Time to face the facts

[MaryL]

Seems that everybody here is an expert on blacks. Now is the time to face the facts.

The hard cold facts.

The Racial Wealth Gap: Why Policy Matters

As the United States rapidly becomes both a more diverse and unequal nation, policymakers face the urgent challenge of confronting growing wealth gaps by race and ethnicity. To create a more equitable and secure future, we must shift away from public policies that fuel and exacerbate racial disparities in wealth. But which policies can truly begin to reduce our country’s expanding racial divergences?

Until now there has been no systematic analysis of the types of public policies that offer the most potential for reducing the racial wealth gap. This paper pioneers a new tool, the Racial Wealth AuditTM, and uses it to evaluate the impact of housing, education, and labor markets on the wealth gap between white, Black, and Latino households and assesses how far policies that equalize outcomes in these areas could go toward reducing the gap. Drawing on data from the nationally representative Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) collected in 2011, the analysis tests how current racial disparities in wealth would be projected to change if key contributing factors to the racial wealth gap were equalized.

The Racial Wealth Gap: Why Policy Matters | Demos

We will start by discussing this study. This study says the economic gap between races which is at the root of the problem in the black community and Hispanic community is due to public policy decisions.

I can tell you are real joker. Please, I hardly see whites anymore. And when I do? Read on. Whites need to be educated by YOU? And the diversity thing? That's a chimera, I want us all on the same page here culturally. Diversity is divisive. I cycle just about every were. Can't afford a car anymore. But I see the inequities with say, Mexicans down the street with ten cars parked on their yard, and blacks driving Jaguars with the prerequisite LOUD stereos and 24 inch gold rims. Really? And the whites I do see are by the the side of the road or by the side of the bike path. Living is squalor. Poor disposed whites , living under tarps and tents near the Platte river in HUGE numbers begging for food like something out of a Dickens. Open your eyes, bro.

 

[westwall]

Hong Kong was a British colony and as such education was very important. A good friend of mine owns a block of downtown Hong Kong. IQ is a product of genes, environment, and nutrition. Genes will only get you so far, my daughter is a genius, we actually had her tested properly. It ain't cheap to do that. 500 bucks here in Reno Nevada. Would you care to bet how many of those IQ tests you are actually as robust as the one my daughter took?

You claim that being a British colony pushed education, but what about British former colonies like Nigeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe etc.?
What happened there?
Why don't they have this British colony exceptionalism that you're apparently "Claiming"?

Rhodesia was great till socialists took it over. The same go's for South Africa, and Nigeria as well. Face it, it ain't the color of the person running it, it's how corrupt they are, and how socialist the government is that takes over after the colonization.

Somalia is a Libertarian country, certainly not in better shape.

Run by corrupt politicians who likewise don't want smart people to challenge their rule. That is the one over arching matter that you constantly ignore.

Why is Africa so corrupt?

Why is Europe so corrupt? Why is the USA so corrupt? Why is Canada so corrupt?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Speaking of "Albania"
The Slavic nations closest to Albania also score lower PISA , and IQ scores, than other Slavs.

Like Serbia, or Macedonia, despite being presumably culturally more like Poles, their genes are intermediate between Poles, and Albanians.
Must be some kind of coincidence?

Now, I certainly don't deny environment at all.

Albanians, and Greeks for example are close genetic relatives, but hold quite different PISA, and IQ scores.

But, much of Eastern Europe actually holds higher PISA, and IQ scores than a Greece which obviously fared much better in the 20th century.

You can see what I mean from Rindermann's IQ map of Europe.

Also with the PISA score conversion map to IQ scores.

I bet you haven't noticed the primary correlation (not that I'm claiming correlation equals causation mind you) is the lowest scores are all socialistic countries. Socialists DON'T want smart subjects. They get all pissy about being abused and taken advantage of. Far better to have stupid, compliant slaves to do your bidding.

China's Socialistic, and they score high PISA, and IQ scores.

In the industrialized ares where they need to be smart in order to not get killed in their jobs I agree with you. Go out into the countryside and it's a different story. Plus, having a billion people to sift through to get your best subjects helps to. Just take a look at the Chinese athletics programs and how far they have come in such a short time. It ain't the average people you are seeing dude. It is the exceptional ones.

Chinese everywhere they go tend to outmatch the population, also in Malaysia, Singapore, Russia, the U.S.A, Canada etc.

