Wealth gap widens

[8537]

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.....

I have no idea how you arrive at that conclusion. Please demonstrate where more than 5% of what he said is in disagreement with what I have written.

Or, quit bloviating.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I have been saying the same damn things he just outlined and yet I've been wrong according to you the whole time. Pointing that out is not bloviating. All of your 50's analysis was bloviating and irrelevant to the current plight of minorities in our country.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

That is complete and utter bullshit, without even a foundational shred of proof.
You have outdone yourself here. Your posts pile lies on mis-truths on mistakes on bullshit to create one big ole googly mess.
Asians are wealthier on average than blacks. Asians were excluded from many areas as well. But all of that ended in the 1960s, nearly 50 years ago. So for the last 40 say years there has been a level playing field. And blacks have not succeeded nearly as well as any other ethnic group. It has nothing, zero, to do with housing policies in the 1930s. It has everything to do with government "help" programs that are designed to keep people dependent and in poverty.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

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.

I take it by your smart assed reply, we'll stipulate you know what red lining is.
The reason behind this is because red lining has been illegal since the late 70's when federal law was passed. As a matter of fact the Community Reinvestment Act mandated that banks offer loans to previously unqualified borrowers. Non compliant banks faced government sanctions. For well over 30 years, leans have been available to all but those with either very weak or no credit histories.
Prior to the Fair Housing Act, yes minorities were excluded. That's ancient history and is no longer applicable to the discussion or current events.
If you wish to continue harping on events that took place before half the population was even born, you're wasting everyone's time.
Quite frankly I am sick and tired of liberals and certain black people playing the victim card.
There are tons and tons of opportunities for everyone.
I still find the attitude is that it is easier for some to sit back and whine( and collect government issued checks) than it is for them to try doing something to better themselves. Until that attitude is corrected and people stop feeling entitled ,I don't want to hear the bitching.

 

[8537]

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.

That is complete and utter bullshit,

Which part is "bullshit"?

You have outdone yourself here. Your posts pile lies on mis-truths on mistakes on bullshit to create one big ole googly mess.

Which part of my post is a lie?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Your own posts disagree with what Gadawg wrote. Either you don't understand what he writes or you don't understand what you write. Possibly both.
Blacks still get denied for mortgages more often than whites. That has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with credit scores and income and spending patterns. And that is despite, not because of, government programs.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

That is complete and utter bullshit,

Which part is "bullshit"?

You have outdone yourself here. Your posts pile lies on mis-truths on mistakes on bullshit to create one big ole googly mess.

Which part of my post is a lie?

Which part is bullshit? The parts you wrote.
Which part is a lie? Every word you wrote that has a vowel in it.

Your basic premise is unsupported and unsupportable. There has been an equal housing market for nearly 40 years now. Differences in housing do not explain disparities in wealth. Period.

 

[8537]

I take it by your smart assed reply,

It wasn't smartass at all. If you want to understand the impact of policies, you need to know what those policies were. And I listed some.

The reason behind this is because red lining has been illegal since the late 70's when federal law was passed.

Of course. So in the 40 years prior, redlining was llegal. It's almost like we said that already!

As a matter of fact the Community Reinvestment Act mandated that banks offer loans to previously unqualified borrowers.

No, it didn't. It mandated that banks make loans based on objective criteria, not geography.

 

[thereisnospoon]

My bubble? I said that your personal experiences should not be used to condemn an entire community and I'm called stupid for that? Seriously?

Heres my point again. If you weren't rehabbing houses and dealing with contractors do you think your experiences would be the same with minorities no matter if it construction or minority police officers, mortgage lenders etc?

Don't make sweeping judgements about an entire community because of your experiences with section 8 housing and construction.

Why not..Your side makes sweeping judgements about Conservatives, Christians, White suburban dwellers, Jews, etc.
Look, we could walk into any city in the US and head for the section 8 housing...What will we most likely see? Crime, poverty and dirt. I suppose that is the fault of ALL conservatives ,right?
The shitty part of town did not get that way all by itself. The people living there did it.

 

[8537]

That is complete and utter bullshit,

Which part is "bullshit"?

You have outdone yourself here. Your posts pile lies on mis-truths on mistakes on bullshit to create one big ole googly mess.

