Kamala Harris announces $100B plan for black homeownership, tackling racial wealth gap

[ThinkingSapien]

I wonder if she has thought out the implication of basically paying people for the color of their skin. If her goal is to further divided a country in desperate need of of unity, this would be a great start.

I don’t expect most of the promises being made right now to get done. I also expect the magnitude of the promises made to go down once we have less than 20+ democratic candidates.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

True. This will likely be whittled down to “assistance with condo fees for Samoan Americans between the ages of 26-28 living in Peoria, Illinois” by the time she is through.

 

[pnewton]

But no one is entitled to the benefit of someone else’s brow sweat.

This is not an absolute truth though. The way you worded it, maybe more true, but that is not really the discussion. Wealth is not the same thing as sweat. Sometimes, wealth is a matter of luck. In any and all cases though, the Catholic Church teaches the universal destination of goods, where all that is placed on the Earth is for all.

 

[JonNC]

This is not an absolute truth though. The way you worded it, maybe more true, but that is not really the discussion. Wealth is not the same thing as sweat. Sometimes, wealth is a matter of luck. In any and all cases though, the Catholic Church teaches the universal destination of goods, where all that is placed on the Earth is for all.

Then “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not covet” have no meaning.
All through scripture there is a recognition of property ownership, or the two above commandments have no meaning.

If you wish to tax lottery winnings at a high rate and give that money into Harris’s scheme, well then okay.

 

[grotto]

She is becoming known as “Black Hillary”. Seems to fit very well.

 

[Ridgerunner]

BTW, if anyone has ever been in those “war houses” built for white people, by today’s standards, they are quite tiny. I grew up in a neighborhood of those houses.

Absolutely true. But something else is true, and that is you can still get FHA guaranteed loans at 100% or more of the purchase price, and the seller has to bring them up to FHA standards before closing. VA is the same way. There are other 100%+ programs beside those.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The next “housing crisis” will be in government-insured loans. The same lenders who made “liar loans” have shifted to government guaranteed over 100% loans, many of which are bound to fail because they’re “upside down” from the very first. But this time, the lenders will be unharmed because the government is guaranteeing those loans.

You don’t need a down payment for those programs, and people don’t have them. There is, however, a limit on how much additional cash a borrower can get from one of those loans.

And people don’t need “closing cost” assistance either, since anymore all, or nearly all closing costs are paid by the seller if you’re in any kind of “program” loan. Only those who are fortunate enough to have substantial down payments end up paying closing costs, and a good part of the time they don’t either. But nobody who gets a 100%+ loan EVER pays closing costs.

I don’t think Harris understands real estate lending as it is today.

 

[dvdjs]

Your reading comp is failing again, there are multiple quotes where she explicitly states she’s targeting the black community.

There are multiple quotes in which she says this will help in black communities.
She is not quoted using the word target in the article.

People who so frequently criticize others’ reading comprehension ought to be able to grasp the difference between what is quoted and their own gloss.

 

[Theo520]

I don’t think Harris understands real estate lending as it is today.

She’s desperate for a ‘reparations’ angle
She’s going with a house instead of 40 acres and a mule.

Access to free money will always lead to fraud

 

[Ridgerunner]

She’s desperate for a ‘reparations’ angle
She’s going with a house instead of 40 acres and a mule.

Access to free money will always lead to fraud

A long time ago when I was in banking, managing the securities portfolio was one of my functions. That included securities like GNMAs, which are mortgage-backed securities, backed by government-guaranteed loans.

I used to look for loan programs that a) were discounted and b) were well-intentioned attempts to “help” the poor with loan programs. My very favorite was an FHA-backed loan program for modular housing in inner cities. Guaranteed to fail in large numbers.

Why did I want my bank to invest in those securities? Because if you could get them at a discount (and you often could because others didn’t think they would succeed) you would get paid 100% by the government. So if you invested 90 cents and the program failed, you would get a dollar, compliments of Uncle Sam.

 

[Xystus]

“Kamala is quoted as saying it’s targeted at Blacks”?

“A typical black family has just $10 of wealth for every $100 held by a white family,” she said. “So we must right that wrong and, after generations of discrimination, give black families a real shot at homeownership — historically one of the most powerful drivers of wealth in our country."

-Senator Harris quoted by Politico

She is not quoted using the word target in the article.

Thats on heck of a nit to pick. not surprised though.

 

[Theo520]

Thats on heck of a nit to pick. not surprised though.

obfuscate and redirect from what is self evident.
techniques of a Zen Master

 

[dvdjs]

Thats on heck of a nit to pick. not surprised though.

I don’t think that it is nitpicking to point out the difference between what was said and what people incorrectly say was said.

I don’t know why it is seems so hard for some people to adhere to actual facts, rather than spin things to build strawmen. Arguments made from these strawmen have no honest weight. E

Even stranger: Now, in the Trump era, sticking to the simple truth without spin seems to be cause for disparagement. Sad.

 

[Theo520]

I don’t think that it is nitpicking

Of course you don’t, it undermines your deflection.

I never quoted “targeted” but I summarized her many quotes on the purpose.
It’s frankly ridiculous that you object to what is self evident.

Title: Kamala Harris announces $100B plan for black homeownership

So if it’s “for” blacks then they are the target

" it’s time to give Black families a real shot at homeownership,"

Yup, still targeting black families

“My new policy will remove unfair barriers Black Americans face”

Wow, still implies they are the target

BTW, I’m all for ensuring HUD has sufficient funding for their proven programs, I just don’t think dumping $100b in funding will solve anything, except increase fraud and bankruptcy.

 

[Xystus]

I don’t think that it is nitpicking…

There is no difference between a housing program targeting blacks for help and a program designed to “give black families a real shot”. It is absolutely nit picking to argue there is a difference. Sure, the word “target” did not come out of her mouth, but the meaning is the same. It is absolutely “fascinating” that someone could not understand that.

 

[dvdjs]

I never quoted “targeted” but I summarized her many quotes on the purpose.
It’s frankly ridiculous that you object to what is self evident.

Kamala is quoted as saying it’s targeted at Blacks

Perhaps you meant to say that her (actual) quotes reveal an intention to target the program to blacks. But you did not say that. And supporting that contention calls for knowledge that you do not have.

your deflection.

No. It is you who are deflecting by trying to make this about pigmentation.
Will the program help Harris herself, Obama, Maxine Waters, Clarence Thomas?
Will Whites, Hispanics, Native American, Asians, Pacific islanders living in red-lined areas be ineligible?

The fact that is may help many more Blacks than other groups is reflective of the nature of the problem. Not some trageting of the solution/

 

[dvdjs]

There is no differen

There is a huge difference. See the post above.

 

[Xystus]

There is no difference between a housing program targeting blacks for help and a program designed to “give black families a real shot”. see three posts above.

I would like to thank you for further proving my assertion that you nit pick and twist some statements then take other things hyper-literally all depending on how it will best fit your narrative. In this instance the nit picking is in overdrive.

 

[dvdjs]

I am not nitpicking nor am I making a minor point.

This program is not targeted to help people on the basis of their skin color.
It aims to help people whose potential wealth has been disrupted through red-lining.
The posts that aimed to make this about skin color, did so by twisting the words and speaking of the twists as though they were quotes form Sen. Harris herself.

The point is a major one. However innocently the posts were made, they have the effect of deflecting from the terrible effects that red-lining have had quashing potential wealth to the bogeyman of racial resentment. Recognizing that is not nit-picking.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Yep,I agree re your assessment