>
>>That's still not the same definition
>>I read about. The way
>>I read it, wealth is
>>owning a business, land, not
>>making payments on a mortgages
>>and car loans. Actually owning
>>it. Your definition makes
>>wealth powerless,because is still falls
>>back to how many dollars
>>you have.
>
>That's financial independence not wealth and
>it's a loose definition of
>financial independence.
>
>I read Fortune & Forbes every
>2 weeks, (that's when they
>come out) the average reader
>of those magazines are worth
>about 2 million dollars. While
>they discuss business issues, politics
>and business news. The primary
>focus on those magazines is
>how to build wealth, and
>they ALWAYS discuss building wealth
>in terms of how much
>you're worth and/or generating more
>cash from your investments, getting
>more equity in your home.
>
>
>That IS the definition of wealth,
>it doesn't make it powerless
>because it is after all,
>a definition of how much
>dollars you have.
>
>Another thing to remember, is that
>Wealth is your NET WORTH...the
>$ value of your assets
>after your liabilities/bills are paid.
>That's money you have independent
>of a job or source
>of income. So if I
>someone is worth 2 million
>dollars and has 300k in
>liabilities, they're worth 1.7 million.
>Because that's how much they
>would have if they paid
>all their bills tommorrow.

That doesn't sound like wealth it just sounds like putting a dollar value on what you have as opposed to determing how much power you have.

>
>Furthermore, it is fiscally smarter to
>take out a Mortgage to
>buy a house (and even
>cars) then to pay for
>them in cash. I can
>break down the numbers for
>you, but it goes something
>like this:

Yeah I understand that.

>
>Let's say I've got 1.3 million
>in disposable cash, and I
>want to buy a $250,000
>house and invest the rest.
>Let's say for the sake
>of argument that I can
>get a 15% annual return
>on the money I invest
>and I'll pay a 6%
>interest rate on the mortgage.
>
>
>The smart thing to do here,
>is NOT to buy the
>house in cash. The smart
>thing to do is to
>set aside to spend 20,000
>as a downpayment, then set
>aside 25,000 in a high
>yield money market account to
>pay the first years mortgage,
>taxes and any tweaks you
>want done on the house.
>(The kind that pay around
>6-7% and are available to
>people with that kind of
>cash to set aside. )Next,
>put aside 255,00 as your
>"mortgage fund" E.g. the money
>that will generate the mortgage
>payments. Assuming a 15% rate
>of return, that fund will
>generate more then enough to
>pay the mortgage. You'll probably
>wind up with a 10%
>return on that money AFTER
>you pay the mortgage AND
>as time goes on and
>you pay down the principle,
>the profit off that money
>will increase.
>
>As planned, you go ahead and
>invest the rest of your
>disposable cash: The 1 million
>you have left over.
>
>Now think about it, you have
>1 million making 15% and
>255k making 10% the original
>money market fund you set
>up for the mortgage is
>making money too (might even
>be enough to pay your
>utility bills). You can write
>off the interest paid on
>the mortgage on your taxes,
>your wealth is growing faster
>then if you had bought
>the house in cash, AND
>the net decrease to your
>wealth after you bought the
>house is only the 6%
>interest you paid the first
>year and the property taxes
>and any tweaks you made
>to the home. (which you
>wrote off on your taxes
>anyway) The amount you paid
>towards the principle is considered
>part of your wealth because
>it's considered equity in the
>home, as is the downpayment.

Yeah I've read that before not in the detail that you provided but I do recall reading some of the same views about buying homes..ect.

>
>
>So I contend that the universal
>definition of wealth is correct,
>just as a stated before.
>Not to mention it is
>the definition of wealth used
>in Forbes, Fortune, Kiplinger, Money
>and every publication and ever
>authority who discuses building wealth.
>What do you think they
>were referring to when the
>Media, Wall St. and financial
>pundints were discussing wealth being
>created by the stock market
>or wealth dissapearing.

Ok this is what I don't understand, how can that be the universal definition when the dictionary defines wealth as An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.
The state of being rich; affluence.
All goods and resources having value in terms of exchange or use. A great amount; a profusion: a wealth of advice.


