispanic family — roughly twice the gap that existed before the recession and the biggest gap since data began being collected in 1984.

Wealth gap widens between whites, minorities, report says - The Washington Post

What seems to be forgotten in these stats, is that at least until recently. Even though the Gap between rich and Poor was growing. So was the relative Wealth of all groups. Meaning that the Rich were getting richer, and so were the poor, Only the rich were simply getting richer faster.

Made a lot more sense as a thought than I manage to give it in this post lol

 

[8537]

I agree it is important in that aspect. But those born of my generation dont bear those burdens. Like my last sentence that you omitted in the quote, they had all the same opportunities I had.

No, they didn't. They didn't live in the suburbs where most Whites had moved. They didn't have access to the superior suburban schools. They didn't have a generation or more of culture that looked at wealth building as an achievable goal thanks to government programs such as the low interest, 30 year mortgage.




of course someone did! The government did by forcing them into blighted neighborhoods that could not create strong schools because they had almost no property tax revenue.

YOU CANT MOVE FORWARD IF YOUR CONSTANTLY LOOKING BACK

You also can't understand the current if you don't put it in the context of the past.

You libs..It's all about making excuses rather than meeting challenges.
The liberal welfare policies of the Great Society and the New Deal did not "force" minorities into living in inner cities. As a matter of fact before the great suburban boom of the 50's and 60's cities were racially diverse.

Wow! Wrong on every point. The very programs that allowed the creation of suburbia - the FHA, the thirty-year, low interest mortgage etc...explicitly excluded blacks. And the suburbs that were created quite often carried restrictive covenants that banned blacks from ownership or residence.

It wasn't until the Fair Housing Act that significant changes were made.

Many blacks stayed in the cities because they could not bring themselves to leave.
To say that black people were "forced" to stay in cities is racist to it's core. You're busted.

Congrats, that's the dumbest thing I've read here. They WERE forced to stay in the cities -they had no access to the mortgage programs that made suburban housing affordable and they were restricted by covenant from most suburban communities.

And ya see, this is the problem - Conservatarians who claim to have all the answers as to why blacks are where they are today don't know the first thing about their own nation's history.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's not *just* because they don't have a good education. It's also because for 35 years whites participated in the great experiment to create suburbs courtesy of the federally-backed, low interest 30 year mortgage for people buying homes outside of city centers, while blacks didn't. During that time, whites were able to accumulate tremendous wealth through the value of their homes.

Do you have a fucking clue what you are talking about?
No, I didnt think so either.
fwiw, the gov't forced banks to lend to minorities, with lower standards, for most of that time.

You're really going to claim that banks were forced to loan to minorities between 1933 and 1968?

Really Rabbi? Yea, you probably will. Speaking of having a fucking clue - Have you ever heard or covenants? No, probably not. I'm sure you consider the Fair Housing Act of 1968 a wholly unnecessary piece of legislation since banks were already loaning to blacks, even though blacks can't lead!

And suburbs are more than 35 years old, although you sure aren't.

I have no idea where your pea-sized brain arrived at the conclusion that we were discussing the past 35 years. Try again.

A peruse of thy intelligence....Since you claim to be so knowledgeable in the arena of real estate, lending and federal law, a question.....No looking it up....What is "red lining"?

 

[8537]

Do you have a fucking clue what you are talking about?
No, I didnt think so either.
fwiw, the gov't forced banks to lend to minorities, with lower standards, for most of that time.

You're really going to claim that banks were forced to loan to minorities between 1933 and 1968?

Really Rabbi? Yea, you probably will. Speaking of having a fucking clue - Have you ever heard or covenants? No, probably not. I'm sure you consider the Fair Housing Act of 1968 a wholly unnecessary piece of legislation since banks were already loaning to blacks, even though blacks can't lead!

And suburbs are more than 35 years old, although you sure aren't.

I have no idea where your pea-sized brain arrived at the conclusion that we were discussing the past 35 years. Try again.

