Economic Development and Racial Segregation

[min-chi-cbus]

Originally Posted by 10023

You make it sound like there is a concerted effort on behalf of the rest of American society to make this so.

Property values are lower in African American neighborhoods because African Americans are generally less wealthy, and therefore live in less expensive neighborhoods. Those same neighborhoods are the ones that are less likely to hold value in a downturn.

Or "the carrot and the stick" or "chicken and the egg" phenomenon: correlation vs. causation.

[Mr Roboto]

Originally Posted by min-chi-cbus

Do you suppose these business transactions you speak of occur to other races (including the white race) and not just minorities (or black people)? In other words, while I don't entirely deny that there is still some institutional racism going on sometimes, sometimes banks push people around because they can.....ALL people. If it happens to a white guy, he may say "shucks", but I get the feeling that if it happens to a black man, he may say "that bank is being racist".

Think about this though....at the end of the day what good does it do to PURPOSELY leave money on the table and/or make less money by shorting blacks or other minorities and giving white people a greater edge? As a white person myself, I don't feel like businesses OR government are going out of their way to make my life any easier (in fact, quite the opposite). Generally, businesses and government care about one thing/concept: money/power. If pouring subsidies into black neighborhoods would truly spark a national renaissance like you suggest then I don't see what would stop the government or private businesses from trying this. Similarly, if certain people (black or white) were less of a risk and more of a slam-dunk or profit for a lending institution, why on Earth would they slight that person based on the color of their skin (in general principal, not each and every transaction that has ever taken place throughout history)?

That's what doesn't make sense to me, and all I can gather is that there is less money in helping the poor/minorities than there is by not helping them. Whether it's fact or fiction almost doesn't matter, because that's the game that's being played and you sort of have to play their game if you want to be a part of the game (so to speak). If they need you to have good credit and a job before getting a loan, well then you have your road map for getting that loan....unless you decide that their rules are bullshit and they're just out to get you -- they probably are out to get you (but probably not for the reason you may think they are -- race vs. money)! The same thing could happen to two people -- one white and one black -- and the white guy might say "shucks, that's unfair", while the black guy might say "that business is racist and they're just trying to keep us down". Same exact occurrence, two different perspectives. My point is that unless you ARE in Govt or private enterprise (the 1%'ers), you're probably getting screwed the same way as everybody else is.

I don't know if this makes any sense or if I'm completely off base and just seeing it from my own (priviledged) perspective. I just know that as somebody who has a general tendency to let things outside of my own control frustrate me to no end, that it never helps to be the "victim" and usually it does help to just let go and go with the flow.

Well I dont think racism makes any sense period, so no, I dont think it makes any sense to discriminate in lending practices. But whether you or I think it makes sense or not, it has been REALITY in this nation for DECADES. Look up redlining, it pervades in lending practices, insurance, hiring practices etc. It was a common practice and probably still is. Think about how detrimental this has been to the wealth of the affected communities. Think about how disenfranchised people become when they are essentially closed out of the 'american dream', or fuck the dream, standard life. Buying cars and homes, or renting, becomes difficult to impossible. This is the privilege I am talking about, when you dont have to deal with those concerns. Banks may be dicks to the typical person, but trust that in many situations a black person with a similar credit score will get a higher interest rate on a loan than a white person (and I doubt the opposite is true much at all). The fallout from the subprime crisis, and unbalanced detrimental effect on communities of color, revealed this as well.

Our country revolves around capital, exchanges of goods and services etc. So when you are essentially roadblocked from participating in that process then how do you deal with it? This is what needs to be addressed somehow, and why these practices need to change and more opportunities needs to be afforded to entrepreneurs and businesses in these struggling areas. This is why Government should play a role in subsidizing these developments and investments, Government used to be the area redlining took place the MOST. Its why TIF was a good idea on the surface, (but gets corrupted and fucked up like so many other things by self0interested elected officials) and why it needs to be practiced the way it was intended.

Now, this is not to say ONLY black people or even latinos are affected by institutional discrimination. Im sure there are cases for everyone. Poor whites have a hard time as well, or even a certain 'class' of white people I suppose. But again, reality speaks for itself. And this was reality in urban america for many years and to think that 'oh it'll change by itself' is either naive or callous. I think its unfair to ask people in these affected communities to buck up and deal with shit thats harder than for the average white american to get a leg up on life. I dont think its unfair to ask them to continue to work hard or even work harder though while we try to collectively put pressure on government to address the problem they helped create. But thats where I differ. I assume most people of all races or ethnicities work hard if afforded the opportunity to get a better life. I suppose there are those that assume the opposite.


