How did we get into this situation in the first place?

[Cleon]

QFT?

Quoted For Truth. A short-hand way of saying "what he said."

 

[BeAChooser]

If you look at where the foreclosures are, I'm willing to bet that they aren't primarily in low income neighborhoods. The bubble really didn't happen within the City of Detroit. It was more in the suburbs. You had two income families with two professionals buying homes for $300,000.

First of all, the claim isn't that they are primarily in low income neighborhoods (although they often are) but they are loans to low or moderate income people who bought a house beyond their means wherever they happened to buy it ... because democrats were encouraging that practice.

The following shows this was a big problem even back in 2003:

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/127/homeownership.html

Federal programs insure more than a million loans a year to help home buyers with fewer funds available for a down payment, low incomes, or poor credit histories, mostly through the Federal Housing Administration. The secondary mortgage market, primarily Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, purchases more than half of the loans originated by mortgage lenders, and is required to do a certain amount of business each year that benefits low-income and other underserved markets.

... snip ...

Loans to low-income homebuyers increased by 94 percent between 1993 and 1999. Mortgage volume in 2001 was higher than ever before, in no small part due to record low mortgage rates. More than $2 trillion was borrowed, 59 percent for refinancing. Subprime lending, which targets low-income and high-risk borrowers with high-interest loans, was expected to top $210 billion in 2002.
... snip ...

Defaults on loans in 2000 amounted to approximately one million households losing their homes to foreclosure, during the height of an unprecedented economic expansion. ... snip ... Foreclosures on FHA-backed loans to low-income households have risen the fastest, to a rate of nearly 3 percent, with an additional 12 percent behind in their payments in the second quarter of 2002.

... snip ...

Where fault lies, however, is in perpetuating the myth that homeownership is risk-free and appropriate for everyone. With mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures at record levels, particularly among low-income households, millions of poor families might have been better off today had they not chosen to purchase a home.

If we look at more recent sources ...

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=1b33a9ec66b96536d3a1e0ebddda875d

May 21, 2007

... snip ...

There were nearly 29,000 foreclosures in the Chicago region last year; the highest level of foreclosure in the last eight years, reports the Woodstock Institute, a nonprofit research organization that promotes community economic development.

And the fair-lending advocate organization, National Training and Information Center (NTIC), reported that foreclosures spiked in middle-class neighborhoods with three of the highest jumps occurring on the Near North Side (65% increase); Jefferson Park/Northwest Side (89% increase) and Bridgeport on the South Side, (113% increase).

Bob Palmer, policy director of Housing Action Illinois, contends that the plight of the middle class has put Illinois' staggering 55 percent foreclosure increase on the radar. ... snip ... There's no official, universal definition of "middle class," yet the U.S. Census Bureau estimates the average median income for Illinois residents is $48,008.

we see that few of these are professionals earning $300,000 a year. You either have a distorted view of what's happening out there or you are simply spinning in order to defend your chosen political party.

Here's are more sources with data that show you are wrong in your assertion:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0803200...of_pain_as_city_foreclosures_soar__122814.htm

Aug 3, 2008

... snip ...

New Yorkers can't beat the housing heat this summer - foreclosures in the city were up 67 percent in July compared to the same month last year as me loans and a cooling economy scalded homeowners.

... snip ...

Although foreclosures remain limited mainly to low-income areas, they're having a domino effect that has driving down prices citywide, said Saniford.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wgvu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1225288&sectionID=1

2008-02-08

... snip ...

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. Home foreclosures have increased dramatically in the past four years, hitting several Kent County communities and Grand Rapids neighborhoods particularly hard. From 2004-2007, rates of foreclosure jumped 176 percent overall in Kent County, and 179 percent in the City of Grand Rapids.

... snip ...

Although foreclosure rates increased in nearly every part of the county, the report identifies several lower-income and African American neighborhoods in Grand Rapids with very high foreclosure rates. Five neighborhoods Baxter, Fuller Avenue, Madison Area, South East Community Association and Oakdale had foreclosure rates more than double the city average, with as many as 7 percent of neighborhood homes foreclosed in 2007 alone.

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/12665/

SAN DIEGO, Calif.

... snip ...

Union leaders here noted that for many families, the crisis will be triggered by a “catastrophic” rate increase on an inappropriate “exploding” sub-prime adjustable rate mortgage loan. They said that, as devastating as foreclosures have been to date, the worst is yet to come. In 2007 home foreclosures increased by 75 percent to 2.2 million.

