For the longest time we've been hearing about how racism caused the subprime mortgage meltdown by causing financial companies to charge blacks and Hispanics more fees and interest. And that's why they couldn't pay back their loans: not because they didn't have enough money but because they were being charged too much for their loans. This is in contrast to the more realistic view [i.e., mine] that the main cause was imprudent financiers like Angelo Mozilo using the War on Redlining as an excuse to get out from under traditional regulations on mortgages, like requiring documentation of income.
But when the Obama Administration settles on these discrimination charges, it's always for a pittance compared to the hundreds of billions involved.
From the New York Times:
Wells Fargo, the nation’s largest home mortgage lender, has agreed to pay at least $175 million to settle accusations that its independent brokers discriminated against black and Hispanic borrowers during the housing boom, the Justice Department announced on Thursday. If approved by a federal judge, it would be the second largest residential fair-lending settlement in the department’s history.
An investigation by the department’s civil rights division found that mortgage brokers working with Wells Fargo had charged higher fees and rates to more than 30,000 minority borrowers across the country than they had to white borrowers who posed the same credit risk, according to a complaint filed on Thursday along with the proposed settlement.
Wells Fargo brokers also steered more than 4,000 minority borrowers into costlier subprime mortgages when white borrowers with similar credit risk profiles had received regular loans, a Justice Department complaint found. The deal covers the subprime bubble years of 2004 to 2009. ...
Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for the civil rights division, said the practices amounted to a “racial surtax,” adding: “All too frequently, Wells Fargo’s African-American and Latino borrowers had no idea they could have gotten a better deal — no idea that white borrowers with similar credit would pay less.”
I don't see any mention of the race of the mortgage brokers who were getting bad deals for minorities. The financial industry had, in cooperation with the government, made a huge effort to bring in more minority brokers and salesmen. This giant Minority Outreach wasn't just to please the politicians, of course. As with buying cars, where salesmen notoriously exploit the insecurities and lack of financial acumen of black and Latino customers, NAMs tend to be easy meat for mortgage brokers of their own race. The problem is that they are also less likely to pay off their loans.
... The Justice Department estimated that the minority borrowers who had been steered into costly subprime loans would receive an average of $15,000, while the victims who had been charged more costly fees would receive $1,000 to $3,500. In addition, the bank has agreed to give $50 million to a program that assists people in making down payments or improving their homes in eight metropolitan areas: Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, an area east of Los Angeles, New York, Oakland/San Francisco Bay Area, Philadelphia and Washington.
Lending data showed, for example, that in 2007 customers in the Chicago area who borrowed $300,000 from Wells Fargo through an independent broker had paid an average of $2,937 more in broker fees if African-American, and $2,187 more if Hispanic, compared with white borrowers with a similar credit risk, the complaint said.
Similarly, it said, the data showed that nationwide, an African-American borrower who had qualified for a regular loan was 2.9 times more likely to be steered into a subprime loan, and a Hispanic borrower was 1.8 times more likely, than were similarly creditworthy white borrowers. Subprime loans, which are intended for riskier borrowers, carry higher interest rates.
Of course, the article doesn't mention the default rates by race.
Wells Fargo was also facing lawsuits by several entities beyond the Justice Department, including the city of Baltimore, the state of Illinois and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission. It settled with all of them as part of the deal, putting to rest its fair-lending cases from the bubble years.
The focus of the settlement is Wells Fargo’s failure to police the behavior of its independent loan brokers. The complaint said that the bank had set basic credit guidelines but then had allowed the brokers discretion to charge higher rates or steer people into less attractive loans without ensuring there was no discrimination based on race or national origin
Wells Fargo and the Justice Department were unable to agree on whether the data had showed any evidence of discrimination in the lending practices of the bank’s in-house “retail” mortgage agents. Instead, they agreed to a methodology to evaluate that data further. If it finds evidence of discrimination, the victims would receive similar compensation on top of the $175 million Wells Fargo has already agreed to pay.
Under federal civil rights laws, a lending practice is illegal if it has a disparate impact on minority borrowers, even without evidence of discriminatory intent.
