T
Theo520
Guest
When multiple people disagree with you/me on something,
it’s usually a signal to do some self reflection (at least to me)
Kamala Harris announces $100B plan for black homeownership, tackling racial wealth gap
- Status
it’s usually a signal to do some self reflection (at least to me)
X
Xystus
Guest
Senator Harris made her comments specifically about blacks. ill post it again for you. these are her words, they are not twisted. The only twisting is you trying to claim that a housing program targeting blacks for help and a program designed to “give black families a real shot” is somehow different.
The Root (which bills itself as “Black News, Opinion, Politics, and Culture”) also reports it is aimed at blacks
Kamala Harris Proposes $100 Billion Black Homeownership Plan
Joining what seems like every black woman in America at Essence Fest, senator and presidential hopeful Kamala Harris unveiled a $100 billion plan to increase black homeownership that, if implemented, could serve as a major step toward closing the racial wealth gap or at least pay two or three...
www.theroot.com
You are whining about the use of the word “target” which very accurately describes Harris aiming a program at a certain demographic.
Last edited:
H
Hodos
Guest
After reading the linked article, I have quite a few questions. First, it seems to me that the HUD already offers a pretty substantial benefit through the FHA program for first-time home buyers. Essentially the government guarantees a portion of the home loan which allows for borrowers to obtain access to additional credit they would not otherwise qualify for. If memory serves as well, I want to say that closing costs could be rolled up into the loan under FHA. Then there are also VA guaranteed loans for veterans, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I am not sure why a family that should be able to qualify for a loan under these programs should also be given up to $25,000 to cover closing costs, etc. It seems to me this would only encourage people to buy houses that are outside of what they can afford, which is one of the causes of the real estate melt down that kicked off the 2008 Great Recession.
Then there are the comments about focusing the money in redline neighborhoods to focus on disparities in lending activity. Look, banks have an interest in providing loans to qualified people, particularly in areas where the home is a good investment. It doesn’t seem that encouraging banks to finance homes in areas that probably do not hold re-sale value is a smart idea.
Last, she talks about altering credit reporting standards. I don’t know what she has in mind here, but the article mentions looking at payments on credit cards, student loans, auto loans, and mortgage payments. The major credit reporting agencies already look at these things, and should continue to do so, when evaluating someone’s credit-worthiness. Is she saying these should be ignored?
Overall, this idea on the surface sounds like a re-hash of many of the longterm causes of the Great Recession. I would be very leary of this so-called plan.
Then there are the comments about focusing the money in redline neighborhoods to focus on disparities in lending activity. Look, banks have an interest in providing loans to qualified people, particularly in areas where the home is a good investment. It doesn’t seem that encouraging banks to finance homes in areas that probably do not hold re-sale value is a smart idea.
Last, she talks about altering credit reporting standards. I don’t know what she has in mind here, but the article mentions looking at payments on credit cards, student loans, auto loans, and mortgage payments. The major credit reporting agencies already look at these things, and should continue to do so, when evaluating someone’s credit-worthiness. Is she saying these should be ignored?
Overall, this idea on the surface sounds like a re-hash of many of the longterm causes of the Great Recession. I would be very leary of this so-called plan.
F
Felicia1
Guest
Yes. Do you really think you’re unaffected by decisions made 65 years ago? A major portion of the white-black wealth gap can be tracednto the government giving handouts to white people.
She’s certainly thought about it at least as much as thise who thought it was good to spend decades paying white people for the color of their skin.
If you are at all familiar with American history you know black people have been treated much less fairly than white people. Striving for a fair society means making up for centuries of dehumanization and violence against black people.
You would do well to read the Letter from Birmingham Jail.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Other that giving taxpayer money to some people in some unspecified way, I don’t see that Harris is really promoting anything that isn’t already there. FHA will guarantee loans for first time buyers and people who are not first time buyers. There are other programs like that. Almost never do those buyers pay the closing costs. Sellers pay them.
Possibly she is advocating giving loans to people with bad credit. Probably those loans would be government guaranteed as well, since nobody would make them otherwise. If it’s real, it sounds to me like a welfare program for bond traders.
But it could be illusory. Again, thinking back to my banking days, there were lots of “homeowner help” programs then, issued with a lot of fanfare, but a lot of them were illusory. Yes, banks could get a miniscule credit against their FDIC premium or Fed interest for making substandard loans, but almost nobody offered them because the lender took all the risk.
Possibly she is advocating giving loans to people with bad credit. Probably those loans would be government guaranteed as well, since nobody would make them otherwise. If it’s real, it sounds to me like a welfare program for bond traders.