BTW, I wouldnt equate business and Government. Business may be for-profit, but not the Government. The Government is intended to serve the people and preserve a quality way of life for its citizens. Now, if it actually does that is another matter.


One more thing, my macro view on this situation (talking about how all of society improves if struggling areas are improved etc) does not apply to business settings when they are concerned with a specific deal, not improving society at large. It only applies to how the Government must approach the situation, and as we can all see the Government is not a homogenous entity that makes reasonable and logical decisions on policies in the first place. Also many people do not view it the way I do, nor are they concerned. To many people prison is a place for people who commit minor drug offenses and other bullshit so they can come out as hardened criminals with no chance at getting a job.

[min-chi-cbus]

Redlining is illegal today. It's very hard to say that it might still be occurring.

[the urban politician]

I'm trying to figure out exactly how 'redlining' is still occurring today. I have spoken with lenders many times about loans, and never have I been asked to submit a photograph or asked about my race. On a few occassions they have asked for a drivers license, but that's usually at closing, at which point the loan was already long ago approved by the underwriters and the terms already laid out.

What lenders do is pull your credit, review your tax returns, ask for your account information, etc, etc. They of course also research the home in question and request an appraisal.

But interest rates are, of course, set by the federal reserve. Lenders really don't deviate much from eachother on this, in my experience. Some may lower your rate a bit if you buy points, while others may not require that of you. But the difference in my experience is minimal. Given my experience, I cannot imagine a scenario whereby black candidates today are still having to pay higher interest rates just because of their race.

[Mr Roboto]

Yeah, its not occurring anywhere today, and the fact that it had a HUGE impact throughout the 30's-70's and through the 90's has absolutely NO relevance on today's situation in urban areas whatsoever. Everyone has completely changed their minds, changed their policies, are completely unbiased, and moved on. Oh yeah, and the government catches everyone out of line too. So sorry, my fault.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Roboto

Yeah, its not occurring anywhere today, and the fact that it had a HUGE impact throughout the 30's-70's and through the 90's has absolutely NO relevance on today's situation in urban areas whatsoever. Everyone has completely changed their minds, changed their policies, are completely unbiased, and moved on. Oh yeah, and the government catches everyone out of line too. So sorry, my fault.

^ Not sure where all the hyperbole came from, but if you see some evidence of redlining occurring today, give me some specific examples. Give me examples, specifically, of race playing a role right now in banks not giving loans or issuing loans with unfavorable terms.

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by Mr Roboto

Now I dont work in this sector.

I do work in this sector and it is much different then what you are describing. It is way more of a wealth/class distinction then anything racial that goes on. For the most part everything is standardized today.

The difference is a person that comes from a middle to low income situation is not going to be able to pass the screens that financial institutions have in order to be able to borrow. Those that already have access to capital have a much easier time expanding their access to credit as opposed to the person trying to establish themselves to begin with. Now when you factor in the history of lending in the US it becomes very apparent why certain groups are at a disadvantage.

On a side note it can not be understated how much networking matters in the US economic model. That goes for jobs, lending, fund raising, and so many other things that go along with wealth generation. Just being exposed to wealthy people greatly enhances the chances of becoming wealthy.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Mr. R,

No one is claiming that Redlining didn't happen in the past, but only that it isn't happening now. In fact, I highly doubt most lenders ever even see the person they are lending hundreds of thousands of dollars to at any point in the lending process today. Compare that to 40 years ago when just about every loan had to be applied to face to face.

I don't think the fact that someone was carrying out a racist practice decades before I was even born is something that I should be punished for. I recognize that I am privileged as a "white" person to a certain degree, but I also see where TUP and others are coming from. You can't improve a neighborhood simply by allocating government funds according to race from some mysterious funding source (i.e. everyone else's pocket books). Reallocation of wealth is a terribly inefficient means of solving a problem.

