KCRW's Left, Right & Center: 10.3.08 Show
The Palin/Biden Debate; The Big Bailout
The two subjects bleed together a bit but there are some seriously memorable moments in this show. Tony speaks about Sarah Palin’s winking versus Joe Biden’s botox … but not before Bob diverts everyone’s attention with comments about the briefest of mentions of rape and abortion during the debate. Matt laces into Tony with comments about the hypocrisy of the Republican position on free markets versus government bailouts and calls Palin’s positions the confused and contradictory apotheosis of Republican thinking, erratically inconsistent poses and demagoguery at the deepest level. Bob insists that the Soros solution—letting bankruptcy judges adjust loan and principal terms – would’ve been the right bailout, not rewarding the “banking thieves.” Of course, there’s more but you’ll have to tune in for the rest! Sorry to say that Arianna's speaking at a conference and couldn't make it today.
My Groups
-
the KCRW Music Library Updated: 2 days ago
-
Music News from KCRW.com Updated: 2 days ago
-
The Global Gig Guide on KCRW Updated: 4 days ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
What is Bob talking about? Palin Won?! Palin was all talking points, she didn't answer the questions she was asked and she didnt defend her positions.
The debate did little to convince me that Palin understands the awesome responsibility of the job that she is contemplating. Shouldn't we expect a more dignified statesman-like approach to the job than the "wink, wink, doggone it guys"
I have to agree with the first post, Bob seems way off base to me. At what point does not failing miserably count as victory. I understand that the bar for Palin had been lowered quite a bit, due to her abysmal performance on CBS, but not failing is not the same as winning.
Palin was not engaging in debate, she was simply
Palin was not engaging in debate, she was simply reciting a memorized set of taking points, that did not even apply to the questions she was asked about 95% of the time. She may have pulled off her duty in not gaffing horrendously, but Biden was there blasting every point she tried to make. She had no valid replies beyond her slogans. And in my opinion there is no sensible way that can count as a win.
I believe there is a simple and elegant solution to the mortgage securities crisis.
The problem: The banks will not lend each other money because of the fear of insolvency of each of their fellow institutions. This is because all banks own, to a greater or lesser degree, mortgage-backed securities that are of unknown real value. The value is unknown because of a larger than normal default rate among those mortgages within the investment instruments.
The solution: make the mortgages underlying the securities solvent.
Allow Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac to offer a one-time, open to all, for primary residences only, a 50 or 60 year mortgage at a (somewhat) higher interest rate. The result would be a reduction of almost 50% to a home-owner's monthly payment while at the same time providing an equal NPV (net present value) to the original mortgage / investment instrument.
This will cause almost all mortgages within the securities to be immediately solvent thus making the securities valid instruments again (exact value TBD, but better than with defaults obviously). This ends the risk of the securities being worthless and thus would restore inter-bank trust and thus the credit market.
In a few years, when the housing market rebounds and/or the homeowners are in better financial situations, they can refinance to a standard 30 year with a lower interest rate.
Everybody wins.
And no, it won't help me. I crunched my numbers and figured out I still couldn't afford the payment on a house in Los Angeles.
Is he deliberately ignoring the 1998 HEDGE FUND BAILOUT of Long Term Capital Management, after which the Republican Congress refused to increase regulation?
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19981001&slug=2775231
He's either an idiot or a liar.
I am heartened by the passage of the rescue package today, but (as EJ Dionne said on NPR today) fear is a great motivator in politics. The economy usually only accounts for about a third or less of my total consideration on who should be president- but I've never been legitimately scared about the economy before.
When I was little, I can vaguely remember talk about inflation hurting the economy under Carter, but at the time I was more interested in Sesame Street than Wall Street. David Brooks (although not in today's segment with Dionne) said earlier that the message from Obama would be a promise about bread and butter and from McCain a promise about improving process. I usually prefer the latter, but I do not usually hear 'the sky is falling' for three weeks in a row from respected economists.
I don't usually even pay that much attention to economists. (They never seem to form a consensus until after the fact, and their ability to predict isn't usually much more impressive than my local meteorologists.) For better or worse, they scared me this time.
That is, that unregulated hedge funds didn't cause any of these problems, it was all banks and lending institutions. Man, that is SO wrong. Hedge funds leveraged themselves out as much as 30-to-1 to buy collateralized mortgage obligations and the like. A hedge fund with 30 billion dollars (not unusual) was wielding buying power of 900 billion dollars! Can you get your head around that? This insatiable appetite for high-interest bearing instruments pushed banks to make more and more loans, from which they took their fees before passing them on into CMO's and the hedge funds. Everyone knew it couldn't last forever, but the reigning wisdom was that markets will correct themselves, and besides it was raining gold -- who's gonna be the first to open his umbrella?
Are you with me so far? Do you know what a margin call is? When signs of trouble started to appear in the subprime market -- i.e. when the housing bubble started to burst as all bubbles do -- suddenly the value of those mortgage obligations came under closer scrutiny. The leverage was based on certain assumed valuations derived from projected yields-to-maturity. When that value was questioned -- and especially when the ratings agencies blushed and said, "Well, maybe not exactly AAA..." the institutions that had lent all that money to the hedge funds (not the mortgage lenders, the investment banks and brokerages) wanted more money to maintain the hedge funds' equity position. The hedge funds didn't have more money, they'd put it all on the line and had no idea how much more they'd have to shovel in over time even if they could get their hands on it. So...what did they do? They bailed. Just like someone who's upside down in a home leaves and takes the copper piping with them. They bailed. That's why companies like Bear Stearns and Lehman ended up with all that stuff, just like a bank ends up with houses when times are bad. Sure, Bear and Lehman were greedy. But if you think the hedge funds didn't play an enormous role -- and yes, precisely because they were one hundred percent unregulated -- in this fiasco, you are sadly mistaken. Extra sadly because a guy like you, on the radio, speaking in an English accent (which always confers a greater sense of knowing what the hell you're talking about) should bloody well do his homework!
I agree. Palin was a flop. I was surprised to hear in the media today (Fox, Tony Blankley, and Pat Buchanan). Where were they at. Yes, she didn't make any major gaffe. But, clearly this woman was unable to answer the question by Gwen Ifill with any specificity. GOP talking points don't count. Sorry GOP. I am an independent with Lou Dobbs. Where's the Beef!
HRGUY
Going forward, Congress and the feds need to write rational rules. For example, Amity Shlaes (once a substitute on LR&C) about a year ago suggested in her column that Washington could limit the deductiblity of Variable rate Mortgage interest on new loans while expanding the deductibility of fixed rate loans. This would push people toward the fixed rate 30 year mortgages they can afford.
An interesting side note, Shlaes mentions in the article that FDR was the one that had a hand in making the long term, low, fixed rate mortgage the standard.
So what started out as Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007 and would have dealt in some way with depression, is now supposed to help prevent a depression.
Maybe there is a bit of irony there.
Tony, I believe I've heard most of the LRC shows you have been on over the years and consider you part of my media "family." Today you lost a lot of credibility in my eyes.
Oct 3 you said, "The causes of the financial meltdown are not known.