But it could be illusory. Again, thinking back to my banking days, there were lots of “homeowner help” programs then, issued with a lot of fanfare, but a lot of them were illusory. Yes, banks could get a miniscule credit against their FDIC premium or Fed interest for making substandard loans, but almost nobody offered them because the lender took all the risk.
T
Theo520
Guest
The former does not justify whatever you want on the latter
A great letter for it’s time, but not evidence of present police brutality.
It does not justify the present BLM movement and tactics.
D
dvdjs
Guest
She made a program that will certainly help many blacks. Not because of the color of their skin, but because the problem of red-lining has had a disproportionately negative - and lingering - effect on blacks. This distinction is not the least bit subtle.
What is the motivation of the effort to spin her words to make this program about skin color? Is it to stir up resentments? This is a problem.
What is the motivation of the effort to spin her words to make this program about skin color? Is it to stir up resentments? This is a problem.
I have done considerable reflection on this matter. That is why I can continue to post patiently and charitably on this matter.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Kamala’s plan?
Government taking a hundred billion dollars of taxpayers hard earned dollars and re-distibuting it based upon the color of the skin of the recipient.
And we wonder why some people think in terms of skin color instead of the fact that we are Americans.
More racial dispairity to cure racial disparity.
The self-destructive left.
Government taking a hundred billion dollars of taxpayers hard earned dollars and re-distibuting it based upon the color of the skin of the recipient.
And we wonder why some people think in terms of skin color instead of the fact that we are Americans.
More racial dispairity to cure racial disparity.
The self-destructive left.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Show me in the plan where skin color is a criterion?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
dvdjs . . . .
No.
D
dvdjs
Guest
F
Felicia1
Guest
Take your pick. For example, it is extremely controversial to say that police officers shouldn’t gun down unarmed black people.
No, they are to pay for their own sins.
Then you are aware how your opinions of the Black Lives Matter movement echo King’s famous passage about the white moderate.
No, they are to pay for their own sins.
Then you are aware how your opinions of the Black Lives Matter movement echo King’s famous passage about the white moderate.
Last edited:
M
midori
Guest
Not 65 years ago. The last loan they made was 84 years ago, and then they focused on being reimbursed. 65 years ago was when the last borrower finished paying them back.
But yes, I agree that policy decisions aren’t isolated in time. The fedgov employed about 4,000 people in 1802. I can’t find a cite for how many federal employees there were in 1900, but by 1939, there were 912,000. Cue FDR and there were suddenly 3,128,000 federal employees in 1943. Today, there’s about 2.8M federal employees. So, that’s one example of how a policy decision about 80 years ago has continued to have repercussions today.
But that’s not to say that govt handouts are the way for anyone to climb the ladder of success. If anything, govt handouts do the opposite— just look at any inner city; looks at “The Projects”; look at S8 apartments; and so on.
When KH is talking about a government organization that hasn’t existed since the Eisenhower admin in the present tense… that’s a little disingenuous. Because it wasn’t the only lender in town-- it was just the lending arm of the federal government, for a specific type of loan.
And the handouts weren’t “sign up for your white people benefits”; the benefits were “the country is in a depression and we want to see what we can do to get things running again.” (We can agree that FDR was a terrible racist, and we can agree that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression unnecessarily, if you like.) And so, like many government gifts, they came with strings attached instead of simply being free money-- like, “it has to be a nonfarm home” and “it can’t be worth more than $20,000”, just as much as “it can’t be in this high-risk neighborhood”. And even so, the HOLC still managed to foreclose on one out of every five homes it lended on.
But chances are, you weren’t paying attention during that 1933-1935 period when the HOLC was giving out its million or so loans. But surely you were paying attention during the subprime mortgage crisis, which was another government program via the Community Reinvestment Act, designed to give homeownership opportunities to people who didn’t have the resources to be successful homeowners, by softening the requirements— like ditching the usual “20% down payment” in favor of “awww, life has been hard for you, so you only need to come up with a 3% down payment” (by 1995) or “awww, I see how the deck is stacked against you-- you can have a 0% down payment.” (by 2000). Freddie Mac was all, like, “Bad credit? No problem! Irregular job history? No problem! Low income? No problem!” And it eventually expanded its risky loans to 50% of its portfolio from its former 30%.
So— instead of helping the poor and minorities, ultimately, it sent tons of people over the edge into bankruptcy. (About 12M filed bankruptcy between 2006-2016. Yeah, not all of them were related to the housing crisis… but a lot were.)