>
>Having a mortgage can be fiscally
>smart thing to do. Furthermore,
>just because your house is
>paid off and your car
>is paid off.....it doesn't mean
>that your wealthy..it just means
>your debt free. (Particularly since
>buying things in cash is
>often less fiscally sound then
>buying them on credit!) Wealth
>is the net value of
>your assets - your liabilities.

A house with a mortgage is one thing but I also named business and land. I never said anything bout buying things in cash.

>
>
>The scenario I discribed before is
>what Rich people do, it's
>what any financial advisor worth
>half his salt would tell
>you to do.
>
>As you proved yourself in your
>own responses, wealth and power
>do not go hand in
>hand. If someone making 60k/year
>can have connections, they must
>be entirely different things. Think
>about it, people have connections
>for two reasons: Friendships or
>because they have something to
>offer E.g. MONEY/Power.

A janitor has no power, a fast food worker has no power. When I used 60k it was to show the degree of power at each level, since everyone is not at the same level.

>
>If you don't make the friendships,
>or don't have enough Money
>(millions) or any power (politics)
>you won't have any serious
>connnections. Sure, a lot of
>middle class people will have
>some connections....but nothing comparable to
>Bush or that can get
>you into Harvard.

Connections are automatic for politicans so I don't think it's fair to use them, with money you can get into politics and you can get friends it's almost guarnteed. So money creates connections and power out of nothing.

>
>So I stand by my stance
>on the power myth, most
>people don't have any.....regardless of
>income. It's a myth to
>claim or believe that just
>because you have money, you'll
>have power.

I still disagree with your stance. What can a man with no money do more of, that a man with even a little money can do. The more money you have the more power you have.

>
>However, I do get the feeling
>that you're mistaking the ability
>to raise hell and get
>your way with power &
>connections. Sometimes, a child will
>fail out of school and
>his parents will go
>scream at the right people.
>I've seen that, but it
>wasn't neccessarily power.....it was a
>case of the parents saying:
>"Look, we want our kid
>in this school and we
>pay full tuition to send
>him here. Yes, he failed
>out but we're going to
>make sure he gets his
>grades back up. Basically, they
>work something out with the
>school...he takes classes on a
>non matriculated basis....etc" That's not
>real power, because they didn't
>pull strings.....that's a case of
>people knowing their options. I've
>seen that before and I
>don't call it power.

No that was not what I witnessed. They didn't make a deal.

>
>
>
>>>
>>>That million is the sum of
>>>your wealth, it doesn't mean
>>>you have power though.
>>
>>That's not the same definition I
>>read about.
>
>I'd like to know where you're
>reading this, because I've never
>read something that goes against
>what I've said. Particularly since
>I read things that are
>read by wealthy people and
>focus on building wealth.


Claude Anderson

>
>
>>>Money can be used to gain
>>>power, but you don't automatically
>>>have power by being wealthy.
>>
>>It may not be automatic but
>>if you don't have any
>>power or influence with money
>>you are doing something wrong.
>
>Two things:
>
>#1. We need to define the
>magnitude of this power and
>influence. I know Fortune 100
>execs on a first name
>basis, I know wealthy people,
>if you work in IT
>I can make a few
>calls and probably get you
>an interview and/or at the
>very least, someone to look
>at your resume.
>
>BUT, I don't think I have
>power or influence. I just
>have a few friends.

That's interesting because I've seen people who don't have any of those connections but they got people hired. No interview, no resume

>
>#2. A lot of people, I
>daresay...most people don't do the
>things that turn wealth into
>power. They may be doing
>something wrong, but it goes
>to show that money does
>not equal power.
>>>-Didn't have the connections
>>
>>Money without connections, sounds like they
>>don't know what they are
>>doing.
>
>They knew what they were doing
>to make the money! Connections
>is an entirely different thing
>that is only vaguely money
>dependent.

You don't have to know a lot to make money. connections is very money dependent. Money is the access to the right circles.