Palin's handlers were able to school Palin in speeches primarily consisting of Republican talking points, which she gave after at most a brief appearance of attempt to answer a question.This guaranteed that she would not be left speechless, as in some of her interviews. She also was visibly agressive and filled the debate with folksy looks and manners of speech. This was probably their best strategy on their part given the raw material they had. A number of observers have caught this and held it against her, but these are not the people to whom her presence could make a positive difference in the vote. Republicans care about holding the enthusiasm of the base, and also appealing to people who relate to her personally rather than listen to her words. They certainly succeeded in the first and probably some undetermined amount on the second. Biden came across as both knowledgeable and humane, and avoided the possible landmines of gaffes, pontifications and some gender related landmine concerning Palin. The interviewer asked too many dumb questions (Conventional wisdom says your achilles' heel is *. What is it really?) and not enough substantive ones. In the end everyone avoided disaster so the event is a wash.
There was a decent discussion on the program of the underlying issues of the bailout that will be more in our minds as the stress of dire emergency passes, There is an even better one on the blog itself. Why do we think this will save the economy? How do we price the sale of the mortgages to keep Wall Street from taking the taxpayers to the cleaners? Don't we need to repair all these toxic mortgages with adjustable rates, overappraised homes and unaffordable payments so they have a reasonable fixed rate and an affordable payment for a balance related to the price of the house? That was mostly left out of this bill. It would be good to follow up on Blankley's comments. If Conservatives really don't like government spending and intervention, instead of just wanting it spent on themselves, why should bad business actions that take advantage of both borrowers and investors be rewarded with a bailout? If we think that markets discipline harmful actions, why can we allow a segment of industry create a mess too big to go unbailed? How did the smartest guys in the room manage to reenact the market crash of 1929, when everyone knows that story? If the issue is when an unsustainable market develops, and everyone knows it but "no one wants to open the umbrella first" because everyone wants their share, then markets don't work. What will work to restrain them? If the best strategy for minimizing this disaster is to maximize the value of the investments by fixing all the bad loans so they will perform and then reintroduce them into the market, then why didn't anyone demand that as part of this legislation? Hedge funds are what helped make the "house of cards" qualities of fake wealth go. Hedge fund managers are among the most overpaid people on the planet, with wealth far in excess of any contribution they make to society. This is a prime example the story of the subpreme meltdown, too many people were paid large commissions to do things that caused harm, and there was no accountability. Hedge Funds certainly are not poster children for deregulation, but quite the opposite. Despite the lack of political interest in doing so, it is important to figure out what needs to happen to correct the markets, and return honesty and transparaency to this crucial element in the economy.
Palin was demagogic and cynical, she wouldn't even answer certain questions, because she couldn't.
Overall I felt that if this were an election for PTA president she would lose. The tone was "I'm cuter than you, and you might want to lock up your husbands." I can't see people, women especially, considering that positive. But maybe we're looking for something different in a VP.
Okay, it was a bad bill, and fortitude would have called for something more cataclysmic: a bonfire of vanities ending in at least two years of 18% unemployment, festering gaslines, miles of shut storefronts, deserted gated communities, and a chilling, raw opportunity to rediscover what about being American is really worth the karmic hassle.
But the gentlemen and women of the various States bowed and began manufacturing money instead. Second-grade math students of the world, cover your ears!
I think this is my fault, actually, and not that of our 435 round-shouldered worker-bees under the cupola. Anyone who has behaved as permissively as I have for the last eight years is the sole and cardinal bearer of blame for the baroque state of monetary value and civic confidence in twenty-first century America. I knew exactly what kind of corrosion was afoot. I could smell it every time I bought a two dollar scull-cap at the Walgreens, transfered balances to a glistening new credit card to avoid the annual fee on the old one, or listened to my bridge partner talk about “flipping” houses in the Vegas suburbs. But instead of startling to my feet, I kept reaching for the Terra chips.
Since way back during the Contract with America, my own nodding attention-deficit in matters of federal policy has been fueled by a kind of insulating cynicism about public affairs, a studied divestment from everything my activist elders in the 1960s and 1980s hoped that I might remember in precisely these kinds of dark times. To their dismay, I privatized myself instead.
How many smoke signals does a citizen need?: a joint resolution on the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” (Sept. 18, 2001); HR 3162 (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001); extraordinary rendition, warrentless wire-tapping, shock-and-awe, David Iglesias, Valerie Plame, Alito, Roberts, FEMA, the Dixie Chicks? So many canaries fleeing the beltway you can hardly see the sky.
So where was I? Happy to have survived Y2K and needing a break from vigilance, I wanted to enjoy the consoling company of the like-minded I had traveled so far to find. And Cheney-Bush’s dry-drunken joyride through the amber waves of grain gave me the perfect alibi to check out, to opt for what was once called, in 1930s Germany, “an inner emigration."
Seven years later, the blame for the bailout is at my feet, in my pocket, on my ATM screen—where it belongs. The question is: where's an American to put his queer shoulder, now?
When Biden called Cheney the most dangerous vice president in our history it had nothing to do with guns.
Cheney asserted he is an independent branch of government. He asserts this I believe knowing full well it is not true. This just what he uses as a CYA talking point.
What he was really counting on was two things: 1) the presidential power to pardon and 2) Democratic fear of rightwing theatre - whenever they've called rightwingers to task in the past it has backfired...google Clarence Thomas and 'high-tech lynching' or Oliver North.
Palin will make Cheney look like a campfire girl in comparison. She has already stated numerous times she will seek to use the power of the VP for the benefit of Alaska and "all Americans."
I'm sure rightwinger will say, "What's wrong with that?"
Just like McCain sang Cheney's praises before clinching the Republican Nomination. He even said he himself would also have chosen Cheney as VP.
Watch out for the "new energy and the new ideas"--Palin is coming, the Palin is coming.
I think the republicans learned the lesson when they impeached Clinton. It backfired horribly and they were lucky they held on to their majorities.
Personally I don't buy the Cheney argument that the VP isn't part of the Executive branch. It's the kind of silly arguments that come out of our hyper partisan times.
As far as the power of the VP. Other than breaking a tie in the Senate there is not any power at all. The VP has only whatever duties the President gives him and those can be taken away any time. There is a bit of a bully pulpit but it's ignored a lot by the media because nobody cares. VP kinda has less power than a cabinet official.
They say something I have said here before, "There's plenty of blame to go around."
A "Partial" list (read the article I linked above for Factcheck's explanation of these):
The Federal Reserve
Home buyers
Congress
Real estate agents
The Clinton administration
Mortgage brokers
Alan Greenspan
Wall Street firms
The Bush Administration
Mark-to-Market accounting rules
Collective Delusion
Since Palin continued the mistruth-telling during the debate, I wanted to remind everyone of the many lies McCain has told over the past few years. So as not to bog down this blog, I'm only writing the new Top 10 here, mostly out of respect for Sarah, who is doing her best to keep us in line.
For the complete list of McCain lies (no flip flops included), please visit my vox blog at:
http://barrydalton.vox.com/
McCain's 35 Self-Serving Lies
(No Flip-Flops included: Stop lieing to us John McCain)
#1: John McCain lied to his wife about his age.
Cindy McCain: "We started our marriage on a tissue of lies."
#2: On Sep 21, 2008, McCain lied to the New York Times about Rick Davis, his top campaign manager, saying he "has had nothing to do with" Freddie Mac.
Truth: Rick Davis was secretly paid $15,000/month for two years up to AUGUST 2008 because: "he [Davis] was John McCain's campaign manager and it was felt you couldn't say no," said one of the sources.
