There seems to be some disbelief that women have difficulty getting loans. When
the article stated that 33% of businesses are owned by women, but only 4.4% of
small business loans are to businesses owned by women. Cantwell's point is
the large discrepancy between these obvious numbers.She then
explained her point of 2 reasons for that. 1st products designed by
women are going to solve problems faced by women and may not appeal to a male
loan officer. A male loan officer may be unable to see the profitability of a
product marketed to women.2nd reason, the loan products available
don't appeal to women business owners. I personally think it
makes perfect sense. Financial lending needs to change to meet the needs of the
whole population not just white men.
Why in the world would you make loans based upon gender? You might as well make
them on the height or weight of someone. Sounds to me like the lady needs to
learn a bit about economics herself. Qualified businesses will and should get
priority, not whether or not a person is plumbed a certain way at birth.
Loans should be based on the ability of the borrower to repay them, not as a
matter of social engineering, unless Cantwell wants to loan her money out to
risky businesses.Congress demanded that banks make loans for houses
to people who could not afford them, and we all know how that turned out.Congress cannot even balance thgeir own budget or pay off a nickel of
our $17.5 trillion in debts, so they have absolutely no credibility to tell any
private business how to handle their money!
many women owned businesses are owned 50.1% by the wife and 49.9% by the husband
who actually runs the place.lenders are in business to make money.
they are not going to turn down a credit worthy loan just because the business
is owned by a woman (even if only titularly) and stay in business for very
long.she doesn't think it has a good chance of getting through
congress this year - maybe she should talk to harry reid about allowing votes on