What people need to focus on is the causes of a problem and not trying to put a band aid on the symptoms. For example, you can have the government take TUP's profits and go build brand new houses in "black neighborhoods" to try to fix the symptom of black neighborhoods being generally shittier than white neighborhoods, but you won't fix the problem. All you will do is throw money into a black hole (not meant to be a pun or racist) that it will never come out of because, until you fix the social issues in that area, any new buildings you construct will simply be trashed in short order.

What you need to do is perform an analysis of what social problems are causing these symptoms (urban blight, segregation, etc) and address those. You brought up Redlining which is a great example of this. Making redlining illegal was a very simple and easy step we took, as a society, to address one of the social problems that were causing poverty and blight. Obviously banning redlining alone doesn't not solve the entire problem, but it is a good example of a reactive step we took to address a social ill.

Now that the damage is done and a lot of the causes have been "banned" or otherwise address, you are right that the government still has to take proactive steps to address the lingering echo of the social ills we caused in the past. I don't think any of these steps should be a "throw money at it" solution, because those types of solutions simply don't work. Just look at CPS, it is just as well funded per pupil as many other suburban school district, but has terrible performance in many schools? Why is this? Is it because CPS is underfunded? No, they have roughly equal funding to many nicer suburban systems. Is it because we are not nice enough to teachers? No, CPS teachers make more than most other public school teachers. Then why is it? It is because the students and parents in the failing schools are simply not at the caliber of the students and parents in the suburban schools. That's right, it is the students and parents fault!

Now before you fly off the handle and call me racist, let's think about this. Clearly the "cause" of poor performance at CPS is not because of underfunding, but we also know that the parents and student's are not actively sabotaging the schools and therefore themselves. The problem is largely because the most challenging students are all concentrated in a specific set of schools where the cycle of poverty, and failing schools, is perpetuated. So rather than assigning blame to the students/families or clamoring for a populist "pour money on it" message, we need to ask why are these families so challenged? Asking those questions naturally takes us to the question of "what can we do about/to help these challenging students?"


Once we start breaking down the cause of the problem, we can start taking proactive steps to try to fix it. For example, we know one of the problems is that poverty is typically concentrated in a very well defined, local, (i.e. segregated) area. So how do we address that concern? We send the best and brightest students to magnet schools, but that is not enough because "the best and brightest" occur at a lower rate in poor areas because of the obvious social challenges they face. So we have to look at further steps. One of these is the closure of "failing" schools. You may or may not agree with this, but the reasoning is that closing these schools allows us to break up pockets of poverty and more evenly distribute the most challenging pupils.

I would say that is still not a deep enough analysis of the problems faced in the schools. We have to then go beyond just "how can we break up pockets of challenging students in schools" and ask "how can we reduce the number of challenging students?". A major contributing factor to this problem is the lack of good role models. A lot of this has to do with the high incarceration rate among minority males. An obvious first step, for example, to alleviating this cause would be to adopt an approach to drugs that more closely mirrors Portugals model. Less punishment, more rehab. If you are caught with harmless drugs, you should face a harmless sentence. So if you are caught with weed, you should only face a light fine if anything at all. If you are caught with harder drugs, you should be sent to rehab or, better yet, sentenced to school. I think we should set up a system of "colleges" that we send non-violent offenders to. If you are caught dealing drugs, you should be sentenced to take X hours of courses. Until you pass those courses, you stay in prison. Obviously that's a bit of a unrealistic solution, but you see where I am coming from. Simply legalizing weed alone would solve a lot of problems and the prohibition of marijuana is a perfect example of how using a blunt governing policy simply causes more problems or wastes money.

Obviously I could continue dissecting the issue of why CPS has the problems that it does for hours, but the point is it is a great example of why money isn't everything. Most of the most effective solutions to urban blight and poverty will not involve spending a lot of money, but rather rethinking how we, as a society, do things.

Another great example is affordable housing. The government already tried just throwing money at it by building a shit load of units (i.e. the projects). Clearly that did not work. The real source of humane affordable housing is gentrification. We need to encourage rapid, dense, development in the "hot" areas of the city so that the well-to-do move out of the older, less popular, areas and leave behind cheap, affordable, but out of date housing. That's where real affordable housing comes from. Sure it is used, sure it doesn't have granite countertops, but it is sure as hell a lot better than living in any of the CHA built warzones that the "throw money at it" strategy created. Again, we have to ask "why isn't there enough affordable housing?" rather reacting with than "there isn't enough affordable housing, we need to build some more". A simple law that would create a ton of affordable housing overnight would be to change the zoning code to make the construction of SRO's/high density studio buildings legal again. There is a demand for small cheap rooms and we simply are not creating any because the government outlawed it.