Foreclosures are expected to accelerate dramatically during 2008, when 2.5 million loans are scheduled for rate resets.

The union statement on the crisis noted that low income and minority homeowners are suffering disproportionately. Fifty five percent of mortgages obtained by African Americans are subprime and 46 percent of mortgages obtained by Latinos are subprime.

And that's just a sampling from pages and pages of hits.

Clearly, you don't know what you are talking about, Meadmaker.

So, sure, there are some foreclosures in poor neighborhoods, but no more so than in rich neighborhoods.

Are you so desperate to defend Obama that you now have to claim bogus *facts* like Obama has been doing?

"This all happened because them darned libruls made the banks loan money to a bunch of [Rule 10]"

I never used such language or even implied it. How curious that it is the word that comes to YOUR mind, however.

 

[BeAChooser]

While I think that BAC is way over the top, and I'll denounce him as not much better than those I am crusading against on this forum...

Am I? Seems to me that all I did was quote some sourced facts and then draw the logical conclusion. That Obama LIED. Do you deny that? And unlike my opponents, at least *I* did use and source facts rather than just wave my hands. I hope you aren't one of those who thinks that if we treat democrats/liberals and the liberal media nice, and let them get away with their lies, they'll like us and behave. Nothing could be more delusional.

 

[BeAChooser]

Sigh.

Oh, no.

Unfortunately, George Bush has been one of those republicans who seems to think that if you are nice to democrats and go along with their agenda (on this, education, illegal immigration, etc), they will like him and become better persons. In that, Bush is delusional. But I'll grant you that Bush shares some of the blame for this current mess ... at least starting in 2004. But then, he's not running for President.

And I think any clear headed person can see that most of this mess is clearly the fault of democrats and their agenda ... starting back in the 90s. And that contrary to what Obama claimed, republicans tried to pass legislation that would have curtailed or greatly ameliorated this crisis. Which means that Obama LIED in his economics speech and during the debate. And you can't logically deny that.

 

[BeAChooser]

Who really killed McCain's bill? It didn't make it out of a GOP controlled committee. ... snip ... He has asserted it was Democrats with a few Republican defectors. OK. Let's see the evidence for that.

You demand evidence from me? When I'm virtually the ONLY one on this thread who has been posting links to back up what I claim? What? Don't you trust me, democrat?

For the record, republicans had *control* of this committee in the sense that 11 were republicans while 9 were democrats. I'll leave it to you to prove me wrong. Here is your chance.

But I will admit that on second reading of the links I've already provided and those below, it appears that the bill did make it out of the GOP *controlled* committee. It awaited a floor vote.

Was it ever voted on? Why not?

The answer to your question appears to be here: http://www.govtrack.us/users/questions.xpd?topic=bill:s109-190

What Does "Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably." mean?

A1: This was just a way for S.190 to be delayed through amendment. It then died at the conclusion of the 109th Congress when the 110 Session began in January of 2007. Shortly after, a similar bill (S. 1100) was reintroduced with the amendments in the 110th session of Congress where it remains pending.

The fact that it was reported "favorably" means that the majority of those on the committee recommended that the bill be passed.

A7: McCain's appeal for more Senate co-sponsors was an attempt to garner enough support to force a floor vote. Apparently, to no avail. It remained stalled until it expired.

So it looks like McCain did more than just wait for something to happen. He tried to make something happen. But since democrats could filibuster, nothing did. Filibuster, you say?

I'm assuming (correctly I hope) that in '05 the Republican's controlled Congress. How was this bill (heavily favored by Republicans) blocked on voting by Democrats?

A1: Strange but true - neither party has true 'control' of the Senate.

A simple majority is not 'control' because neither party has the 60-votes req'd to break "filibuster". A minority party can block a measure (i.e. filibuster) until either the measure is withdrawn or the filibuster is broken by a 60-votes.

http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_senaterules.htm#filibusters

"almost any motion that does not have the support of [60-votes in] the Senate effectively fails"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate [Answer submitted on Sep 28, 2008 6:28 PM]

A2: It was never allowed to be brought to the floor for a vote because Schumer and Dodd, primarily, are on record as having said Fannie and Freddie are just fine. Since I am going by the clips of the floor comments and articles that were written at the time quoting the Republican's begging Dodd to allow it on the floor for a vote, I presume there was a filibuster by the Dems. It came up again in 2006, but at that point the Dems were in control of both Houses of Congress. [Answer submitted on Sep 29, 2008 12:30 AM]

A3: This link of a CSPAN video may help set the context

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Indeed, that video clip does set the context. It shows democrats in 2004, like Waters, Franks and Schumer, defending Raines (who I discussed earlier) during the investigation into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which ultimately led to Raines resigning and having to return millions of the some $50 million he essentially stole in an Enron-like operation.

