KCRW's Left Right & Center 1.9.09 Show

There are two fundamental concerns we should have about the so-called TARP Program.

This may be the first time that Congress has declared a national economic emergency yet has limited aid to a single discrete class, financial institutions.

The question for us and our Courts is whether such action is constitutional. At test that will shortly be presented to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The second concern is whether the Emergency Economic Recovery Act must now be read or construed to include all types of businesses because the Bush Administration has permitted GM and Chrysler to participate. No matter how one might desire to mangle the term financial institution, GM and Chrysler won't fit.

One final thought, it now remains to be seen who will join in the struggle to assure that We Stand as One People?

Emanuel Towns, Esq.
unitylaw09

I was shocked to hear the reasons offered by Tony Blankley, backed by Matt Miller and Arianna Huffington for the impossibility of peace in the Middle East; that it is not possible to negotiate peace with Hamas because they have vowed to destroy Israel! The only voice of reason came from Robert Scheer in this conversation.

Actions speak louder than words; Israel has been engaged in a systematic genocide of the Palestinian people and Hamas would never be in any position to endanger any Israelite in a serious way as evidenced by the disparity in the numbers killed from each side. So, please, do not confuse a lack of willingness to negotiate with an impossibility of it because of Hamas pronouncements.

Actions speak louder than words; Israel has been engaged in a systematic genocide of the Palestinian people and Hamas would never be in any position to endanger any Israelite in a serious way as evidenced by the disparity in the numbers killed from each side. So, please, do not confuse a lack of willingness to negotiate with an impossibility of it because of Hamas pronouncements.

Hamas is a band of mass murderers who have directly killed loads of Palistinians. They purposly put civilians in harms way because they WANT civilians deaths. Hamas must be distroyed before any peace will last.

I found a very interesting juxtaposition in the discussion of Israel and Gaza, with Blankley articulating both sides of the incursion. First of all, Blankley says the Hamas wants to exterminate the Jews so you can't negotiate with them. This should be very troubling given the Bush "axis of evil" approach to the Iraq war that sounded real good until we actually invaded and occupied Iraq and found things were much more complicated (including our own capacity for evil at Abu Ghraib). Of course talking about exterminating Jews can only be described as playing the holocaust card, which has been a powerful part of the dynamic of this conflict. It reminds us that whatever Hamas does or doesn't want to do, parts of the West actually did try to exterminate Jews in Europe and much of the rest accomodated to those who did until the Nazi war machine went out of control. The Holocaust is a major reason that Jews, particularly American ones, do not trust anyone else to protect Israel and rely so heavily on Israel's own substantial might, supported by the political might of American Jews. All of these powers are hard earned. These supporters are committed to what Israel does and think less about the harm Israel does. Unfortunately Israelis push up against the limitations of military might, much as Bush did in Iraq. And Israelis have become the model of the state that is both terrorized and terrorist.

And if you accept Blankley's first view, no one can say anything about what Israel does with its Army to Palestinians, no matter how many innocent people they kill as collateral damage. You can see the slippery slope such thoughts lead to. And maybe you are to think none of the Palestinians are innocent and they all deserve to be killed unless they turn out Hamas. (Or as Scheer pointed out, when Israel prefers Hamas to the PLO, as they once did, then the Palestinians must turn out the PLO.) Essentially that seems to be the Israeli position, that Palestinians will be under attack until they are willing to so what Israel is willing to do to people who oppose Israel. Since the Palestinians are understandably not going to do this, the conflict will go on forever, generating more hatred and violence as it goes.

One of the first things that makes Palestinian and other movements comparative nonpersons is that they must first accept "Israel's right to exist," generally meaning some version of the status quo. We must remember how unusual it is for people to move from other places and be concentrated on one piece of land, where other people are already living, for the colonial powers to divide up the territories of a colonial loser in such a way as to give land to these immigrants and have the old inhabitants kicked out. Can you blame the inhabitants from thinking that Israel should have been carved out of Germany rather than the middle east where people had nothing to do with the holocaust? We probably have peace in Europe after WWII, in contrast to what happened with German reparations after WWI, because that didn't happen. The good news is that today France and Germany can live side by side with a vibrant and interdependent economy, and without killing each other. And so Israel and Palestine could do the same if the world makes it happen.

Anyway Blankley also gave the practical side of this, namely this is a power struggle like other power struggles. Israel is doing a shock and awe incursion, going in to kill as many Hamas operatives as it can kill, destroy as much Hamas infrastructure as it can destroy, and hope to divide and conquer. And then eventually they have to leave. (Kind of like the Russians in Georgia). They can't politically get away with killing every young person who might someday want to become Hamas operatives to avenge Israel's incursions or prevent them from happening again (visions of Pharoah and King Herod in the Bible killing infants for similar purposes become too obvious). Israelis really can't keep Hamas from being popular by blowing things up and killing people. So they hope for some advantage to come, and that ultimately must involve some sort of negotiations with Palestinians from what they hope will be a more favorable power environment. And perhaps the incursion will favor some candidates over others in the upcoming Israeli election. In other words it is not an apocalypse between good and evil but an ordinary power struggle between human beings. And the idea that "we can do anything to them because they want to exterminate us" is just another weapon in that power struggle.

The only acceptable end to this conflict is a two state solution where the two states are properous and interdependent, where people have relationships with each other, where rights and cultures are respected. A two state solution used to be politically unacceptable to Israelis and American politicians. But now the theory is pretty mainstream, although many believe that Israeli settlers and their supporters are trying to make a viable Palestinian state a practical impossibility. How to get to a two state solution is another matter. We essentially need to work at peacemaking a fraction as hard as we invest in warmaking. We need to build an infrastructure of peace. the West and everyone else must make the investment to get it to happen, as Israelis and Palestinians are too much in each other's faces to get there themselves. And to some extent the US geopolitics of oil gets in the way.

On the economy, Scheer points out that Citibank has "consented" to have changes in the bankruptcy laws that would allow courts "cram down" mortgages, essentially letting courts get rid of the abusive features that have caused the mortgage mess, credit crunch and economic crisis, and turn them into mortgages that people can pay off and which therefor have value and can be put into circulation. That change would have far reaching effects on the logjam of investors who hope to finagle their way out of losses in their complex and often unintelligible investments by preventing efforts to modify loans by filing their own lawsuits. It would show that there was no use to defending the nonexistent value of unaffordable loans, and encourage the industry to fix the problem on a masss basis.

Citibank is not only getting bailout money but would apparently get some other benefits from the stimulus bill in exchange.

More significant is that major banking organizations have declared their opposition to turning debt that exists on paper but can't be paid into debt that can be. Not only are they seeming oblivious to the problems their business practices have caused, but seem to only care about preserving their ability to cause more problems in the future.

Who should lose their home in foreclosure and why? And what about the harm done to people next door and nearby, to the liveability of communities, to families who lose the center of family life?

Huffington has a link to articles about all the banks that are cashing in at a time where people are losing homes and jobs, but have no legal obligation to do anything for the community and don't feel inclined to do anything without one. How much power over the recovery and stimulus should these people have? Why should they be heard when people losing their homes in foreclosure are ignored?

[this is good]

I wish Scheer would update his Wall Street rhetoric. He's constantly talking about the 'crooks' and 'criminals' on Wall Street and the homeowners who need to be rescued from their evil machinations. Insofar as people were deceived when getting a mortgage, that was done by people at a far remove for Wall Street. Would people at that rarified level of finance try to get people to 'sign on the dotted line' for a comission? Give me a break. Those hucksters are cut from the same cloth as dishonest used car dealers.

Also, there were a lot of people who got these mortgages either irresponsibly or dishonestly. I'd like to see people stay in their homes, but I don't think that that means that they have to own them. Could some sort of policy be created where people end up losing title to their homes, but pay rent to whoever ends up owning the property. Many of the people who got in over their heads should have sought a situation like that to begin with.

For once, I agree with Scheer about an issue of foreign policy. (I'm often irritated by feeling that he would have us model ourselves after France on the world stage.)

It is now generally accepted that the European immigrants to America acted in a vile and reprehensible manner and that Native Americans were admirable but doomed victims. (I don't personally adopt this position because it ignores rather vicious behavior that was common in some native cultures prior to the 'discovery' of America, and it assumes a value system and understanding of sociology would have seemed alien to the Europeans at the time.) What I don't understand is why it is that in our country we seem to be reflexively supportive of Israel when they are in much the same position (except WITH the modern frame of reference) regarding Palestinians as the 'villainous' Europeans. Israel keeps adding settlements regardless of prior commitments not to do so and forces Palestinians to live on de facto reservations. Sounds familiar to me.

Several great comments so far. But essential issues are missed.

One. The bailout. It is now accepted by all informed people that there was no significant recovery of the Great Depression until after WWII. So it is totally irrational to claim a government stimulus, directed at improving the economy, will do any good.

And I suggest the WWII point is misunderstood. I suggest that people consider a major new consciousness entered the minds of humans as a result of the WWII experience, that caused people, especially here in the US to have a major expanded view of what is possible in life. And out of that new consciousness came the actions that changed the economy to one of prosperity. Not the significant US government monetary expenditures of WWII.

The Great depression occurred because people were refusing the new consciousness, and accepted the new consciousness cured the ailment. Of course this view implies that there is a spiritual component to the human being, which I realize is unacceptable to the four card carrying members of materialism on the show.