TLDR: sorry for the long winded post, but I feel like there is a perpetual philosophic disconnect in America at times that prevents us from ever discussing the real issues that we face. We need to look most at "what is causing our problems?" than "what can we do to address the symptoms of our problems?". If you go to the doctor with a pain in your stomach from a bad appendix, they don't give you a pain killer and tell you to go home. They find out what is causing the pain and the perform the appropriate procedure to remove the source of pain. The problem is we've been giving the South Side and West side of Chicago (and many other inner cities) pain killer for too long and the appendix has burst. Now we need to go in and perform emergency surgery and stop the bleeding and infection.

[dc_denizen]

^^ interesting and good points.

Originally Posted by Jelly Roll

I do work in this sector and it is much different then what you are describing. It is way more of a wealth/class distinction then anything racial that goes on. For the most part everything is standardized today.

The difference is a person that comes from a middle to low income situation is not going to be able to pass the screens that financial institutions have in order to be able to borrow. Those that already have access to capital have a much easier time expanding their access to credit as opposed to the person trying to establish themselves to begin with. Now when you factor in the history of lending in the US it becomes very apparent why certain groups are at a disadvantage.

If a low income person is unable to borrow to own a home, perhaps they should rent, like I have been doing since I graduated from college?

How does redlining in 1950s Detroit impact the situation of black homeowners today? This in a nutshell is the trap the left falls into. Ill treatment and discrimination has, over the generations, had a profoundly negative effect on black culture; this coupled with the negative effects of integration as well as de-industrialization/globalization and drugs is why the black community is where it is today.

But under-performance today is not necessarily tied to any racism on the part of current American individuals and institutions. It's due to PAST institutions and individuals' actions. Unfortunately, our problem is that all those people are dead, and institutions have changed.

On a side note it can not be understated how much networking matters in the US economic model. That goes for jobs, lending, fund raising, and so many other things that go along with wealth generation. Just being exposed to wealthy people greatly enhances the chances of becoming wealthy.

I worked in the university cafeteria freshman year in college, and in the student union deli making sandwiches my second. During the summer, I worked in a crappy factory job, no internships or anything to advance my stature. I now have a middle/upper class lifestyle and some assets; mostly due to the human capital advantages I have due to my parents' culture, not their money or networking (they had none). I really think it's transfer and formation of human capital, not physical or financial capital, where the African American culture is deficient...this is where the solutions to these problems will be found (besides drug legalization, de-globalization, etc... )

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

If a low income person is unable to borrow to own a home, perhaps they should rent, like I have been doing since I graduated from college?

Most do but I was addressing someone who was talking about the lending industry.

[L41A]

Originally Posted by Segun

Its amazing how people who consider themselves not to be racist will make blatantly inaccurate statements such as "they need to stop blaming others", "they need to get up and work" when referring to people in these situations. You're completely disrespectful to the majority of the people who are doing just that, and are not blaming white people. I don't even know where that last part comes from. Then you've created a hypothetical straw man/woman, still a holdover from the welfare queen caricature that Reagan birthed. Its the whole "I only help people who help themselves" mentality, when in fact you know NOTHING about each person's situation. Whats worse is that some black people buy into it, (i.e. Bill Cosby) and are boosted by white media when they spew their class hatred. In effect it undermines all the work I'm doing, and people putting in more work than me.

I agree with so much of what you stated.

[jtown,man]

Being in real estate, I can personally(and of course subjectively) say this:

Decrimination based on race is extremely regulated. It's pounded in you when you are going through school and the main areas they teach you is how lending should not even look at race.

Many black customers of mine had terrible credit, not that a similar percentage of whites didn't have bad credit too, but of the smaller amount of black customer I work with, a large amount of them couldn't qualify based on past rental abandaments ect.

Its economically suicide to disqualify a black person based on race. If a black person is higher risk, yet still making the minimum of a lender to make a loan, the lender can charge a higher rate to make up for the risk. This would of course be more risk for the lender, but their risk could pay off big by a bigger payout. Racism doesn't work in business, sure I'm sure it happens, there wouldn't be laws against it if that wasn't true, but it's a very small thing and those people are shooting themseleves in the foot.