>
>I made some sweet connections because
>of the college I went
>to. I could've dropped out
>and became a janitor, or
>maybe I would've majored in
>something that wouldn't have paid
>much. BUT, I'd still have
>those connections. Making connections is
>a function of making the
>effort to network and/or meeting
>the right people. It's not
>neccessarily a part of the
>money making process.


Could you be in the position to make those connections without money.

>
>
>
>>>-It's not as easy as just
>>>making the money
>>
>>It may not be easy but
>>it can't be that hard
>>either based on what I've
>>seen from people with less.
>
>It's a matter of opportunity, I
>could've lived on a different
>hall as Freshman and
>not met the folks I
>did. It's not neccessarily hard
>to make connections, but it's
>not neccessarily difficult.

Even if you lived in a Freshman dorm and never met those folks you were still closer and had more of an opportunity than people who don't have enough money to attend that school at all.

>
>Fact is, most people don't have
>em and/or don't have em
>on a level to get
>into the top schools, always
>be employed and have no
>trouble getting financing.

>
>>Maybe not into the top 20
>>but I can't really see
>>it taking that much to
>>get into a good school.
>>Someone with 400k who can't
>>pull strings is doing something
>>wrong.
>
>You keep saying that they're doing
>something wrong, so articulate it.
>What exactly are they doing
>wrong?


Several things, missing an easy opportunity, unaware of the power they have so they don't use it, maybe they pissed the wrong person off, All you have to do is look at the amount of money Blacks have. Thats power, if Blacks were to boycott these racists companies and only spend with Blacks it would hurt a number of companies.

>
>Why don't most people have significant
>connections?

They don't know what they are doing. They have money but they don't know how to use it.

>>I've seen people pulling strings to
>>save their butt when they
>>were in trouble and using
>>influnce to to make sure
>>their kid graduated, this was
>>all on a small level
>>when you compare it to
>>people making 400k so I
>>don't see how this kind
>>of clout becomes rare as
>>your income increases.
>
>It's not becoming rare per se,
>it's just rare to have
>connections on a LARGE level.
>I don't see using your
>influence to make sure your
>kid graduates high school as
>power....often that's just making a
>stink and convincing the school
>to go your way.

If it's on a small level and you say it's rare at the top that means it has to be decreasing as you go up,which doesn't make sense. No this was not a kid in high school he was in college and they didn't make threats or raise hell they pulled strings, used influnce.

>>Maybe not every loan that comes
>>across their desk but I'm
>>sure it takes place alot.
>>I'm not sure what mean
>>by they don't have them
>>on file since they have
>>to keep records of race
>>and who was accepted and
>>who was denied a loan.
>>Given that all it would
>>take is cross referencing a
>>database.
>
>I've helped build those systems, they
>don't have Business plans on
>file nor do they have
>the facilities in place to
>compare them on the basis
>of race. (even if they
>did have them on file)
>There isn't the time and
>it's not valuable to the
>bank due to the amount
>of volume they're dealing with.

They don't have the race of the applicant, and what kind of loan it is? You don't need that much time to cross reference.

>
>
>You get screwed when the Loan
>Officer doesn't believe you can
>pay the Loan back, because
>his prejudices make him feel
>that Blacks can't succeed. BUT,
>there isn't time (or the
>need) to compare Business plans
>to save White Businesses from
>competition, since they're going to
>give loans to competing white
>businesses either.
>
>Whites aren't a homogenus group an
>they don't act that way.

Sure they do everyday. What is racism, separate,unplanned independant, and indiviual? Discrimination at a large company does not involve alot of people keeping their mouth shut? It really doesn't take that much. Unwritten rules

>
>
>I've seen the isht first hand,
>trust me.

I've seen just the opposite I 've seen people fall in line when asked.

>
>
>>I've read where it is hard
>>to get a small business
>>loan and alot of small
>>business fail but the guy
>>I was speaking about did
>>get to start other business
>>while being denied the funds
>>for one that would put
>>a black business closer to
>>a Black neighborhood saving these
>>people a long car trip
>>to a white business.
>>People need to make sure
>>they are not making excuses
>>for subtle racism.
>
>People need to make sure that
>there IS racism, while that
>Business may seem like a
>priority to Blacks. The Bank
>could've had legitamate fears about
>it's ability to work. Even
>if he had started other
>businesses.