Allow me to make a prediction. Financial firms will cut back on their Minority Outreach for awhile, until such point as the Good Times are rolling again, at which point politicians will demand it and we'll go through the whole cycle all over again.
... In December, the division settled a similar lawsuit with Bank of America for $335 million over loan discrimination by its Countrywide Financial unit. In May, SunTrust Mortgage agreed to pay $21 million in a similar case.
Countrywide was the biggest mortgage lender in the country, so that puts some perspective on the Discrimination Caused the Meltdown theory.
Posts
56 comments:
As you mentioned, brokers might have been 7515 Cs or 324-7 Cs themselves.
Of course, only 99-7 Cs are to blame.
Good post.
A while back I too noticed the small settlements in these lending cases.
Having experience in litigating with federal entities I can assure you that they like to squeeze every last dollar from defendants that they can. It's a point of honor with them and they have the resources to litigate cases to conclusion.
True the DOJ and other federal enforcement agencies can't go after “everybody” with a full court press, because they are limited in resources.
But, and this is a biggggg…. "But," if they decide to target you to make an example out of you ...watch out brother... you are gonna get buried in legal paperwork. Even Microsoft settles.
Therefore, the only conclusion I could come to for these paltry settlements is that the PTB and the DOJ were afraid that full blown trials with an aggressive defense would embarrass many prominent sitting politicians mostly Democrats probably.
Think about it. What is the defense? We were only doing what the Democrats, like Barney Frank and Pelosi, in Congress told us we “had” to do.
Elder’s DOJ did not want to go there. That’s all there is to it.
Nothing to do with discrimination, but in the same spirit:
Wachovia Paid Trivial Fine for Nearly $400 Billion of Drug Related Money Laundering
If this news story does not prove that banks are effectively above the law, I don’t know what does. The Guardian, in an account yet to be picked up anywhere in the US media (per Google News as of this posting, hat tip readers May S and Swedish Lex) reports that Wachovia was at the heart of one of the world’s biggest money laundering operations, moving $378.4 billion into dollar-based accounts from Mexican casas de cambio, which are currency exchange firms. While these transfers took place over a period of years, the article notes that it equals 1/3 of Mexican GDP. And the resolution?
Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year’s “deferred prosecution” has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine.
(...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_g5nQTN95o
still not on dvd
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv3YOEswX8c
damn. no subtitles. alltimefav
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KN4W-7MmGQ
funniest movie ever but no english sub
"Allow me to make a prediction. Financial firms will cut back on their Minority Outreach for awhile, until such point as the Good Times are rolling again, at which point politicians will demand it and we'll go through the whole cycle all over again."
Steve the "Good Times" are not coming back... ever. The U.S. is over. Even Denise Rich recently jumped ship. More will follow.
We have run out of bubbles (high tech, housing, etc ...) that were used to mask the deindustrialization and financial gutting of the U.S. economy by Wall Street and their friends in D.C.
High unemployment mixed with raging bouts of inflation is the future new normal.
I like your optimism ... but seriously are you smoking some of that medical marijauna that is so popular in California?
In addition, the bank has agreed to give $50 million to a program that assists people in making down payments or improving their homes in eight metropolitan areas...
So after contributing to the housing bubble and subsequent crash, their penance for discrimination is to help get more otherwise unqualified people into home loans. That's fantastic.
This is actually a rotten thing. When banks get charged for this nonsense that the govt demanded we pay for it ultimately, in reduced interest on savings, slower economy, reduced stock values, etc. Black guys were the loan officers?
NAM screws NAM and they blame the white guy (to paraphrase an idea from a Derb column).
So much liberal nonsense over this. I saw in the news the other day about Barney Frank getting married, and the article crooned over his brilliant Congressional actions as an architect of the Dodd-Frank Reforms in 2010- no mention of course of Frank's key role in demanding these loans in the first place, nor the cronyism involved in the fact that he'd gotten his boyfriend Herb Moses a job at Fannie Mae. Any wonder why people are dropping the MSM in droves?
