Republican Debate - South Carolina

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Yes, it's illogical. a) You are asserting that Trump assumes all Mexicans are hispanic -- I'd bet ya $50 Trump doesn't believe that. b) You are asserting that Trump believes all hispanics walking down the street are Mexican, and none are American or otherwise -- I'd bet ya another $50 Trump doesn't believe that. c) You are asserting that if two people walking down the street were dressed identically, behaved identically, had all the exact same jewelry/piercings/whatever, and the _only_ difference were that one was hispanic and one was caucasian that Trump would be more distrusting of the hispanic person than the white -- I'd bet

huh?

[Kung Wu]

huh?

You have to read the original assertion to understand it.

[SHOCKvalue]

1)If you are a black person with the exact same credentials (income, wealth etc) as a white man, it's 3 times harder to get a home loan. I don't even know where to start with that.

It is embarrassing that a politician can be so intellectually dishonest, and not called out for it in the MSM. The fact that her electorate actually believes the nonsense is many times worse.

If you think that lending standards in this country can be manipulated by race - all other variables truly held equal - then I have a bridge to sell you. Anyone saying otherwise is leaving out critical factors.

[shocka khan]

I know I have my bias, but I have a serious question.

I watched maybe 15 minutes of Hilary last night. As a human, it was embarrassing. Without directly quoting her, and I promise I'm not embellishing, she said the following:

1)If you are a black person with the exact same credentials (income, wealth etc) as a white man, it's 3 times harder to get a home loan. I don't even know where to start with that.

2)The economic recovery is being slowed by racists, homophobes and a third group of people that are escaping me at the moment. ALL the guilt belonging to while males.

3)She was asked if and or how she would do a variety of things like protecting gay rights, making the American dream easier to get for Hispanics to achieve, how she'd help 21 year olds getting out of college get everything they deserve etc etc.

NEVER ONCE did I hear say ANYTHING she'd do. I'm not kidding. Every answer was

I am a champion of the LGTB groups. I will defend them.
I want people to get higher wages.
I want sunshine and lollypops and I'm the one who will do it.

Never heard one thing that she'd actually DO.

How can ANYONE support this person? She's massively unqualified and has no idea how to lead this country, or anything else for that matter. She will be an unmitigated DISASTER dealing with other countries where she has little to no credibility. Do you really think she is capable of protecting this country, her PRIME job were she elected? She owns a track record of being a habitual liar, her husband is a liar and she'll be bought by anyone with cash. I get it if you hate the GOP. If it's the least of the evils, I get that too.

But how can you seriously support this woman? She won't make America great. She'll be worse, way worse, than President Obama.

1. Do you work for a bank? What are your statistics for loaning to minorities. To me your FICO score is your FICO score. You can be purple, green or whatever, but your default risk should be roughly the same. So there's your starting point. What are your qualifications for making such a comment and what evidence to you have to prove it to be false?
2. The economic recovery is being slowed by the inequitable distribution of income that has arisen in the last 20 or so years. Most of the money is going to the wealthy and very little is going to the middle class. I think this argument is valid. I don't hear her saying anything about racists or homophobes. I think the crux of your problem with this statement is that you do not believe that redistribution of income is a desirable outcome.
3. I have heard her say that she wants to make it easier for kids to go to school. I think that would qualify as helping 21 year olds in 'getting out of college everything they deserve'.

I don't see anyone in the GOP with the credentials to lead that she has and yet you say she's 'massively unqualified'. She was a senator for at least one term and she was Secretary of State. I think despite her faults, she was at least an adequate Secretary of State, as Kerry does not appear to me to be performing as well as she did. Look at the GOP side, on the other hand. You have Trump, who has never served in government before (how does that qualify him), Cruz, who is a first-term senator (kind of like the same complaint thrown at Obama), Rubio, who doesn't show up to the Senate to vote, Kasich, who is probably the most qualified and intelligent candidate on the Republican side who is left and Bush, who has amnesia about how lousy his brother's presidency really was.

