Wealth gap widens

[Full-Auto]

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.

If democrats and government are so concerned about the wealth gap, Why did they introduce and pass CAPPS?

 

[8537]

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!

In 1950, the inflation-adjusted income of blacks was $9,775
By 2004, it was $23,411. That's a much faster rate of growth than among whites.

What is it you were saying about minorities becoming poorer?

 

[8537]

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.

Highest of any district in the US? You're kidding me.

The entire state of NY averages $18,126. My district (not in NY) is $16,142.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

#1) Who is "we"? Because the gov't has no responsibility to provide food clothing or shelter to people. If you feel that way there are scads of private charitable orgs that do exactly what you are talking about that would be happy for your contributions of time and money.
#2) People do not riot in this country because they have no food. Obesity is the major problem among low income people, not starvation.
#3) You totally avoided answering the question and proceeded to bloviate about who knows what. Good job.

 

[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!

In 1950, the inflation-adjusted income of blacks was $9,775
By 2004, it was $23,411. That's a much faster rate of growth than among whites.

What is it you were saying about minorities becoming poorer?

Why do you start with 1950, you lying sack of shit? Why not 1968 when the Great Society began?
Do you have a source for any of your bullshit? I mean other than wishful thinking and ignorance.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I thought Obama was the big threat to white American prosperity?

 

[Patrick2]

I thought Obama was the big threat to white American prosperity?

Yeah - all those people losing their homes and 9.2% unemployment - all a myth.

 

[The Rabbi]

I thought Obama was the big threat to white American prosperity?

He is.
But he's an even bigger threat to black prosperity. Why do they still support him with over 90% approval rating when he's done such a poor job? Forty percent? It's like the Palestinian Authority.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I thought Obama was the big threat to white American prosperity?

Yeah - all those people losing their homes and 9.2% unemployment - all a myth.

Yeah, we know white people were hit the hardest with home loss and unemployment thats why they have a higher foreclosure rate and higher unemployment rate,

 

[The Rabbi]

I thought Obama was the big threat to white American prosperity?

Yeah - all those people losing their homes and 9.2% unemployment - all a myth.

Yeah, we know white people were hit the hardest with home loss and unemployment thats why they have a higher foreclosure rate and higher unemployment rate,

It isn't a contest as to who has it worse. The issue that white or black people are suffering economically. And Obama's policies are the prime cause.

 

[8537]

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!

In 1950, the inflation-adjusted income of blacks was $9,775
By 2004, it was $23,411. That's a much faster rate of growth than among whites.

What is it you were saying about minorities becoming poorer?

Why do you start with 1950, you lying sack of shit? Why not 1968 when the Great Society began?

Eh, OK my little racist piece of shit. let's start with 1968, shall we?

in 2009 dollars:
1968 median income: about 26,000.
2009: 32,584.

During that same period, whites went from about 48K to about 54K.

You stupid bastard.

 

[Patrick2]

I thought Obama was the big threat to white American prosperity?

Yeah - all those people losing their homes and 9.2% unemployment - all a myth.

Yeah, we know white people were hit the hardest with home loss and unemployment thats why they have a higher foreclosure rate and higher unemployment rate,

So now you're backpeddling from obama didn't hurt whites to he diidn't hurt them as hard as blacks? But who voted him in? Blacks. Are they sorry now? I'll guess not - for blacks, race trumps even electing someone who harms you - we already saw that with Ray "chocolate city" Nagun.

 

[Flopper]

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?

I think your questions are a bit rhetorical but they’re some who don’t understand how things work in our government. Tax increases were given up by Obama when it became clear that the Tea Party Republicans in the House would never approve any bill that included any increase in taxes even it meant a default, recession, or the entire collapse of the government. I for one, think he did the right thing. He couldn’t allow these idealogs to destroy the nation over this issue. This is only the first battle of the war. Whatever is finally agreed on will be overridden by the next congress and next congress.

Expecting the wealthiest, to step forward and volunteer to shoulder more of the burden is just not going to happen. The poorest are always hurt the most whenever times of tough. What’s new is that we have a lot of people that really want to see the poor suffer even more. It’s part of the rights philosophy. Kick’em when they’re down. It will give them incentive to rise up and achieve financial success.

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

I think your questions are a bit rhetorical but they’re some who don’t understand how things work in our government. Tax increases were given up by Obama when it became clear that the Tea Party Republicans in the House would never approve any bill that included any increase in taxes even it meat a default, recession, or the entire collapse of the government. I for one, think he did the right thing. He couldn’t allow these idealogs to destroy the nation over this issue. This is only the first battle of the war. Whatever is finally agreed on will be overridden by the next congress and next congress.