Two. Government regulation. Robert keeps harping on how decimation of government oversight of the financial industry caused this crisis. He apparently has no clue what happens when regulations exists. Government regulators never stop from making decisions to do certain financial actions. They only stop you from hiding what you are doing. So even if regulation was still on, no regulator would have stopped any bank from making non credit worthy sub-prime loans, or to delve into derivative investments, which together are the source of the financial crisis.

So the source of this crisis is greedy people buying houses they knew they couldn't afford, and insane bankers giving loans that defied all bank common sense. And insane financial people putting what now appears to be 62 trillion dollars into derivatives.

Three. Gaza. If you talk to the majority of Israelis, you find the plan has been, from before 1948, to eliminate all the Palestinians, and Arabs, from the Biblical "Greater Israel"; which if you aren't familiar with the Bible includes a significant amount of current Jordan.

Which is why all Israeli governments since 1967 have no problem treating the Palestinians as slaves; significantly oppressing them is ways I wonder how any intelligent person can support.

All US governments in the past two decades explain our allegiance to this progressive genocide by claiming Israel is our only reliable ally in the Middle East. I ask, since when as the Israeli government taken an action that impacted any country in the Middle East that was a benefit to Americans? I suggest none. And most of their external to Israel Middle East actions were quite detrimental to Americans.

I suggest to you that the real reason the US favors Israel has nothing to do with the "strength of the Jewish lobby" in Washington. But with the strength of the corporate lobby; especially those corporations which earn significant dollars in the Middle East. Who believe, and I think realistically so, that as long as there is no peace between Israel and their Arab neighbors, those corporations will continue to make a killing. But once there is peace between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors, home Middle Eastern businesses will gradually take the business now possessed by those corporations.

Now to Israel. Find me one example in history, where the occupying power treated the occupied as dastardly as Israel does the inhabitants in the West Bank and Gaza, where the reaction of a substantial majority of the oppressed was any different from Hamas. Or where many of the oppressed didn't claim significant hatred of the oppressor. The American colonies against England. The

American Indians again the US. The IRA against Britain. Vietnam against China and the US. The Basques against Spain. The Moroccons against the French. etc. etc. etc. Yes, Ganhdi and Martin Luther King were pacificists. But they didn't live in societies where the occupiers were behaving in a totally dehumanizing way. To accept all those responses of all oppressed people throughout history as "actions of liberation", as is done in the history classes of all our schools, and to act as if Hamas has to rise to some new standard, I claim is the ultimate of hypocrisy. And further suggest, that all who promote this hypocrisy are morally degenerates, who have personal lives filled with suffering. But unfortunately do not see a direct connections between their many personal griefs, and their utterly depraved hypocritical actions.

It is a oxymoron to claim you can have a sound country built on a ethnic standard. It has never worked and never will work. So until the citizens of Israel give up the need to have a Jewish state, and become a single state with them and the Palestinians, there will be no peace in that region. And if we in the US give up our support of that country, a country which in many ways operates in significant opposition to numerous aspects of our Constitution, we will significantly stimulate them to move in that direction. Of course, that would require a major change in our officials willingness to continue to operate in many significant ways that is contrary to our Constitution. And I see no signs of that now; certainly Obama gives no impression he is actually willing to take such actions; even while he is more than willing to talk as if he favors such actions.

Putting the Bush administration criminals on trial, would show me we might finally be headed in that direction.

rick kennerly replied to Ockraz’s comment:
Jan 10, 2009
Reply

I wish Scheer would update his Wall Street rhetoric. He's constantly talking about the 'crooks' and 'criminals' on Wall Street and the homeowners who need to be rescued from their evil machinations. Insofar as people were deceived when

Well, I think there will plenty of blame to go around. As far as I'm concerned it this whole mess was a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, run from Wall Street, enabled on Capitol Hill, and perpetrated on a greedy and gulible public by pimps and pushers on Main Street posing as Mortgage Bankers and Real Estate Appraisers. Like all good confidence schemes, it couldn't have happened without our help.

BTW, despite right whing canards, the problem wasn't exacerbated by a government policy to help poor people get into homes. An analysis by the Center for Responsible Lending has determined that so far the greatest majority of bad mortgages were from refinancing of existing mortgages--people pulling equity out of their homes to buy more cheap plastic crap from China--not poor people getting their first mortgage.

First of all, Blankley says the Hamas wants to exterminate the Jews so you can't negotiate with them. This should be very troubling given the Bush "axis of evil" approach to the Iraq war that sounded real good until we actually invaded and occupied Iraq and found things were much more complicated (including our own capacity for evil at Abu Ghraib).

I will take exception to the characterization of the "Bush 'axis of evil' approach" as similar to the Hamas desire to "exterminate" the Jews. The US Policy was and still is regime change and never has been to exterminate the Iraq people.

As far as Abu Ghraib, that was not US Policy being implemented but rather some US personnel violating US military code and the incidents were already being investigated when it was made public. Several US solders went to prison and the Commanding General was demoted.

Your post is rather long so I will try to just hit some of the highlights.

We must remember how unusual it is for people to move from other places and be concentrated on one piece of land, where other people are already living, for the colonial powers to divide up the territories of a colonial loser in such a way as to give land to these immigrants and have the old inhabitants kicked out.

I think it's worth noting that from the beginning the Palestinians didn't have a state, it has always been ruled by others. After Partition and following wars, the Arab states have always kept Palestinians "down" rather than letting any that want to leave come to their countries. Palestinian Israeli citizens have more rights then Palestinians in any other Arab country. Most of these arab leaders just like to use the Palestinian cause as a way to distract their own people's attention away from their own problems.

How to get to a two state solution is another matter. We essentially need to work at peacemaking a fraction as hard as we invest in warmaking. We need to build an infrastructure of peace. the West and everyone else must make the investment to get it to happen, as Israelis and Palestinians are too much in each other's faces to get there themselves.

We also must destroy Hamas because as long as they are in power in Gaza, there can be no peace. And don't forget that along with the Israelis and Palestinians being "in each other's faces" the two main Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah are alway at each others throats, and the only reason there isn't a full scale Palestinian war (which would see much more bloodshed then the current conflict) is the fact that Hamas and Fatah are separated by Israel.

And to some extent the US geopolitics of oil gets in the way.

A US Policy encouraging more US based supplies would go a little way toward blunting this concern.

I wish Scheer would update his Wall Street rhetoric. He's constantly talking about the 'crooks' and 'criminals' on Wall Street and the homeowners who need to be rescued from their evil machinations.

This is typical Scheer, he loves to name call then put on his "ultra left wing liberal policies will never cause problems" blinders.

Israel keeps adding settlements regardless of prior commitments not to do so and forces Palestinians to live on de facto reservations. Sounds familiar to me.

As far as the settlements go, I wish they would do the same thing in the West Bank that they did in Gaza and remove them all.

The comparison to US Indian reservations is interesting. The Partition was a UN (International) decision so it could be said that both were put on reservations. What followed was a bunch of wars between the two "tribes" which leads us to this point. I am not aware of any US Indian tribes that were located on adjacent reservations so I am not sure if there is any comparison.

Mr X replied to Warren Metzler’s comment:
Jan 10, 2009
Reply

Robert keeps harping on how decimation of government oversight of the financial industry caused this crisis. He apparently has no clue what happens when regulations exists.

Long post so I will hit a couple of highlights. Scheer should remember the disastrous NRA (National Recover Administration) which was a disaster.

If you talk to the majority of Israelis, you find the plan has been, from before 1948, to eliminate all the Palestinians, and Arabs, from the Biblical "Greater Israel"; which if you aren't familiar with the Bible includes a significant amount of current Jordan.

Give me a break. You talked to the majority of Israelis?

rick kennerly replied to Mr X’s comment:
Jan 10, 2009
Reply

This is typical Scheer, he loves to name call then put on his "ultra left wing liberal policies will never cause problems" blinders.

Why is it always that false choice of zero regulation or 100% regulation? Obviously, there needs to be adequate regulation to protect consumer interests and national solvency.

Lack of regulation led us into the government policy of Private Profit and Public Risk we are enjoying now. Too much regulation stifles growth.

If we do not have the fortitude--and shortsightedness--to let both sides of the Free Market ideology play out, then we need to protect the non-players and innocent bystanders who will be picking up the tab for this latest fiasco. Conversely, if we do not have the will to have a completely planned socialized economy, then we need to have loose enough regulations to make entrepreneurship happen.

It's clear that pragmatic, centrist, mid-course corrections to 80's deregulation could have avoided much of the pain we are experiencing now.

Taken as a whole, it remains to be seen if the up on the upside of the last decade because of deregulation will balance out the down of this downside as far as GDP, national solvency, and individual progress on a national level.

Warren,

"It is now accepted by all informed people that there was no significant recovery of the Great Depression until after WWII."

You're regurgitating a RightWing myth.

The GDP in 1936 was 13%.

There was a VERY significant recovery, WELL before WWII.

"So it is totally irrational to claim a government stimulus, directed at improving the economy, will do any good."

To the contrary. What FDR enacted was a smashing success.

rick,

"BTW, despite right whing canards, the problem wasn't exacerbated by a government policy to help poor people get into homes. An analysis by the Center for Responsible Lending has determined that so far the greatest majority of bad mortgages were from refinancing of existing mortgages--people pulling equity out of their homes to buy more cheap plastic crap from China--not poor people getting their first mortgage."