Interesting- Doesn't Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway own a large amount of Wells Fargo?
I think an important factor that is usually ignored in these discussions is the higher crime rates in black and Hispanic neighborhoods compared to white ones. This makes it more difficult for lenders to sell houses that have been foreclosed upon in minority neighborhoods since people usually don't want to live in a high crime area if they can avoid it.
Off-topic, but an insightful quote by Roger Scruton, writing specifically about the EU and nationalism, but which could also refer to anywhere else (emphasis mine):
"In so far as people do not vote to line their own pockets, it is because they also vote to protect a shared identity from the predations of those who do not belong to it, and who are attempting to pillage an inheritance to which they are not entitled. National loyalty has nothing intrinsically to do with racism or fascism: its primary expression is in the attachment to territory and to the community that has grown in it."
"We have run out of bubbles (high tech, housing, etc ...) that were used to mask the deindustrialization and financial gutting of the U.S. economy by Wall Street and their friends in D.C.
High unemployment mixed with raging bouts of inflation is the future new normal."
Yes, it was a classic mob style "bust out." In the traditional "bust out" the mob takes over a legitimate business, and because of its credit worthiness loads it with debt while simultaneously selling off its assets and looting the company.
The only difference in this instance is the "mob" is a bunch of Wall street crooks and D.C. enablers and the legitimate company was the U.S. economy and its once vaunted industrial base.
Now I have an 85 IQ, but there's one thing I just can't understand:
Wouldn't a higher interest rate lead to a higher mortgage payment which would in turn lead some to be unable to pay it?
Wouldn't a higher interest rate lead to a higher mortgage payment which would in turn lead some to be unable to pay it?
Yes, meaning they never should have signed for the mortgage to begin with. In fact, they never should have been advanced the credit at any price--ten percent, twenty percent, thirty percent, whatever, and the rates were actually lower. (Loanable funds are subject to the supply-demand curve like everything else.)
The lenders knew the buyers were not creditworthy at any price so, in an attempt to comply with the government's anti-discrimination mandates, they bundled the high risks with the low risks and sliced and diced and tranched them into bits hoping it would all come out in the wash, and dumped the MBS's on an artificial secondary market via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They and others went broke when it turned out sheetrock hangers can't actually afford $300K homes, so the Fed printed a trillion or so dollars buying all the rotten paper up. The Fed is using every trick in the book to keep that nominal money from working its way back into the economy but the piper will be paid. Currency continues its inexorable path to intrinsic value and you'll still be muttering about the white man's greed when you're paying five dollars for a loaf of bread.
Steve - are you going to do a post on the fact that you're state is going broke?
I am Lugash.
@ 6:50PM Anon: Yep, the good times are gone.
Wouldn't a higher interest rate lead to a higher mortgage payment which would in turn lead some to be unable to pay it?
Yes, but remember that CW, BofA, WF et. al weren't holding onto these mortgages, they were bundling and slicing them up and selling them off to investors.
I worked at Countrywide for a few years, and the internal loan officers, err, scam artists were by and large young white men. Office gossip had it that the Greek head of subprime origination would boast that only Greeks and Italians had the ability to move product.
I am Lugash.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sCioKnpHdY
Lord Rothschild hassled by a bunch of American kids whilst walking down a street. This reminded me of one of your old posts about conspiracy theories and secret societies.
Totally off-topic...
Wonders never cease. Robert Redford has managed to make an interesting movie, even a near-great one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LzovRI4zig
Of course, a wider point is that the policy of unlimited mass immigration foisted on the USA by neo-con elitists and their political lakeys has had the effect of reducing the compensation for unskilled labor right down to the irreducible mininmum (American wages have stagnated since 1972). So basically the politicians engineered a situation where marginalized paupers - who barely a scrape an existence in the US economy - are encouraged to become 'property owners' - a stinking hypocrisy if there ever was one, since the eliltists couldn't give a damn if the marginal thrive or die in their 'free labor market', but for some reason they think they should be dignified by the title of 'property owner'. Memo to political class - "They are paupers, proletarians, claimants and sub-peasants (real peasants are actually owners), you created them and now you have the sheer unmitigated gall to pretend somehow they are 'middle class' because they 'own property'.