#3. McCain lied abot Obama's vote on age-appropriate education for children, including protecting themselves against predators. McCain said he wanted to teach 5 year olds how to have sex.
#4. McCain keeps insisting Palin stopped the Bridge to Nowhere when all credible news agencies have refuted it.
#5. When questioned about VP-candidate Palin's foreign policy experience by WCSH in Portland, Maine, on September 11, 2008, McCain said Palin is the “most knowledgeable person in the country on energy.” (she's not)
#6. McCain keeps saying he is not influenced by lobbyist, which is hard to believe since 59 of top lobbyists in America are on his campaign staff.
#7. Claimed on Meet the Press he never said he didn't know much about the economy (late Tim Russert showed him 3 clips where he clearly said this.)
#8. Repeatedly insisted Obama called Palin a pig, despite nearly universal agreement he did not.
#9. On a Aug 2008 interview on “The View”, McCain insisted that Palin requested zero “earmarks” as governor. (in fact, her requests are in the top 3 of per-capita earmark requests in the nation)
#10. McCain earned his maverick credentials by telling George Bush it was immoral to have a Bush Tax Cut for the wealthy during a time of two wars; but now says it is actually patriotic.
All lies independently verified--go to http://barrydalton.vox.com/ and you'll be shocked by some of the doozies he's tried to get past the American people.
Aside from Tony's weird dogma on the economy, his parting comment of perceived rethinking (on the part of the 'left') on Palin's intelligence was bizarre.
Palin, like so many before her, is clearly playing from the old Reagan playbook (Bob: as you well know!). She reads her lines, winks, evades the question, smiles, and looks cute, all the while looking straight into the camera. It worked for Reagan. Demagogues often work in this way. Unfortunately, much like in 1980, a significant segment of modern society can be dangerously taken in by this.
But this suggests nothing about her intelligence or preparedness for office. Reagan was a buffoon, spoonfed his lines on a daily basis and kept on task by his close handlers. This nation and world cannot afford another stint of idiots like Reagan, or Bush, or Palin, in the White House.
Palin's greatest failing during the debate was she didn't recognize more of Biden's gaffs. In reality, Biden lost the debate because he made numerous errors of fact, either purposefully or accidentally. Biden is not seen as the loser because, like Palin, most people didn't recognize these errors. The media attempted to ameliorate Biden's errors by listing Palin's "errors," most of which are argueable as opposed to Biden's, which were errors of fact. Palin's failure to counter Biden's errors during the debate allowed Biden to survive and appear successful.
Regarding this week's show, I'd like to commend Robert Scheer for keeping his tirades in check. One thing I admire about Tony is how calmly he debates, and I think Bob is more effective when he does the same. I also thought Matt didn't use as many superfluous adjectives as usual. Great job guys.
Tell all the people who's lives have been destroyed by Cheney that he has no power. He has whatever power the President allows him to have. If you think power must be dictated in the Constitution you are naive.
As for Palin, she has already been far less restrained than even Cheney.
Now, she's accusing Obama of being a terrorist sympathizer, despite Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic all debunking the idea that Obama had a close relationship with Ayers.
It's shameful that we still have people like her in America.
I also thought Bob nailed one aspect about Palin: She is a dangerous demagogue who should not be underestimated. We did that once, and he has been president for the past eight years.
That's exactly what I said. Cheney was a close Bush adviser when Bush first ran and has continued to be while VP. Palen, on the other hand has never been close to McCain so it's not unreasonable to assume she will not have a central role in a McCain White House.
I am often irritated by the Rights beatification of Reagan (second only to their re-education campaign at the time of Nixon's death.) Tony is correct, of course, that McCain is not the oldest person who ever ran for President. Reagan was in the 84 election. Of course, age and health do matter. Of great concern, Reagan demonstrated incipient dementia in his testimony in the Poindexter trial. The Reagan presidency is an example of an elderly president who was losing his mental faculties and vulnerable to the manipulation of his advisors. We can't take a chance on a second mistake like that.
McCain has never said that. McCain and Palin continue to run a dishonorable campaign. And there's no reason to believe they will change their stripes if elected.
I love Ariana, too. By the way, it looks like Ariana Huffington has a new convert in her mission to reform journalism.
Campbell Brown recently said: “So when you have Candidate A saying the sky is blue, and Candidate B saying it’s a cloudy day, I look outside and I see, well, it’s a cloudy day,” Brown said.
“I should be able to tell my viewers, ‘Candidate A is wrong, Candidate B is right.’
And not have to say, ‘Well, you decide.’
Then it would be like I’m an idiot. And I’d be treating the audience like idiots.”
(It should be noted that Brown's husband is a rightwinger, so she's probably not "in the tank" for Obama. But I don't really believe Ariana is either. Ariana just gets upset, like the rest of us, when she's told the sky is blue when it's about to rain.)
Sorry about the earlier emotional response on this subject. I just get really upset
when I log on and have to listen to unfounded smears.
Here's why I think we have a lot to fear about a Palin vice presidency:
1. In her convention speech, she praised not a Republican VP in history but a Democratic one--Harry Truman. I like Harry, too, but everyone knows he only became president because Roosevelt died.
3. Later, Palin said George Bush Sr. was the Republican vp she most admired because he had gone "on to the presidency.”
Historically, VP candidates are restrained enough not to talk about their ambitions.
5. In her governor's debate, Palin was asked how she would react if her daughter were raped and impregnated; her
cold answer was "I'm unappologetically pro-Life." That's fine, no need to fall into this reporter's trap, but the only
emotional response to the question was political: "I hope you ask this line of questions to the other (male) candidates."
7. In fact, Palin goes on to say: "So I do agree with Cheney that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer, very appropriately, the plans that are needed in this nation." I think
it's fair to say that most VP candidates answer this type of question with "I will support the president's agenda."
ADD to this nightmare scenario, Palin as recently as June gave a witch-hunting preacher credit for her election as governor because he prayed for it. You're looking at a woman who acts as if she's been ordained to be president not VP. Regular folk might say this is putting the cart before the horse.
I just listened to the latest This American Life podcast. The second fantastic TAL making sense of how America got into this crisis.
The bad news, the Bailout Bill primarily calls for us taxpayers buying Crap and putting us on the hook for bailing out those whose Ponzi scheme collapsed with nothing to show but future taxes or economic distress for our children.
I completely agree. I would have voted against the Bail out too. Nobody bailed me out when I lost my job and my house.
But since it was politically impossible to vote against the Bailout--mainly because nearly all leading economic experts said we had to pass it--it is a moot issue as far as the election.
The question now is: Who is best able to handle the continuing economic crisis? Who has shown the steady hand over the past three weeks among the top 2 candidates?
And who comes from the Middle Class? Answer Obama.
Who says they will fight for the Middle Class? Obama.
And who comes from an elite background? Answer McCain.
Who supports Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy? McCain.?
Who supports healthcare as a human right? Answer Obama.
Who has been on government healthcare since the womb? McCain.
This election isn't difficult if you are a part of the middle class.
Those days are way over when it comes to the financial bailout. Certainly Freddie and Fannie had a hand, but to completely ignore the part the Bush administration and the Republican led Congress played is exceedingly dishonest.
Loaning too much money on property that was over valued is bad. However, failing to recognize the part investment bankers, Congress and the Administration played in making it worse is ludicrous.