If Hillary gets elected, I see her as selling all-out to the old-guard feminists and pandering to the same African-American vote that got Obama elected. She's going to push people like you and I down in the same way Ann Richards did when she was governor of Texas.

If the GOP actually gets their act together, they might have a chance in 4 years, but given the current crop of front runners, I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Hillary. The only exception would be if Kasich got nominated, but he's probably too smart for the republicans to accept him.

Note I am a Bernie Sanders supporter currently, after that, perhaps Trump, as both of these people get the fact that H1B visas and ridiculous trade deals have eaten away at the American middle class.

[pinstripers]

If Hillary gets elected, she's gonna get paid. You can bet your life on that.

[shocka khan]

If Hillary gets elected, she's gonna get paid. You can bet your life on that.

And not only that, she's a skank. A lying, ethically-challenged skank, which pains me.

On the other had, you have Trump, who is obviously telling whoppers, Cruz, who has his own set of problems with being honest and ethical and Bush, who's family elevated the dirty campaign to an art form (and now he's complaining that the same tactics are being used against him).

As many others have commented, our country is in sorry, sorry shape on both sides.

[ShockBand]

Politics, sponsored by Trojan and Philip Morris.

[wufan]

1. Do you work for a bank? What are your statistics for loaning to minorities. To me your FICO score is your FICO score. You can be purple, green or whatever, but your default risk should be roughly the same. So there's your starting point. What are your qualifications for making such a comment and what evidence to you have to prove it to be false?
2. The economic recovery is being slowed by the inequitable distribution of income that has arisen in the last 20 or so years. Most of the money is going to the wealthy and very little is going to the middle class. I think this argument is valid. I don't hear her saying anything about racists or homophobes. I think the crux of your problem with this statement is that you do not believe that redistribution of income is a desirable outcome.
3. I have heard her say that she wants to make it easier for kids to go to school. I think that would qualify as helping 21 year olds in 'getting out of college everything they deserve'.

I don't see anyone in the GOP with the credentials to lead that she has and yet you say she's 'massively unqualified'. She was a senator for at least one term and she was Secretary of State. I think despite her faults, she was at least an adequate Secretary of State, as Kerry does not appear to me to be performing as well as she did. Look at the GOP side, on the other hand. You have Trump, who has never served in government before (how does that qualify him), Cruz, who is a first-term senator (kind of like the same complaint thrown at Obama), Rubio, who doesn't show up to the Senate to vote, Kasich, who is probably the most qualified and intelligent candidate on the Republican side who is left and Bush, who has amnesia about how lousy his brother's presidency really was.

If Hillary gets elected, I see her as selling all-out to the old-guard feminists and pandering to the same African-American vote that got Obama elected. She's going to push people like you and I down in the same way Ann Richards did when she was governor of Texas.

If the GOP actually gets their act together, they might have a chance in 4 years, but given the current crop of front runners, I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Hillary. The only exception would be if Kasich got nominated, but he's probably too smart for the republicans to accept him.

Note I am a Bernie Sanders supporter currently, after that, perhaps Trump, as both of these people get the fact that H1B visas and ridiculous trade deals have eaten away at the American middle class.

1. You are correct. FICO + down payment + income = loan. Hillary is saying: FICO + down payment + income - race = loan. She is lying. I am not associated with a bank, but I do have this on authority from a bank president.
2. I didn't hear the comment, but I disagree with redistribution of wealth through any means other than economic purchase.
3. You are correct. Her saying that doesn't tell you how she will do it...which was Docs point.

[wufan]

BTW, I do believe that many more minorities get turned down for loans than white people, however, I also believe this is due to an economic situation and not a racial situation.

[shocka khan]

1. You are correct. FICO + down payment + income = loan. Hillary is saying: FICO + down payment + income - race = loan. She is lying. I am not associated with a bank, but I do have this on authority from a bank president.
2. I didn't hear the comment, but I disagree with redistribution of wealth through any means other than economic purchase.
3. You are correct. Her saying that doesn't tell you how she will do it...which was Docs point.