Indeed.

McClatchy Newspapers did a nice job of compiling the Federal Reserve data:

PRIVATE SECTOR LOANS, NOT FANNIE OR FREDDIE, TRIGGERED CRISIS

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

Matt Miller correctly praised Leon Panetta's integrity and record of public service, to which Tony Blankly strangely argued that integrity was not part of the "skillset" needed to run the CIA.

Given the total absence of integrity in the Bush administration and particularly its approach to intelligence gathering, Blankly can perhaps be forgiven his perspective. For the record, integrity is not a skill, it is a quality that one either has or does not have, and one which is sorely needed in position with such dangerous and hidden power.

Mr. X,

"As far as Abu Ghraib, that was not US Policy being implemented but rather some US personnel violating US military code..."

Wrong.

It came from the top.

rick kennerly replied to Joe Friday’s comment:
Jan 10, 2009
Reply

McClatchy Newspapers did a nice job of compiling the Federal Reserve data:

Thanks. I'm hanging onto that one.

Ockraz replied to rick kennerly’s comment:
Jan 10, 2009
Reply

RK: As far as I'm concerned it this whole mess was a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, run from Wall Street, enabled on Capitol Hill, and perpetrated on a greedy and gulible public by pimps and pushers on Main Street posing as Mortgage Bankers and Real Estate Appraisers.

Perhaps you and Scheer are both using the word "criminal" in a rhetorical rather than a literal sense, but I think that that is misleading and unfair. Wall Street was greedy (although that is probably redundant) and stupid in continuing to rate their mortgage backed securities as irresponsibly as they did for as long as they did, but I don't think that any laws were broken there. The real illegality was almost certainly at the level of the "pimps and pushers" you mention as well as people who falsified mortgage aplications. I don't regard this as just a technicality- greed is probably amoral but I don't think it is immoral (or if it is we're probably all immoral), but criminality is another issue altogether

RK: the problem wasn't exacerbated by a government policy to help poor people get into homes... the greatest majority of bad mortgages were from refinancing of existing mortgages--people pulling equity out of their homes to buy more cheap plastic crap from China--not poor people getting their first mortgage.

Do you think that this should undermine Robert's argument about the victimized homeowners? It strikes me that this is basically a form of speculation (trying to profit from the real estate bubble), and if that is the case, then why are those homeowners more deserving of rescue than peoplewho lost after the tech stock bubble burst?
.

MRX: The comparison to US Indian reservations is interesting. The Partition was a UN (International) decision so it could be said that both were put on reservations. What followed was a bunch of wars between the two "tribes" which leads us to this point. I am not aware of any US Indian tribes that were located on adjacent reservations so I am not sure if there is any comparison.

That's not how I look at it.

I'm no expert, and maybe I've got some stuff wrong or I'm being too simplistic, but what I think happened is this:

The British turned Palestine into a colony in all but name and supported a Zionist policy because it was to their benefit during WWI. After WWII, they decided that it was more trouble than it was worth and turned their responsibilities over to the UN, who in turn declared a resolution that was favorable to (and supported by) the influx of European immigrants but rejected by the indigenous people (and their allies). Then you got a civil war which lasted until the British withdrew and the neighboring states attacked Israel. After the war, Israel took a sizable portion of the land allocated to the Palestinians, and the rest was divided up amongst Arab states who didn't grant the Palestinians independence. In '67 Israel took that land back.

The partition was supposed to establish a Jewish and an Arab state, but there never has been a Palestinian state. This makes me question your interpretation which seems to presuppose that the UN partition was actually implemented. If it had been, then your suggestion that either group is on a reservation as much as the other would be valid, but the Israelis have had a country for 60 years and the Palestinians are still refugees.

rick kennerly replied to Ockraz’s comment:
Jan 10, 2009
Reply

Perhaps you and Scheer are both using the word "criminal" in a rhetorical rather than a literal sense

Well, since the WS folks & Phol Gramm changed the laws before they started, perhaps not strictly illegal, but OTOH, there had to come a point where those on Wall Street knew they were committing some sort of fraud against shareholders and their clients.

The real illegality was almost certainly at the level of the "pimps and pushers" you mention as well as people who falsified mortgage aplications.

As I understand it, the biggest problems were the no doc and stated income applications.

It strikes me that this is basically a form of speculation (trying to profit from the real estate bubble),

By and large, yes. OTOH, these people all have to live somewhere and the housing market is overbuilt. In the end, it's going to make better sense for the mortgage holders to rework mortgage terms than to foreclose and have the properties not generating any income. After all, they did make a considerable amount of money on the frontend.

First of all, Tony was correctly pointing out that the skill set for the Office of Budget and Management is not the same that you'd want for the Central Intelligence Agency. It's a pretty egregious mismatch. Secondly, you admit yourself that integrity is not a skill, and I think you've misunderstood Tony if you thought that he implied otherwise. I think that his remarks were more aimed at the idea that Obama should have stuck to his guns and appointed Brennan, which makes more sense to me.

"I think it's worth noting that from the beginning the Palestinians didn't have a state, it has always been ruled by others. After Partition and following wars, the Arab states have always kept Palestinians "down" rather than letting any that want to leave come to their countries. Palestinian Israeli citizens have more rights then Palestinians in any other Arab country. Most of these arab leaders just like to use the Palestinian cause as a way to distract their own people's attention away from their own problems."

This is all true, but I don't see why it matters that there wasn't a Palestinian state under the Ottomans. The English and French created all the countries in the region after WWI and installed many of the "royal families." Why should that effect what happens to Palestinians?

It would be nice if the Arab states would do more to help, but focusing on them just obscures the fact that ultimately the West needs to take the lead. The West created this problem, essentially outsourcing refugees from the West and then maintaining the problem. A new administration must first overcome the Bush Administration's legacy of US unilateral military action that has alienated the rest of the world. Fortunately Obama will benefit from hope and optimism outside the US if he can deal with the politics inside.

There was a good and similar debate on this subject in today's editorial page of our local paper. Nicholas Kristoff at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08kristof.html?_r=1 points out that this violence strengthens extremists in both sides at the expense of moderates at home and abroad, believes that Israel should have reduced the blockade against Gaza and calls for the US to engage in tough love with Israel. Jonah Goldberg, who is often suggested as a vacation replacement for Blankley on the right side of the program, leads with describing an anti-semitic remark at a US demonstration and essentially argues that not just Hamas, but anyone who questions whatever Israel does in response to Hamas, are the new Nazis. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg6-2009jan06,0,5030370.column?track=rss. Goldberg says "Deep down, the desire (of his opponents) to cast the Israelis as Nazis is fueled by the haters' need to see their own hatreds and ambitions mirrored in their enemy's actions. Hamas has an avowedly Hitlerite agenda." By using ad hominem attacks that reduce policy issues to question of "hatred" and pathology, Goldberg deligitimizes his critics, essentially what he accuses his opponents of. And of course you can't negotiate with hatred or antisemitism. He also invokes the discredited anti-Semitic tract the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" which has no credibility in the West but is popular with Hamas and others in the Middle East. I personally think that anti-Semitism of that past era has passed away in disgrace but what has replaced it is controversy about the actions of Israel, a particular state run by particular people that engages in particular policies. While Israel does not intentionally exterminate Palestinians, its use of disproportionate reprisals and tolerance of collateral damage does resemble abuses of power done by the Third Reich. Israelis are not comfortable with this but are understandably mistrustful of any alternatives. So they and the Palestinians can not get themselves out of this violent downward spiral without considerable peacemaking, building relationships and institutions of trust, which effort needs to be lead by the US.

Actually, you missed my point, just as Tony missed Matt's, which is that integrity is an important qualification for running the CIA. It would, for instance, prevent someone from declaring that Iraq's possession of WMDs was a "slam dunk", when there was plenty of evidence to the contrary.

I don't think I missed anything. I know a lot of people with terrific integrity, but not one who has the qualifications to be CIA director. Matt seemed to be giving Panetta a character reference, which is all well and good, but it doesn't make him qualified. You wanted to take a shot at the lack of integrity of the CIA under GWB, and that's legitimate- but it doesn't make Panetta a good choice.

Robert Scheer is clearly the most informed and insightful commentator on the Israeli Occupation that this show has. Period. The others either read straight from the right-wing Israeli talking points (which treat civilians as fair targets or acceptable losses) or squeamishly look the other way when the rhetoric fails to line up with reality when they clearly should know better (I'm looking at you Arianna). Scheer's presentation lines up closer to the complexity of the situation, and to the humanitarian position. The others need to stop spreading the disinformation that keeps the US population in the dark about world events.

rick kennerly replied to Ockraz’s comment:
Jan 11, 2009
Reply

I don't think I missed anything. I know a lot of people with terrific integrity, but not one who has the qualifications to be CIA director.

But Panetta has both integrity and excellent managerial skills and is respected in the WDC community by both sides. He also has the benefit of not being tainted by the torture question, which any insider would have difficulty with at confirmation.

Since the No 2, 3, and 4 people in the chain of command at the CIA will be careerists, I think there will be sufficient continuity and competence at the top.

I think public confidence that there will be change at the CIA is important at this point in restoring that confidence. It will also give top cover to the agency insiders wanting to marginalize the bad actors.