This crisis was brought about by investment banks being allowed to borrow against those same over valued properties at up to 30 times their value, which has caused this problem, compounded by no required cash reserves in proportion to their investments at the investment banks.
I haven't really looked into it because of lack of time but I wonder how the no votes break down with regards to weather they are up for re-election or not.
Exactly my point. A "no" vote became the "easy" or "political" vote, i.e. a quick and easy way to distance yourself from the president during a tough election cycle.
Puts me in an awkward spot of agreeing with the conservative republicans' "position" even though I realize they are just playing politics and deflecting their own culpability. I'm sure they counted the votes beforehand to make sure they didn't get the blame if it failed either.
McCain was stuck and couldn't go along because he's in the pocket of Phil Graham and his ilk. There's no way his rich pals would let the maverick play that game, given his history with Keating 5.
However, because I really have no idea about economics, what can I say or do? Maybe Obama's right that this was the correct move. I just don't think it's fair.
As you know, just about the opposite of everything you just stated is true.
Although it's true that the legislation told banks they couldn't discriminate and even encouraged them to make more loans to workers and middle class, it did this mainly by lowering or eliminating the need for a downpayment.
It's not true that the government made lenders give loans to people without jobs or the means to pay their bills. Lenders were still required to make sure the person could afford the home they were buying, including requiring a credit history, etc.
The government certainly didn't encourage lenders to give loans to the working poor that had interest rates that would explode during an economic downturn, making the loans too expensive to pay.
And of course nobody expected 9-11 and the wars that followed, which served to explode gas prices.
Add onto that all the deregulation that led to backroom bundling and repackaging, etc. that most economists can't even trace and explain, so Wall Street only focused on making profits today not worrying about tomorrow's eventual bust or their clients, i.e. homeowners, stockholders, etc.
So everything exploded and here came the government to bail them out. So who do the rightwingers blame? The fundamental of course. It's the fundamentals fault. The poor stupid idiot fundamentals who dreamed of buying their own home. Serves them right they are losing their homes now. They never deserved them in the first place, right?
Excuse me, I'm going to go take a shower now.
ACORN used intimidation tactics on Banks to force subprime lending to people who could not afford homes, using the CRA as a tool to accuse the banks of discrimination. They invaded board rooms, held marches, and finally, with the revised CRA challenged the banks in court. The net result was that Banks were not allowed to merge and expand unless they had a profile agreeable to ACORN as documented by federal regulators. Banks gave loans to people using no-down (which was promoted by Frank and others), so those people had no stake in their homes when times got rough, allowing them to just walk away. Furthermore, when people could not afford the mortgage, banks were encouraged to provide them with creative financing in the form of adjustable rates and balloon payments. Anything to get these people into home to satisfy ACORN and federal regulators so that banks could carry out their usual business. Mortgage companies were not innocent in this, because they saw an opportunity to make money by providing these loans and then turning them over to Fannie/Freddie. Fannie/Freddie gleefully bought these loans, again, to promote affordable housing as envisioned by Frank, Schummer, Dodd and others. These bundled loans were then sold to Wall Street. The direct injustice and abuse to the people occurred at the ground roots of this entire scheme. The whole thing stinks from the bottom up and the democrats, including Obama, were neck-deep in things.
Not sure where this version of events (it's all the fault of ACORN and Fannie and Freiddie) is coming from. It smacks of propaganda to be honest. In any case, for what it's worth, I am posting the attached link once again. It does't take sides which suggests to me that it is likely closer to the truth than "it's all the liberal's fault"
These are people, from the ground up, that were part of the chain. I am sure there is plenty of blame to go around, but what you are suggestng just doesn't add up and it is not supported by anyone of whom I am aware.
.http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/CPRadio_player.php?podcast=http://www.thisamericanlife.org/xmlfeeds/355.xml&proxyloc=http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/customproxy.php
McCain's Last Roll
Here's my honest advice for McCain to win the election.
1. At the debate, strike a cordial tone and look O'bama in the eye.When goaded into going negative, pivot and go positive.
2. After the debate announce you are fireing Tucker Bounds, Steve Schmidt and all your other hatchet men. Replace them with your moderate surrogates like Tom Ridge, Joe Lieberman, the pre-Iraq version of Lindsey Graham, etc.
3. Announce you are dismissing ALL advisors who have worked as lobbyists in any capacity since the primaries began.
4. Announce you are replacing Sarah Palin with a different Pro-Life conservative--someone who isn't as divisive and ugly. (Not to mention she's been saying whatever she pleases lately). Explain that Palin misinformed you about much of her experience and you love America too much to trust her so close to the presidency. It's nothing personal, she can run next election cycle. Perhaps choose Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska.
5. Buy one-hour blocks of network or cable time, much like Ross Perot did. Speak directly to the American people. Explain how you got caught up in this presidential election trap. Did and said things you are not proud of. Ask the American people if have not ALL been guilty in that. Rally the American people to unite as one to face the challenges we face both domestically and abroad. Tell them you will end this war, because just like with the immigration bill, it's not what American want.
6. Be a leader. Bring back McCain 1.O. Announce a true maverick agenda.
The financial crisis caused by the exploitation in the mortgage market is a market system failure. It is a result of greed empowered by inadequate oversight. Complex and unintelligible loan products were sold by commissioned salespeople to make up front profits, then sell the loans "downriver" to investors in a scrambled complex schemes. They took advantage of an imbalance of knowledge favoring insiders in a deregulated legal environment that prevented accountability. This was all supported by attempts to transfer real wealth from the many to the few, finance the consumer economy with debt, and live off the perceived inflation of the value of home prices. The global market created a demand for loans and filled it, challenging the loan originators to come up with borrowers and products, suitable or not. It got what it paid for.
The result is a foreclosure epidemic that is destroying both cities and suburbs, and threatening the larger economy which depends on having short term capital available. The only real answer is to fix unsuitable loans and replace them with suitable ones that can be repaid. Instead we see an effort to transfer the bad debt losses from Wall Street to the taxpayer, with very little in return.
Conservatives have come up with an alternative reality of fantastic proportions. They first blame the Community Reinvestment Act for making banks lend to unqualified borrowers, who susually turn out to be minority borrowers. The CRA is a toothless piece of legislation enacted under Democratic presidents which requires financial institutions to demonstrate that they lend their money where their depositors are. Virtually all institutions pass and virtually all mergers are approved.
Moreover the subprime mortgage market was lead primarily by mortgage lenders who do not get money from depositors and were not subject the Community Reinvestment Act. Instead the capital came from investors through the mechanism of securitization. “Investment banks” like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns bundled mortgages and sold them to investors with piles of money, such as hedge funds or our 401(k)s, after taking a good share for themselves. These investment banks drove the process and created demand for loans which lenders sought to fill by any means necessary. Depositories got more involved through the back door as trustees and loan servicers. A segregated subprime market arose, exploiting vulnerable borrowers with excessively high risk premiums and unsustainable mortgages, and then expanded into the more lucrative prime market.
When originators could make more money up front writing bad loans than suitable ones and there were no legal consequences because of a dysfunctional regulatory system, they did so. The uncertainty of where and how bad the bad loans are has made lenders unwilling to lend, causing the credit crunch.