1. Hillary isn't lying, I think I'd be a little more circumspect in the future, here is a link from CNN. Given the same FICO score, only 10 percent of whites are rejected. Blacks and Hispanics are in the 25 percent range.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/09/real_estate/zillow-mortgage-white-black/

2. It's your right to disagree, but people on the other side would say that income redistribution creates a larger middle class and a more level playing field. Besides, given your response, you should not support the current taxation system given your response to #2, as the current system is redistributing income as well.....except it's redistributing it to the rich. Are you trying to say you prefer a revenue-neutral tax system?
3. I expect that if either Sanders or Clinton get elected you will see an effort to make college tuition tax deductible or provide credits to students or some other form of making the tuition free. There has been a lot of discussion in the democratic debates on this subject. I'm betting Doc is shooting from the hip and not watching the democratic debates, as he does not tend to want to listen to alternate points of view, therefore his comment reflects his ignorance of the subject. Note in the interest of fairness, I have a friend who is republican and I've watched at least three, maybe four of the debates (mostly with him as a guest at my home). I used to think it was kind of silly, but wathing both parties debate has been an eye-opener for me.

[shocka khan]

By the way, FICO scores (as you are probably aware since your dad was in the banking industry) are used as a primary determinant of credit (i.e. default) risk. A component of your FICO score is based on your income and debt (monthly payments) so it is based on ability to pay. Also note that red-lining (i.e. refusal of banks to loan in economically depressed zip codes) is against federal law, so there's that, too.

[SHOCKvalue]

Your FICO score and credit report have no idea what your income is.

Biggest determinant in the mortgage lending industry pertaining to what you may or may not be loaned are debt-to-income ratios - front-end and back-end.

[WuDrWu]

1. Do you work for a bank? What are your statistics for loaning to minorities. To me your FICO score is your FICO score. You can be purple, green or whatever, but your default risk should be roughly the same. So there's your starting point. What are your qualifications for making such a comment and what evidence to you have to prove it to be false?

Whoa. HILARY made the comment. I'd like SOME or ANY proof of it's validity. It's tough to prove a negative, which is exactly what I am suggesting.

But for the sake of argument, I went to the OCC website and found this:

http://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/consumer-protection/fair-lending/index-fair-lending.html

There seem to be a couple of Federal Laws that prohibit what Hilary is claiming as fact. Either the government is HORRIBLE at enforcing this OR it's an out and out fabrication. I don't think I have to prove she is lying.

2. The economic recovery is being slowed by the inequitable distribution of income that has arisen in the last 20 or so years. Most of the money is going to the wealthy and very little is going to the middle class. I think this argument is valid. I don't hear her saying anything about racists or homophobes. I think the crux of your problem with this statement is that you do not believe that redistribution of income is a desirable outcome.

What is "inequitable" about the distribution of income, specifically bad in the last 20 years? Is that opinion or fact? I say it's not, prove that it is. Prove that it's "inequitable".

Most of "the money" is going to the wealthy? Who are the wealthy, and define the whole money you refer to, and what % they are getting. Then tell me exactly why they are not entitled to it. Are they not earning it?

Because you didn't hear her blame racists and homophobes doesn't mean she didn't say it. She said it last night. If I'm wrong, I will apologize but I was watching it and was stunned.



Lastly, and not surprisingly, you failed to comprehend my question. I asked why would anyone support her. Not because the options are bad. I said I get that. I want to know what substance she brings that makes you want to support her, separate from your hatred of the other side. Try again.



(I guess not lastly)


In one breath you said you're going to hold your nose and vote for Hillary. Later you said you are a Bernie supporter and after that, perhaps Trump.

I'm going to put you down as undecided for now.