There is no evidence that intelligence insiders make particularly good agency heads anyway. In fact, outsiders like GHW Bush seem to have had the best tenures.

rick kennerly replied to rick kennerly’s comment:
Jan 11, 2009
Reply

Do you think that this should undermine Robert's argument about the victimized homeowners? It strikes me that this is basically a form of speculation

It is a muddle, isn't it? I think there was a good deal of station wagon loan originators taking advantage of some pretty unsophisticated homeowner, particularly the elderly and people of fixed incomes. I've been contacted myself a couple of times over the last few years by people with smooth lines about "I can help you lower your monthly payments and even put some cash in your pocket."

My wife and I are both Master's trained and we had an attorney, but our last mortgage package was a mind numbing 1 inch thick at the closing. Sign here, initial there, counter sign this. I've been thinking about a refi and went back over that package the other day and found a couple of points I'd missed in the initial pass. The paper shuffle is a work of art...and confusing.

This subprime business is a complex web of deceit. But the key to any questions about the steep interest rate increase seems to have been faith that "you can always refinance before that happens in 5 years." Looking back over the smoking ruins from our perch in 2008 it's easy to fault people, but in 2004 with everything going up, up up, I can see how unsophisticated borrowers got caught short as well as how quick buck artists played the system.

OTOH, every voice on Wall Street, the people in the risk management departments, were rediculed and banished whenever they tried to raise caution flags about the subprime business. It was the demand from the top for more and more packages of mortgages to slice and dice and resell as securities that keep originators on Main Street going deeper and deeper into the subprime morrass.

StanH replied to rick kennerly’s comment:
Jan 11, 2009
Reply

This is very true. Try to figure out what is going on with a "payment option ARM." It is incomprehensible.

In the bankruptcy of New Century Mortgage, a poster child for abusive lending and one of the first to go under at the start of the meltdown, the Bankrupcy Court had an examiner's report which describes what Kennerly is talking about. There were some concerns expressed in the boardroom about how loans were not being paid back but the winning dynamic was to keep making and securitizing huge numbers of loans no matter how bad they were. When the train gets a rolling, few capitalists can resist getting on board. It is a structural problem in the market that requires regulation. Unfortunately in another structural problem, the industry captured the reguators. They need to be independently funded, like we want an independent judiciary here and elsewhere.

Because homeownership is so central to wealth building and social well being, we should be protective of it. It is one thing if people want to speculate in exotic metals, buy lottery tickets and such, but injecting a high lebel of risk and loss into homeownership and home mortgaes was irresponsible. The other problem is that we were attempting to finance consumer prosperity with debt, rather than wages which were being held down to increase profits. But debt is not wealth, it is the opposite, and that is why we are in deeper trouble than people may be letting on.

McClatchy Newspapers did a nice job of compiling the Federal Reserve data:

PRIVATE SECTOR LOANS, NOT FANNIE OR FREDDIE, TRIGGERED CRISIS

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

And Heritage.org did a nice job pointing out how that article was "...masterpiece in half-truths and opinion journalism disguised as hard news."

OPEN LETTER TO Robert Scheer:

For the sake of the poor, the sick and the middle class. I'm writing this letter on behalf of all the issues you are RIGHT about, for the cause of freedom, for economic and social justice and for human dignity, please RECUSE yourself from speaking about the Israel-Gaza conflict.

We are in the midst of an historical transition. We don't have rightwingers against the ropes, we have them down for the count. Please don't give them ammunition to come back like Rocky. We have rightwingers on all the blogs still blaming middleclass homeowners for the housing crisis, we have Fox blaming workers "i.e., the fundamentals of our economy" for the problems of the autoindustry, we have every pundit defending Sarah Palin, with have Tony Blankley reading poetry on air, we have Coulter attacking working mothers, we have Newt attacking state-endorsed marriage, we have Palin whining about not being treated fairly, we have Cheney defending torture....everything is going our way. Don't blow it.

This show was very depressing. Tony whipped out a can of Straight Talk after months of not being able to put two words together, and you have no good responses. Because you're rooting, or perceived to be rooting, for the wrong team. Even your one GOOD point--that we can and should negotiate with everyone--was lost in your ideological rhetoric against Democracy and Israel.

PLEASE DON't Ignore me. I know I"m just one guy, but the issues are just too great to have one of our best spokesman on economic issues to be pulled into this rightwing abyss. You are losing credibility on important issues to win debating points...and you're not even winning the debate.

I don't think you are TONE deaf on most economic issues, but the Gaza issue seems to be your ACHILLES EAR. Nobody can be right 100 percent of the time but you are in the high 90s on most issues. And by being so vocal on this issue, I feel you are kicking the knees out from under all your arguments on more important issues to Americans.

Let's take ELECTIONS and DEMOCRACY first. I don't know about you, but having my government do something about years of rocket fire into my country is CHANGE I can believe in. If it takes an election to make that happen, well, that's all we've really got in a democracy, isn't it?

Before the conflict, when you were fairly criticizing Bush for his M.E. policy, you often chided him about "democracy" getting a rightwing extremist group elected in Gaza. But now you are usig the same "democracy" rhetoric to defend Hamas.

BUT supposed we ACTUALLY LISTENED to Robert Scheer's advice. Do you think we would get a resolution? Let's get really crazy and pretend there is a peaceful resolution by completely chastizing Israel and forcing them to capitulate on every Hamas demand (while ignoring the little asterik that says all Jews should be exterminated), and there is finally peace. What would the M.E. look like then?

My guess is that Israel would continue its trend towards becoming a moderate state and Hamas would continue it's march toward rightwing Arab extremism (women and children treated like property). Look at Saudi Arabia and other rich nations. THey have all the wealth in the world to change their society to benefit all people and casts, women and children...instead they imprison girls who get raped.)

Whether I'm right or wrong is not the point. The point is you should choose your battles. Don't sacrifice all your credibility on economic issues to win a debate about an issue that you can not solve.

Worst of all, you are reviving the Rightwing not only the M.E. but here at home. Just when we're starting to win. Don't let them pull a Rocky on us. Don't let tony make YOU look like the wingnut on the panel and not him.

I want Obama to listen to Robert Scheer not the establishment on economic and social justice. Obama has already done all he can do on foreign policy simply by being elected. Everything else is either going to be diminishing returns or he will figure out the best approach. Trust him on this issue.

But Wall Street is too strong to ignore. Help Obama stay focused on domestic issues. But when it comes to rightwing Hamas, please, I beg you, Shut the F* Up!

rick kennerly replied to Mr X’s comment:
Jan 12, 2009
Reply

And Heritage.org did a nice job pointing out how that article was "...masterpiece in half-truths and opinion journalism disguised as hard news."

And HF buries the main thesis that it wasn't federal encouragement of home ownership for first-time low income buyers that caused the problem but refinancing of existing home loans by commercial companies that fell outside federal regulatory reach.

HF also is heavy on Dem involvement in protecting F&F while neglecting to mention GOP members in the House and Senate thwarted Bush's efforts to reform F&F back in the early years of his administration.

As I've said before, there's plenty of blame to go around.

I’m curious why no one is discussing the hole President Bush has left us in. The first lesson of macro-economics is during expansion the Government pays down national debt so that it can afford to run large deficits during contractions. But Bush took the surplus he inherited in 2001 and rather than use it to pay down national debt, financed huge tax cuts and multiple wars. So now as we head into the worst contraction in a nearly a century we’re setting with a national debt at 70% of GNP instead of something more like 15% of GNP.

If Bush had held a responsible position and paid down the debt, not only would we be better positioned, but Republicans might have retained control of the Congress.

I’m curious why no one is discussing the hole President Bush has left us in.

Okay: Interesting list from the Broken Government Project at the Center for Public Integrity. If you go to the site, each bullet has a link with explanation.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/broken_government/articles/full_list/

