Being racist under the guise of Anti Racism

[D-train]

So WA state has banned credit scores being used by insurance companies. Historicallly they give discounts to those with good credit scores because the are responsible people. Makes sense, right??? Not in the fucked up brain dead mind of a liberal. They say it it is racist because it adversely impacts communities of color. So they think they are some noble elitist helping to poor unwitting People of Color. But what are they really doing is saying People of color are irresponsible derelicts that can't be expected to pay their bills on time and they need us to pay part of their insurance premiums.

Same deal with Voter ID. They are such imbeciles they can't figure out how to get an ID. Epitome of Racist!

What's wrong with credit scoring?
Commissioner Kreidler believes credit scoring is unfair. Insurers say that credit or insurance scores are blind to race or income, but he believes the practice has a disparate impact on people with lower incomes and communities of color.

The federal government recognized the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on peoples’ credit scores and limited how financial institutions can use them (www.consumerfinance.gov) for many people under the CARES Act (www.treasury.gov).

A 2020 report from the Consumer Federation of America (www.consumerfed.org) found that good drivers in Washington state with poor credit are charged 80% more on average than a good driver with excellent credit.

[Coeurd’Alene J]

Very similar to the housing qualification troubles in the early 2000’s


This will not end well

[Mel Bradford]

""Since 2007, Kreidler has chaired the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' Climate Change and Global Warming Work Group""

His resume' indicates a long term addiction to egalitarian Kool-aid drinking.....with more public pensions than the average senior in a public high school can count.

When we finally embrace the Chinese model of 'social credit score', we know who will occupy the top bracket.

[bpj]

Does anybody think Steve Clevenger was wrong about calling the BLM thugs animals?

He was one of the worst cancellations those PC pansies pulled off. I actually feel for the guy. Those gangstas are animals and we all know it.

[IStillLoveTheMs]

Well… is what they’re saying true?

Let’s say you’re lower income… let’s say you were never able to put money in savings because bills always cleaned your account dry - you worked hard to simply get by. Maybe you have some credit card debt cause it was either take on some debt or your family starves.

You are then laid off your job and don’t have the money to pay your rent, car insurance, cable bill until you’re re-hired…

Is that irresponsibility? Or is that problem with employers paying employees too little so they have $0 in emergency funds and their credit gets torn apart? After all, the person was working… it’s not within their control that they get fired. Were they irresponsible for getting let go?

^^ this scenario impacts minorities more than White people… you can diss them all you want and call them “lazy thugs” or whatever you want I guess… but that does nothing to help resolve the issue. Calling a group less economically able based on data isn’t racist… calling them lazy thugs is.

[HawkBowler 2.0]

^^ this scenario impacts minorities more than White people… you can diss them all you want and call them “lazy thugs” or whatever you want I guess… but that does nothing to help resolve the issue. Calling a group less economically able based on data isn’t racist… calling them lazy thugs is.

I agree with what you wrote above entirely, with the exception of this last part. Why put a color to the problem of poverty? While it might be true that black people have slightly higher rates of poverty... only slightly, it is also true that America has no shortage of poor white people. They dot the landscape like the great buffalo herds of the wild west. The poor white outnumber the poor black by far.

Good stuff, though, ISLM.
*Did a white hat operation take over your account?

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Well… is what they’re saying true?

Let’s say you’re lower income… let’s say you were never able to put money in savings because bills always cleaned your account dry - you worked hard to simply get by. Maybe you have some credit card debt cause it was either take on some debt or your family starves.

You are then laid off your job and don’t have the money to pay your rent, car insurance, cable bill until you’re re-hired…

Is that irresponsibility? Or is that problem with employers paying employees too little so they have $0 in emergency funds and their credit gets torn apart? After all, the person was working… it’s not within their control that they get fired. Were they irresponsible for getting let go?

^^ this scenario impacts minorities more than White people… you can diss them all you want and call them “lazy thugs” or whatever you want I guess… but that does nothing to help resolve the issue. Calling a group less economically able based on data isn’t racist… calling them lazy thugs is.