[WuDrWu]

1. Hillary isn't lying, I think I'd be a little more circumspect in the future, here is a link from CNN. Given the same FICO score, only 10 percent of whites are rejected. Blacks and Hispanics are in the 25 percent range.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/09/real...e-white-black/

I read the article 3 times. I admit to speed reading on occasion as well as being exhausted. I could not find anywhere in the article where it said "given the same FICO score". Maybe it's buried in the Zillow report?

Hillary said last night "all criteria being the same" and made a hand gesture as to suggest several different criteria. Even if that report is based on FICO, unless it's also taking into account income and down payment, then it's NOT race related.

[shocka khan]

Whoa. HILARY made the comment. I'd like SOME or ANY proof of it's validity. It's tough to prove a negative, which is exactly what I am suggesting.

But for the sake of argument, I went to the OCC website and found this:

http://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/consumer-protection/fair-lending/index-fair-lending.html

There seem to be a couple of Federal Laws that prohibit what Hilary is claiming as fact. Either the government is HORRIBLE at enforcing this OR it's an out and out fabrication. I don't think I have to prove she is lying.




What is "inequitable" about the distribution of income, specifically bad in the last 20 years? Is that opinion or fact? I say it's not, prove that it is. Prove that it's "inequitable".

Most of "the money" is going to the wealthy? Who are the wealthy, and define the whole money you refer to, and what % they are getting. Then tell me exactly why they are not entitled to it. Are they not earning it?

Because you didn't hear her blame racists and homophobes doesn't mean she didn't say it. She said it last night. If I'm wrong, I will apologize but I was watching it and was stunned.



Lastly, and not surprisingly, you failed to comprehend my question. I asked why would anyone support her. Not because the options are bad. I said I get that. I want to know what substance she brings that makes you want to support her, separate from your hatred of the other side. Try again.



(I guess not lastly)


In one breath you said you're going to hold your nose and vote for Hillary. Later you said you are a Bernie supporter and after that, perhaps Trump.

I'm going to put you down as undecided for now.

I support Bernie, but I do not think he will be nominated, which I think it's a shame. Hillary represents the 'liberal billionaire class', so she's bought and paid for.

But more to your answer:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/10-25-HouseholdIncome_0.pdf

Page 1 has an attractive graph that points out the following, taken from page 15:
For the 1 percent of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007 (see Summary
Figure 1).
 For others in the 20 percent of the population with the highest income (those in the 81st through 99th percentiles), average real after-tax household income
grew by 65 percent over that period, much faster than it did for the remaining 80 percent of the population, but not nearly as fast as for the top 1 percent.
 For the 60 percent of the population in the middle of the income scale (the 21st through 80th percentiles), the growth in average real after-tax household income
was just under 40 percent.
 For the 20 percent of the population with the lowest income, average real after-tax household income was about 18 percent higher in 2007 than it had been in
1979.
This is a more updated version as prepared by the center on budget and policy priorities, who describes themselves as a non-partisan think tank.

http://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-widely-shared-in-early-postwar-decades-but-not-since-then-0

And then there's this from an Econ 101 textbook:
"from a social and moral point of view, an increase in a nation's prosperity is not much use unless all of its citizens, rather than just a select few, get to enjoy and share in it" (John Sayre and Alan Morris, Principles for Microeconomics, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 2009, p28)."

As far as what you're quoting from the OCC website, all that's fine and good. Bank examiners are also supposed to be looking at loan underwriting files while they are doing a safety and soundness examination but they were obviously not doing that during the Bush/Clinton years. In fact a friend of mine, who is a commissioned bank examiner and I would often wonder when someone (the president, namely Bush) would start requiring a more stringent review of loan files during bank examinations prior to the bubble bursting in 2007. They're supposed to do that, too, but were not making it a priority, as they should have detected the many liar loans that were being made.

So just because the OCC website says they ought to be doing it doesn't mean that they are. You have a big example above of what they should have been doing in the late 90's and early 2000's that they were not doing. Plus, as any regulator will tell you, it's tough to prove discrimination in loaning. That doesn't mean it doesn't go on and it also does not mean that banks have been sanctioned for it, it just means that there is not an easy way to determine.