The British have a better solution. They put all their proles in 'council estates' and are done with it. They don't pretend that proles, paupers etc are 'middle class'.
Why does the DOJ sue banks? Ask Willie Sutton.
It's a great racket, actually. They never actually have to prove any wrongdoing. Never have to face uncomfortable statistics about non-white default rates etc in court (assuming a competent defense, a big assumption I admit). Just sue, and the bank settles.
A while ago you had a post about who may have coined the term 'founding fathers'. I'm sure this is just the kind of federal government they envisioned.
You expect good times to be rolling again, Steve?
That's a bold prediction.
I don't expect that at all. I expect that things will continue to deteriorate for quite some time.
The article makes it sound like the DOJ report controlled for variables when comparing whites and blacks/Hispanics. Does anyone have a link to the actual report? I'd be curious how they came to the conclusion that "if it was a white in the exact same circumstance, they were given a better deal."
I would imagine that, if this was the case, then the culprit isn't racism so much as good old fashioned salesmanship. The whites were just better at getting the deal they wanted, knowing that they had some say in what they paid. The blacks/Hispanics didn't know how to work within the system, and so just took whatever they got with no questions asked.
"Now I have an 85 IQ, but there's one thing I just can't understand:
Wouldn't a higher interest rate lead to a higher mortgage payment which would in turn lead some to be unable to pay it?"
- You must have an 85 IQ if you think that people aren't told what they will need to pay each month before they sign on the dotted line. If you can't afford it don't buy it. Its that simple. You stay in the black by staying in the black.
They also have the ability to negotiate, as well as to refinance, etc. And its not like the banks were going- okay, he's black, lets add an extra 5% to the rate. The fact is the avg. black guy going there had a lower salary, higher debt, poorer credit scores from skipping out on debts before, etc. compared to the avg. white guy. But of course these common sense facts are ignored. Why let reality get in the way of a good narrative?
In Atlanta you had black mortgage brokers making a killing off selling sub-primes to other blacks all across the south metro region. You had black preachers pushing their local mortgage broker from the pulpit.
It was normally these black mortgage brokers who urged black homebuyers to take sub-prime loans even in the cases where they qualified for standard loans.
As a group, blacks are certainly not the best at money management or planning, so the idea of getting an ARM with dirt-cheap payments for the first 2 years was irresistible to those with short time horizons. In Atlanta you had black homebuyers taking ARM's at 5-6 times the rate of white homebuyers with the same credit rating and income level.
Of course, the idea of bearing responsibility for signing up for a bad mortage simply escapes certain people.
How is what these banks did "wrong" but affirmative action is OK?
"Allow me to make a prediction. Financial firms will cut back on their Minority Outreach for awhile, until such point as the Good Times are rolling again,"
Now let me make a prediction.
The Good Times are not going to get rolling again.
Look at the actual financial indicators. The wage slaves we have imported cannot create demand because while willing, they are not able to pay.
"175 Mmmmmmilion Dollars!"
Err, Mmmmmmillion Dollars!
"the eliltists couldn't give a damn if the marginal thrive or die in their 'free labor market', but for some reason they think they should be dignified by the title of 'property owner'. Memo to political class - "They are paupers, proletarians, claimants and sub-peasants (real peasants are actually owners), you created them and now you have the sheer unmitigated gall to pretend somehow they are 'middle class' because they 'own property'.
The British have a better solution. They put all their proles in 'council estates' and are done with it. They don't pretend that proles, paupers etc are 'middle class'."
A better solution? Are you kidding?
I knew about council estates, of course, but had never been to England nor had I ever corresponded with anyone living there til I went online.