A peruse of thy intelligence....Since you claim to be so knowledgeable in the arena of real estate, lending and federal law, a question.....No looking it up....What is "red lining"?

You've got to be kidding me.

Let's try this: What is blockbusting? Restrictive covenants? The Federal Housing Authority's policy on multi-unit housing. The FHA's policy on urban home loans. The origin of the whites-only 30 year, low interest loan? Why wasn't housing included in the 1965 Civil Rights Act and which law was later interpreted by the courts to prevent race-based discrimination in housing despite the Civil rights act's omission? What event led directly to the passage of the Fair Housing Act?

No looking it up, of course.

 

[Flopper]

The wealth gap between whites and minorities has risen to a historic high, according to new census data analyzed by the Pew Research Center, as the collapse of housing prices more severely affected the net worth of African American and Hispanic households.

The report, which was to be released Tuesday, shows that the recession wreaked havoc on the wealth of all Americans but that whites lost the least amount as a percentage of their holdings.

Between 2005 and 2009, the median net worth of Hispanic households dropped by 66 percent and that of black households fell by 53 percent, according to the report. In contrast, the median net worth of white households dropped by only 16 percent.

The median net worth of a white family now stands at 20 times that of a black family and 18 times that of a Hispanic family — roughly twice the gap that existed before the recession and the biggest gap since data began being collected in 1984.

Wealth gap widens between whites, minorities, report says - The Washington Post

The right will argue that welfare and other government subsidies dampen the incentive to work. However it also dampens the incentive to riot and steal. The seeds of revolution are hunger disease and despair. Societies learned long ago that the best way to keep the poor from burning down their cites and spreading infectious diseases was to see to it that they had the basic necessities of life. Hopefully we won't have to learn this all over again.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not *just* because they don't have a good education. It's also because for 35 years whites participated in the great experiment to create suburbs courtesy of the federally-backed, low interest 30 year mortgage for people buying homes outside of city centers, while blacks didn't. During that time, whites were able to accumulate tremendous wealth through the value of their homes.

Do you have a fucking clue what you are talking about?
No, I didnt think so either.
fwiw, the gov't forced banks to lend to minorities, with lower standards, for most of that time.

You're really going to claim that banks were forced to loan to minorities between 1933 and 1968?

Really Rabbi? Yea, you probably will. Speaking of having a fucking clue - Have you ever heard or covenants? No, probably not. I'm sure you consider the Fair Housing Act of 1968 a wholly unnecessary piece of legislation since banks were already loaning to blacks, even though blacks can't lead!

And suburbs are more than 35 years old, although you sure aren't.

I have no idea where your pea-sized brain arrived at the conclusion that we were discussing the past 35 years. Try again.

There were suburbs in 1933? Who knew?
You keep changing the argument when it is exposed as the tissue of half truths and ignorant statements it is.
For the record, the gap between black and white economic conditions was narrowing after WW2. The trend slowed considerably after Johnson's Great Society programs went into effect. Those programs have induced welfare dependency, keeping blacks from getting a better education and thus higher incomes. It is liberal social engineering that is the only racism here.
Obama's programs continue this. The Democrats raised the min wage in 06 or 07. Consequently in this downturn we see higher rates of unemployment among those most subject to the min wage, e.g. teenagers. The increase played well to the union masters of the Democratic Party but didnt do much for the people at the bottom, the ones Democrats claim to help. Obama's "stimulus" programs have depressed the entire economy, falling most heavily on those towards the bottom.
So the OP is correct, no doubt.
A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. And a recovery is when Barack Obama loses his job.

 

[The Rabbi]

The wealth gap between whites and minorities has risen to a historic high, according to new census data analyzed by the Pew Research Center, as the collapse of housing prices more severely affected the net worth of African American and Hispanic households.

The report, which was to be released Tuesday, shows that the recession wreaked havoc on the wealth of all Americans but that whites lost the least amount as a percentage of their holdings.

Between 2005 and 2009, the median net worth of Hispanic households dropped by 66 percent and that of black households fell by 53 percent, according to the report. In contrast, the median net worth of white households dropped by only 16 percent.