Although what you say is true, I'd like to ask where these hypothetical people spend their money:
Do they smoke? Nearly $7 a pack at 2 packs a day?
Do they drink? 3 drinks at a bar will be another $15
What about going to the movies, or having cable TV?
What kind of car do they drive?
Do they drive responsibly, or do they have multiple violations, meaning that they have high insurance rates.

All these things I listed here can cost a person over $1000 month. How/Why should we support "the lowest common dominator"?

[bpj]

Well… is what they’re saying true?

Let’s say you’re lower income… let’s say you were never able to put money in savings because bills always cleaned your account dry - you worked hard to simply get by. Maybe you have some credit card debt cause it was either take on some debt or your family starves.

You are then laid off your job and don’t have the money to pay your rent, car insurance, cable bill until you’re re-hired…

Is that irresponsibility? Or is that problem with employers paying employees too little so they have $0 in emergency funds and their credit gets torn apart? After all, the person was working… it’s not within their control that they get fired. Were they irresponsible for getting let go?

^^ this scenario impacts minorities more than White people… you can diss them all you want and call them “lazy thugs” or whatever you want I guess… but that does nothing to help resolve the issue. Calling a group less economically able based on data isn’t racist… calling them lazy thugs is.

Although what you say is true, I'd like to ask where these hypothetical people spend their money:
Do they smoke? Nearly $7 a pack at 2 packs a day?
Do they drink? 3 drinks at a bar will be another $15
What about going to the movies, or having cable TV?
What kind of car do they drive?
Do they drive responsibly, or do they have multiple violations, meaning that they have high insurance rates.

All these things I listed here can cost a person over $1000 month. How/Why should we support "the lowest common dominator"?

Do they have gold chains, Jordans, and 24" rims while they cry about the oppression?

[D-train]

Well… is what they’re saying true?

Let’s say you’re lower income… let’s say you were never able to put money in savings because bills always cleaned your account dry - you worked hard to simply get by. Maybe you have some credit card debt cause it was either take on some debt or your family starves.

You are then laid off your job and don’t have the money to pay your rent, car insurance, cable bill until you’re re-hired…

Is that irresponsibility? Or is that problem with employers paying employees too little so they have $0 in emergency funds and their credit gets torn apart? After all, the person was working… it’s not within their control that they get fired. Were they irresponsible for getting let go?

^^ this scenario impacts minorities more than White people… you can diss them all you want and call them “lazy thugs” or whatever you want I guess… but that does nothing to help resolve the issue. Calling a group less economically able based on data isn’t racist… calling them lazy thugs is.

When I got out of college in 1990 I made $6 and 20 f****** cents an hour and maintain perfect credit and the way I did it was I didn't buy anything I can't afford and I didn't f****** f*** b****** without a condom and I didn't have any two-legged kids.

Pretty f****** simple

[D-train]

Well… is what they’re saying true?

Let’s say you’re lower income… let’s say you were never able to put money in savings because bills always cleaned your account dry - you worked hard to simply get by. Maybe you have some credit card debt cause it was either take on some debt or your family starves.

You are then laid off your job and don’t have the money to pay your rent, car insurance, cable bill until you’re re-hired…

Is that irresponsibility? Or is that problem with employers paying employees too little so they have $0 in emergency funds and their credit gets torn apart? After all, the person was working… it’s not within their control that they get fired. Were they irresponsible for getting let go?

^^ this scenario impacts minorities more than White people… you can diss them all you want and call them “lazy thugs” or whatever you want I guess… but that does nothing to help resolve the issue. Calling a group less economically able based on data isn’t racist… calling them lazy thugs is.

Although what you say is true, I'd like to ask where these hypothetical people spend their money:
Do they smoke? Nearly $7 a pack at 2 packs a day?
Do they drink? 3 drinks at a bar will be another $15
What about going to the movies, or having cable TV?
What kind of car do they drive?
Do they drive responsibly, or do they have multiple violations, meaning that they have high insurance rates.

All these things I listed here can cost a person over $1000 month. How/Why should we support "the lowest common dominator"?

Can't wait to meet you next march brother