People are sure, they have documented evidence what more can anyone do, no one is going say yes I am being racist, Texaco lied until the tape came out.

>
>I admit that race could've played
>a factor, but I hear
>these accusations all the time
>that leave out any Business
>factors that could've played against
>them and make it all
>race.

If race is affecting healthcare, pay, promotions, justice, and the enviroment so much that you see the effects why would it only be a factor when it comes to busniess?

>
>
>>Sounds like they did something wrong.
>>A contractor who was in
>>financial trouble was allowed to
>>get more money until he
>>finally went bankrupt and cost
>>the bank President his job.
>>Guess what he is doing
>>today, same business in another
>>state.
>
>They're not doing anything wrong, a
>contractor is going to have
>physical assets that the Bank
>can sell and this guy
>obviously had an IN with
>the Bank president, so it's
>not the same thing as
>trying to get the loan
>on your own merits. If
>the Bank President lost his
>job, it's because this person
>shouldn't have gotten the loan
>in the first place! So
>you're comparing apples to oranges.

I doubt that contractor had anything to start his business back up but I would bet any amount of money he got another loan despite everything he did. You would have to search high and low to find a Black contractor who could get away with that. It's not apples and oranges it's a white busniess man getting preferential treatment.

>
>
>Banks need to have something to
>grab if you don't pay.
>If you don't pay your
>car, they repo it. If
>you don't pay your house,
>they can foreclose on it.
>etc. etc.
>
>If a Business has no real
>assets and things dry up,
>the Bank has nothing to
>sell to recoup it's money.
>Unsecured loans are hard to
>come by, so these people
>are in fact......doing nothing wrong.
>They've failed (for good reasons)
>in getting the loan they
>need......they've gotten lines of credit
>(based on average account balances)
>but that's about it.
>
>I really think you should read
>the December 25th, issue of
>Forbes. It is mostly focused
>on how people maintain and
>build their wealth through collecting,
>investing and what not. PLUS,
>it has a good article
>on bankrupt Dot Coms and
>how the Banks are losing
>their shirts because these companies
>have no assets to sell.

I've read a little about Dot Coms going out of business.

>
>
>I think you've made some really
>good points in these posts,
>but I think you need
>to get an insiders view
>of wealth, banks and Businesses
>in general to see what's
>going on. *Some* of your
>comments sound like someone who
>has only observed, but not
>seen things from the inside.

My opinions are based on journalists who used records and did interviews with people on the inside. Some of my conclusions came from economists and conservatives I don't know how much more you have to be on the inside to separate business practices from racism.

>
>
>>That's not what I've seen. A
>>guy was hired,and promoted when
>>he could barely read.
>>He had a guy underneath
>>him doing all the work.
>>Their was other guys who
>>would lay out ,sleep during
>>on the job...etc.
>
>What size company is this? Is
>it a family business? I've
>seen this, but never on
>a numerically large scale. People
>see it and blow it
>out of porportion.


200 employees, no it's not a family business it was owned by 4 people before it got bought up by a big corporation. I think on a larger scale it just means you have more ways to cover up those getting a free ride.

>
>>But if your not wealthy and
>>white how would you know?
>>I've seen the advantages that
>>come with it, these people
>>didn't have to work, would
>>get fired and rehired,they would
>>quit and get rehired, screw
>>up one job and get
>>hired at another one, a
>>whole staff that did nothing
>>or next to nothing for
>>years. The one thing all
>>of these people had in
>>common was they were white.
>>Most didn't even have a
>>lot of money.
>
>I may not be Rich and
>White, but the vast majority
>of my friends and neighboors
>were growing up and are
>now. I don't want throw
>your words back at you,
>but since you're not rich
>and white and didn't grew
>up/live around these people, how
>can YOU know.

I heard it from the horses mouth and it matched exactly what I witnessed.