The median net worth of a white family now stands at 20 times that of a black family and 18 times that of a Hispanic family — roughly twice the gap that existed before the recession and the biggest gap since data began being collected in 1984.

Wealth gap widens between whites, minorities, report says - The Washington Post

The right will argue that welfare and other government subsidies dampen the incentive to work. However it also dampens the incentive to riot and steal. The seeds of revolution are hunger disease and despair. Societies learned long ago that the best way to keep the poor from burning down their cites and spreading infectious diseases was to see to it that they had the basic necessities of life. Hopefully we won't have to learn this all over again.

If that were the case how do you explain the LA riots, that occurred after decades of expensive gov't programs?
Riots occur largely because people have nothing better to do, and because they have nothing at stake. No one burns down his own business for political purposes.
Welfare subsidies both keep people from working (the marginal tax rates become about 100%) and keep them out of the economic system, giving them nothing to lose.

 

[8537]

Do you have a fucking clue what you are talking about?
No, I didnt think so either.
fwiw, the gov't forced banks to lend to minorities, with lower standards, for most of that time.

You're really going to claim that banks were forced to loan to minorities between 1933 and 1968?

Really Rabbi? Yea, you probably will. Speaking of having a fucking clue - Have you ever heard or covenants? No, probably not. I'm sure you consider the Fair Housing Act of 1968 a wholly unnecessary piece of legislation since banks were already loaning to blacks, even though blacks can't lead!

And suburbs are more than 35 years old, although you sure aren't.

I have no idea where your pea-sized brain arrived at the conclusion that we were discussing the past 35 years. Try again.

There were suburbs in 1933? Who knew?

Why yes, of course. But they were not accessible to the middle class white folks until a few years later.

You keep changing the argument when it is exposed as the tissue of half truths and ignorant statements it is.

My argument hasn't changed at all. You've simply attempted to duck and weave to avoid facing reality.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're really going to claim that banks were forced to loan to minorities between 1933 and 1968?

Really Rabbi? Yea, you probably will. Speaking of having a fucking clue - Have you ever heard or covenants? No, probably not. I'm sure you consider the Fair Housing Act of 1968 a wholly unnecessary piece of legislation since banks were already loaning to blacks, even though blacks can't lead!



I have no idea where your pea-sized brain arrived at the conclusion that we were discussing the past 35 years. Try again.

There were suburbs in 1933? Who knew?

Why yes, of course. But they were not accessible to the middle class white folks until a few years later.

You keep changing the argument when it is exposed as the tissue of half truths and ignorant statements it is.

My argument hasn't changed at all. You've simply attempted to duck and weave to avoid facing reality.

No, there were no suburbs in the way we think of them today in 1933. Levittown on LI was the first one starting in 1947. They are a post-war phenomenon.
The CRA mandated lending in poor neighborhoods and started in 1977. That is over 30 years ago. Do you still want to argue that gov't largesse made white people richer than black people?

 

[8537]

There were suburbs in 1933? Who knew?

Why yes, of course. But they were not accessible to the middle class white folks until a few years later.

You keep changing the argument when it is exposed as the tissue of half truths and ignorant statements it is.

My argument hasn't changed at all. You've simply attempted to duck and weave to avoid facing reality.

No, there were no suburbs in the way we think of them today in 1933.

There were areas within a short distance of major metropolitian areas containing low-density development. AKA suburbs.

The CRA mandated lending in poor neighborhoods and started in 1977. That is over 30 years ago. Do you still want to argue that gov't largesse made white people richer than black people?

Please try to read what I actually wrote. As I wrote, blacks were excluded from the modern 30-yr, low interest, federally-backed mortgage and suburban development by policy and by covenant for decades. As I also wrote, these policies changed with passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968.