It surely can't have something to do with their very large, and brachycephalic brains, and also their very high levels of genes for educational attainment, now could it?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

You claim that being a British colony pushed education, but what about British former colonies like Nigeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe etc.?
What happened there?
Why don't they have this British colony exceptionalism that you're apparently "Claiming"?

Rhodesia was great till socialists took it over. The same go's for South Africa, and Nigeria as well. Face it, it ain't the color of the person running it, it's how corrupt they are, and how socialist the government is that takes over after the colonization.

Somalia is a Libertarian country, certainly not in better shape.

Run by corrupt politicians who likewise don't want smart people to challenge their rule. That is the one over arching matter that you constantly ignore.

Why is Africa so corrupt?

Why is Europe so corrupt? Why is the USA so corrupt? Why is Canada so corrupt?

Well, Western European based countries are corrupt in a different way, of supporting multiculturalism at the expense of the masses.

 

[Godboy]

You claim that being a British colony pushed education, but what about British former colonies like Nigeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe etc.?
What happened there?
Why don't they have this British colony exceptionalism that you're apparently "Claiming"?

Rhodesia was great till socialists took it over. The same go's for South Africa, and Nigeria as well. Face it, it ain't the color of the person running it, it's how corrupt they are, and how socialist the government is that takes over after the colonization.

Somalia is a Libertarian country, certainly not in better shape.

Run by corrupt politicians who likewise don't want smart people to challenge their rule. That is the one over arching matter that you constantly ignore.

Why is Africa so corrupt?

Why is Europe so corrupt? Why is the USA so corrupt? Why is Canada so corrupt?

Those aren't good comparisons to Africa. Come on man.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Seems that everybody here is an expert on blacks. Now is the time to face the facts.

The hard cold facts.

The Racial Wealth Gap: Why Policy Matters

As the United States rapidly becomes both a more diverse and unequal nation, policymakers face the urgent challenge of confronting growing wealth gaps by race and ethnicity. To create a more equitable and secure future, we must shift away from public policies that fuel and exacerbate racial disparities in wealth. But which policies can truly begin to reduce our country’s expanding racial divergences?

Until now there has been no systematic analysis of the types of public policies that offer the most potential for reducing the racial wealth gap. This paper pioneers a new tool, the Racial Wealth AuditTM, and uses it to evaluate the impact of housing, education, and labor markets on the wealth gap between white, Black, and Latino households and assesses how far policies that equalize outcomes in these areas could go toward reducing the gap. Drawing on data from the nationally representative Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) collected in 2011, the analysis tests how current racial disparities in wealth would be projected to change if key contributing factors to the racial wealth gap were equalized.

The Racial Wealth Gap: Why Policy Matters | Demos

We will start by discussing this study. This study says the economic gap between races which is at the root of the problem in the black community and Hispanic community is due to public policy decisions.

I didn't read the entire report, but rather scanned it. Can you tell me where in the report the statistics regarding children being raised in 2 parent households and graduation rates is discussed/examined? Or is that not considered a factor because there is no public policy which will alter that statistic?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Maybe if poor Blacks starting holding their masters (the Democratic Party) responsible for results (jobs, education, business opportunities, living conditions) instead of promises to keep them on wasted lifetimes stuck in subsistence living.

View attachment 139166

.

And if you are listening to Charles Barkley, a man who had a free education given to him and did not graduate from college, a man who has wasted millions gambling and still hasn't finished college, then you don't have any credibility.

Wait, so no college scholarshipped athletes who don't graduate can have a credible opinion?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Seems that everybody here is an expert on blacks. Now is the time to face the facts.

The hard cold facts.

The Racial Wealth Gap: Why Policy Matters

As the United States rapidly becomes both a more diverse and unequal nation, policymakers face the urgent challenge of confronting growing wealth gaps by race and ethnicity. To create a more equitable and secure future, we must shift away from public policies that fuel and exacerbate racial disparities in wealth. But which policies can truly begin to reduce our country’s expanding racial divergences?

Until now there has been no systematic analysis of the types of public policies that offer the most potential for reducing the racial wealth gap. This paper pioneers a new tool, the Racial Wealth AuditTM, and uses it to evaluate the impact of housing, education, and labor markets on the wealth gap between white, Black, and Latino households and assesses how far policies that equalize outcomes in these areas could go toward reducing the gap. Drawing on data from the nationally representative Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) collected in 2011, the analysis tests how current racial disparities in wealth would be projected to change if key contributing factors to the racial wealth gap were equalized.