>
>When I talk to Blacks about
>it, it seems to me
>that they inflate their image
>of rich whites and the
>connections and influence they have,
>way out of porportion. I've
>had these conversations with Blacks
>in college how the White
>kids were all rich, never
>had to struggle, didn't need
>financial aid....when the opposite was
>true.

Whites always downplay their advantages and racism.

>
>Yes, *some* whites are lazy at
>work......but most Americans are lazy
>at work...it isn't a white
>thing. Blacks get busted more
>because of racism and because
>we stand out more. BUT,
>it isn't because of a
>white connected circle that looks
>out for them.

That doesn't work, if Blacks standout more they can't afford to be as lazy as whites. I've seen this first hand Blacks would come in temp busting their ass to get hired and whites would walk through the door already hired. Blacks knew that couldn't lay out or get caught goodfing off because it would cost them their job, Whites never had to worry about that. One white said shortly after getting hired, I heard you have to kill somebody to get fired from here. I never heard a black say that.

>
>You just described the average american
>worker, not someone well connected
>or powerful.

That's not the average Black worker.

>
>The whole idea is counter-productive to
>success, at some point you
>do have to deliver.....particularly at
>the big time corporate level.
>The idea that whites (particularly
>at that level) are all
>Lazy and get away with
>things because they were rich
>and/or have connections is wrong.
>Most workers get away with
>being lazy, because they would
>just be replaced by more
>lazy people.

Not Blacks from what I've seen they would be replaced by whites. The blacks who came in and did their job everyday had to cover for the whites who didn't.

>
>But at higher levels of corporate
>America, I work with too
>many well of white folks
>that bust their ass on
>a regular.

I've seen mangement that was worse, whites would go after Blacks in charge because they wanted to replace them or because the Blacks made the whites work.

>Yeah, we've got the ONE guy
>we need to cover for.
>But his charisma does come
>in handy when we talk
>to clients, so I have
>to give him that. BUT,
>there is that one guy.
>The rest of us are
>in at 7 and gone
>no earlier then 6.

I've seen Blacks working 6 days a week while whites who laid out half the time anyway were given days off.

>
>
>>>I agree with most of what
>>>you said in your post,
>>>I just think you overestimate
>>>the advantag of being White
>>>or being White and Rich.
>>
>>I doubt it. If I was
>>wrong we would see the
>>same advantages and disadvantages across
>>the board no matter what
>>color.
>
>Overestimate, Overestimate....look at that word. That
>means that I see the
>advantages/disadvantages.....I just don't see them
>at the magnitude you do.
>I live in the world
>of affluent whites and I
>don't see them having things
>1/2 as easy as you
>think.

Yeah I see the word but I've read where people use the same language to say, yeah racism exist but it's not that bad.

>
>Whites treat each other fair, but
>they don't neccessarily favor them......they're
>the majority how do the
>favor one white guy or
>another? It LOOKs that way,
>because they hold us in
>disfavor.....so the net difference =
>favoring whites.....when they're really just
>treating each other fairly.

If they were just treating whites fair they would not bend the rules for them which is what I see. They bend over backwards and go out of their way to make sure whites recieve the best I don't call that just treating each other fair.

>
>
>>The redlining in the Steeltowns in
>>PA, was that before or
>>after all the factories started
>>closing? I think it's a
>>mistake to ignore racism given
>>it's long and documented history.
>> This is not just
>>taking place in poor communities.
>
>After, they were a lot more
>banks in the Steeltowns or
>in the poor parts of
>towns before the factories started
>closing. Some of these towns
>have NEW banks starting up
>in the wealthier areas, while
>banks are closing down in
>the poor ones.
>
>If it's in wealthy Black communities
>I'd call it racism. If
>it's in poor communities where
>they aren't likely to make
>money or not what they
>would make someplace else, I
>don't call it racism because
>there are several Business reasons
>not to do business there.