*
Consumers & Workers
o Limited Ability To Block Dangerous Imports
o FDA Enforcement Actions Way Down
o USDA Challenged Over Meat Safety
o Lack of Adequate Foreign Drug Oversight
o Problems in Oversight of Food Safety
o OSHA's Laissez-Faire Attitude
o FDA Failure To Ensure Drug Safety
o Failure To Protect Consumers From Unsafe Products
o Oversight Collapse Leads To Mine Safety Issues
o Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Stumbles
o Eroding Budget Erodes Consumer Safety
o Lack of Quorum at the CPSC
*
Contracting & Workforce
o A Failure of Whistleblower Protection
o Labor Relations Authority: Low Morale, Backlogged Cases
o Contractors Failing Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
o Human Capital Issues Plague Government
o Surge in Outsourcing Creates Problems in Performance, Oversight
o Chronic Understaffing at the EEOC
*
Education
o No Child Left Behind: A Few Bumps in the Road
o Reading First: Scandalous and Ineffective
o Student Loan Scandal Costs Students
*
Elections
o Paralysis at the Federal Election Commission
o "McCain-Feingold" Fails To Solve Campaign Finance Problem
o Election Assistance Commission Has Not Met Mandates
*
Emergency Management
o Hurricanes Expose FEMA Woes
o FEMA Trailers Filled With Formaldehyde
o We Can't Afford Another Flood
o SBA Emergency Assistance Failed for Katrina
o Flood "Protection" in New Orleans
*
Energy
o No Robust, Sustained Alternative Energy Policy
o Foreign Oil Dependence Has Grown
o Refinery Bottleneck Puts Squeeze on Gasoline Supply
o Move to a 21st Century Electricity Grid Is Stalled
*
Entitlements
o Unsustainable Medicare Spending
o Failure To Reform Social Security
o Social Security Disability Backlogs
*
Environment
o Climate Change: Hide the Assessment
o Failure To Advance Climate Change Policy
o EPA Deprives Public of Information on Toxics
o Science Policy Politicized
o Politicization at Department of Interior
o EPA Stalls on Perchlorate Regulation
o Mountaintop Coal Mining Alters Appalachia
o EPA and OMB Slow Toxic Chemical Risk Studies
o Scandal, Incompetence at Minerals Management Service
o EPA Misleads on Air Quality After 9/11 Attacks
o EPA Ignores Advisers on Particulate Matter Standards
o Everglade Restoration a Man-Made Disaster
o Superfund Program Loses Funding, Momentum
o Toxic Mercury From Coal Plants Unregulated
o Nuclear Waste Problem Unsolved
o EPA Fails To Put Children First
o Failure To Launch: Satellite Delays
o EPA's Free Pass for Aging Power Plant Emissions
*
Finance
o Shaky Start for Troubled Asset Relief Program
o Skyrocketing Deficit
o Oversight Fails To Keep Pace With a Changed Market
o Lax Oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
o SEC Allows Investment Banks To Go Unregulated
o More Corporations Pay Less in Taxes
o Audit Rates of Rich Fall, Audits of Poor Spike
o Lack of Regs Fueled Accounting Scandal
o U.S. Companies Hiding Revenue Offshore
o Mismanagement and Cronyism at HUD
*
Health
o Medicare Fraud Out of Control
o 45 Million Americans Without Health Insurance
*
Information Protection
o Failures in Cybersecurity
o Millions in Equipment Missing From Indian Health Service
o An Epidemic of Missing Laptops
*
Justice & Security
o Too Close to the Edge on Torture
o CIA Renditions Draw Controversy
o Politicization of Department of Justice
o Failure To Protect Sensitive Technology
o Arbitrary Detention at Guantanamo
o Osama bin Laden Still at Large
o Lack of Progress on Immigration Reform
o WMD Nonproliferation Needs More Attention
o National Security Agency Mismanages Info Technology
o $30 Billion Virtual Border Fence Faces Problems
o First Responders Still Can't Communicate
o FBI Abuses Power To Request Personal Information
o Agencies Failed To Share Intelligence on 9/11 Terrorists
o Pakistan Remains an Al Qaeda Haven
o FBI Failure To Create a Modern Computer Network
o Nuclear Sites Lack Adequate Security
o Losing the Battle for Hearts and Minds
o DHS Still Getting Up to Speed
o Terrorist Watch List Mismanaged
o Poor Retention of Counterterrorism Staff
o Inability To Track Foreign Visitors to U.S.
o Lack of Due Process for Terrorism Suspects
o FBI Struggles To Confront Multiple Threats
o NORAD, FAA Unprepared for Aerial Attack
o U.S. Guns Arming Mexican Drug Cartels
*
Military
o False Premise for Going to War
o Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal
o Mismanagement at National Reconnaissance Office
o Poor Health Care for Veterans
o Failure To Regulate Security Contractors
o Pentagon Office's Misleading Intelligence
o Military Failure To Secure Iraq After Invasion
o Lack of Armored Protection for Troops
o Pentagon's Slow Adaptation to a War-footing
o Inadequate Planning for Post-Invasion Iraq
o Failure To Secure Weapons in Iraq
o Mismanagement of Major Weapons Acquisitions
o Veteran Disability Claims Languish
o Delay in Opening U.S. Embassy in Iraq
o Air Force Failure To Maintain Nuclear Weapons Accountability
o Taliban Resurgence in Afghanistan
o 190,000 Missing Weapons in Iraq
*
Other
o NASA Inspector General Lack of Oversight
o NASA's Failure To Ensure Safety in Human Space Flight
o Massive Backlog at Patent Office
o Census 2010 Stumbles at the Starting Line
o FCC Chairman Martin Under Fire
*
Transportation
o Failing To Modernize Air Traffic Control
o Human Fatigue in Transport Accidents Still Unaddressed
o Close Calls on the Runway
o FAA in the Dark on Maintenance
o Record Delays in Air Travel
o FAA Inspectors Cozy Up to Airlines
o Highway Funding Woes
*
White House
o Controversial Assertion of Executive Power
o Excessive Executive Secrecy
o Signing Statements Thwart Congressional Intent
o Vice President's Office Exempts Itself From Information Safeguards
o Executive Office of the President "Loses" E-mails

Well, every Presidency has its specific policy failures, and really one doesn't want the President to be directly involved in administering the White House email server, etc. But my post was to the point of what one does expect from a President - high level agenda setting and leadership. And when it comes to fiscal responsibility Bush really dropped the ball, and completely undermined what had been a Republican advantage for generations. His complete disregard for the ballooning national debt during an economic expansion belied a fundamental ignorance of basic responsible governance.

However, the exhaustive list you posted does illustrate a second fundamental failure of the Bush Presidency - the culture of hostility towards the regulatory obligations of government. And I've posted enough my opinion that when SOOOOOOO many companies are "too big to fail" it illustrates a complete breakdown of the traditional role of Federal government in the American economy to insure the markets are competitive.

Well, every Presidency has its specific policy failures, and really one doesn't want the President to be directly involved in administering the White House email server, etc

The actual page is entitled:

An assessment of 128 executive branch failures since 2000

I wouldn't discount the loss of email. The email record is an important historical artifact about the hows and whys and by whom policy decisions were made. Although, I do admit some of the items were rather garden variety failures.

Mr X replied to rick kennerly’s comment:
Jan 12, 2009
Reply

As I've said before, there's plenty of blame to go around.

This we can agree on, as I said way back in October:

Factcheck.org put up an article "who caused the Economic crisis" a couple of days ago.

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

I would add now that since then, Mr. Schear has said in just about every LRC show that the "banking deregulation" bill sponsored by Phil Gramm is what allowed the "bandits"(as he always calls bankers) to do all these horrible things. Factcheck calls this claim "bunk".

rick kennerly replied to Mr X’s comment:
Jan 12, 2009
Reply

I would add now that since then, Mr. Schear has said in just about every LRC show that the "banking deregulation" bill sponsored by Phil Gramm is what allowed the "bandits"(as he always calls bankers) to do all these horrible things. Factcheck calls this claim "bunk".

That's a difficult call. Phil Gramm got passed during the Clinton administration banking regulations that later created the climate for what's happening now. He also had a point in exempting transactions between investment banks from any regulation or oversight as well as exempting new instruments like credit default swaps from oversight or even reporting.

But nobody could have perfect legislative foresight.

The problem is that we then treat legislation as if it is cast in stone, unalterable. There were plenty of warning signs and opportunities to make some mid-course, common sense corrections to banking regulations that would have prevented or at least softened the blow of what has happened, including F&F reform, tighter regulations of investment banks and CDS as well as the new mortgage instruments.

How would Friend & Foe reform or regulations on Compact Discs have prevented the economic turnoil?

Mr X,

"Heritage.org"

Which is a RightWing front group paid to spread propaganda.

"...did a nice job pointing out how that article was '...masterpiece in half-truths and opinion journalism disguised as hard news'."

How could it be "half-truths and opinion" when it is federal reserve DATA ?

Man, are you GULLIBLE.

The United Nations Human Rights Council condemned Israel today for "grave violations" of human rights of the people of Gaza. The adopted resolution also called for the urgent dispatch of an international mission to investigate Israeli behavior in the Gaza Strip, and called on Israel to cooperate with it by immediately ending its attacks and withdrawing its military forces from Gaza. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay told the Council:

"Accountability must be ensured for violations of international law."

Brock Dalton replied to Joe Friday’s comment:
Jan 12, 2009
Reply

When is the United Nations Human Rights Council going to condemn Saudi Arabia. There are too many case to choose from, but in today's paper a Saudi man made an Indonesian maid (slave) eat feces.

When are they going to condemn Hamas for its atrocities. I didn't hear much in the news the past few years that they've been rocketing Israel.

You want to know whatreal terrorism. Having to look at this awful photo everytime I come to this blog!

Brock,

"When is the United Nations Human Rights Council going to condemn Saudi Arabia [?]."

And just who is it are you claiming that Saudi Arabia has under illegal military occupation ?

"When are they going to condemn Hamas? [?]"

And just who is it are you claiming that Hamas has under illegal military occupation ?

"I didn't hear much in the news the past few years that they've been rocketing Israel."

Article 51 of the UN Charter allows for resistance to illegal military occupation.

You're not very well informed, eh ?

"Heritage.org"

Which is a RightWing front group paid to spread propaganda.

Can't you respond to the article rather than just attacking the messeger?

How could it be "half-truths and opinion" when it is federal reserve DATA ?

You could have read the article and found that.

Man, are you GULLIBLE.

If you accept the McClatchy article as gospel but then dismiss the Heritage article as propaganda then it is you that is Gullible or at least close minded.

[this is good]

Tyranny of Dead Ideas

I haven't hear it yet, but KCRW's Politics of Culture just published an extended interview with Matt Miller. podcast

Now, if Mister-I-Love-My-Kindle would actually get his book published on Kindle, I'd give it a read.

Mr X,

"If you accept the McClatchy article as gospel..."

The "McClatchy article" is not gospel, it is factual data from the Federal Reserve.

"...but then dismiss the Heritage article as propaganda..."