Let me quote democrat Maxine Waters from it, since I haven't quoted her previously on this thread:

"Through nearly a dozen hearings where frankly we were trying to fix what wasn't broke. Mr Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particular at Fannie Mae. Under the OUTSTANDING leadership of Mr Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine."

And democrat Representative Lacy Clay (who, btw, is black):

This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines

Outstanding leadership? Political lynching? ROTFLOL!

You can also hear a number of republicans, such as Representative Royce, calling for more regulation of Fannie Mae ... again proving that some of the posters on this thread are misinformed (giving them the benefit of the doubt) and that Obama LIED in his economics speech and during the debate.

If you are motivated to learn more, MM, have at it because I've already proven the point I wished to make ... that Obama LIED when he claimed McCain and republicans had done nothing for 8 years about the mortgage issue whereas he had introduced a bill 2 years ago related to the mortgage issue (which by the way didn't pass either and didn't have anything really to do with the current problem, unlike the bill McCain co-sponsored).

Who made public statements of support for it?

Well we know McCain did, contrary to what Obama claimed. I've already presented links to his speech. And he wasn't the only one to speak. I'm sure many of the other co-sponsors did.

Others have tried this argument before, MM ... that republican's were *in control*, so it's their fault. The truth is that from 2003 to 2005, Republicans had 51 seats in the senate to the democrat's 48. So all it would take is a few RINOs (and there were more than a few) for the group to vote with democrat *positions*. If only a few democrats had voted for change/reform, it would have passed. But none did. And that's why Bush's initial call for legislation fell flat, as well as the ones in 2005 and later. Yes, between 2005 and 2007, Republicans widened their majority but at the cost of electing even more RINOS. Here's a list of the top 10 in December of 2005. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11129 And even then, they weren't filibuster proof. So make no mistake. Far more democrats spoke and voted against fixing the problem of monitoring and regulating mortgage lenders than spoke and voted for fixing it. And far more republicans spoke and voted for a fix than against one. So the lack of oversight that led to this crisis and the failure to fix is clearly due to democrat actions and inaction over the past 8 years (or longer). And no amount of spinning will extract you from that simple fact, Meadmaker.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Word choice can be telling...

While I think that BAC is way over the top, and I'll denounce him as not much better than those I am crusading against on this forum... I will also say that I am learning some strong /handwave techniques from you guys, the way you just ultimately ignore anything he ever has to say, substantive or not, and simply resort to ridicule and strawmen.

(bolding by me)

Your cavalcade of questionable political correspondence, previously confounding, clears considerably having now comprehended a collusion of characteristics at the core of your compositions: confirmation bias and a compulsion to crusade.

Whiplash meet mirror; mirror...Whiplash.

 

[BeAChooser]

Who controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2005? They could have passed the "Democrats are Doodooheads Act of 2005" if they wanted to.

Tell you what, Giggywig. Why don't you respond to what I noted about that claim in post #45. Now be sure to provide a link or two to back up what you claim.

 

[BeAChooser]

On the OP; What a pack of absolute lies.

Specifics? You can provide specifics ... can't you, Ben? Can't you?

 

[Shalamar]

SO.. In a nutshell, Democrats are evil, right?

Democrats run all the banks and the mortgage brokers? Democrats forced them to give out risky loans?

I see the light!

 

[Meadmaker]

What a load of garbage. For the record, all it took to scuttle the legislation that Bush and the republicans proposed was a few RINOs (those are democrats pretending to be republicans in order to get elected in the districts they *represent*) to say no. Meanwhile almost every democrat voted no. Now whose fault was it really? The party that got 99% of its members to vote yes or the part that had 99% of its members vote no?