I understand not opening business in poor communities clearly. They are not at issue here. It's the middle class on up that's a problem

>
>
>>I've read about that but I
>>know about banks that are
>>doing good too.
>
>A lot of them aren't though,
>and when you look at
>the profits of the ones
>that are doing "good" you
>still see much higher default
>rates on loans, low deposits
>and the reasons most White
>Banks don't want to do
>Business in Black neighboorhoods...it's a
>huge financial issue that a
>lot of Blacks ignore.
>
>
>
>>Not really, the devil is in
>>the details and I'm sure
>>their is a lot more
>>below the surface. Excuses like
>>these are used all the
>>time to explain away racism.
>>You always here the cop
>>thought his life was in
>>danger, after he kills an
>>unarmed man. I have read
>>articles where Blacks were singled
>>out for something everyone was
>>doing when it comes to
>>credit.
>
>There is a difference between Racism
>and a good reason. "I'm
>sure there is more below
>the surface isn't valid, unless
>you know what's there"

It's not out in the open or obvious, in fact some of the biggesst articles were based on records gathered from banks because of laws that make them keep track of race so those watching can tell whether they are complying with the law. Right now Ward Connerly is fighting collecting data like that because it exposes racism. Texaco is the perfect example up until the tape they did not admit anything. When it comes to enviromental racism, corporations deny their is a problem despite the fact that people are getting the same illness that the chemicals in this plants produce. The reach of racism is long and we can't discount what is going on just because the proof is not there yet.

>
>If Black Owned Banks in Harlem,
>Boston and West Philly are
>in serious trouble, why the
>heck would a white bank
>stay open there and/or want
>to open up a branch
>there? Racism be damned, there
>is a serious economic issue
>here.

Good question ask the people behind gentrification.


>
>Let's take away race.
>
>A Bank asks me to determine
>if doing business in an
>area is a good idea.
>So I look at the
>average income of the people
>in the area, I look
>at their average home value,
>I look at how many
>of the citizens own homes,
>I look at the financial
>strength of the Banks in
>the area, particularly ones that
>focus ONLY on that area
>(or similar ones) so that
>the banks results are affected
>by the fact that they
>business in more profitable areas.
>
>
>I find the average income to
>be 18k, I find that
>the average home value is
>50k, I find that average
>person does not own their
>home, I find that the
>bank that focuses on that
>area just ousted their CEO/Founder,
>hasn't made any money for
>its stockholders, has sky high
>default rates on it's loans,
>deposits are dropping and they
>had to make a deal
>with the FDIC, because of
>the low amount of cash
>on deposit.
>
>I look at another area, average
>home value is 275k, average
>income is 72k, average person
>owns their home. The local
>bank is doing great.
>
>I just described West Philly and
>united national bank in the
>first example and Villanova, PA
>and Bryn Mawr trust in
>the second.
>
>So which place is a better
>place to do business if
>you're a bank?

The second place of course. This could all be 100% true but Given the CIA helping push drugs into the inner city, the L.A. police rampart scandal, Tuskeegee I wouldn't put anything past what racists will do to destroy the Black community or at least keep us divided.

>
>Is it now fair to recognize
>race as a factor, but
>realize the need to focus
>on economics since even if
>race wasn't a factor they
>probably wouldn't/shouldn't do business there
>anyway?

It's plenty of Black communities that do not fall into the it's too risky to do business there excuse for not investing.

>
>>I agree and I understand someone
>>from a poor neighborhood is
>>more of a risk then
>>someone from a middles calss
>>neighborhood, but here is the
>>problem, all of the evidence
>>points to redlining taking place
>>across income levels. So it's
>>not just the poor neighborhoods.
>
>I don't think it's redlining if
>it's a poor area, since
>it happens to whites too.

According to the law it is. There were many laws that came out of the Civil Rights era aimed at eliminating racial segregation and discrimination in all aspects of American society. Among them were the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act guaranteeing minorities equal access to housing and to the financing to afford it. Widespread noncompliance with these laws was the order of the day and the nation continued its historical pattern of segregated housing as financial institutions denied mortgage loans to African Americans. This practice, known as redlining, is defined as the refusal by financial institutions to make mortgage loans to residents of certain neighborhoods because of the racial composition, income level of the residents or age of the housing stock.