As I also wrote, that gap in time created a 35-yr period where whites, who were already far wealthier than blacks, were able to accumulate wealth via subsidized loans on the purchase of real, appreciating assets while blacks had no access to such accumulation. It also meant that blacks were living in urban areas without access to federal housing funds that were experiencing urban decay before the whites moved out, and that decay accelerated when the populations declined, property values declined and the ability to educate young people declined with a declining property tax base.

 

[Gadawg73]

Why yes, of course. But they were not accessible to the middle class white folks until a few years later.



My argument hasn't changed at all. You've simply attempted to duck and weave to avoid facing reality.

No, there were no suburbs in the way we think of them today in 1933.

There were areas within a short distance of major metropolitian areas containing low-density development. AKA suburbs.

The CRA mandated lending in poor neighborhoods and started in 1977. That is over 30 years ago. Do you still want to argue that gov't largesse made white people richer than black people?

Please try to read what I actually wrote. As I wrote, blacks were excluded from the modern 30-yr, low interest, federally-backed mortgage and suburban development by policy and by covenant for decades. As I also wrote, these policies changed with passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968.

As I also wrote, that gap in time created a 35-yr period where whites, who were already far wealthier than blacks, were able to accumulate wealth via subsidized loans on the purchase of real, appreciating assets while blacks had no access to such accumulation. It also meant that blacks were living in urban areas without access to federal housing funds that were experiencing urban decay before the whites moved out, and that decay accelerated when the populations declined, property values declined and the ability to educate young people declined with a declining property tax base.

If I am a mortgage banker seeking the highest rate of return from my mortgage loans what would be the criteria for loaning?
The ability to pay the loan back?
I believe your point does have some merit to it but not for the reasons you believe. Loans were denied blacks but notfor the reasons you believe. They wanted to keep them out of the white neighborhoods and that was wrong.
That ended in the 60s and from then on the criteria was ability to pay the loan and those in low income areas were excluded because of their lack of any credit and bad payment history.
The first house I bought was in 1979 and I bought a lot of house in a "white flight" area. My friends said I was crazy. The neighbors I had there were old whites that could not moveand younger blacks. I made a lot of friends there. That decision was the best decision I ever made as after the white flight scare went down 4 years later I sold that home that I bough for 34K for 45K.
Not everything is black and white, no pun intended. We are supposed to move away from the past and move forward. Those financial burdens that were wongly put on blacks years ago were terribleand wrong 110%. However, they do not apply today.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You keep talking about shit from a half century ago. How many respondents to the survey were actually slaves or whatever the hell you want to call the enslaved? Well? Check into the age of the respondents and let's see if you argument holds any water or just hot air.

One other thing, did Mexicans just magically appear after all the problems the blacks had and yet their stats are bad as well?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

No, there were no suburbs in the way we think of them today in 1933.

There were areas within a short distance of major metropolitian areas containing low-density development. AKA suburbs.

The CRA mandated lending in poor neighborhoods and started in 1977. That is over 30 years ago. Do you still want to argue that gov't largesse made white people richer than black people?

Please try to read what I actually wrote. As I wrote, blacks were excluded from the modern 30-yr, low interest, federally-backed mortgage and suburban development by policy and by covenant for decades. As I also wrote, these policies changed with passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968.

As I also wrote, that gap in time created a 35-yr period where whites, who were already far wealthier than blacks, were able to accumulate wealth via subsidized loans on the purchase of real, appreciating assets while blacks had no access to such accumulation. It also meant that blacks were living in urban areas without access to federal housing funds that were experiencing urban decay before the whites moved out, and that decay accelerated when the populations declined, property values declined and the ability to educate young people declined with a declining property tax base.