I figured you would be easy to catch. It wasn't voted on, ever. Prove me wrong. (ETA: see below)

The thing that raised the red flag for me was your assertion that it was Democrats and a few RINOs. But who sponsored it? Chuck Hegel. You want a RINO, that's one. He was named as a possible Obama running mate. Who else sponsored it? John McCain. Google RINO + McCain. Lots of hits there. Despite Democratic efforts to tar McCain as a Bush clone, he never was. He is far, far, better than the current sitting President, whose support you will not find for this legislation.

Show me a speech, vote of support, or cosponsorship from Larry Craig, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Richard Shelby, (the chairman who wouldn't let it out of committee), Trent Lott, or anyone with impeccable conservative bona fides.


Meanwhile, you can sit back and say that those darned civil rights lawyers forced banks to loan money to..............low income people. Yeah, those civil rights lawyers are always trying to get equal rights for low income people. However, it's odd, but when that filters down to the rank and file, those words end up getting twisted, and they use words that are apparently violations of rule 10. When those guys were sitting around talking about who caused this mess, they didn't mention low income people, but they did use a different word, and that word meant exactly what you said in the opening post, just in a more vulgar manner.



ETA: Actually, the bill did get out of committee, sort of. It was ammended, reported favorably, and then died without ever getting to a floor vote. I can't find who voted on it or how in the committee, but perhaps BAC can supply us with this info. Grrr. That's what I get for reading the forum style commentary instead of the big words on the actual bill. Is there a smiley showing me kicking myself in the ....uhmmm nearly made another rule 10 violation there.

 

[Meadmaker]

I never used such language or even implied it. How curious that it is the word that comes to YOUR mind, however.

I never said you did. I said I was quoting the water cooler conversation around my workplace, and I was, and it was a quote. Of course, it means exactly the same thing as what you wrote.

 

[Meadmaker]

It seems Hagel's bill, cosponsored by McCain, Sununu, and Dole, did in fact make it out of committee, ammended, on a straight party line vote. It's conceivable BAC could be right about this, though it pains me to say it.

Now, it's interesting what it actually did, though. I haven't had time to digest this site that discusses the bill.

http://www.realtor.org/GAPublic.nsf/pages/gsereformbills?OpenDocument

 

[dudalb]

I have noted if you criticise one candidate or party, a lot of the supporters of the party automatically assume you all on the other side.
I guess the idea that you be critical of both parties is alien to them.

 

[BeAChooser]

This seems to be the central thrust of your argument

No, the central thrust is that Obama LIED about who got us into this mess.

the point I see as most in need of better support is the assumption that those loans were made for any other reason than a desire on the part of the lending institutions to make money in the process.

It's not just an "assumption". I'd say the assumptions are on the other side of this debate since so far I'm the only one who has been providing links to back up assertions. In my posts and links above, I provided examples (and I could easily have provided more) where liberals forced lending institutions to make loans to people that previously were considered too risky to merit loans. I provided various sources (some quite liberal) that acknowledged lending institutions were indeed being pressured by the government to make loans to people who in an economic down turn would be in serious trouble. I provided quotes by a number of democrats in government who put on this pressure ... quotes proving they were not interested in financial soundness but in social engineering ... and quotes proving that those democrats are still not interested in financial soundness but social engineering and political power.

The passage of laws and regulations that forced/encouraged/enabled institutions to make loans to people without regard for risk bypassed any commendable desire on the part of the institutions to "make money" because they distorted the free market process with other agendas that were not necessarily compatible with the long term viability and survival of those institutions. And the assurances made to these institutions by the government that they could make these loans and that the government would stand behind them also distorted the free market process.

The goal of most businesses is not only to make money but survive the long haul. But in this case, both government interference (either motivated by naive compassion or by a desire to win votes regardless of the consequences) and greed by executives (such as those of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ... all democrats) distorted the system so long term viability was not insured. Distorted it so badly that even the biggest lenders couldn't survive even the current small non-recession. And even after some of the more criminal executives were caught in an Enron-like scandal where they were padding their pockets at the expense of the companies future, democrats continued to defend them and both continued to push their liberal agenda of free homes for all. Just read the links and quotes I provided. It's clear as day from what I've already sourced.

So I really don't think I have anything more to prove at this point, Dymanic. I proved that Obama LIED when he claimed republicans did nothing while he did something ... and that's all I set out to do. The rest was gravy.

How do you respond to the argument that approximately half of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA and thus had no government obligation to offer credit to minorities -- or that a third of the major subprime lenders were regulated but had very little CRA involvement?