Also, blacks make less on average then whites or Asians. So this shouldn't stun people to think that they fail to attain a loan as often as whites This is ONE of the reasons the housing market collapsed. Black and white people who wanted more then they could afford were met with banks that were glad to provide this because of big pay offs and bam, it all collapsed. I have mixed feelings, I want poorer people to have the chance to own their own home, to save on high rent, and to build equity and pride in their home. However, at the same time I don't want lenders to charge high rates or to give loans that have a high chance of failing leading to more economic problems.

[oshkeoto]

All you will do is throw money into a black hole (not meant to be a pun or racist) that it will never come out of because, until you fix the social issues in that area, any new buildings you construct will simply be trashed in short order.

Right, because all those Plan For Transformation buildings built in black neighborhoods in Chicago over the last 10 years are all totally trashed by all those black people who don't know how to keep their homes.

As for housing discrimination, the Urban Institute just put out a study indicating the extent to which it still exists. In fact, I'm not really aware of a single study from the last 15 years that suggests that real estate discrimination based on race doesn't still exist.

It really is astonishing the extent to which we substitute prejudice for knowledge--even while we argue that prejudice doesn't exist anymore.

Mods, if you're looking, I think this has diverged far enough from the original purpose of the thread that it should be shut down.

[ardecila]

Really? I've quite honestly been surprised by the civility of the discussion.

Maybe we're off topic a bit, but I think it's important to recognize that
-lenders typically make decisions based on risk
-lenders assess risk based on prior financial history
-due to a poor financial history, black communities and individuals often appear to pose a higher risk after being vetted by this process

Individual lenders or businessmen are not being racist, but the process still delivers a discriminatory outcome. This acknowledgement should not be offensive to anybody. It's sad, but there's no active prejudice involved.

After recognizing those three facts as truth, the controversy and debate sets in.

-Does the process deliver an accurate assessment of the investment risk? That is, does the process accurately predict the risk that a black home buyer will default?

-Should business continue to use this same process for assessing risk, even though it will continue to put black communities at an economic disadvantage, or should it proactively try to assist black communities with some kind of double standard?

-Is there another, less discriminatory way of assessing risk that can apply to everyone without having to use a double standard?

[10023]

Originally Posted by ardecila

-Does the process deliver an accurate assessment of the investment risk? That is, does the process accurately predict the risk that a black home buyer will default?

Questionable. As we saw during 2007-2009, mortgage companies weren't very good at assessing risk, nor did they have the right incentives to manage risk.

Originally Posted by ardecila

-Should business continue to use this same process for assessing risk, even though it will continue to put black communities at an economic disadvantage, or should it proactively try to assist black communities with some kind of double standard?

Definite no. There should be no affirmative action in home lending on principle, and lowering standards for black applicants may even have adverse effects (i.e., borrowers taking on more house than they can afford and more defaults).

Originally Posted by ardecila

-Is there another, less discriminatory way of assessing risk that can apply to everyone without having to use a double standard?

This question is a combination of the two above. If there's a better way of assessing risk, they should use it. But that should be the only consideration. If risk could be measured perfectly (obviously it can't, but for the sake of discussion), then that method would be inherently "fair". So while not possible, strictly speaking, that should be the objective.

[Mr Roboto]

Originally Posted by oshkeoto

Right, because all those Plan For Transformation buildings built in black neighborhoods in Chicago over the last 10 years are all totally trashed by all those black people who don't know how to keep their homes.

As for housing discrimination, the Urban Institute just put out a study indicating the extent to which it still exists. In fact, I'm not really aware of a single study from the last 15 years that suggests that real estate discrimination based on race doesn't still exist.

It really is astonishing the extent to which we substitute prejudice for knowledge--even while we argue that prejudice doesn't exist anymore.

Mods, if you're looking, I think this has diverged far enough from the original purpose of the thread that it should be shut down.

You cant have the discussion you wish to have because, like I said before, obviously there are people who have not made the initial step to acknowledge past and current injustices in the financial industry and in government which has and continues to hinder blacks and some other minority groups in the development of their neighborhoods.