The Racial Wealth Gap: Why Policy Matters | Demos

We will start by discussing this study. This study says the economic gap between races which is at the root of the problem in the black community and Hispanic community is due to public policy decisions.

Want to know something weird. Back in the days of the old west a cowboy or general asshole could kill a Chinese person and no one would care. At least a slave was considered property so no one could just go and kill one for sport as happened with the Chinese. Then, the world grew up a little, and the Chinese became business owners, and pillars of society. What happened to the blacks? I know some truly outstanding black men and women who I would trust with my life. But a huge proportion are still stuck in the 1800's.

There's no logical reason for this. They are every bit as smart as any other person so i just don't get it.

Why is it that a large percentage of the black population is stuck in a rut? Why can't they move on and actually improve their lot in life?

That question does not have just one answer, but there are identifiable issues. One issue is the black leadership. People like Jeremiah Wright and Jesse Jackson are partly responsible. They don't lead and empower the blacks they claim to lead. Instead they profit off making blacks victims. They attack the establishment to garner fame and wealth for themselves. BO did the same thing during his presidency.

 

[flacaltenn]

The U.S. racial wealth gap is substantial and is driven by public policy decisions. According to our analysis of the SIPP data, in 2011 the median white household had $111,146 in wealth holdings, compared to just $7,113 for the median Black household and $8,348 for the median Latino household. From the continuing impact of redlining on American homeownership to the retreat from desegregation in public education, public policy has shaped these disparities, leaving them impossible to overcome without racially-aware policy change.

• Eliminating disparities in homeownership rates and returns would substantially reduce the racial wealth gap. While 73 percent of white households owned their own homes in 2011, only 47 percent of Latinos and 45 percent of Blacks were homeowners. In addition, Black and Latino homeowners saw less return in wealth on their investment in homeownership: for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Black households as a result of homeownership, median white households accrue $1.34; meanwhile for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Latino households as a result of homeownership, median white households accrue $1.54.
  • If public policy successfully eliminated racial disparities in homeownership rates, so that Blacks and Latinos were as likely as white households to own their homes, median Black wealth would grow $32,113 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 31 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $29,213 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 28 percent.
  • If public policy successfully equalized the return on homeownership, so that Blacks and Latinos saw the same financial gains as whites as a result of being homeowners, median Black wealth would grow $17,113 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 16 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $41,652 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 41 percent.

• Eliminating disparities in college graduation and the return on a college degree would have a modest direct impact on the racial wealth gap. In 2011, 34 percent of whites had completed four-year college degrees compared to just 20 percent of Blacks and 13 percent of Latinos. In addition, Black and Latino college graduates saw a lower return on their degrees than white graduates: for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Black households associated with a college degree, median white households accrue $11.49. Meanwhile for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Latino households associated with a college degree, median white households accrue $13.33.
  • If public policy successfully eliminated racial disparities in college graduation rates, median Black wealth would grow $1,313 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 1 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $3,528 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 3 percent.
  • If public policy successfully equalized the return to college graduation, median Black wealth would grow $10,786 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 10 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $5,878 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 6 percent.

• Eliminating disparities in income—and even more so, the wealth return on income—would substantially reduce the racial wealth gap. Yet in 2011, the median white household had an income of $50,400 a year compared to just $32,028 for Blacks and $36,840 for Latinos. Black and Latino households also see less of a return than white households on the income they earn: for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Black households associated with a higher income, median white households accrue $4.06. Meanwhile, for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Latino households associated with higher income, median white households accrue $5.37.
  • If public policy successfully eliminated racial disparities in income, median Black wealth would grow $11,488 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 11 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $8,765 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 9 percent.
  • If public policy successfully equalized the return to income, so that each additional dollar of income going to Black and Latino households was converted to wealth at the same rate as white households, median Black wealth would grow $44,963 and median Latino wealth would grow $51,552. This would shrink the wealth gap with white households by 43 and 50 percent respectively.

The Racial Wealth Gap: Why Policy Matters | Demos

Public policy has consistently been a problem for these communities. Most who have made public policy are whites and as we see from the amount of trolling being done by whites here it is apparent why public policy has been a problem. For those who want to argue abut wealth redistribution these public polices crated wealth redistribution in favor of whites. Whites have benefitted from the consistent shift of wealth to them and I do mean this has been the case for all 241 yeas of official national existence and even longer if you count the colonial years given programs such as headrights.