Well first, I'd need some verification that's true. I suspect Robert Gordon was your source but Gordon isn't exactly a non-partisan. He's a outspoken democrat who is supporting Obama (and ignoring all Obama's lies in order to do it). With a straight face, Gordon writes (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=d6a0064b-8ec7-4088-9981-989d7773a6be ) "And only months ago, Representative Barney Frank pressed for aggressive federal action to work out defaulting loans and stem the decline of foreclosures", as if Barney was hero in this mess.

Here's an article by an economist who doesn't think much of Gordon.

http://mises.org/story/2963

The CRA Scam and its Defenders

Daily Article by Thomas J. DiLorenzo | Posted on 4/30/2008

DiLorenzo says

Gordon believes in the following propositions:
1 runaway greed ("market failure") on the part of lenders is the cause of the subprime crisis;
2 these same greedy lenders routinely ignore billions of dollars in potential profits in lower-income communities because of their systemic racism, stupidity, or both — hence the need for the CRA; and
3 no government agency, especially not the Fed, had anything to do with either the creation or bursting of the housing market bubble and the subprime crisis.

and says this in response:

The first two propositions flatly contradict each other, whereas the third is unequivocally false. Fed policy — which is not even mentioned by Gordon in an article that is ostensibly about the cause of the subprime crisis — is the cause of the boom-and-bust cycle that has caused the housing bubble and its bursting. Not "market failure" but Fed policy.

He goes on to say

By ignoring the role of the Fed in creating the whole housing-market mess, Gordon's pronouncement that it is entirely a result of "market failure" is laughable on its face. He also flatly denies that CRA lending has had anything to do with why so many uncreditworthy borrowers have defaulted now that the Fed-generated housing bubble has burst. This, too, is an untenable position.

But let's assume Gordon is right (just for the sake of argument). Then I'd also point out that not all sub-prime mortgages were equal in terms of the risk accepted and terms. Can you show that independent mortgage company subprime loans were identical to the CRA controlled ones? Are foreclosures in mortgages sold by independent mortgage company as common as those from companies controlled by the CRA?

And I'd also note that the non-CRA companies still had *obligations* to offer credit to minorities forced on to them via private lawsuits ... such as the one that Obama helped file that I mentioned earlier. You can find many examples of such lawsuits even up into 2008 (we never learn). You and I both know that the verdict in race-issue lawsuits often has nothing to do with the facts and that race-issue lawsuits are often a form of extortion used against companies (by folks like Jessie Jackson). These are lawsuits that companies would often settle rather than fight simple because of the cost of actually fighting them ... plus the bad press. And this puts pressure even on those companies not sued.

Is it really the job of Congress to do that? How much "monitoring" would you consider appropriate?

And even better question at this point is this. Is it really the job of the government to bail out people who sold or purchased too risky of loans? Bankruptcy is the way free markets weed out those businesses whose owners fail to properly account for risk and other factors in the market place. And it seems to work rather well. Do we really want the government (that failed the test so badly here in creating this mess) artificially propping up the very people who failed the free market test so badly when they sold and purchased risky mortgages, by taking money away from people who did not fail the test of the free market and giving it to both of them? It's a recipe for an even bigger disaster down the road if you ask me.

 

[leftysergeant]

The only change in lending practices that liberals ever forced on the banks was an end to red-lining.

It was the financial sector that decided, once Gramm disabled the brakes, to push low-income earners into more expensive homes, to increase their own profit, even if it involved some risk.

But, in the long run, the decline in the earning power of the average white family is what really started the wave of mortgage defaults.

Snivelling about the end of red-lining is, at its core, racist.

 

[Meadmaker]

The plot thickens.

I was trying to find who voted for the legislation Hagel introduced, and McCain, Dole and Sununu cosponsored.

The correct answer is no one, and everyone. It was introduced into the committee. Shelby and his staff rewrote it, and voted for an ammended bill. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side of the committee, they also rewrote it, and voted for their ammended bill.

Meanwhile, over in the House, something vaguely similar happened, but their bill got out of committee on a bipartisan vote. Their bill appears to be similar to the Democratic version from the Senate committee.

Meanwhile, despite bills being passed by committees in both houses of Congress, neither one was ever voted on outside of the committees.

I have to conclude that this wasn't something the GOP Congressional leadership wanted all that much. They had the power to at least force a vote on their own version of the bill. Even if they were concerned about filibusters, they could have compromised with Democrats on a couple of provisions, and passed something very similar to the House bill.