Which part of my post is a lie?

Which part is bullshit? The parts you wrote.

So you can't point to any parts of my post that are wrong, you're just spewing screed again? I should have known.

There has been an equal housing market for nearly 40 years now.

hmmm....It's almost as if I said that already. And it's ALMOST as if you now acknowledge that there wasn't an equal housing market prior to that....

Which of course speaks truth to my earlier post.

You can't keep your own racist lies straight.

Differences in housing do not explain disparities in wealth.

Huh? What's the largest asset of most Americans?

 

[The Rabbi]

I take it by your smart assed reply,

It wasn't smartass at all. If you want to understand the impact of policies, you need to know what those policies were. And I listed some.

The reason behind this is because red lining has been illegal since the late 70's when federal law was passed.

Of course. So in the 40 years prior, redlining was llegal. It's almost like we said that already!

As a matter of fact the Community Reinvestment Act mandated that banks offer loans to previously unqualified borrowers.

No, it didn't. It mandated that banks make loans based on objective criteria, not geography.

More bullshit and lies.

Sec. 802.
(a) The Congress finds that—
(1) regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business;
(2) the convenience and needs of communities include the need for credit services as well as deposit services; and
(3) regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.
(b) It is the purpose of this title to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.

The purpose was for banks to "serve" their area. That means in poor areas they had to be much more accomodating.
You really don't know much, do you?

 

[boedicca]

Over $16T spent on the War On Poverty combined with Federal Programs to promote home ownership among people who didn't have the income to support a house just ended up making poor minorities poorer. The first encouraged low career expectations; and the latter saddled them with negative equity.

Thanks Progressives!

 

[The Rabbi]

Which part is "bullshit"?



Which part of my post is a lie?

Which part is bullshit? The parts you wrote.

So you can't point to any parts of my post that are wrong, you're just spewing screed again? I should have known.

There has been an equal housing market for nearly 40 years now.

hmmm....It's almost as if I said that already. And it's ALMOST as if you now acknowledge that there wasn't an equal housing market prior to that....

Which of course speaks truth to my earlier post.

You can't keep your own racist lies straight.

Differences in housing do not explain disparities in wealth.

Huh? What's the largest asset of most Americans?

Wrong question.
Housing is also the largest liability for most Americans.
The source of the majority of wealth is private business.

 

[The Rabbi]

Over $16T spent on the War On Poverty combined with Federal Programs to promote home ownership among people who didn't have the income to support a house just ended up making poor minorities poorer. The first encouraged low career expectations; and the latter saddled them with negative equity.

Thanks Progressives!

There was an interesting study done by an economist from Minnesota I think (I believe it was her PhD diss). It asked the question, do programs encouraging home ownership among poor people actually help them. The answer was no. Typically owning a home was a liability for them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

The federal budget?
State budgets?
Prime example of wasting money by throwing funding at a problem in the hope that it will go away.
The Washington DC public school system...Highest per pupil rate of any school district in the US..Over $15k per year.
DC schools have one the highest drop out rates for high schoolers.
Second....The Kansas City, MO school district had a huge problem. SI the city spend well over one billion dollars. New schools with labs and all kinds of other nice things. The idea was thought that if the schools were nice shiny and new, middle class families would stay and all students would perform better. NOTHING changed. The dropout rate rose and test scores did not improve. Now the City has a severe school funding problem. And lots of debt.

 

[Gadawg73]

What both sides need to do is FIND COMMON GROUND. Take the time to find out what that is and you will find agreement.
Partisan politics with it's generalizations, myths, exact sciences, etc. is what we now have on Washington, talk radio, media and everywhere.
There is common ground. Find it and go from there.

 

[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.

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.

We need to see that people have access to the basic necessities of life preferable through jobs. But if there are no jobs, subsidies are the only alternative. The lack of jobs or subsidies are the cause of the food riots this year in Algeria and Tunisia. It was not a burning desire for liberty that fueled the French Revolution. It was starvation. There would have never been a Russian revolution, it the people had decent food, housing, and working conditions. The real reasons for government social welfare programs today is not so much a desire to assist the poor but rather a desire to protect the rest of society. There is much written of the benevolent social welfare work in the 17th and 18th century in London. However, the real motivation was fear of disease, fire, and crime that motivated society.