Home OWNERSHIP is predicated on having a well paying job or family jobs. Less so on "public policy". The places public policy matter and is definitely racially biased is in those communities that attempt to run their services and legal system like a white rich suburb. Where people get warrants and jail time for ATTEMPTING to pay their fines "in installments". Where there are 2 or 3 warrants per household, because the legal system is inefficient and doesn't recognize the special needs of people living on the edge of financial ruin. Where a broken taillight can lead to years of exposure to legal system.

There should be co-opts to fix a lot of this. Places you can take a car and get it safety fixed for $10. But it's local REGULATION and Zoning laws that prevent this. Along with pressures from existing retailers. Same with tutoring. It all COULD be done with LESS government interference and more CHOICES available to the citizens.

That's bull shit. Plain and simple. Most of the wealth accumulated by whites in the 50's up until at least 1970 was due to policies pertaining to low cost home loans administered by the FHA whereby blacks had little to no access to for at least 30 years.And if you are man enough to stick this out, you will see housing policies are what DEMOS is talking about when it pertains to public policy housing decisions. As for your overall post, please stick to the thread topic and make sense when you do so.

Are you saying the requirements for FHA loans was racist? And JOBS and EDUCATION are the 2 most IMPORTANT parts of "income equality" in this country. Can't deny that..

 

[flacaltenn]

The U.S. racial wealth gap is substantial and is driven by public policy decisions. According to our analysis of the SIPP data, in 2011 the median white household had $111,146 in wealth holdings, compared to just $7,113 for the median Black household and $8,348 for the median Latino household. From the continuing impact of redlining on American homeownership to the retreat from desegregation in public education, public policy has shaped these disparities, leaving them impossible to overcome without racially-aware policy change.

• Eliminating disparities in homeownership rates and returns would substantially reduce the racial wealth gap. While 73 percent of white households owned their own homes in 2011, only 47 percent of Latinos and 45 percent of Blacks were homeowners. In addition, Black and Latino homeowners saw less return in wealth on their investment in homeownership: for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Black households as a result of homeownership, median white households accrue $1.34; meanwhile for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Latino households as a result of homeownership, median white households accrue $1.54.
  • If public policy successfully eliminated racial disparities in homeownership rates, so that Blacks and Latinos were as likely as white households to own their homes, median Black wealth would grow $32,113 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 31 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $29,213 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 28 percent.
  • If public policy successfully equalized the return on homeownership, so that Blacks and Latinos saw the same financial gains as whites as a result of being homeowners, median Black wealth would grow $17,113 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 16 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $41,652 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 41 percent.

• Eliminating disparities in college graduation and the return on a college degree would have a modest direct impact on the racial wealth gap. In 2011, 34 percent of whites had completed four-year college degrees compared to just 20 percent of Blacks and 13 percent of Latinos. In addition, Black and Latino college graduates saw a lower return on their degrees than white graduates: for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Black households associated with a college degree, median white households accrue $11.49. Meanwhile for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Latino households associated with a college degree, median white households accrue $13.33.
  • If public policy successfully eliminated racial disparities in college graduation rates, median Black wealth would grow $1,313 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 1 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $3,528 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 3 percent.
  • If public policy successfully equalized the return to college graduation, median Black wealth would grow $10,786 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 10 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $5,878 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 6 percent.

• Eliminating disparities in income—and even more so, the wealth return on income—would substantially reduce the racial wealth gap. Yet in 2011, the median white household had an income of $50,400 a year compared to just $32,028 for Blacks and $36,840 for Latinos. Black and Latino households also see less of a return than white households on the income they earn: for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Black households associated with a higher income, median white households accrue $4.06. Meanwhile, for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Latino households associated with higher income, median white households accrue $5.37.
  • If public policy successfully eliminated racial disparities in income, median Black wealth would grow $11,488 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 11 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $8,765 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 9 percent.
  • If public policy successfully equalized the return to income, so that each additional dollar of income going to Black and Latino households was converted to wealth at the same rate as white households, median Black wealth would grow $44,963 and median Latino wealth would grow $51,552. This would shrink the wealth gap with white households by 43 and 50 percent respectively.

The Racial Wealth Gap: Why Policy Matters | Demos

Public policy has consistently been a problem for these communities. Most who have made public policy are whites and as we see from the amount of trolling being done by whites here it is apparent why public policy has been a problem. For those who want to argue abut wealth redistribution these public polices crated wealth redistribution in favor of whites. Whites have benefitted from the consistent shift of wealth to them and I do mean this has been the case for all 241 yeas of official national existence and even longer if you count the colonial years given programs such as headrights.

