Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Kamala Harris proposal for black homeownership

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by GatorFanCF, Jul 6, 2019.

  1. nolancarey

    nolancarey GC Legend

    850
    135
    203
    Aug 16, 2009
    The idiom was originally intended to equate with something impossible to do. I don't know how it became a popular conservative phrase related to self-reliance.
     
  2. nolancarey

    nolancarey GC Legend

    850
    135
    203
    Aug 16, 2009
    I legitimately didn't know that you were doing so, so I pointed you to the source from whence it came. I used the NYT's wording, as the previous poster said "hispanic" and the article I read chose the other term.

    The term Latino is not hard to define, though "hispanic" is somewhat. Latino (generalized as the male pronoun, so Latinx is more appropriate) is in reference to persons from Latin America, either directly or ancestrally. I would argue that indigenous lineage is pertinent to the distinction. I would also include the portions of the U.S. that were historically Spanish-occupied. I do not include people whose sole ancestry is non-indigenous American. I do not include indigenous persons from the U.S. and Canada who were never occupied by Spain.
     
  3. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    6,131
    111
    133
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    In other words, I'll ignore your tale to continue to make excuses for the failed War on Poverty.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2019
  4. The_RH_Factor

    The_RH_Factor GC Legend

    829
    80
    193
    Aug 11, 2010
    Here’s some more fuel for the fire:

    Democrats owned slaves, not Republicans (although most think the opposite today).

    The Republican Party was established to abolish slavery.

    More whites were enslaved by Africans than Africans were enslaved to America.

    Jim Crow laws were created by Democrats (though most think it was Republicans).

    The KKK was created by Democrats
    (though most would think it was Republicans).
     
  5. Gator515151

    Gator515151 GC Hall of Fame

    19,391
    237
    883
    Apr 4, 2007
    In the 80s I owned a General Contracting company. I hired the best/cheapest subcontractors regardless of color. The one exception was the one government job I did I was forced to hire a percentage of minority contractors. I sold houses to blacks in high classed neighborhoods, Why? Because they could afford them. It is called business.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. MaceoP

    MaceoP GC Hall of Fame

    2,602
    102
    288
    Apr 3, 2007
    Hypothetically, if the proposal by Harris was taken seriously, and at some point put up as legislation, issues like the one you addressed would have to be hashed out. Assuming that there could be some sort of agreement on how to define a latinx or black (maybe not your definition, or maybe so) , for purposes of eligibility, does anyone believe that DNA testing would be the logical next step in eligibility? I believe you couldn't take the 'ethnicity someone identifies as' for eligibility. Even if this was all possible to get agreed upon, would SCOTUS find a law like this constitutional?
     
  7. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas GC Legend

    756
    233
    273
    Dec 31, 2016
    Lender Discrimination or "Redlining" Lawyers

    1994 - HOEPA - Home Ownership Equity Protection Act
    1977 - CRA - Community Reinvestment Act

    1975 - HMDA - Home Mortgage Disclosure Act

    Obviously this is not enough for Ms Harris. If someone can explain to me why we need some sort of reparation for past indiscretions of our financial industry I'm more than willing to listen. Over the past 40 years legislation has been enacted and amended to help all consumers. Help me understand why we are still talking about this issue today as though we owe some debt to a specific class or ethnic group.
     
  8. gatorzfan

    gatorzfan VIP Member

    562
    167
    288
    Sep 1, 2017
    Is her proposal for blacks only or include other minorities.... Native American, Hispanic, Asian ? If not is this not racist?
     
  9. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,712
    610
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    Factually inaccurate. Both Democrats and Republicans owned slaves.

    Yeah, that is not true.
     
  10. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,712
    610
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    Because simply saying we won't do it going forward doesn't fix the damage done prior to that. Denying housing (and, on a separate topic, education) to a certain group of people has a negative financial impact that doesn't end immediately. It meant that certain people couldn't build equity in their home, if they already owned a home, or wouldn't be able to begin that process. That is financially costly.
     
  11. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas GC Legend

    756
    233
    273
    Dec 31, 2016
    Simply put the damage done 40 years ago is not repairable. Going forward I would say we are on much better footing. If something else needs to change that benefits all by all means lets do it. Trying to fix the past is ludicrous as no one can back in time to start anew.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,712
    610
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    Trying to fix the past is literally the goal of our civil legal system. Yes, you can repair issues from the past. We do it every single day in this country.
     
  13. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas GC Legend

    756
    233
    273
    Dec 31, 2016
    Tell me exactly who is going to give a 15 / 20 / 30 year mortgage to some one who is 60 / 70 years old now? To me this is what drives me nuts. For forty years we have passed legislation the latest being in 1994.

    Lets be honest here even in 1994 I certainly didn't know that many 21-26 year olds capable of affording a house. Especially if they just got out of college or were in the military on enlisted pay.

    Talk about the inane nonsense of it all. This is simply trying to fix things that cannot be fixed as no one can go back in time period.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. wgbgator

    wgbgator Extremely Online Premium Member

    Good news, I don't think the idea of reparations is about 'fixing the past' at all. More about owning up to it and accounting for it in the present.
     
  15. wgbgator

    wgbgator Extremely Online Premium Member

    This seems a lot easier than giving back land and wealth stolen from people many decades ago.
     
  16. nolancarey

    nolancarey GC Legend

    850
    135
    203
    Aug 16, 2009
    I'm ready
    Fine, we'll just say conservatives owned slaves.
    True. Back when Republicans were the good guys. It's a plot twist.
    Definitely need a citation.
    Definitely need a citation with sources.
    True. Back when the Democrats were the bad guys. Another plot twist.
    True ... but tell me why it's only Republicans complaining when we take down statues of Nathan Bedford Forrest? You know, the ones wearing those cheap red hats?
     
  17. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,712
    610
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    60 year olds regularly get mortgages. However, that is entirely beside the point. Again, we regularly give people damages for when somebody does damage to them. The goal of it is to try to approach making things right in the best way we can. If a company makes a defective product, and you lose a limb, our justice system doesn't give you your limb back. But it tries to compensate you for the loss of the limb. Similarly, nobody is claiming that we can go back and give somebody a house 40 years ago. However, we can compensate people for the damage done to them by not being given credit for that house.
     
  18. nolancarey

    nolancarey GC Legend

    850
    135
    203
    Aug 16, 2009
    I think it would be handled the way other fraud cases are. If we need more stringent regulations in that aspect, then perhaps that's the best route.

    If SCOTUS allows things that benefit some but not all, it will be seen as constitutional. Things like WIC and affirmative action still exist. It may require judicial review, but I don't know.
     
  19. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas GC Legend

    756
    233
    273
    Dec 31, 2016
    You and I both know that is not going to happen either. We're not giving land back to the Indians anymore than we are giving land back to anyone else who may have been wronged in the past.

    Be honest here the assumption is that what ever lands can be traced back to previous ownership during that period of time one would have to take into consideration any and all development some one else has put into it rightfully theirs or not. There is no redress where the original appropriator is concerned and to hold some one else responsible for such transgressions is not feasible let alone logical in any sense of the word.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. nolancarey

    nolancarey GC Legend

    850
    135
    203
    Aug 16, 2009
    What are these numbers in reference to? Somebody 21-26 in 1994 would be 45-51 now. Someone who is 60 / 70 would have been 35 / 45 in 1994. I bought my first house at 30 and sold it at 34 (numbers that seem to be out of this observation). To a black/veteran family for what it's worth.