You yourself stated they claimed the "McClatchy article" was "half-truths and opinion". Categorizing factual data from the Federal Reserve as "half-truths and opinion" is, BY DEFINITION, propaganda.

The fact that you fell for their propaganda, once again is, BY DEFINITION, gullible.

Your dispute is not with me, but the dictionary.

rick kennerly replied to Joe Friday’s comment:
Jan 13, 2009
Reply

"If you accept the McClatchy article as gospel..."

Well (as I've noted twice before) the Center for Responsible Lending's own analysis comes to very much the same conclusions as the McClatchy reporting.

You yourself stated they claimed the "McClatchy article" was "half-truths and opinion". Categorizing factual data from the Federal Reserve as "half-truths and opinion" is, BY DEFINITION, propaganda.

Did you even bother to read the Heritage article?

From TFA:

"Goldstein and Hall have written an article, “Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis,” which is a masterpiece in half-truths and opinion journalism disguised as hard news. Goldstein and Hall cite “Federal Reserve Board data” that show “More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.” This are the first and most prominent example Goldstein and Hall use to support their thesis. It is also completely irrelevant. As Goldstein and Hall later admit much later in their own article, Freddie and Fannie “don’t lend money, to minorities or anyone else.” Exactly. So the fact that 84% of subprime loans were made by private institutions is completely irrelevant. So why is it the first “fact” Goldstein and Hall cite?" (Emphisis added)

This is a good question?

The article continues:

Goldstein and Hall then describe a little of what else Fannie and Freddie do in the real estate market: “They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans. It’s a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.” Goldstein and Hall then begin to try and absolve Fannie and Freddie from their role in the subprime mess. They write: “Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent. … During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie.”

So, according to Goldstein and Hall, Fannie and Freddie are innocent in the subprime mess because it was private banks that securitized most subprime loans during the height of the boom. But this Disney version of the truth leaves one huge question unanswered: Who bought all those subprime securities from the investment banks who were securitizing them? You will not learn this in Goldstein and Hall’s hackjob, but according to the Washington Post, at the height of the subprime boom Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased 44% of the entire subprime security market.

So the McClatchy article is using misleading facts to try to absolve Fannie and Freddie from any blame for this crisis. There is plenty of blame to go around and Fannie and Freddie should get some of it.

rick,

"Well (as I've noted twice before) the Center for Responsible Lending's own analysis comes to very much the same conclusions as the McClatchy reporting."

The American RightWing finds facts to be irrelevant.

Mr. X,

From your last post, it is more abundantly clear now than ever before that you have absolutely no idea what you are writing about.

"So the fact that 84% of subprime loans were made by private institutions is completely irrelevant."

NO, it is NOT "completely irrelevant". IT IS THE ENTIRE POINT.

It answers the false charge from the American RightWing that is laid out earlier in the article:

"...a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail"

Those private institutions that wrote 84% of the sub-prime mortgages were UNREGULATED. Therefore, there could not have been a (Clinton) government push to force mortgage underwriters to make loans to people who are either low-income or unqualified or both, as the American RightWing continuously promulgates.

"Freddie and Fannie 'don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else'."

What part of that are you unable to grasp ?

Again, it is additional evidence that the (Clinton or Congressional Democrat) government could NOT have ordered, instructed, forced, or whatever, Freddie or Fannie to make mortgages to minority, low-income, or unqualified applicants, as the American RightWing continuously promulgates.

"You will not learn this in Goldstein and Hall's [hackjob], but according to the Washington Post, at the height of the subprime boom Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased 44% of the entire subprime security market."

AND ?

That's their JOB.

But Freddie and Fannie had no access to the home appraisals, mortgage applications, or loan data. They were presented with mortgages that the mortgage brokers/dealers represented as high quality mortgages, and the ratings agencies rated as AAA.

It was FRAUD.

"So the McClatchy article is using misleading facts..."

NO.

It does not.

"There is plenty of blame to go around and Fannie and Freddie should get some of it."

NO.

They should not.

It was predatory lending by UNREGULATED private institutions, and the Federal Reserve factual data DESTROYS the propaganda being promulgated by the American RightWing.

Part of the problem here may be that the majority of subprime loans were not securitized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but by "private label" investment banks. There are several levels of involvement here. The main three are

1. the lenders. They essentially function like brokers, as conduits, because they make the loans, take their cuts and then sell the loans through securitization. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not do this.

2. the Securitizers. This is what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do. But so did the investment banks and they were responsible for most of the subprime and particularly the worst subprime. They put the investors together, created the complex legal structures and made a lot of money. Some also held on to various "tranches" (levels) of the securities they created. Fannie and Freddie did get into Countrywide late in the game, but that is an overrated factor except in the political blame game. Conservatives want to put the blame on Clinton, Democratic Congresspeople, many of whom do come from finance industry states, the Democrat-leaning Fannie Mae (ignoring the Republican leaning Freddie Mac) and ideologically, the idea that homeownership should be spread among the undeserving lower classes instead of being reserved for the affluent, like big tax cuts. However spreading homeownership might have worked had the industry made good loans instead of bad ones.

3. Investors. Their identities are generally not made public. Some are hedge funds, but many were financial institutions, and more significantly pension funds and mutual finds investing our 401(k)s. Fannie and Freddie may be there too but it's hard to say how much

Other players that are more public are mostly paid functionaries. Servicers you pay your money to, trustee banks whose names should appear for the trusts on foreclosures, realtors who try to recycle foreclosed on homes, the rating agencies whose financial incentives were to say that all these securities were AAA.

So who bought all the loans? We don't really know. Perhaps, if an economic recovery package is well structured, we will find out.

That's their JOB.

That is the point!!! Sure, private institutions originated 84% of loans but the point is that Freddie and Fannie (The Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE)) were lapping them up which freed up that money to be loaned out again. The whole arrangement fell apart when the GSEs ran out of money.

But Freddie and Fannie had no access to the home appraisals, mortgage applications, or loan data.

Then why the hell were they buying the loans? Because they were not looking for it. They were just shoveling money into the sub prime market. The fed was encouraging bad loans.

It was predatory lending by UNREGULATED private institutions, and the Federal Reserve factual data DESTROYS the propaganda being promulgated by the American RightWing.

I don't doubt that people were making loans that they were pretty certain would be defaulted on. The problem is that the GSEs were recklessly encouraging that type of loan.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased 44% of the entire subprime security market."

And if you read the McC article & the Center for Responsible Lending study, you'll see that F&F ended up with only 28% of the subprimes. Why was that?

Opponents of F&F are committing the twin errors of omission and of over simplifying the timeline. Lumping all subprime loans into one basket obscures the facts of how this mess unfolded over time.

In fact, there is not a single "subprime" loan here, but several iterations of subprime loans, each worse than the one before--strung out on a continuum of time.

First there were true subprime loans (we'll call them Traditional Subprime Loans) where the buyer does all the paperwork but just doesn't quite qualify for a conventional. As a point of fact, many of these early loans did not have ruinous interest rate resets after 5 years. That's the reason F&F still holds them. These are the low income, first time buyers the feds stepped in to help.

When all of those buyers dried up and there was a demand for more subprime loans to securitize on Wall Street, the originators dropped to the next level down: Stated Income Subprime Loans. Originally, these loans were for wealthy borrowers of recognized assests and rarely used. We could have called them the Trump or Buffett subprime loan.

When those buyers dried up and there was still more demand for subprime loans to securitize on Wall Street, originators dropped to NINA subprime loans--No Income / No Assets Subprime Loans. This was an interation of Stated Income subprimes but for the common man, and wholly invented at the origination level. They'd shop these around to find a buyer who was desperate for more mortgages to securitize.

When those buyers dried up and there was still more demand for subprime loans to securitize on Wall Street, originators dropped to NODOC Subprime Loans--no documentation--just give me a loan. Here's where the feeding frenzy is just about over.

Now, F&F had 44% of the traditional subprime market early on. But why did that percentage drop to 28% later in the cycle (the part HF glosses over)? That's because:

1. Early Traditional subprime borrowers hit the 5 year mark and refinanced, removing themselves from the F&F rolls.

2. Regulations prevented F&F from taking on NINA and NODOC subprime loans, so even if they wanted to play in that arena--and there is every indication they did--F&F couldn't buy those loans. These mortgages didn't qualify for F&F purchase.

Even if the Traditional subprime borrowers who'd refinanced before their interest rate ballooned after 5 years--and therefore removed their mortages from the F&F rolls--did eventually default, they weren't on F&F's books anymore.

Inshort, the people at the bottom were driven to originate riskier and riskier loans by demand from Wall Street for more and more mortages to stack together and then slice and dice into various security instruments.

But regulations opted F&F out of that process pretty early on.

Interestingly, this whole scheme is based on the early mantra "you can always refinance after 5 years." If credit hadn't dried up, this scheme would still be working. After all, the real gold mine for loan originators was a steady stream of refinancing fees every 5 years, instead of every 30.

Mr X replied to rick kennerly’s comment:
Jan 14, 2009
Reply

Now, F&F had 44% of the traditional subprime market early on.

That percent of the subprime market was hit in 2004, hardly "early on" since they didn't back down to buying up only 20% until 2006.

Center for Responsible Lending study

For the heck of it, I looked up this organization and there seems to be a bit of a conflict as noted in this George Mason Study which led me to a Forbes story.
So basicly, the CRL is a tool used to get rid of competition.

