When I and my wife, a legal alien, bought our house, the mortgage company told me that if my wife were an illegal alien, rather than legal, we would have qualified for certain loan programs with big banks. But because she was a legal alien waiting for her green-card (which she had recently applied for), we didn’t qualify.
Mark Krikorian, an activist against illegal immigration, argues that “we’re in this mess, ultimately, because our political elites thought it was good social policy to encourage banks to give mortgages to uncreditworthy people, resulting in what Sailer months ago called the “Diversity Recession” (if this doesn’t work, make that the Diversity Depression). In other words, if poor people in general, or blacks or Hispanics in particular, were less likely to be approved for a mortgage, the only possible reason was racism or classism or whatever. Thus ‘creditworthiness’ was an illegitimate, dead-white-male concept, like middleclassness. Because, after all, isn’t everyone entitled to credit?”
Another strange lending practice also popped up when I purchased a home. I ultimately left my wife off the mortgage entirely, because I was told that since she had no credit history (despite being thrifty and having savings and no debts), putting her on the mortgage would actually get us a worse, higher interest rate than if I alone applied (I received a rate of 5%, a low rate by historical standards).
Why on Earth were we treated as worse off if my wife co-signed the loan, which makes no sense economically? It’s not like having her on the loan would have made me any poorer or less able to pay.
People I’ve talked to have theorized that it is a byproduct of two things: (a) discrimination lawsuits, and (b) courts’ indulgence towards junk science.
If the bank gave loans to white people like my wife with no credit, or bad credit, the bank would later look bad if was sued for discrimination, even if it was innocent. If a “fair-housing” group later sued the bank accusing it of discrimination, supported by a misleading “regression analysis” of the bank’s lending decisions, the bank could end up having to explain, at great expense, why it loaned money to my wife, but not to many minority borrowers who also had no credit or bad credit (never mind that my wife would have had a co-signor with good credit — me).
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election ’08: Media caricatures make John McCain the tired, old candidate of standing pat and Barack Obama the agent of change. But it’s becoming ever clearer that Obama is the typical politician.
Read More: Election 2008
Sen. McCain suspended his campaign because he thought his place as a U.S. senator was in Washington during a big financial crisis. The Republican presidential nominee also said he wouldn’t be showing up for the first debate.
Call it a gimmick if you like, but you can bet Sen. Obama wishes he’d thought of it first. Instead, the Democratic nominee lamely retorted that the debate, set for Friday at the University of Mississippi and focusing on foreign policy, should not be delayed because “it makes sense for us to present ourselves before the American people” and “we’ve both got big planes.” But that falls flat.
McCain long ago challenged Obama to 10 freewheeling debates without the usual constraints. Obama, who is clearly ill at ease in the absence of a teleprompter, refused. Why didn’t it “make sense for us to present ourselves before the American people” then?
Was it Obama who reached out his hand to McCain and President Bush to meet and, along with congressional leaders, come to agreement on legislation to put an end to the crisis?
No, it was the Republicans who were building bridges between the parties this week — even if the ultimate solution is too light on budget cuts and reform and too heavy on increased debt and, ultimately, higher taxes.
Repeatedly, it has been McCain, not Obama, who has exhibited creativity and a willingness to adapt to events.
At the instant the establishment media’s talking heads were revving up to spend days waxing on about the greatness of Obama’s acceptance speech, he was upstaged the next morning by his GOP opponent’s naming of Gov. Sarah Palin to the ticket.
Unlike the last female running mate for a major party — little-known three-term House member Geraldine Ferraro, who ran with Walter Mondale in 1984 — McCain’s choice for veep actually has experience running a government and won’t put you to sleep with her speeches.
It’s in regard to the global war on terror that the difference between McCain and Obama really hits you. McCain bucked the Washington establishment of both parties by insisting that we must win and we can win in Iraq. Both he and the president resisted the defeat-with-dignity notions contained in the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report, and the resulting surge strategy implemented by Gen. David Petraeus fundamentally transformed the conflict there for the better.
Obama, by contrast, continues with little alteration the Democrats’ years-old mantra that U.S. troops should be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan so we can catch the ailing Osama bin Laden.
With an electorate sick of the status quo, the choice in November is between the same liberal ideology Democratic presidential candidates have offered us for years and an open-minded, maverick Republican.