"Eliminating disparities in homeownership rates and returns would substantially reduce the racial wealth gap. While 73 percent of white households owned their own homes in 2011, only 47 percent of Latinos and 45 percent of Blacks were homeowners."

Hey, let's make sure everybody gets a mortgage, whether they are qualified or not. What could possibly go wrong? 2008? That was almost ten years ago. Who can remember that far back?

How may unqualified whites get mortgages? Can you answer that? But what you think did not cause what happened in 2008. Maybe you read Alan Greenspans testimony so you can understand.

The number should be ZERO. HOWEVER -- when the Fed policies ENCOURAGE banks to write bad loans, things go horribly wrong. Don't need to repeat that "experiment". A LOAN is underwritten. There MIGHT be racial implications based on the LOCATION of the property. But NOT on the terms of qualifying.

So we can argue about the equity exposure that a bank has writing loans in neighborhoods where fire and police response suck and crime is an issue. But you can either AFFORD the terms or you can't. THUS -- the more important issues of jobs and education and generalized access to advancement.

 

[IM2]

The U.S. racial wealth gap is substantial and is driven by public policy decisions. According to our analysis of the SIPP data, in 2011 the median white household had $111,146 in wealth holdings, compared to just $7,113 for the median Black household and $8,348 for the median Latino household. From the continuing impact of redlining on American homeownership to the retreat from desegregation in public education, public policy has shaped these disparities, leaving them impossible to overcome without racially-aware policy change.

• Eliminating disparities in homeownership rates and returns would substantially reduce the racial wealth gap. While 73 percent of white households owned their own homes in 2011, only 47 percent of Latinos and 45 percent of Blacks were homeowners. In addition, Black and Latino homeowners saw less return in wealth on their investment in homeownership: for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Black households as a result of homeownership, median white households accrue $1.34; meanwhile for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Latino households as a result of homeownership, median white households accrue $1.54.
  • If public policy successfully eliminated racial disparities in homeownership rates, so that Blacks and Latinos were as likely as white households to own their homes, median Black wealth would grow $32,113 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 31 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $29,213 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 28 percent.
  • If public policy successfully equalized the return on homeownership, so that Blacks and Latinos saw the same financial gains as whites as a result of being homeowners, median Black wealth would grow $17,113 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 16 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $41,652 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 41 percent.

• Eliminating disparities in college graduation and the return on a college degree would have a modest direct impact on the racial wealth gap. In 2011, 34 percent of whites had completed four-year college degrees compared to just 20 percent of Blacks and 13 percent of Latinos. In addition, Black and Latino college graduates saw a lower return on their degrees than white graduates: for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Black households associated with a college degree, median white households accrue $11.49. Meanwhile for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Latino households associated with a college degree, median white households accrue $13.33.
  • If public policy successfully eliminated racial disparities in college graduation rates, median Black wealth would grow $1,313 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 1 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $3,528 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 3 percent.
  • If public policy successfully equalized the return to college graduation, median Black wealth would grow $10,786 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 10 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $5,878 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 6 percent.

• Eliminating disparities in income—and even more so, the wealth return on income—would substantially reduce the racial wealth gap. Yet in 2011, the median white household had an income of $50,400 a year compared to just $32,028 for Blacks and $36,840 for Latinos. Black and Latino households also see less of a return than white households on the income they earn: for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Black households associated with a higher income, median white households accrue $4.06. Meanwhile, for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Latino households associated with higher income, median white households accrue $5.37.
  • If public policy successfully eliminated racial disparities in income, median Black wealth would grow $11,488 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 11 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $8,765 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 9 percent.
  • If public policy successfully equalized the return to income, so that each additional dollar of income going to Black and Latino households was converted to wealth at the same rate as white households, median Black wealth would grow $44,963 and median Latino wealth would grow $51,552. This would shrink the wealth gap with white households by 43 and 50 percent respectively.

The Racial Wealth Gap: Why Policy Matters | Demos

Public policy has consistently been a problem for these communities. Most who have made public policy are whites and as we see from the amount of trolling being done by whites here it is apparent why public policy has been a problem. For those who want to argue abut wealth redistribution these public polices crated wealth redistribution in favor of whites. Whites have benefitted from the consistent shift of wealth to them and I do mean this has been the case for all 241 yeas of official national existence and even longer if you count the colonial years given programs such as headrights.