RIGHTGUY replied to Joe Friday’s comment:
Jan 14, 2009
Reply

You all are arguing about a moving target and that's because The Macs are middle men in the home loan process. They are not in the business of making home loans to people, private institutions (Banks) are, ergo, most of the subprime loans were made by private institutions.

Before the Macs, private banks could only lend a portion of the actual money they had (imagine that). Consequently, some areas could not make as many loans as other because their banks didn't hold sufficient money. The Macs came into being to flatten the market, they bought mortgages from the banks, to free those banks to make more home loans. The Macs then sold the mortgages to other investment firms. So the Macs could limit the absolute number and kinds of loans an institution could make by the type and number of mortgages they purchased from those institutions.

Our government officials liberalized the type of home loans the Macs could buy in an effort to increase home loans to people of lower economic status. If this did not happen, there would not have been a place for the private institution to pass these loans along. With the advent of the CRA, private institutions were required to make a certain percentage of these loans or be limited in their ability to do business. So in effect, the Macs, supported by our government, sponsored and created this monster.

The Macs sold these loans to second parties on Wall Street, which provided a new investment opportunity. To hide the rating of riskier loans, they were bundled by these second parties and resold to unknowning third parties. Investments in these bundles appeared to be safe (heck, it's backed by the US Government) and promised a good return, so they became popular and the demand went up. In the final years, during the feeding frenzy, Wall Street began bypassing the middel man, The Macs, and buying loans directly form the banks. The Macs, not wanting to lose their market share of loans (possibly fed by the linked bonuses of the chairmans and perks to congressman) began increasing the percentage of risky loans purchased.

So, when you're talking about involvement, you have to specify the type of involvement and when. The fact is, there is no other single entity in the business that bought and sold as many mortgages than The Macs. They were good institutions with a good purpose, until that purpose was subverted into a welfare program. Once the floodgates were opened, the crooks came to surf the waves.

rick kennerly replied to Mr X’s comment:
Jan 14, 2009
Reply

That percent of the subprime market was hit in 2004, hardly "early on" since they didn't back down to buying up only 20% until 2006.

Early on as in if you look at the rate of acceleration of subprimes over time compared against the expansion of new subprime loans categories that F&F couldn't participate in. There is no doubt that public policy was to encourage first-time, low income home buyers through access to F&F assets. But there was a profound difference between those loans and the ones that came later.

For the heck of it, I looked up this organization and there seems to be a bit of a conflict as noted in this George Mason Study which led me to a Forbes story. So basicly, the CRL is a tool used to get rid of competition.

Think of his efforts more like Jimmy Stewart and the Baily Building & Loan.

One person who created an alternative demonstration project providing alternative credit union loans to poor people to keep them out of payday lending and subprime loans isn't much of a conflict of interest when compared to the counterweight of the SRL's 10 executive board members and 15 research advisory council comprised mostly of academics (MIT, Harvard, Ga. Inst of Tech, Az State, USC, U of Conn, Marquette University, UNC Chapel Hill, Temple University, & Valparaiso University) and public policy professionals (AARP, Ford Foundation, The Urban Institute, New America Foundation, National Housing Conference, Center for Housing Policy, & HUD).

So "the Macs" invented the process, made some loans to nontraditional borrowers, and it worked ok. Wall Street figured out how to abuse the process, (Wall Street the second party hid the ball by selling risk to third parties in ways that were indecipherable), cut out the Macs, had a feeding frenzy making bad loans, and its the MACs fault. Also the government for trying to make lending into a "welfare program." (by definition bad).

OK.

And by the way, the CRA has minimal enforcement provisions. Mostly depository institutions like banks (it doesn't apply to the non-depositories who invented the predatory subprime stuff) have to hire some PR people and do a song and dance when some examiners show up. There are no teeth, no lawsuits, no criminal prosecutions. In theory, a bank with a bad CRA rating might not be able to buy another bank, but 1. almost no banks got bad CRA ratings 2. almost no bank mergers were ever denied. One was delayed once for a couple of weeks. And the CRA was around since the 70s, so it was pretty clearly other changes in the legal marketplace that made this happen.

Mr. X,

"That is the point!!! Sure, private institutions originated 84% of loans but the point is that Freddie and Fannie (The Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE)) were lapping them up which freed up that money to be loaned out again."

You obviously have no comprehension of how the secondary mortgage market normally functions.

"Then why the hell were they buying the loans?"

It is why they exist.

Again, you have no idea what you are writing about.

"Because they were not looking for it."

They did not expect to be defrauded.

"The fed was encouraging bad loans."

No.

Once AGAIN, the predatory lenders were UNREGULATED (thanks to the Republicans), therefore the Fed or anyone else in government COULD NOT have been "encouraging bad loans". They had no sway over them. They could not encourage them to do ANYTHING.

Your cluelessness is tiresome.

RIGHTGUY,

"Our government officials liberalized the type of home loans the Macs could buy in an effort to increase home loans to people of lower economic status."

False.

"With the advent of the CRA, private institutions were required to make a certain percentage of these loans or be limited in their ability to do business. So in effect, the Macs, supported by our government, sponsored and created this monster."

False.

"They were good institutions with a good purpose, until that purpose was subverted into a welfare program."

False.

~
The Chairman of the FDIC, Sheila Bair (A REPUBLICAN):

"I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty," said FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, before the Consumer Federation of America, Bair said Thursday she wanted to clear up the "myth" that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis - and she set out to do so with vigor.

The Community Reinvestment Act - or CRA - is a federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low-income and moderate-income neighborhoods. It has largely been criticized by conservative members of the GOP as promoting predatory lending practices.

And "LET ME ASK YOU," she proceeded. "WHERE IN THE CRA DOES IT SAY TO MAKE LOANS TO PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO REPAY? NOWHERE." THE FACTS ARE SIMPLE, BAIR SAID. THE LENDING PRACTICES THAT ARE CAUSING PROBLEMS TODAY WERE DRIVEN BY A DESIRE FOR MORE MARKET SHARE AND REVENUE GROWTH, NOT BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGED CERTAIN LENDING PRACTICES.
~

Quite.

They had no sway over them. They could not encourage them to do ANYTHING.

Yes they did. HUD (Housing and Urban Development) did it. The Fed was encouraging lenders to loosen standards. Lots of articles have detailed it including here and here.

The CRA is one aspect of the entire philosophy of opening up subprime loans. At first banks had no place to transfer these loans until the Macs loosened their policies and began purchasing these, higher risk loans with the idea of allowing more people to buy homes. Once the process was established and there was a market for subprime loans, add a little loan interest from the fed, and the sharks moved in to create the bubble.

Your argument that no banks were ever prosecuted for violations indicates that the banks adhered to the government mandate. It's not a little thing for a company to be restricted from expanding because 10% of there loans are not to loan income, high risk borrowers. Carter started the CRA in the 70s and Clinton expanded it in the 90s. Our presdient-elect was invovled with a lawsuit representing the CRA in Illinois.

The point of my post was to indicate that there were three levels to the subprime crisis, the banks promoting subprime loans, the Macs who purchased them and sold them to Wall Street, and Wall Street who then bundled them and sold them off with false ratings.

RIGHTGUY replied to Joe Friday’s comment:
Jan 15, 2009
Reply

Let me use your argument...Everything you posted is FALSE! Great way to argue.

Regarding your quote of Blair, what do you think "low income" neighborhoods means? It mean high risk loans from people who may not be able to pay them back, loans and risks banks would not ordinarily have made if they were not compelled to do so by government regulations.

People who try to assign blame in the subprime crisis often exonerate or blame based on single entities. People who argue that a single entity is free or blame (the CRA) or the sole cause (Wall Street) are using a false argument, because they purposefully separate out causes and blame or exonerate based on a single component's ability to have caused the problem.

My point is there were many factors at work, some were related to democratic deregulation of The Macs, some were from republican deregulation of Wall Street, and some (like the CRA) were from democratic regulatory mandates.

Yes they did. HUD (Housing and Urban Development) did it. The Fed was encouraging lenders to loosen standards. Lots of articles have detailed it including here and here.

Mostly irrelevant and, in it's simplicity, misleading.

1. Irrelevant in that while it is federal policy to promote lending to poor first time home buyers, analysis shows that most of the problem loans are on refinanced homes, not first time mortgages.

2. misleading because NINA, Stated Income and NODOC subprime loans were not encouraged by the government and the MACs were prohibited from buying those kinds of loans.

rick kennerly replied to RIGHTGUY’s comment:
Jan 15, 2009
Reply

My point is there were many factors at work, some were related to democratic deregulation of The Macs, some were from republican deregulation of Wall Street, and some (like the CRA) were from democratic regulatory mandates.

geez, as if midcourse corrections of processes started in the Carter & Clinton years were not possible in the last 8 years.

Mr. X,

"Yes they did."

I'm afraid not.

The government has no authority over an unregulated industry.

"HUD (Housing and Urban Development) did it."

No.

Once again, you are conflating the encouragement of loans to QUALIFIED low-income and/or minority applicants. To echo Sheila Bair, WHERE did they encourage loans to people who could not afford to repay ?

They didn't.

