Just to be upfront and honest....this is a repost of a blog found here. But since nobody else is saying it and I can't say it this well, I'm reposting it. So please comment etc, but be aware that while I agree with everything here...I didn't originally write it. (but be honest in your opinions-I'd rather have someone point out what they see as inaccuracies than ignore a situation because it's a "sensitive" subject.)
I was watching Fox News this morning and was much cheered by the appearance of Ann Coulter, my heroine who never minces words on the altar of acceptability. Being addressed (since the 'debate' was so mind-bogglingly boring) was the fact that Democrats are gleefully enjoying the current market turmoil because they can blame it on the Republicans....but then again, they blame everything on the Republicans so that's nothing new.
Ann summed up the real cause of the problem when she stated that our financial markets are in ruin because of the Democrats' insistence on political correctness within it. See, equal opportunity is a concept most Democrats utterly fail to embrace or understand, it's no longer the goal, it's no longer 'enough.'
Their real goal is 'equal results', and in cases where those results are unequal, they will accept no other reason than overt and institutionalized racism as the culprit. This notion of 'equal results' has ruined and/or degraded many of our cultural institutions, from the 'dumbing down' of grade school classes to be understandable to the lowest common denominator (ie: the stupidest kid in class sets the pace for the rest) to hiring quotas and college admissions based on race, (ie: the lesser qualified are admitted, hired, and promoted to positions of ever greater responsibility) to the stifling of any meaningful national dialogue on racial issues, which have now become the third rail of politics, the rail of instant death and infamy where stellar careers are ruined by the mere suggestion of racism, real or percieved.
Back during the Clinton reign of error, some well meaning soul took a look at racial statistics in regards to home ownership in America and discovered that a disparity existed. Blacks and Hispanics were underrepresented in the number of new homeowners applying for and being granted mortgages, and of course the Democrat's natural tendency (demonstrated repeatedly over the past 4 decades) was to do something about it!
Ok, I can understand that. But instead of attacking the problem at its source (lower credit scores in general for these groups) and launching a financial literacy campaign to help the underrepresented learn how to build and maintain a decent credit rating (it can be done even in 'low income' situations) they decided to change the rules of lending instead.
All in the interest of equal results, ya see. Democrats decided that more blacks (and Hispanics) should own their homes so instead of raising them up to the bar (by teaching them sound financial skills) the Dems insisted the bar be lowered. There's that lowest common denominator thing again!
After these changes were implemented, almost anyone at all could get qualified for a home loan. Unemployment and AFDC/TANF payments could be counted as income. Job hoppers could count multiple short-term periods of employment as 'continuous' as long as the jobs were in the same field, and even most downpayment requirements were eliminated.
A loan that used to require a credit score of at least 700, 2 years or more of continuous employment with the same company, and a minimum of 10% downpayment could now be obtained by anyone with any income at all, sketchy employment histories, and no money down...as long as their credit score was at least 600. (which is considered 'poor' credit.) Hell, when I worked in the mortgage industry, we could even get loans bought for those with credit scores in the 560-590 range (*very* poor) if they could scrape up a 5% downpayment and afford the PMI (private mortgage insurance) payments.
In other words, Congress, urged on by our very first Black President, William Rodham (hehe) Clinton, lowered the bar, and they lowered it for one reason and one reason only. To buy the black vote.
And now that these folks are losing those homes (due to piss poor financial skills) the American taxpayer is left holding the bill for all this political correctness based on equal results instead of equal opportunity. Yes, YOU are now going to pay for Shaniqua's fiscal irresponsibility, because YOU (the taxpayer) now hold the note on her house. And this note is most likely to be worth less than the paper it was printed on.
Yes, the greed of the CEOs is partly to blame, they are, after all, in the game to make money. But the driving force behind the scenes was the idiotic idea that the only way to achieve equal results is by lowering the bar instead of raising people up to meet it.
Don't believe me? Here's an article from that last bastion of Liberal Legitimacy (<--that's sarcasm for those of you who lack the gene to 'get it')...the New York Times. It's from 1999...and I've bolded the good bits. Here's how we came to sacrifice our entire financial system on the altar of political correctness. Read it and know the truth.
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
Folks, it's time we got real about this nonsense. It's the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. Why is it that EVERY FREAKIN' TIME our gubment does something 'for the poor' they end up screwing not only the poor they intended to help, but every middle class schmuck who ends up having to foot the bill for their social engineering experiments gone wrong?
As I said in another article, I don't care what color your skin is, if you've reached your 30's and are still struggling to pay the bills each month in this land of wealth and opportunity, there's something WRONG with you. The reasons are as varied as the excuses. Lack of education, teen pregnancy, serial pregnancies, lack of fathers in the home (replaced by TANF and section 8 grants) drug or alcohol abuse and addiction, mental illness, physical disability, dumb luck, bad luck, or sheer laziness and stupidity have left you staggering behind the parade, wishing you could catch up but doing little else to ease your situation.
And before you call me a hypocrite, I count myself amongst those with 'something wrong' with them. I could have made more of my life in regards to financial security but I chose other paths, frittering away my youth and good health in the process. My credit score sucks the big wazoo, making it necessary for Simon and I to keep our finances completely seperate, legally speaking. This leaves me economically vulnerable, and financially dependent on his continued good will and affection towards me.
And so what if it does? I've done very little to earn or preserve my own financial security, and this is the price tag that comes with those bad choices I made in my youth.
The big difference between me and the Democrats is that I don't feel that the government OWES me a home of my own, paid for by your tax dollars.
But the 'real' truth is that even the Democrats feel they owe people like me nothing, because my skin ain't the right color, honey-child. I'd feel far more secure about my future right now if I were a single black mother with 5 illegitimate children by 5 different baby-daddies living in a 6 bedroom, quarter million dollar home that's 6 months behind in mortgage payments and poised on the brink of foreclosure.
Unfortunately, I'm married to a working man with no other dependents whose income is just at that point where Obama feels it's ok to bite a little deeper, at 42K. Any raise in my spouse's pay at this point will result in a net loss of income for us, doubly so if the Abominable Blackman is elected.
Remember who's responsible for this mess (and why) when you go to the polls next month, folks. I've got a hint for ya. It's not Bush.