"Eliminating disparities in homeownership rates and returns would substantially reduce the racial wealth gap. While 73 percent of white households owned their own homes in 2011, only 47 percent of Latinos and 45 percent of Blacks were homeowners."

Hey, let's make sure everybody gets a mortgage, whether they are qualified or not. What could possibly go wrong? 2008? That was almost ten years ago. Who can remember that far back?

How may unqualified whites get mortgages? Can you answer that? But what you think did not cause what happened in 2008. Maybe you read Alan Greenspans testimony so you can understand.

The number should be ZERO. HOWEVER -- when the Fed policies ENCOURAGE banks to write bad loans, things go horribly wrong. Don't need to repeat that "experiment". A LOAN is underwritten. There MIGHT be racial implications based on the LOCATION of the property. But NOT on the terms of qualifying.

So we can argue about the equity exposure that a bank has writing loans in neighborhoods where fire and police response suck and crime is an issue. But you can either AFFORD the terms or you can't. THUS -- the more important issues of jobs and education and generalized access to advancement.

It's like this, the government was just fine until the civil rights act and equal opportunity along with fair housing laws and regulations were implemented. Your argument fails in regard to any understanding that for years after WW2 the government backed home loans no matter how risky the person was who got the loan. If they defaulted, the government paid because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDERWROTE the loans. And race played and still does play a major role regardless of where the house is located.

Flacaltenn you have been mentally conditioned by people like Limbaugh which means you have been told by a white man who has not spent any time in the black community and only has an opinion based upon his racial bias about blacks and racism. There is little to nothing that impacts non whites in this nation that doesn't include racism at some point in the process. Don't tell me how that's not so, I am 56 and black for all of these years and you have not lived one day black. Racism is why I ended up with a college degree because whites say we are too stupid to do it. That's is just one example.

Crime is an issue in every community Flacaltenn. OK? The DOJ shows that every year, crime is higher in white communities, It's time that you and others stopped pushing this false and dangerous narrative about crime in the black community. And we will not be arguing the 13 percent lie.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's like this, the government was just fine until the civil rights act and equal opportunity along with fair housing laws and regulations were implemented. Your argument fails in regard to any understanding that for years after WW2 the government backed home loans no matter how risky the person was who got the loan. If they defaulted, the government paid because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDERWROTE the loans.

Need some back-up on why you hate the advent of the CRA and Equal Opportunity. That's just fucking weird thing to say.

And the FHA ALWAYS absorbs the loss. So do Commercial institutions. So it makes no sense to imply that EITHER of these mortgage gate keepers, EVER undertook policies that ENCOURAGED defaults.

The FHA Can't do that. Ever. Because in reality the Fannies repackage those loans and sell them as securities to cycle the liquidity. And if they were JUNK --- no one would buy them.

You need to explain the "no matter how risky they were" part. Because that history -- never existed as a policy. It happened in 2008 -- but even then -- the GOAL wasn't to write and back and default on papers that shouldn't have been signed.

 

[flacaltenn]

MAYBE -- you're thinking about VHA loans. Which are an entirely different matter and our an obligation to our military veterans. After WW2, veterans were GIVEN houses (that they couldn't afford) and loans that no one else would have gotten.

 

[IM2]

It's like this, the government was just fine until the civil rights act and equal opportunity along with fair housing laws and regulations were implemented. Your argument fails in regard to any understanding that for years after WW2 the government backed home loans no matter how risky the person was who got the loan. If they defaulted, the government paid because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDERWROTE the loans.

Need some back-up on why you hate the advent of the CRA and Equal Opportunity. That's just fucking weird thing to say.

And the FHA ALWAYS absorbs the loss. So do Commercial institutions. So it makes no sense to imply that EITHER of these mortgage gate keepers, EVER undertook policies that ENCOURAGED defaults.

The FHA Can't do that. Ever. Because in reality the Fannies repackage those loans and sell them as securities to cycle the liquidity. And if they were JUNK --- no one would buy them.

You need to explain the "no matter how risky they were" part. Because that history -- never existed as a policy. It happened in 2008 -- but even then -- the GOAL wasn't to write and back and default on papers that shouldn't have been signed.

I did not say I hated the advent of those things, I guess I should have said things more plainly The general opinion of those like you is government worked fine until those things came along then suddenly the government got too big and intrusive and that the government should stay out of things. You will be shown in due time what I am talking about relative to housing policy.