Conservatives also blame the “government sponsored entitites” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the meltdown. These imperfect and politically connected private organizations were the original and largest securitizers of prime or "conforming" mortgages, and were intended to expand homeownership by creating a “secondary market” that would allow more money available for mortgage lending. They were also supposed to increase affordable housing, but by providing alternative ways to make sound loans that borrowers could pay back. They did not promote explosive adjustable rates, overappraisals and other gimmicks that lead to unsustainable loans. Conservatives do not like their government sponsorship or their contributions to Democratic Congressmen and have wanted to transfer their functions and high CEO salaries to their friends on Wall Street. Legislation to impose more regulation on Fannie Mae was opposed by leading Democrats and failed in the House, but this happened at a time when Republicans were still in charge of Congress.
The "liberal perfect storm" is nonsense. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were hardly the nexus of the subprime crisis. Instead they were victims of the inability to get credit after subprime lenders and hedge funds collapsed. The crisis largely took place outside Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The worst loans were actually securitized as "private label" by investment banks in the subprime market, not by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac probably did more to limit predatory lending by their form agreements and securitization standards than any federal regulatory agency, though this is admittedly a very low bar.
The idea that Obama, Hillary, and other high ranking Democrats joined with the activist group ACORN to harass lenders into writing mortgages to low income minorities and securitize them through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is absurd. ACORN made them do it? Ridiculous. These are the people who say they believe in personal responsibility and moral hazard. Compare ACORNs resources to the money that flowed through and into the pockets of the world of structured finance. The lender side is clearly responsible for devising and then taking advantage of a system that let it maximize short term profit. The only socialism here is the way they are now trying to socialize their losses by passing them to present and future generations of taxpayers.
Yes. This is how I understand the sub-prime loan process worked.
I have questions. How did those individual mortgages go from being no asset/no income to mortgage backed assets with a 3 star credit rating? Who made that call?
The banks that were selling these mortgages started with rules that were later amended and watered down. Who was responsible for changing those rules and how did those who were implementing the changes know that they could do so with impunity?
Why were we forced into this $700 billion bailout with virtually no discussion and no hearings; just a steady drum beat of; we have no choice, we must comply. Who stood to win with the bailout? Who stood to loose if a decision was delayed?
These are the same people that insisted we must go to war with Iraq. My feeling is that there are always other, reasonable choices. When someone is standing in front of me demanding that I make a decision, my gut tells me there is time - there is always time. Throw a tarp over it. Look at alternatives.
And, one more point - while all of this was going on - all the drama, the hand wringing, the desperate pleas. Congress quietly approved $612 billion defense spending bill. Not a word.
Throw the bums out - all of them. Get rid of the lot.McCain's new strategy is really rich. I just watched the CNN=Politics podcast. I thought I had downloaded Batman 5: Obama vs the Penguin.
Does McCain really think yesterday's speech is the way to win the whitehouse? He looked angry and tired--then called Obama angry.
And, of course, then he pulled out the last refuge of a liar--call the other guy a liar. When I heard Tony Blankely use the word "lie" twice in last week's podcast, I knew the talking points were in. I'm not sure if Tony is the original author of these talking points or Roger Ailes, but Tony needs to make a call to McCain and tell him his only path to victory is to go positive.
There is a clear practice of oil companies putting smaller entepreneurs out of business by spending unlimited amounts of cash filing frivilous lawsuits and when the company is going under they offer to buy the patents in order to see that they never get made.
If this were made illegal, global warming could be stopped overnight.
McCain can think his fellow republicans in congress for some of his problems. Sure, I do think Fannie and Freddie and the CRA are at the core but the republicans didn't put up a big enough fight to fix the problems when they had the chance, instead they let reform bills languish because, like all of congress it seems, they feel like they are playing with monopoly money and that there is an endless supply of cash to throw at problems.
Several other telling statements about the people getting the loans. First, people defaulted and then remained in the homes for a year without making payments; with a no-down loan, they essentially lived rent free for a year. Second, the commentator revealed that just before the blow-up, people were signing the papers for these NINJA loans and then defaulting on the first payment...again taking advantage of the lengthy foreclosure process to live rent free for a year.
The show well documented the unscrupulous mortgage brokers who were promoting these NINJA loans, the CODs who were repackaging them, and the Wall Street companies that were buying them based on erroneous ratings. What they did not reveal was were did these lending practices begin? Only recently, the information about CRA, ACORN, Fannie/Freddie Macs connections.
The CRA had no teeth until ACORN fought to loosen banking regulations with Fannie and Freddie to begin accepting these high risk loans. Fannie and Freddie owned 50% of these loans and were also engaged in bundling and selling them. Being the largest mortgage broker in the country, being influenced by members of congress to give these "Affordable Loans," it created and guaranteed a market for these bad, bundled loans. People felt that if Fannie and Freddie were buying these things, they were backed by the government, so the products were guaranteed.
By-the-way, "affordable loans" is a euphemism for subprime loans to people who could not afford them. Frank, Dodd, et al, all promoted these loans as a method of covert welfare. The tragedy of this philosophy is that they did not, in the end, help poor people get housing. They put poor people up in homes with mortgages they couldn't pay, and set them up for failure and thte loss of their homes. What they didn't foresee was that this system also provided a means for the mortgage broker's abuse that led to the current crisis.
The CRA did not begin with teeth, but ACORN gave it dentures and it took a big bite into Fannie and Freddie that then promoted these poor loans that provided a product for the mortgage brokers to sell.
I would like to read the thinking behind the suggestion that the bubble was caused by Fannie and Freddie. Perhaps you could forward a link.
In the the meantime, this was something that I read on the subject a few days ago.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/98533-fannie-and-freddie-did-not-cause-this-crisis
According to the article:
Well, I wouldn't call fox news a credible source, and i have no dog in this hunt, but it seems nickle dime to me. Some of the fake registrations were apparently for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys. If that's fraud, then McCain is guilty of fraud when he completely rewrote the story of how he, unlike other POWs, gave classified information to the Viet Cong.
In his book, he originally claimed he told them the defensive line of the Greenbay Packers. When he needed votes in Pennsylvania, he reconstructed the story and said he recited the offensive line of the Pittsburg Steelers.
By the way, Cindy today said Obama has run the dirtiest campaign in history. Sounds like somebody's calling the kettle black.
Las Vegas ACORN Office Raided in Voter Fraud Investigation | Cleveland Leader
The Associated Press: ACORN office in Vegas raided in voter-fraud probe
Non-Profit Raided In Voter Fraud Probe, Questions Raised About ACORN’s Voter Registration Drive - CBS News
ACORN office raided in Las Vegas in voter-fraud probe - On Deadline - USATODAY.com
ACORN Nevada Office Raided | The Trail | washingtonpost.com
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Grassroots group’s office raided in voter fraud investigation « - Blogs from CNN.com
ACORN office in Vegas raided in voter-fraud probe | NevadaAppeal.com
"The CRA had no teeth until ACORN fought to loosen banking regulations with Fannie and Freddie to begin accepting these high risk loans. Fannie and Freddie owned 50% of these loans and were also engaged in bundling and selling them. Being the largest mortgage broker in the country, being influenced by members of Congress to give these "Affordable Loans," it created and guaranteed a market for these bad, bundled loans. People felt that if Fannie and Freddie were buying these things, they were backed by the government, so the products were guaranteed."