From your own link:

"HUD EXPECTED THAT FREDDIE AND FANNIE WOULD IMPOSE THEIR HIGH LENDING STANDARDS ON SUBPRIME LENDERS ... HUD RESTRICTED FREDDIE AND FANNIE, SAYING IT WOULD NOT CREDIT THEM FOR LOANS THEY PURCHASED THAT HAD ABUSIVELY HIGH COSTS OR THAT WERE GRANTED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE BORROWER'S ABILITY TO REPAY."

"The Fed was encouraging lenders to loosen standards."

No.

You are conflating federally regulated institutions with UNREGULATED institutions.

"Lots of articles have detailed it including here and here."

More conflation.

You have no idea what you are writing about.

RIGHTGUY,

"The CRA is one aspect of the entire philosophy of opening up subprime loans. At first banks had no place to transfer these loans until the Macs loosened their policies and began purchasing these, higher risk loans with the idea of allowing more people to buy homes. Once the process was established and there was a market for subprime loans, add a little loan interest from the fed, and the sharks moved in to create the bubble."

Gibberish.

The CRA loans were not riskier. The riskier loans were by the UNREGULATED predatory lenders.

"Your argument that no banks were ever prosecuted for violations indicates that the banks adhered to the government mandate."

Of course the BANKS adhered to the CRA, as ONLY federally regulated lenders are bound by the CRA. The UNREGULATED predatory lenders were NOT bound by the CRA.

Perfect example that you don't even know what you don't know.

"Let me use your argument...Everything you posted is FALSE! Great way to argue."

Just a statement of fact.

"Regarding your quote of Blair, what do you think 'low income' neighborhoods means? It mean high risk loans from people who may not be able to pay them back"

Nonsense.

Further evidence of your ignorance or worse.

"loans and risks banks would not ordinarily have made if they were not compelled to do so by government regulations."

You obviously missed the part where Sheila Bair stated:

"WHERE IN THE CRA DOES IT SAY TO MAKE LOANS TO PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO REPAY? NOWHERE."

Now, if you want to talk government interference:

UNDER PRESSURE FROM BANKS, BUSH EASED LENDING RULES

(AP) - The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.

Bowing to aggressive lobbying - along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK - REGULATORS DELAYED ACTION FOR NEARLY ONE YEAR. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way.

The administration's blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic of a philosophy that trusted market forces and discounted the need for government intervention in the economy. Its belief ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention since the 1930s.

Many of the banks that fought to undermine the proposals by some regulators are now either out of business or accepting billions in federal aid to recover from a mortgage crisis they insisted would never come.

Now, if you want to talk government interference:

UNDER PRESSURE FROM BANKS, BUSH EASED LENDING RULES

And here is an Investors Business Daily editorial in response
An excerpt.

Here at IBD, we've done more than a dozen pieces — most recently, in yesterday's paper — detailing how rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under President Clinton, along with major regulatory changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s, created the boom in subprime lending, the surge in exotic and highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom whose government-fed excesses led to inevitable collapse.

The whole article is worth a read.

RIGHTGUY replied to Joe Friday’s comment:
Jan 15, 2009
Reply

Hey Joe, the following is an excerpt from the NY Times, "Fannie Mae eases credit to ease mortgage lending," Sept. 30, 1999.

"In 1999, under pressure from the Clinton administration, Fannie Mae, the nation's largest home mortgage underwriter, relaxed credit requirements on the loans it would purchase from other banks and lenders, hoping that easing these restrictions would result in increased loan availability for minority and low-income buyers. Putting pressure on the GSE's (Government Sponsored Enterprise) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Clinton administration looked to increase their sub-prime portfolios, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development expressing its interest in the GSE's maintaining a 50% portion of their portfolios in loans to low and moderate-income borrowers."

Why don't you pull your head out of your dogma before you begin calling people ingnorant.

This Investors Business Daily article repeats the idea that during the Bush presidency, a Republican controlled Congress gave up on "reforms" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because Democrats opposed it and they didn't want it to be a partisan issue. But Republicans loved partisan issues. Furthermore they wanted to rule by a "majority of the majority" that is not need Democrat votes for anything. Remember Terry Schiavo, or setting timetables to end the Iraq war? The Republicans didn't care enough about this to pass it with their majority. If they really believed that it was going to create a recession/depression, eliminate Republican-leaing financial institutions, cut the campaign out from under their 2008 presidential candidate and hurt a lot of ordinary people, why didn't they? The answer had to be that they didn't think that. Instead this was a second or third tier issue, perhaps for ideological posturing or taking a shot at Fannie Mae which was close to Democrats. Perhaps the reason is that Freddie Mac is close to Republicans. Whatever it was, what we are hearing now is historical revisionism, or trying to rewrite what really happened to gain political advantage.

As Kennerly notes, there is a difference between expanding homeownership to borrowers who could pay back loans, a controllable risk, and creating bad loan products, or perhaps more accurately loan products that were unsuitable and destructive for most of the borrowers but temporarily good for those in the industry who were profiting from them, an uncontrollable risk. They got away with it because the government, for ideological or corrupt reasons, let them. And for most of the time, Republicans were completely in charge.

This Investors Business Daily article repeats the idea that during the Bush presidency, a Republican controlled Congress gave up on "reforms" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because Democrats opposed it and they didn't want it to be a partisan issue.

I don't think that we should absolve Republicans. I think that they could have tried to force through changes and at least let it die with a filibuster but the didn't. At the same time, Democrats didn't see this coming either. If they did then they should have shutdown Congress (filibuster the senate)until something was done and then done it when they got the reigns in 2007.

I don't think that the politicians from either party saw this coming.

rick kennerly replied to Mr X’s comment:
Jan 16, 2009
Reply

I don't think that the politicians from either party saw this coming.

I don't give Bush much credit for anything good, but early in his administration he did have the MACs on his radar screen.

Ignoring the problems with the MACs was an example of true bipartisanship. The MACs were one of the most active lobbies on the Hill and were extremely free with their contributions to congressmen from both sides of the aisle, paying them to turn a blind eye toward their enterprise.

RIGHTGUY replied to rick kennerly’s comment:
Jan 16, 2009
Reply

You're right. Let's see, who were the two top recipients of Mac lobbying? Hmm, Obama and Dodd, or was it Schumer.

The Macs are just another good reason for people to be cautious about GSEs. Yet, now everyone is merrily promoting another huge GSE, government sponsored healthcare. I can't wait for the subprime CAT scan scandal.

rick kennerly replied to RIGHTGUY’s comment:
Jan 16, 2009
Reply

government sponsored healthcare. I can't wait for the subprime CAT scan scandal.

Oh, you mean the way we're doing it now, with healthcare and insurance companies doling out the cash on Capitol Hill to keep things the way they are, so that we can have the most expensive yet least effective healthcare system in the western world while the companies rake off the cream. Good plan.

RIGHTGUY replied to rick kennerly’s comment:
Jan 16, 2009
Reply

If the US has the least effective healthplan in the world, then take Michael Moore's recommendation and go to Cuba for your next physical.

rick kennerly replied to RIGHTGUY’s comment:
Jan 17, 2009
Reply

If the US has the least effective healthplan in the world

You should be more careful with my arguments. I said Western World. And I said least effective, but most expensive.

You're defending the indefensible. You should read Matt's book.

RIGHTGUY replied to rick kennerly’s comment:
Jan 17, 2009
Reply

Healthcare effectiveness is based upon variables that are nearly impossible to compare between countries because they are measured differently and concern different cultures. Depending on how you view things we could have the best or the worse healthcare in the world.

Last time I checked, Cuba was in the western hemisphere. I used Michael Moore's Cuban Healtcare exploitive as an example of how healthcare statistics may be manipulated in order to criticize the current state of US healthcare.

Be careful of what you wish for, because you may get it. And if you believe your current healthplan is an example of what government-sponsored healthcare will become, you are sorely mistaken.

rick kennerly replied to RIGHTGUY’s comment:
Jan 17, 2009
Reply

Depending on how you view things we could have the best or the worse healthcare in the world.

You appear to be on the wrong side of history.

Well, on to the next show. bye.

Mr. X posted:

"Here at IBD, we've done more than a dozen pieces - most recently, in yesterday's paper - detailing how rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under President Clinton, along with major regulatory changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s, created the boom in subprime lending, the surge in exotic and highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom whose government-fed excesses led to inevitable collapse."

RightWing gibberish OPINION.

You obviously cannot even delineate between news and opinion.

Once again, WHERE in the Community Reinvestment Act does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay ? What is it with RightWing brains, that they cannot comprehend the difference between fighting discrimination and promoting loans to people who cannot repay them ?

The IBD, as with their fellow RightWing travelers, ignore the fact that the problem was in the UNREGULATED private-sector.

RIGHTGUY posted:

"In 1999, under pressure from the Clinton administration, Fannie Mae, the nation's largest home mortgage underwriter, relaxed credit requirements on the loans it would purchase from other banks and lenders, hoping that easing these restrictions would result in increased loan availability for minority and low-income buyers."

EXACTLY.

"Easing" "restrictions" to increase availability of mortgages to "minority and low-income buyers" who had been discriminated against, NOT to grant loans to unqualified applicants or applicants that no ability to repay, as the UNREGULATED private sector predatory lenders DID.

"Why don't you pull your head out of your dogma before you begin calling people ingnorant."

Sorry, but you just once again proved your own ignorance.

I just call 'em like I see 'em.

KCRW's Left Right & Center 1.9.09 Show

Comments

Post a comment

About Me

My Links

My Groups

Neighborhood

Tags

Archives