If I am a mortgage banker seeking the highest rate of return from my mortgage loans what would be the criteria for loaning?
The ability to pay the loan back?
I believe your point does have some merit to it but not for the reasons you believe. Loans were denied blacks but notfor the reasons you believe. They wanted to keep them out of the white neighborhoods and that was wrong.
That ended in the 60s and from then on the criteria was ability to pay the loan and those in low income areas were excluded because of their lack of any credit and bad payment history.
The first house I bought was in 1979 and I bought a lot of house in a "white flight" area. My friends said I was crazy. The neighbors I had there were old whites that could not moveand younger blacks. I made a lot of friends there. That decision was the best decision I ever made as after the white flight scare went down 4 years later I sold that home that I bough for 34K for 45K.
Not everything is black and white, no pun intended. We are supposed to move away from the past and move forward. Those financial burdens that were wongly put on blacks years ago were terribleand wrong 110%. However, they do not apply today.

Your wasting your time with real life analysis he will just discredit it and later when he gets mad insult you for it.

 

[8537]

There were areas within a short distance of major metropolitian areas containing low-density development. AKA suburbs.




Please try to read what I actually wrote. As I wrote, blacks were excluded from the modern 30-yr, low interest, federally-backed mortgage and suburban development by policy and by covenant for decades. As I also wrote, these policies changed with passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968.

As I also wrote, that gap in time created a 35-yr period where whites, who were already far wealthier than blacks, were able to accumulate wealth via subsidized loans on the purchase of real, appreciating assets while blacks had no access to such accumulation. It also meant that blacks were living in urban areas without access to federal housing funds that were experiencing urban decay before the whites moved out, and that decay accelerated when the populations declined, property values declined and the ability to educate young people declined with a declining property tax base.

If I am a mortgage banker seeking the highest rate of return from my mortgage loans what would be the criteria for loaning?
The ability to pay the loan back?
I believe your point does have some merit to it but not for the reasons you believe. Loans were denied blacks but notfor the reasons you believe. They wanted to keep them out of the white neighborhoods and that was wrong.
That ended in the 60s and from then on the criteria was ability to pay the loan and those in low income areas were excluded because of their lack of any credit and bad payment history.
The first house I bought was in 1979 and I bought a lot of house in a "white flight" area. My friends said I was crazy. The neighbors I had there were old whites that could not moveand younger blacks. I made a lot of friends there. That decision was the best decision I ever made as after the white flight scare went down 4 years later I sold that home that I bough for 34K for 45K.
Not everything is black and white, no pun intended. We are supposed to move away from the past and move forward. Those financial burdens that were wongly put on blacks years ago were terribleand wrong 110%. However, they do not apply today.

Your wasting your time with real life analysis he will just discredit it and later when he gets mad insult you for it.

Whatever are you talking about? I agree with about 95% of what he wrote (and that's rather odd, because he and I rarely agree.)

And need I remind you who started with the insulting? Oh right, that was you. Quit lying.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Bottom line is the blacks no longer live under the boot of the white man. They now struggle with liberal ideology and are trying to break free of virtual chains and old stereotypes. Shame on the race baiting in this thread.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If I am a mortgage banker seeking the highest rate of return from my mortgage loans what would be the criteria for loaning?
The ability to pay the loan back?
I believe your point does have some merit to it but not for the reasons you believe. Loans were denied blacks but notfor the reasons you believe. They wanted to keep them out of the white neighborhoods and that was wrong.
That ended in the 60s and from then on the criteria was ability to pay the loan and those in low income areas were excluded because of their lack of any credit and bad payment history.
The first house I bought was in 1979 and I bought a lot of house in a "white flight" area. My friends said I was crazy. The neighbors I had there were old whites that could not moveand younger blacks. I made a lot of friends there. That decision was the best decision I ever made as after the white flight scare went down 4 years later I sold that home that I bough for 34K for 45K.
Not everything is black and white, no pun intended. We are supposed to move away from the past and move forward. Those financial burdens that were wongly put on blacks years ago were terribleand wrong 110%. However, they do not apply today.

Your wasting your time with real life analysis he will just discredit it and later when he gets mad insult you for it.

Whatever are you talking about? I agree with about 95% of what he wrote (and that's rather odd, because he and I rarely agree.)

And need I remind you who started with the insulting? Oh right, that was you. Quit lying.

Remind yourself of this then. If 95% of his statement is right then you've been full of shit 95% of the time. Oops.....