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not mortgage brokers. Mortgage brokers originate loans, usually by finding borrowers and then soliciting lenders to make loans to them. They often are the ones who deal face to face with borrowers, who may never see or talk to anyone from the actual lender. Brokers were often primarily responsible for verifiying income and obtaining appraisals, and for falsifying these if needed to close the deal. They also used bait and switch tactics so the loan at closing was not the loan the borrower expected. Many signed anyway, particularly if the broker promised to refinance to a better loan in a few months. Lenders competed for the business of brokers rather than the business of borrowers, often by giving brokers kickbacks called "yield spread premiums" for selling the borrower a loan that was more expensive and therefor more likely to fail. Lenders also looked the other way at the fabrications of brokers, as they depended on them for business and joint profits. Brokers, and originating lenders, were paid commissions off the top and the loans were then sold and securitized, so the originators didn't care what happened next.
Fannie and Freddie were not mortgage brokers. They functioned like investment banks and also they frequently bought loans themselves. They were the largest players in the secondary market, but sought to avoid the true subprime loans which were not "conforming" even after Clinton tried to expand homeownership into more moderate income groups. Other investment banks got into securitizing nonconforming loans, which caused the biggest problems.
There's a report by an examiner in the bankruptcy of New Century, one of the biggest and worst subprime lenders who went under at the time the meltdown started. The report details the way the executives discussed the problems with loan quality but didn't care as long as the secondary market kept buying the loans. One common practice of New Century and others was that they only underwrote the initial "teaser" rate of adjustable rate loans. That means they only thought about whether the loan was affordable for the first two years, and didn't care about the remaining 28. Those loans were written to fail. They could perhaps to be refinanced to a similarly unsuitable loan if home values went up enough, but that just postponed the inevitable.
The part about people believing Fannie and Freddie were some sort of government guaranty agencies, like the FDIC is, may be true but doesn't really go where the author suggests. Private investment banks thought that Fannie and Freddie had an unfair advantage in attracting investors because they were perceived as part of the government, or at least there was an assumption that the government would rescue their investors. But that means that investors were aware that all the other investment banks were not so guaranteed, and that would make their loans potentially risky. Instead investors relied on the credit enhancements demanded by the rating agencies. The rating agencies evaluations may have been inadequate, but that is their responsibility, not Fannie's and Freddie's.
"By-the-way, "affordable loans" is a euphemism for subprime loans to people who could not afford them. Frank, Dodd, et al, all promoted these loans as a method of covert welfare. The tragedy of this philosophy is that they did not, in the end, help poor people get housing. They put poor people up in homes with mortgages they couldn't pay, and set them up for failure and thte loss of their homes. What they didn't foresee was that this system also provided a means for the mortgage broker's abuse that led to the current crisis."
Affordable loans were supposed to be just that, affordable loans, that people even with blemished credit could be expected to pay back. When Wall Street made unaffordable loans, full of profitable traps and gimmicks like adjustable rates, and mixed them in with other loans (the best analogy may be to a drug dealer who "cuts" drugs by mixing them with sugar) they created this crisis.
Someone else asked "How did those individual mortgages go from being no asset/no income to mortgage backed assets with a 3 star credit rating? Who made that call?"
This was done by rating agencies. Unfortunately they too were essentially working on commission, much like the originators, brokers and appraisers. They got paid if they rated everything high enough that investors were willing to buy and the deals went through. Something like what happened with the accountants at Enron. If you want an honest cop make sure they aren't dependent on the crooks to get paid.
It was nice to hear both Obama and McCain talk about the need to fix all the bad mortgages so as to keep people in their homes. Now let's make it happen.
Dude, I think I agree with you but I'm never sure because your posts are just way too long. Can you edit them down to your most relevant points? That would be more helpful than info dumps.
Did you see the Debate today? McCain brought up the new Roger Ailes talking point that the Bailout is Democrats fault because they wanted to make banks give loans to working poor and middle class.
Win or lose the election, this is the official end of either the Republican Party or the Conservative movement, I'm not sure which.
They are not only intellectualizing human suffering (as liberals first tried to do when gas prices soared), they are tacitally promoting the idea that certain people do not deserve to own a home.
I heard Peggy Noonon, who is trying very hard to be nonpartisan these day (probably because her ship is sinking) repeat the same nonsense under the guise of "everyone's to blame."
I really liked McCain's idea on bailing out mortgages, but then he went into this new Conservative Doctrine that "poor people should not buy houses." There rationale? Well, if they lose their jobs they won't be able to pay for the house!
What nerve. How about a program similiar to Unemployment Insurance that helps people pay their mortgages (on credit of course) until they get back on their feet?
Fannie and Freddie's original purpose was to buy loans from small banks so these banks could lend more than their total capital and distribute mortgages across the country. The Macs originally had strict standards on what loans would be purchased. When banks resisted ACORN saying they could not make loans that Fannie and Freddie wouldn't buy, ACORN went to Washington and to lobby the loosening of restrictions on what loans they would purchase. There are sound bites of Maxin Waters, Barney Frank and Meeks saying Fannie and Freddie are in good shape, to restrict them would inhibit the affordable loans to poor people. There is a sound bite where a federal regulator report to these congressmen that the Macs are in trouble and the verbally castigate the man for wasting their time. The concept of no-down loans and loosening credit standards came out of Washington.
The bottom line is subprime loans came out of a program to get "affordable loans" to people who could not afford them. Mortgage brokers took advantage of this system, but ACORN and Washington were happy and ignored the broker's activity as long as more and more poor people got these loans.
It is a weird reversal of politics in that the subprime loans were the result of deregulation by democrats and republicans have been trying to regulate the system for a decade. Even President Clinton said as much.
Again, what I'm not clear on is what specific deregulation allowed Wall Street, Mortgage Brokers, etc, run amuk...or was there no specific regulation because nobody forsaw this particular shell game?
Here is the Conservative Doctrine, as articulated repeatedly with nothing ever new, by Rightguy. But I'm glad he's been trying to sell this line of you know what, because it has telegraphed the conservative strategy to shift blame. I don't believe it's crafted to elect McCain because it's not helpful to him. But here it is:
Conservatives Believe or :
1. Healthcare is not a right.
2. The minimum wage is too high and should always be voted against (like McCain consistently has.)
3. Worker protections should be reduced or eliminated completely.
4. Getting a loan for a house is a privilege of the rich.
5. A stagnant middle class whose wages have not kept pace with inflation is not as important and tax cuts for the top 5%.
6. CEOs earn every cent they legally steal.
7. Abortion should be a state decision and then criminalized.
8. Witches should be chased out of town. Enemies should be bombed without preconditions.
9. If you're a conservative, it is 'providence' when you're elected; But if you're a liberal, it means you are the antichrist.
10. Everybody should be "on their own" when in trouble; unless they are very rich and then a "rescue' is in order.
You asked for a good reference about ACORN, the MACs, etc. Aside from the usual in Wiki research on CRA, ACORN, and the subprime crisis, check out this article by Stanley Kurtz. He writes for National Review. The article focuses the roots of the subprime mortgage industry.
This is not to say that the mortgage brokers took the ball and ran with it, but the fundamental change in the industry that gave them the ball was the deregulation by democrats, which was fought, ironically, by proposed regulation from republicans.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=
We get it. You keep repeating it. It's the bad borrowers' fault.