Expecting the wealthiest, to step forward and volunteer to shoulder more of the burden is just not going to happen. The poorest are always hurt the most whenever times of tough. What’s new is that we have a lot of people that really want to see the poor suffer even more. It’s part of the rights philosophy. Kick’em when they’re down. It will give them incentive to rise up and achieve financial success.

No one wants to see the poor do worse or kick them around.
People do not change people. People have TO CHANGE THEMSELVES.

 

[initforme]

Where are all the jobs from the Bush tax cuts? Still waiting. Its demand, not tax cuts, that lead to jobs. And I dont consider minimum slave wage a job.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

I was an alarm technician with a company during the early 2000's. We had a contract with large production builder which had price points from starter homes in the low 100's to the low 200k range. This was the height of the building boom that was fed by the sub prime mortgage market. Many of these homes were purchased by younger single professionals, single mothers and first time buyers. The less expensive homes were sold to people of low to moderate incomes. Many or more accurately a majority of these buyers were black or Hispanics with weak credit and even weaker employment.
These homes were purchased with two main loan types. Adjustable Rate Mortgages( ARM) and Interest only loans. Both loan types were set up for failure in a down market. NO one except the people in the US Congress who warned the federal government that the program that backed up these loans was in severe trouble ever gave the future a single thought. In fact many builders and lenders were afraid to NOT lend for fear of government sanctions.
This set up people for failure. However, part of the blame goes on the borrowers as well. Each of us knows our income level. Each of us has the duty to be fiscally responsible. To live within our means. Unfortunately some of us have the "payment mindset". That is the idea that anything we can buy over time can be bought as long as the monthly payment is an appealing number. We never think of the worst case scenario. That "what if". Job loss, a large unexpected expense, etc. This kind of thinking is irresponsible to it's core.
Not only was it irresponsible lending, it was irresponsible borrowing as well.

 

[Tank]

The wealth gap matchs the IQ gap

 

[Flopper]

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?

I think your questions are a bit rhetorical but they’re some who don’t understand how things work in our government. Tax increases were given up by Obama when it became clear that the Tea Party Republicans in the House would never approve any bill that included any increase in taxes even it meat a default, recession, or the entire collapse of the government. I for one, think he did the right thing. He couldn’t allow these idealogs to destroy the nation over this issue. This is only the first battle of the war. Whatever is finally agreed on will be overridden by the next congress and next congress.

Expecting the wealthiest, to step forward and volunteer to shoulder more of the burden is just not going to happen. The poorest are always hurt the most whenever times of tough. What’s new is that we have a lot of people that really want to see the poor suffer even more. It’s part of the rights philosophy. Kick’em when they’re down. It will give them incentive to rise up and achieve financial success.

No one wants to see the poor do worse or kick them around.
People do not change people. People have TO CHANGE THEMSELVES.

And that is a major philosophical difference between the right and left. The right feels we should cut subsidies, like food stamps, welfare, and unemployment extensions and that will give the poor an incentive to get a job. I side with the left. It just ads more suffering to those who are already down and out.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Yes, but according to the PC Lefties, lending standards are inherently racist. The PC bunch looks at raw statistics comparing loan approval and rejections then breaks them down into a racial component. This is done not to find the truth but to further an agenda.
That agenda is to further the notion that every loan denied to a black or Latino is purely out of racism. Intelligent people know this is bullshit. The PC crowd wants everyone to ignore the business end of making loans and forget that there are rules banks and other financial institutions must follow. To them a loan makes no sense if the lender cannot realize a return on their investment. That is the cost(interest) the borrower incurs. Typically ,loans are denied if the underwriter believes the future income of the applicant is or will in the future be inadequate.
That's that. In fact it is quite possible that the race or ethnicity of an applicant is not part of the underwriter's examination of the application. It may even be illegal for the underwriter to have this knowledge.
Now I can see where those on the other side of this may believe the appearance of a Spanish surname on the application would create automatic bias. That is a knee jerk reaction by the PC people. It is not valid because all persons with Spanish surnames are not Latino. They could be of Caribbean descent or they may be from South America or even western European( Spain). Anyone who does not accept these facts is not thinking. They are emoting.

 

[The Rabbi]

In 1950, the inflation-adjusted income of blacks was $9,775
By 2004, it was $23,411. That's a much faster rate of growth than among whites.

What is it you were saying about minorities becoming poorer?

Why do you start with 1950, you lying sack of shit? Why not 1968 when the Great Society began?

Eh, OK my little racist piece of shit. let's start with 1968, shall we?

in 2009 dollars:
1968 median income: about 26,000.
2009: 32,584.

During that same period, whites went from about 48K to about 54K.

You stupid bastard.

Thanks, you clueless moron. You have proven that the War on Poverty is a failure.
The growth rate from 1950, 15 years before the Great Society started, was far faster than the period after the great society started.
The Great Society hurt blacks, it didnt help them.
QED. Don't bother responding, asshole.