On an online dog forum, we had a gal from England, living with the father of her five children but not married to him. Due to his headaches, he only worked a day or two a week. She didn't work outside the home at all. Two of her children were autistic. She was one of the first in our group to have a digital camera and posted lots of pics of herself and her family at home. Their house was nice, not fancy but nice. I only slowly came to realize that she was living in council housing. Because two of her children were disabled, a qualified caregiver came to their home twice a week to help out. (IIRC, the children spent their days in a care center for special needs children, the caregiver did crafts and things with them at home). The whole family were also entitled to two weeks of vacation in England every year. She had all the latest computer stuff, printer, scanner, digital camera, etc. Furthermore our messageboard was about bulldogs. Bulldogs are very expensive to own and even more expensive to breed. She owned several and bred the bitches. She used to joke about living with a stick-in-the-mud when she liked pub-crawling. She even posted pics of herself (disheveled, like mug shots) after getting drunk, locking herself in the loo and then injuring her fingertip trying to get out. Except for the injury requiring a trip to the ER, I gather the rest of the evening was not a rare event for her.
Except for the pittance her live-in boyfriend brought home, her comfortable lifestyle was paid for by the English tax-payer. I've been in areas here in the US where people live off of welfare, as she and her large brood were doing over there. No way do they have the cushy, non-marginal lifestyles this English family was enjoying at tax-payer expense.
I have no reason to doubt that it was she and her family whose pics I saw. She didn't brag about this, she just matter-of-factly shared info in a private forum in which she felt comfortable.
There is no way I would ever consider that situation or anything remotely like it to be an acceptable solution to the problem of marginal people.
Steve -- One of the big arguments used against the idea that "the main cause was imprudent financiers like Angelo Mozilo using the War on Redlining as an excuse to get out from under traditional regulations on mortgages" is that there were also big housing bubbles in Europe, where they didn't have a CRA or the kind of minority buyers we have.
I have to say this is kind of a compelling argument, and it leads me to believe that while the CRA and irresponsible minority lending was probably a factor -- and perhaps even the trigger for the crisis here in America -- in the end it couldn't have been the biggest part of the overall problem.
Do you have any thoughts on this?
"We have run out of bubbles (high tech, housing, etc ...) that were used to mask the deindustrialization and financial gutting of the U.S. economy by Wall Street and their friends in D.C."
So true, and when you add the effects of the national debt onto that, it makes you wonder if it will be possible for the US to maintain first-world status even if the Southern Invasion of the last fifty years was reversed.
What's the point of suing the banks into bankruptcy if you're just going to bail them out again?
In so far as people do not vote to line their own pockets, it is because they also vote to protect a shared identity from the predations of those who do not belong to it, and who are attempting to pillage an inheritance to which they are not entitled.
In other words, they're not voting to further their personal self-interest, but they're still voting in their self-interest. It's just that the relevant "self" is a larger group or community.
Yes, it was a classic mob style "bust out." In the traditional "bust out" the mob takes over a legitimate business, and because of its credit worthiness loads it with debt while simultaneously selling off its assets and looting the company.
An apt analogy.
Ok, but I'm gonna need some talking points to explain these quotes to my non-recovering friends.
"white borrowers who posed the same credit risk" "white borrowers with similar credit risk profiles had received regular loans" "white borrowers with similar credit would pay less" "compared with white borrowers with a similar credit risk" "more likely to be steered into a subprime loan ... than were similarly creditworthy white borrowers"
Help me out. Are you saying that those statements are meaningless because there's no way to accurately evaluate who has the "same credit risk profile" when brokers were playing fast and loose with income documentation? That's all I can come up with on my own, so help me out if there's more to it than that. btw - I'm sincere, not a troll.
Incidentally, my (white) brother's mortgage broker (white, also) tried to steer him into a sub-prime but he told her "why would I do that? I got good credit and 20% down!" He told me that she didn't seem to understand what that had to do with anything.
"- You must have an 85 IQ if you think that people aren't told what they will need to pay each month before they sign on the dotted line. If you can't afford it don't buy it. Its that simple. You stay in the black by staying in the black."
Great business advice there, Donald Trump. I guess it's a wonder anyone ever defaults on anything.