Anyway, I think if TIF was used as it was intended, if there were more strong incentives for developers to build residential and commercial in these areas (including more mixed income developments), if streets/transit/infrastructure was improved in traditionally minority areas at the rate that it is in the wealthy areas, more support for non-profits was provided by the government, improved police/resident relationships and an adequate police force on payroll, and of course more evenly funded public schools with qualified teachers, then you will see a strong improvement in the next couple of decades. All of this has to be a priority for the government though, and unfortunately most citizens and many in government don't give a crap, are only concerned with themselves or are corrupt, and would prefer to blame the people who have been getting the shaft for the last numerous decades.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by oshkeoto

Right, because all those Plan For Transformation buildings built in black neighborhoods in Chicago over the last 10 years are all totally trashed by all those black people who don't know how to keep their homes.

As for housing discrimination, the Urban Institute just put out a study indicating the extent to which it still exists. In fact, I'm not really aware of a single study from the last 15 years that suggests that real estate discrimination based on race doesn't still exist.

It really is astonishing the extent to which we substitute prejudice for knowledge--even while we argue that prejudice doesn't exist anymore.

Mods, if you're looking, I think this has diverged far enough from the original purpose of the thread that it should be shut down.

What's more astonishing to me is how 2 different people can live in the same world and observe the same problem and come to 2 totally opposite conclusions, and view the same evidence (or lack thereof) in such a different light. Your response to the lack of evidence today of discrimination in lending is to say that "well, there is also no evidence against there being racial discrimination in lending either". Kind of ridiculous.

Bottom line is, the approach by people like you is to blame white people for everything that is wrong with black America today, with the only solution you are offering to be redistribution of wealth.

And I'm telling you that that is the most hare-brained, horrific idea I have ever heard because it won't happen, and even if it did it wouldn't heal the ills that plague black America today. Black communities have lower property values because black communities on average have less wealth, because they have lower paying jobs on average. Lower income white communities face the problem. It's life. It's what happens when you're poor and have fewer marketable skills.

The many black colleagues I have who worked hard and have high paying jobs (some make way more than I do) also have more expensive houses than I do. They weren't born with silver spoons in their mouths. Banks gave them loans because they established a history of being a RELIABLE person to lend money to. Plain and simple.

[Mr Roboto]

^What exactly is 'redistribution of wealth' to you anyway? Is it simply giving poor people money? Or is it government providing resources to poorer communities at a higher per capita rate to address inequities? I see nothing wrong with the latter, especially since there is a high rate of return for the economy; job creation, better educated workforce, investment etc. In fact the opposite often occurs since we give so much corporate welfare. Isnt that redistribution of wealth as well?

I hope you are just as against that as you seem to against providing subsidies and incentives for investments in poorer areas.

[jtown,man]

Here's one way to help the inner city black communities:

Do one or both of these things, 1. Legalize drugs or/and STOP CRIME!

not to pick on Chicago, but a world class city like that should be embarrassed to make remarks like "gang controlled area" etc....WTF You allowed a criminal organization take over? What about the kids? Old women who have to live in that hell? Sorry, but this pisses me off. Want to help poor black white Hispanics people, don't just think of services and welfare, let them live without fear of crime.

Anyways, large American cities should stop being cowards and protect their black citizens and stop bowing down to gangs and race-baiters who will scream foul at any attempt to stomp out crime. Law abiding citizens, black and white, will be happy, and safe.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Roboto

^What exactly is 'redistribution of wealth' to you anyway? Is it simply giving poor people money? Or is it government providing resources to poorer communities at a higher per capita rate to address inequities? I see nothing wrong with the latter, especially since there is a high rate of return for the economy; job creation, better educated workforce, investment etc. In fact the opposite often occurs since we give so much corporate welfare. Isnt that redistribution of wealth as well?

I hope you are just as against that as you seem to against providing subsidies and incentives for investments in poorer areas.

^ Yes, I am for incentivizing poorer areas, I think that's a smart strategy. Problem is, that has already been done and it isn't doing enough.

Because Government can...only...do...so...much. Kind of the overarching theme here.

And yes, as I always have to keep saying around here (not sure why being against redistribution makes some people say I am in favor of corporate welfare), I am vehemently against corporate welfare. The golden bonuses Wall St executives got after their failed banks were bailed out enrages me.