make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

I guess Burr and I should have explained.....

...exactly what he meant by "politicizing lending."

Read the bill. Here are but a few of the "benefits."

* Requires applicants to file documentation of how their application will "linguistically and culturally benefit the community." Obviously we are talking left-wing politics in this bill, not economics.

* Requires participating institutions to explain how they will reach out (once again) "linguistically and culturally" to attract minorities, women, and veterans. (I have no pronlem with the one EARNED status of those three.)

* It requires that consideration for loans be focused foremost on areas of high unemployment beyond the national average. Interestingly enough, the areas of this country with the chronic highest unemployment rates are inner-city ratholes.

* Limits management salaries in participant organizations to twenty percent of on the profit. ("We're from the government - we're here to tell you how to run your business.")

So just like the CRA of 1977, which led directly to selling houses to people who couldn't afford houses and are now being foreclosed upon in record numbers, we are once again politicizing lending policy. Mister Smith may not be able to expand his restaurant in Palm Springs but Mister Washington will be able to open that interpretive dance studio in East L.A.

It's a bad bill and it will make a bad, bad law.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Please re-enter the code shown in the image below.