"The fact is the avg. black guy going there had a lower salary, higher debt, poorer credit scores from skipping out on debts before, etc. compared to the avg. white guy."
Actually, Latinos carried the brunt of the Subprime mess, there ED-WAR-DOH; That's why California, 6% black, 37% Mess-Kin, Nevada, 8% black, 27% Mess-kin* and Florida 15% black 22% Mess-Kin; were the vanguard states.
Probably the guy who got a loan to pay $340,000 for a 500 square foot house in Compton had a good credit rating score.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/10/real-homes-of-genius.html
But, using more variables than just credit rating would have suggested he has a higher risk of defaulting (as he did). For example, the $680 per square foot house is in COMPTON. But that would be racist redlining to take that into account.
"Now I have an 85 IQ, but there's one thing I just can't understand:
Wouldn't a higher interest rate lead to a higher mortgage payment which would in turn lead some to be unable to pay it?"
Most of these subprime guys couldn't even pay the principle, forget the interest.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4448063325596&set=p.4448063325596&type=1&theater
Blogger Average Joe said... I think an important factor that is usually ignored in these discussions is the higher crime rates in black and Hispanic neighborhoods compared to white ones..."
The important point that is ignored is that anybody with a pulse can be a mortgage broker. It is an extremely competitive business. The idea that a bunch of people in an incredibly competitive business all independently decided that they weren't going to lend to blacks is absurd. Why wouldn't a mortgage broker process a loan for a black? He doesn't give a crap if the loan goes bad or not. That's the bank's or whoever they sell it to's problem. The idea that the same mortgage broker would get away with high interest rates and fees without some other mortgage broker undercutting him is also absurd.
However the idea that a black or hispanic borrower would call one and only one mortgage broker and not shop the loan nor spend 5 seconds on the innernetz searching for a better deal? Not so absurd. Its important to look like a playah, and playah's don't sweat the little stuff.
eah said...Why does the DOJ sue banks? Ask Willie Sutton. It's a great racket, actually. They never actually have to prove any wrongdoing. Never have to face uncomfortable statistics about non-white default rates etc in court (assuming a competent defense, a big assumption I admit). Just sue, and the bank settles. "
And then the banks get federal bailouts. So all the banks really are is the middle man in yet another wealth transfer to NAM's. And their lawyers. Somebody keep track of all this - we need to include it in the "Paid" column when calculating "Reparations" for slavery.
Truth said...Actually, Latinos carried the brunt of the Subprime mess, there ED-WAR-DOH; That's why California, 6% black, 37% Mess-Kin, Nevada, 8% black, 27% Mess-kin* and Florida 15% black 22% Mess-Kin; were the vanguard states."
My man Troof hits the nail on the head! The idiotic Karl Rove's attempt to co-opt mexican's into the GOP by making them homeowners can't be blamed on our African-American friends.
But the shakedown, err, bank settlement will go mainly to blacks. The next question for you Truth is why blacks vote en masse for a political party that also welcomes Mess-Kin's in such numbers, when the huge number of Mess-Kins is quite bad for blacks. Come to think of it, its not like the Repubs would do anything about it either so forget the question.
I'd be the first to say that blacks spend entirely too much time being angry about stuff, but in the case of this Mess-Kin invasion they have every right to angry. You guys (assuming you're black, maybe not) are disproportionately affected by them.
Speaking of HBD lawsuits:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2012/0713/Michigan-students-sue-school-district-for-violating-their-right-to-read
"Truth said...
" "- You must have an 85 IQ if you think that people aren't told what they will need to pay each month before they sign on the dotted line. If you can't afford it don't buy it. Its that simple. You stay in the black by staying in the black."
Great business advice there, Donald Trump. I guess it's a wonder anyone ever defaults on anything."
Actually, its practically one of the 10 commandments in terms of practical business advice I'd give to someone in the 'hood, Ruth. If they followed this one principle, many of their money worries would dramatically shrink.
Of course, we're talking about things like not spending your baby mama's rent money on shiny, spinning rims for the whip, but I doubt many on the left side of the bell curve will ever figure out that bit of rocket science.