 

[IM2]

MAYBE -- you're thinking about VHA loans. Which are an entirely different matter and our an obligation to our military veterans. After WW2, veterans were GIVEN houses (that they couldn't afford) and loans that no one else would have gotten.

You will understand what I am talking about when you get shown housing policy. Like I said drop your opinion and we shall look at the facts.

 

[flacaltenn]

MAYBE -- you're thinking about VHA loans. Which are an entirely different matter and our an obligation to our military veterans. After WW2, veterans were GIVEN houses (that they couldn't afford) and loans that no one else would have gotten.

You will understand what I am talking about when you get shown housing policy. Like I said drop your opinion and we shall look at the facts.

Sock it to us.. Don't keep us guessing. But you need to back up the assertion that there was a time when FHA didn't give a shit about qualifying

 

[flacaltenn]

And I AM a smaller, leaner, more focused govt guy. But have ZERO problem with CRA or Equal Opportunity. Those didn't make govt Larger and more unresponsive. Those are Civil Liberty issues. And I'm 100% a Civil Liberty guy. NOT necessarily SOLELY a "civil rights" guy. Because those are just one SUBSET of Civil Liberty issues.

 

[IM2]

Since people want to argue, we go right to housing.

Homeownership Policy Shapes the Wealth Gap

Lower homeownership rates among Blacks and Latinos have many roots, ranging from lasting legacies of past policies to disparate access to real estate ownership. The National Housing Act of 1934, for example, redlined entire Black neighborhoods, marking them as bad credit risks and effectively discouraging lending in these areas, even as Black home buyers continued to be excluded from white neighborhoods. While redlining was officially outlawed by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, its impact in the form of residential segregation patterns persists with households of color more likely to live in neighborhoods characterized by higher poverty rates, lower home values, and a declining infrastructure compared to neighborhoods inhabited predominantly by white residents.

Discriminatory lending practices persist to this day. When households of color access mortgages, they are more often underwritten by higher interest rates.11 Mainstream lending institutions were deeply implicated in discriminatory lending: in 2012 Wells Fargo Bank admitted that they steered thousands of Black and Latino borrowers into subprime mortgages when non-Hispanic white borrowers with similar credit profiles received prime loans.12 In addition, the proliferation of high-cost credit options such as payday lenders in many neighborhoods of color, combined with the scarcity of banks and credit unions, is another likely contributor to weak credit. The fact that Black and Latino families are more likely to have taken on subprime mortgages in recent years contributed significantly to the devastating impact of the housing collapse that began in 2006.

In addition to these longstanding homeownership and home equity disparities, the foreclosure crisis during the Great Recession of 2007-2008 dipped even further into families of color’s housing wealth. While the median white family lost 16 percent of their wealth in the housing crash and Great Recession, Black families lost 53 percent and Latino families lost 66 percent.13 Foreclosures both directly destroy housing wealth and have a lasting negative impact on credit, ensuring that mortgages and other loans will be offered on more costly terms in the future.

While homeownership plays a central part in building family wealth in the United States, the nation’s public policies have systematically operated to shut Black and Latino families out of numerous opportunities to build housing wealth that benefitted white families. Today, Latinos and Blacks are less likely to own their homes and accrue less wealth, at the median, as a result of homeownership than white families. The next two sections use empirical estimates to explore impacts on the racial wealth gap if these disparities were eliminated.

 

[IM2]

MAYBE -- you're thinking about VHA loans. Which are an entirely different matter and our an obligation to our military veterans. After WW2, veterans were GIVEN houses (that they couldn't afford) and loans that no one else would have gotten.

You will understand what I am talking about when you get shown housing policy. Like I said drop your opinion and we shall look at the facts.

Sock it to us.. Don't keep us guessing. But you need to back up the assertion that there was a time when FHA didn't give a shit about qualifying

I never said that. But like I say, you will be shown how racism dominated the FHA.

 

[IM2]

And I AM a smaller, leaner, more focused govt guy. But have ZERO problem with CRA or Equal Opportunity. Those didn't make govt Larger and more unresponsive. Those are Civil Liberty issues. And I'm 100% a Civil Liberty guy. NOT necessarily SOLELY a "civil rights" guy. Because those are just one SUBSET of Civil Liberty issues.

And like I said, there was none of this smaller leaner argument when the government was cranking out programs that benefitted whites.