And that’s generally how it goes when the govt starts doing social engineering. Because they’re good at coming up with abstract ideas in the professor’s lounge or in meeting rooms— but those ideas don’t work out in the face of the infinite variables associated with Real People, Real Lives.
But yes, I agree that policy decisions aren’t isolated in time. The fedgov employed about 4,000 people in 1802. I can’t find a cite for how many federal employees there were in 1900, but by 1939, there were 912,000. Cue FDR and there were suddenly 3,128,000 federal employees in 1943. Today, there’s about 2.8M federal employees. So, that’s one example of how a policy decision about 80 years ago has continued to have repercussions today.
But that’s not to say that govt handouts are the way for anyone to climb the ladder of success. If anything, govt handouts do the opposite— just look at any inner city; looks at “The Projects”; look at S8 apartments; and so on.
When KH is talking about a government organization that hasn’t existed since the Eisenhower admin in the present tense… that’s a little disingenuous. Because it wasn’t the only lender in town-- it was just the lending arm of the federal government, for a specific type of loan.
And the handouts weren’t “sign up for your white people benefits”; the benefits were “the country is in a depression and we want to see what we can do to get things running again.” (We can agree that FDR was a terrible racist, and we can agree that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression unnecessarily, if you like.) And so, like many government gifts, they came with strings attached instead of simply being free money-- like, “it has to be a nonfarm home” and “it can’t be worth more than $20,000”, just as much as “it can’t be in this high-risk neighborhood”. And even so, the HOLC still managed to foreclose on one out of every five homes it lended on.
But chances are, you weren’t paying attention during that 1933-1935 period when the HOLC was giving out its million or so loans. But surely you were paying attention during the subprime mortgage crisis, which was another government program via the Community Reinvestment Act, designed to give homeownership opportunities to people who didn’t have the resources to be successful homeowners, by softening the requirements— like ditching the usual “20% down payment” in favor of “awww, life has been hard for you, so you only need to come up with a 3% down payment” (by 1995) or “awww, I see how the deck is stacked against you-- you can have a 0% down payment.” (by 2000). Freddie Mac was all, like, “Bad credit? No problem! Irregular job history? No problem! Low income? No problem!” And it eventually expanded its risky loans to 50% of its portfolio from its former 30%.
So— instead of helping the poor and minorities, ultimately, it sent tons of people over the edge into bankruptcy. (About 12M filed bankruptcy between 2006-2016. Yeah, not all of them were related to the housing crisis… but a lot were.)
And that’s generally how it goes when the govt starts doing social engineering. Because they’re good at coming up with abstract ideas in the professor’s lounge or in meeting rooms— but those ideas don’t work out in the face of the infinite variables associated with Real People, Real Lives.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Again, I question whether Harris has any real knowledge of real estate lending. Most lending is done by insured lenders and/or the mortgages are sold to a number of securitizers (like FNMA or FHLMC) that are government contractors in one way or another. They are specifically forbidden to redline, and their regulators search very carefully to see whether they are doing it or not. It’s impossible to hide it because you either make loans within the designated areas or you don’t. And they make quite a study of whether the terms and rates are the same in “minority” areas as in “non-minority” areas.
Personally, I don’t think she’s serious about this. But if she is, she doesn’t know the subject matter.
Personally, I don’t think she’s serious about this. But if she is, she doesn’t know the subject matter.
F
Felicia1
Guest
The problem isn’t redlining today, the problem is redlining decades ago that led to white people being so much richer than black people today.
T
Theo520
Guest
They shouldn’t gun down unarmed people of any color,
though there are justified exceptions.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy this. Today I set up a Section 1031 exchange for some Hmong who are selling their poultry farm to a Burmese family for 1.4 million, and buying from another Hmong family for 1.2 million.
And those peoples’ English is so bad, it’s terribly difficult to understand them. They escaped from the communists in Laos and Vietnam and lived in the jungle before that. But they know how to work and how to do math.
F
Felicia1
Guest
This is certainly a non sequitur.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
No it isn’t. Why have people who just got here from a primitive country and have gained significant wealth. And we’re told that because of redlining that hasn’t been legal for going on 60 years, black people don’t have the wealth white people do?
It doesn’t work. Something else is afoot; quite possibly just distortion caused by a greater number of white people being super-wealthy or farmers.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
I wonder if he might be using that story to show that coming from a disadvantaged situation (Takaki has researched immigration experiences of different Asian Communities in Strangers from a Different Shore and in A Different Mirror) might not, necessarily, curtail the ones ability to thrive?
Last edited:
- Status