>
>
>I haven't seen it in wealthier
>ones.

It was seen here. A 1995 investigative story by U.S. News & World Report came to this conclusion based on a sixmonth investigation of banking, lending, and home insurance coverage in poor and minority neighborhoods. The report was based on analysis of 24 million mortgage records, nine sets of banking and insurance industry data and 200 interviews in 12 cities. The investigation demonstrates that not much has changed. Minorities of all income levels are denied mortgages and home insurance coverage at more than twice the rate of Whites with comparable incomes.. "The New Redlining," U.S. News & World Report, April 17, 1995

>
>
>>This is not true but I
>>agree it is important to
>>understand the system. It's
>>not only brothas & sistas
>>making these charges. Redlining has
>>been investigated and reviewed by
>>journalist and politicans if racism
>>was not there and this
>>was only Business no one
>>could make it be there.
>
>Incorrect, people always make this about
>race/poverty. They never take the
>economics issue into account. It's
>liberals running to scream oppression.
>(not that I consider myself
>conservatives, but it's just what
>I see). These journalists scream
>redlining (for ratings) and in
>areas were Businesses are failing,
>how is that not Business?

Wall Street Journal also did a piece on it, I wouldn't call that a liberal newspaper. This piece seems to go deeper then just screaming for redlining By far, the most wellknown and successful investigative reporting on redlining was done for the "The Color of Money" project. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution won the 1988 Pulitzer Prize for this series on redlining in Atlanta's AfricanAmerican neighborhoods. Written by Bill Dedman, the series ran between May 1 and 16. Dedman used database reporting and help from university researchers to document how Atlanta banks routinely discriminated against middleclass AfricanAmerican applicants for housing loans. Some of the legislation that was passed involded Republicans they voted for it when I'm sure they could have blocked it.

>
>
>PLUS, time and time again...if Business
>and Banks come back, they
>have support from the government
>to make sure it becomes
>profitable.
>
>Furthermore, if Brothas/Sistas are blaming racism
>on things that are Business......they
>NEED to know how to
>tell the difference.

It's not just brothas and sistas just like it's not just poor neighborhoods where this is taking place. People are using records from the banks that they are accusing. We are talking 6 month investigations. Given that SOME brothas and sistas have a LIFETIME of racism to judge what it is and what isn't racism, I think they can tell the difference. The black man that I used as an example had years of experience in business.

>
>There are many different sides to
>the redlining issue, SOME are
>valid.....OTHERS are not. The problem
>is that descriminatory lending practices
>of a middle class Black,
>are seen as the same
>as banks not wanting to
>work with people in areas
>that will probably cause them
>to lose money. It's apples
>and oranges and progress is
>being affected by people ignoring
>the economic issues and merely
>focusing on the racial ones.

Yes their is two sides to every story but that does not mean racism is not there. US& News World report a six month investigation based on analysis of 24 million mortgage records, nine sets of banking and insurance industry data and 200 interviews in 12 cities demonstrates that not much has changed. Minorities of all income levels are denied mortgages and home insurance coverage at more than twice the rate of Whites with comparable incomes..


>
>
>
>
>Peace,
>
>
>
>
>
>M2


"I must warn you, ma'am, that people invariably flee the room when I walk in because I'm from Levittown"

"And what a spectacular act of noblesse oblige on her part to escort the lowly Levittowner around Washington on Inauguration Day!"

"If one were sufficiently paranoid, one might easily misinterpret a decision to go get seconds on that chicken hash as a deliberate insult to the municipality of Levittown."

"Close examination of the guest list reveals many other guests with backgrounds more humble than Bill O'Reilly's. Yes, even more humble than an accountant's son from Levittown. We can only hope that they didn't take offense when O'Reilly himself departed."

I'm working-class Irish American Bill O'Reilly … pretty far down the social totem pole," he says. Growing up in the 1960s, he watched his father "exhausting himself commuting from Levittown" to work as an accountant for an oil company. Dad "never made more than $35,000"—which would be $100,000 or more in today's money