 

[Canyoubelieveit]

This is a “ Have” and “Have Not” issue combined with a responsibility issue. We need to make cuts and generate more income, pretty simple stuff. The “ Cuts “ are still a hot topic and rightly so. But my question is Who, When and Why was the tax increase taken off the table? And when are the top 3% of the US who control 97% of the wealth going to step up ? Or when will someone, anyone, on Capitol Hill or in the White House take on the very Top of the Upper Class? Life is too short and my kids are too young to have the financial / political machine decimate what’s left of the strong character and leadership qualities that built and continue to protect this country. The financial and political leadership of this country is an embarrassment and a disgrace. Take a little responsibility, step up and bring back a Tax Increase.

Amidst all these talks about Cuts and the debt ceiling…this article appeared in the Washington Post on July 26th. And is written by Courtland Milloy who writes a weekly local column for the Post. You can find the entire article on the WP website

“ Help wanted:
Someone to explain why Corporate America is raking in the dough but not creating jobs; why banks are sitting on tons of cash but not making loans; how a single Wall Street hedge fund manager could earn $4.9 billion last year — that’s about $155 a second — while most of us barely make ends meet.
I’ve tried to figure all of this out by reading business publications, listening to some economic experts and even watching the Suze Orman personal finance TV show. But the only answer I come up with is that the middle class is being bamboozled and taken to the cleaners — by Democratic and Republican leaders alike.
Surely that can’t be right. This country is not some oligarchy where workers fight over crumbs while the fat cats kick back and enjoy the show. Is it?
After pulling Wall Street from the brink of collapse two years ago, taxpayers were told that it was our turn to get some financial relief. Jobs would be created, loans made, homes saved.
Here’s what Christina Romer said in December 2009, when she was chairwoman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers:
“Instead of taxpayer money going to the big banks that helped cause the current crisis, it’s coming back from them,” she told us. “Earlier this month, we learned that there will be more than $200 billion of savings to the American people through the TARP program — savings that the president has proposed putting to work helping Main Street instead of Wall Street.”

Guess who laughed all the way to the bank on that one? The bank.

Last year, the top 25 Wall Street hedge fund managers made $22 billion and change, according to a survey by AR Magazine. Not in a decade; not in your or my lifetime. In one year. That’s nearly five times as much as the D.C. government’s annual budget.


In just the past two quarters, Corporate America socked away nearly $2 trillion in profits. The reason most often given for not using those profits to create jobs is that the demand for goods is too low to warrant a larger workforce.

Help! I thought that demand for goods just might rise if people had the money to buy the goods — and that they’d have money if they had jobs. ”


Canyoubelievit?

 

[The Rabbi]

What both sides need to do is FIND COMMON GROUND. Take the time to find out what that is and you will find agreement.
Partisan politics with it's generalizations, myths, exact sciences, etc. is what we now have on Washington, talk radio, media and everywhere.
There is common ground. Find it and go from there.

There is no common ground. Liberals bleat about helping people, despite the fact that 40 years of government "helping" has made things worse. They bleat about raising taxes on the rich and corporations, despite the fact that raising them to 100% would not solve the budget problem.
The Democrats have nto put forth a serious proposal yet. They do not even acknowledge there is a problem. How do you negotiate with people like that?

 

[8537]

I take it by your smart assed reply,

It wasn't smartass at all. If you want to understand the impact of policies, you need to know what those policies were. And I listed some.


Of course. So in the 40 years prior, redlining was llegal. It's almost like we said that already!



No, it didn't. It mandated that banks make loans based on objective criteria, not geography.

More bullshit and lies.

Sec. 802.
(a) The Congress finds that—
(1) regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business;
(2) the convenience and needs of communities include the need for credit services as well as deposit services; and
(3) regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.
(b) It is the purpose of this title to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.

The purpose was for banks to "serve" their area. That means in poor areas they had to be much more accomodating.
You really don't know much, do you?

You're so full of shit you can't even keep your story straight.

Nothing in the above says anything about "being more accomodating". That's just you making up your usual nonsense.