Here's a true story. A few years ago I was just hanging out on the block. A gang of folks came marching down the street with rolls of papers in their hands. They were mostly white, but there were quite a few blacks and latinos too.
I asked them where they were going. They looked angry.They said they were going down to the bank to get "what was there's." I thought they were going to rob it.
Honestly. They said, no, they were going down their to force the bankers to give them loans. I didn't believe them but I followed and sure enough they all had loan applications filled out. They said they had to fill them out before arriving to the bank because everytime they tried to do it at the bank, a conservative repubican would come and push the end of their pencil and they could never finish.
So a guy broke in and stole a whole stack of them. They had number 2 pencils sharpened a razor sharp point, they were angry and screaming. And sure enough the bankers gave in and gave them the loans.
Well, I don't have to tell you, none of these jerks even had jobs. They just stuffed the money into their overalls and marched to the richest neighborhood they could find. They started pulling out For Sale signs on the biggest most expensive houses and just tossing the money in the air.
The next day i went by and asked how the heck were they gonna pay for the loans back. They said, "shoot, we already moved our funiture in. What's the bank gonna do? You know how heavy my couch is!"
And then they laughed and laughed. And in the corner was a little man with black beady eyes and a top hat with the sign ACORN on it...
true story
The point is ACORN pushed for deregulation of Fannie and Freddie so they would buy up lower rated loans, this freed the banks to accept more subprime loans because they could then turn them over to Fannie and Freddie. This primed the abuses of the mortgage industry. Advocates of "affordable housing" were happy that more loans were going to people who could not afford them, so they resisted regulation.
The point is, this problem began at the bottom and spread to the top. It's easy to blame the faceless rich guy on Wall Street or the poor guy who got a NINJA loan. The important issue is to identify the origin of the failure and correct it. It's important to include ACORN's role in this mess and not only focus on Wall Street, because ACORN's advocates in congress continually try to funnel money back to them. They tried to get 20% back from the 700 million and the house republicans resisted. The new news is that democrats put several ACORN surrogates (apparently there are hundreds of sub-organizations) on as earmarks anyway. This thing is not going to stop until the behavior that caused it stops.
Right now, it's like turning a light on in the kitchen and watching the cockroaches flee. Everyone is trying to blame everyone else. Hopefully, it will shake down in the end. But to blame a single entity is just wrong.
I understand. The guy with the big black top hats with "ACORN" in big bold letters made little old Fannie and Freddie do things. Bad things.
They made them give loans to people without jobs. No credit checks. Just handed them over a bundle of a cash for big houses they couldn't afford.
These poor people robbed convenience stores and sold drugs for awhile. But they just couldn't make the payments with their welfare checks and minimum wages.
ACORN gave them fake bank records and wrote threatening letters from phony lawyers, meanwhile picking up commissions from Fannie and Freddie.
John McCain warned against this but nobody listened. He went around town and organized all the church ladies and there was this big march. Then they had a sit in on Fannie's front lawn.
Obama and his cronies and thugs came and beat everybody up.
McCain was so outraged he stopped talking about it for two years. Then this year he remembered it and got mad again. That's the kind of fighter we need in Washington.
I think it may have been Twain who said: "Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
Seriously, here are the facts.
ACORN was actually recruiting homeless people, setting them up with SSN, business suits and phony jobs. When these poor people applied for the loans, the banks' hands were tied by...you guess it...ACORN. The banks weren't allowed to check credit history or even check to see if the borrower actually even had a job.
It took years for the banks and John McCain to discover this fraud. McCain immediately sent a letter to Fannie and Freddie. They ignored him. So McCain ignored the issue for two years.
Then when the housing crisis happened, it triggered something in his memory, and he renewed his passionate fight against ACORN.
That's simply the facts.
This remains nonsense. Sure there is a relatively small movement to expand credit and homeownership to people who were being excluded from home loans and homeownership, the American dream, by loan standards that appeared to be unnecessarily strict. But how did these people force the lending industry, instead of making affordable if perhaps priced slightly higher, loans that people would repay, to do what they ended up doing. Instead the lending industry came up with segregated credit markets, explosive adjustable rates and other unsustainable but highly profitable products, and by spreading the wealth around, were able to con and fool the system long enough for lots of them to get very rich before the house of cards collapsed and all of us are left stuck with the bill. They didn't have to do that. Who made them do it? ACORN made them do it? Of course not. They did it themselves because they got rich doing it. Basically they organized into a gang of thieves, taking advantage of deregulation, and the influence of corporate money in politics.
Why then are conservatives so invested in this story? First of all, they have to point the finger at the Democrats, liberals and minorities instead of themselves. When things are tough and people are angry, try to shout the loudest. Secondly it fits in to a right wing view of the world, where militant minorities in league with liberal politicians who are intimidated, greedy, weakminded or all three at once, unleash chaos upon the mostly-white business class and separate them from the wealth and stature that they have earned and deserved. This is basically their narrative from the 1960s which has continued to dominate politics ever since, and came of age first with Clinton on one side and then Bush on the other. Some have predicted that Obama's supporters are representative of a political change where people who were not formed by the sixties will leave its polarization behind. Obviously that change will not come easily. In the meantime this narrative works emotionally for conservatives whether it is true or not. In addition, in this narrative ACORN can play a conspiratorial role [Rightguy talks about "ACORN surrogates (apparently there are hundreds of sub-organizations) " ] the kind of faceless mass of expanding and contracting size that feeds our modern paranoia about "us" against "them," the Others who are everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
Perhaps most importantly in the short run, it gives them a club to bash Obama, who represented ACORN. The Kurtz article is centered on Chicago, which became Obama's power base, and so conservatives are weaving a web to generate distrust by tying him in the public's mind to a Chicago rogue's gallery, of ACORN, Rev. Wright, Ayers the ex Weather Underground person turned professor, crooked politicians.
The problem is that the idea that ACORN made the lending industry do it is absurd on its face. ACORN is representatives of various moderate poor neighborhoods, places of high unemployment, low wage jobs and low education. People on the losing end politically of welfare reform, bankruptcy reform, labor law, childs' health care programs. Wall Street is made up of the richest people in the world, who are also supposedly the smartest people in the room, who got away with this in part by creating financial gimmicks so complicated that no one can understand them. Trillions of dollars went through Wall Street mortgages. That pays for a lot of lobbyists and campaign contributions. How is ACORN going to make Wall Street do something it doesn't want to do? At most efforts to expand homeownership had the unintended consequence of giving Wall Street and the lending industry an opening in a deregulated environment with no cop on the beat. But that's a little like making someone who opens the door to go into the bank responsible when a bank robber comes in with him and robs the bank. All of this is the lending industry's doing, and those of both parties of government who were supposed to be protecting the people and weren't, share some responsibility. But blaming all this on ACORN and its supporters is just nonsense.
I thought that this goofy idea was so far out there, that it would just die on the blogs. However it seems to be building. I could not believe my ears when I heard McCain invoke the dreaded ACORN conspiracy the other day. If we had responsible leaders, they would be quickly putting a stop to the ridiculous notion that the poor and disenfranchised or our country could have caused a financial melt down that would reverberate throughout the entire planet. This is ‘blame the victim’ at its most disgusting, objectionable, self severing worst. In addition, there is something unspoken hear and strongly believe that it is race. Please, let’s hear no more.