But when the Obama Administration settles on these discrimination charges, it's always for a pittance compared to the hundreds of billions involved.
Well obviously, they need to cover their tracks. Imagine Obama going after his overlords on WS. Not likely. Its unlikely Obama does not know the score. PC whites maybe, but not Obama.
"how much can you afford on a monthly basis during the best and worst of times".
In Catholic literature, Malthus has far fewer supporters than Darwin. Thanks to Wikipedia, I did a little reading up. First of all, his portrait presents a very kind and pleasant looking expression, much gentler than Darwin. Secondly his views on GOVERNMENT charity are very consistent with today's conservative views - found money encourages poor reproductive and spending behavior.
I attended twelve years of Catholic schools and we students were inculcated with Malthusian views by rules and example. Catholic clergy in my time consisted of celibates who chose education and service over reproduction. A wise move for most of them, as none were very good looking and they generally seemed content with having a community of fellow travelers. And by the way, most were very good teachers who were up to any challenge - our high school would take students expelled from regular public high schools. They were incredibly successful in creating an atmosphere discouraging reckless sexual behavior. Being fruitful and multiplying was not encouraged for teenagers, that was a decision to be made in the next stage of life.
Like all good Catholics, Malthus, though Protestant, did not believe in a heaven-on-earth Utopia. He advised restraint instead of birth control and abortion. He believed in private charity to alleviate dire need. He believed in God. I can't for the life of me understand why he has become a pariah in Catholic circles.
"Of course, we're talking about things like not spending your baby mama's rent money on shiny, spinning rims for the whip, but I doubt many on the left side of the bell curve will ever figure out that bit of rocket science."
As far as I could tell when I lived where such financial decisions were common, they've got it figured out, they just don't care.
Here's how they reason: if the rent money came from the government, there's more where that came from. It's the government's job to help them out and it's their right to expect the government to do so. And if, heaven forbid, they actually had to work to earn the money, then it's their money and they have the right to spend it as they please. They should have something besides a rent receipt to show for all their hard work.
Personal responsibility is seldom, if ever, a factor in the equation.
"But that would be racist redlining to take that into account.."
It was taken into account, the same house in Malibu would have been $640,000, but a rising tide lifts all boats.
"The next question for you Truth is why blacks vote en masse for a political party that also welcomes Mess-Kin's in such numbers..."
Which president was it that amnesteyed the Mess-Kins to begin with, again?
Oh yeah, that's right, it was your idol, Dutch! What a shock.
I've said it before, and I will say it again; it has nothing to do with which actor is pretending to be US president, and which animal pin he wears on his lapel.
The three presidents that grew the US Government the largest were Bush II, Bush I and Regan. There is no substantial difference between one wall street shill, Israeli lapdog and the other, the game is to create dissention between Americans in similar situations, and divert their monies to the already monied class through a continuing line of new consumers and cheap labor. It isn't complicated.
"The three presidents that grew the US Government the largest were Bush II, Bush I and Regan."
ReAgan did grow gov't (something he lamented as a necessary evil 'til the end of his days) but in all fairness, even counting your 3 above, Obama is turning out to be the one most like Paris Hilton with daddy's credit card.
Speaking of Austin Powers...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/blackdynamite/25-outrageous-fashion-ads-from-the-1970s-5e97
"Speaking of Austin Powers...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/blackdynamite/25-outrageous-fashion-ads-from-the-1970s-5e97
"
Interesting- did you see the Eldridge Cleaver fashion image in the comments section?
Kind of takes bling in a different direction, though its perfectly symbolic of most of these guys. Trying to be the biggest guy in the room and putting it in everyone else's face is probably the #1 reason so many black guys end up going the Trayvon route.
Oh yeah, "Cleavers". The pants with the penis pouch. They're worth a fortune now in Japan.
The irony is outstanding....
Black and Hispanic brokers preyed upon their ethnic cohort in Boston. The minority home buyers counted on the Madoffian idea that their bros wouldn't screw them.
Post a Comment