Even though these "toxic" subprime loans are a small percentage of all mortgages, when they were bundled with good loans they tainted the entire bundle and that's why banks refuse to trade in them. A few bad loans are poisoning the entire market. That's just one of the contributions by our unchecked brethern on Wall Street.
When mud is thrown in elections it won't stick if there isn't any truth behind it. A person merely has to come out with a credible explanation. Thus far Obama has lied about his relationship with Ayers and covered up his relationship with ACORN. ACORN is now under FBI investigation for voter registration fraud in over 10 states, 75% of their registrants just happen to be democrats, and ACORN is pro-Obama. Obama was an ACORN trainer, an ACORN lawyer, he granted millions to ACORN when he was the chair of Ayer's foundation (just happened to be the "Get Out to Vote" campaign), and he gave $800 thousand of his campaign money to ACORN.
In other words, who's buying it?
If someone is in a cash heavy position they may see the market and figure it doesn't have much further to go before it starts to go up. If I was holding gold I might want to sell it and buy stocks. I saw that gold was down today so that may be starting to happen.
RightGuy wrote: "When mud is thrown in elections it won't stick if there isn't any truth behind it."
This really is a silly statement. Most claims by both sides are exaggerated. Or are you saying that George Bush really was a cocaine addict?
Bush and Palin's husband both have DUIs. Can you imagine the faux outrage we'd hear if that were anyone associated with Obama.
But what bothers me most is that the Keating 5 scandal was just a small version of this recent crisis. McCain has been knee deep in this stuff for ages.
If he really did have concerns two years ago, why hasn't he been fighting to prevent this crisis for 2 solid years? That's a rhetorical question, of course.
What also bothers me is that Bush had a very close relationship with the Bin Ladens. And then we let Osama Bin Laden escape and didn't pursue him in Afghanistan. Instead we invaded Iraq. Since McCain was an early supporter of the Iraq war was he conspiring to let Bush's oil friends off the hook?
Also, a close McCain supporter and convention delegate spoke highly of another woman who was called a domestic "terrorist" by a criminal court judge because she shot doctors at abortion clinics. That's terrorism. Even if you think your cause is just, it's no different than Osama Bin Laden.
Finally, a fellow Pow in the same camp as McCain said McCain gave all the information he had to the Viet Cong, including his mission, the number of men in his sqadrom, and everything else he could. Not everyone broke and gave this informaion.
Then, McCain led the effort to make peace with the Viet Cong. These are people who butchered and tortured thousands of Americans.
Why do both candidates continue to give out inaccurate information, especially when many of the things they say has been disproved or corrected by respected journalists or web sites such as factcheck.org? For example Obama keeps misstating the surpluses in Iraq. It’s not hard to get caught now days. Doesn't their advisors update them with correct information?
It is quite possible that some Democrats have a part of the blame here, but to let the Bush administration and the Republicans who had control of Congress until recently is astonishing.
They have favored Enron economics the entire time. A major reason for the current state of affairs is that the economy became unbalanced; there was too much captial slopping around in the system with nowhere to go, desperate for something to buy, even if itwas a bundle of mortgages of indeterminate value. It was this surfeit of capital that was a major factor in pushing up the price of real estate irrationally.
Unfortunately, a rise in the price of things such as stock and real estate is interpreted by almost everyone as an actual increase in value, so even though it made no sense, instead of being viewed sceptically this inflation was seen as a good thing.
"This week the Fed has moved to pump potentially trillions of additional dollars into the nation's banks and leading corporations."
<http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/105939/Will-Fed%27s-Moves-Work?-If-Not,-What-Can-It-Do-Next?>
Are they giving this cash to the banks / corporations? Are they lending it? I see this phrase repeated over and over but without any real context.
Aside from W's weekly attempt to tell use "everything's going to be OK" these guys have gotten pretty quiet which is why the market's taking such a dump. Some specifics other than "pumping cash" would be good.
I think they don't know what to do at this point. They're throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. In the meantime, to borrow a phrase from Bush, this sucker's going down.
Why isn't it 6 and 1/2 dozen of another?
Aside from having a blind eye to the current fiasco and the all-encompassing term deregulation of Wall Street, can anyone explain to me the specific deregulation that resulted in these excesses that Bush is responsible for?
I agree it is sad, but does anyone listen to good sense? Obama has told us it is necessary to incease at least some taxes. This is irrefutable, yet he is criticized for it and what he said is distorted into the claim that he wants to increase everyone's taxes.
Even if the figures about Iraq's oil revenues are bogus (and I'm taking you word for that) I can see why he would include them to sound more convincing. I mean his opponents want to continue spending money we don't even have and don't feel they have to explain anything. They even paint someone who wants to stop spending money we don't have as unpatriotic!
And the voters are still falling for such nonsense.
Irrational exuberance meet rampant hypocrisy.
ABC says something McCain said was "FALSE"
CNN says the same thing McCain said was "TRUE"
Who should you believe?
James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal has an interesting take on the "Fact Checking Fad":
I'm afraid James Taranto is talking plain nonsense.
Evidence to support a claim is very helpful. In the example given, the facts as stated seem to support McCain, and in deciding 'false' ABC is merely splitting hairs. In spirit McCain is being truthful even if slightly mis-stating specifics.
I would be fascinated to serve on a jury with Mr Taranto. I'm sure he wouldn't need to see any evidence, he could decide someone's guilt after simply hearing a "fact" or two.
That the Walll Street Journal should contain such utter tripe doesn't surprise me at all. Why don't these guys just shut up and get a real job!
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/arts/television/04brow.html?_r=2&ref=arts&oref=slogin&oref=slogin>
I don't know what you're trying to say.
In the course of televising a sports event, the presenters will often "fact-check" an item such as "did the player fumble the football or did his knee hit the ground first?" We were all watching, we all saw it, but the incident might be replayed at different speeds and from multiple angles several times and the commentator might come to a conclusion different from his initial impression.
Is football that much more important than politics?
Or a better way to put it is that they are not just reporting on "fact" they are making a judgment or better yet, giving their opinion on truthfulness.
In the process of checking the facts ABC shed light on the issue.
Taranto's gist was that if reporters just reported the relevant facts about the alleged miss-truth, that should stand on it's own without the reporter needing to pass judgement.(we the reader are the jury)
Remember when Hillery said she went to some country where she had to duck and run inside under sniper fire but (ABC?) found footage of her landing with a ceremony with children. No need to "fact check" that, the facts speak for themselves but rarely in politics is it that cut and dry .
Your reference to the Hilary Clinton footage is a little trite. It would be so easy to take something like that out of context. Not that I'm disputing that she probably exaggerated, but to imagine that camera footage you see on TV is some kind of perfectly objective record is naive. Visuals can be edited to make points just as words can.
Mr Taranto's article refers to a campaign ad that completely distorts the truth about Obama and remarks he made about our efforts in Afghanistan. The aim of the ad is simply to inflame emotions are create a false impression of Obama. It is a perfect example of a time when some kind of effort to seek the dispassionate reality is needed.
I was merely making a point with a little irony. The point is: The Right feels justified whenever they throw mud, like they are in some sort of holy war. They of course are the angels and liberals are the demons.
But when a moderate or a liberal does it, the conservatives simply flip the switch and start whining how "negative" the liberals are.
Everybody sees through this phoniness, so why don't you guys just stop it?