I have to go back to my original conclusion. Republicans were in charge and could have done something about it, but didn't. As previously noted, Senator McCain does deserve credit. He did try, but was thwarted in his efforts, by both parties.

Meanwhile, the idea that the collapsing real estate bubble was caused by forcing banks to lend to those people represented by civil rights lawyers is a bunch of codswallop.

 

[boloboffin]

The problem wasn't driven by CRA at all (pdf):

More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30 percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts. Although reasonable people can disagree about how to interpret the evidence, my own judgment is that the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight.

Can BAC fail harder? Maybe so, but I kind of doubt it.

 

[Dymanic]

I provided quotes by a number of democrats in government who put on this pressure ... quotes proving they were not interested in financial soundness but in social engineering ... and quotes proving that those democrats are still not interested in financial soundness but social engineering and political power.

I've never considered mined quotes to be quite the strongest form of evidence, but I'd be willing to concede that Democrats are, in general, perhaps more inclined toward social engineering than are Republicans -- if you'd concede that they are no more interested in political power than are Republicans.

Can you show that independent mortgage company subprime loans were identical to the CRA controlled ones? Are foreclosures in mortgages sold by independent mortgage company as common as those from companies controlled by the CRA?

I'm not really attempting to "show" anything here. I'm just asking questions. But if it turns out that those foreclosure rates are similar, your entire argument pretty much goes down in flames. So if you, as the person who is trying to "show" something here, can show that they aren't, you might want to get on that.

Is it really the job of the government to bail out people who sold or purchased too risky of loans?

Is it the job of government to bail out a failing system; one that is vital to the health of our economy?

 

[BeAChooser]

I figured you would be easy to catch. It wasn't voted on, ever. Prove me wrong.

I did, see above. Although I will admit that the vote was only in the committee and that it was apparently a positive vote sending it to the full body with a recommendation for passage. It was on the floor that it ran into trouble and went no further. Apparently because republicans couldn't get enough democrat support to bring it to a full floor vote. But make no mistake, Obama LIED when he claimed McCain did nothing about the mortgage situation prior to the current crisis.

The thing that raised the red flag for me was your assertion that it was Democrats and a few RINOs. But who sponsored it? Chuck Hegel. You want a RINO, that's one.

I suppose Hegel is a RINO where the War On Iraq is concerned. And I admitted, I initially misunderstood what they meant regarding the disposition of the bill. It turns out it did get out of committee so it looks like in this case Hagel voted like a Republican.

Despite Democratic efforts to tar McCain as a Bush clone, he never was. He is far, far, better than the current sitting President, whose support you will not find for this legislation.

Well I'm glad you agree that McCain is not a Bush clone. As for the rest, Bush isn't running for election and what I've posted already proves that Obama lied in his speeches. That's my point.

Meanwhile, you can sit back and say that those darned civil rights lawyers forced banks to loan money to..............low income people. Yeah, those civil rights lawyers are always trying to get equal rights for low income people. However, it's odd, but when that filters down to the rank and file, those words end up getting twisted, and they use words that are apparently violations of rule 10.

It's a fact that civil rights lawyers (including Obama) did force banks to loan money to people who weren't really qualified, financially, for a loan. It's what started this whole ball rolling. As to the rest of what you wrote, I have no idea what you mean or what point you are trying to make.

When those guys were sitting around talking about who caused this mess, they didn't mention low income people, but they did use a different word, and that word meant exactly what you said in the opening post, just in a more vulgar manner.

You claim to have listened to a conversation at a watercooler where they used that word. Of course, you admitted that you embellished what was said so who really knows. But let's not pretend otherwise, your reason for adding that comment to this thread in the first place was to try and link ME to those people when in fact there is no connection at all. Maybe what you should have done is confront THOSE people. You think the rascist label scares me, Meadmaker? I'm frankly tired of liberals waving it around as a tactic to bully people around. You need to understand that unlike many liberals, I have no guilt and no reason to feel guily where race is concerned. But maybe you do?

 

[Meadmaker]

I did, see above. Although I will admit that the vote was only in the committee and that it was apparently a positive vote sending it to the full body with a recommendation for passage. It was on the floor that it ran into trouble and went no further. Apparently because republicans couldn't get enough democrat support to bring it to a full floor vote.

Do you think that's it? Keep in mind that every single member of the committee voted for this bill, in one version or another. All the Democrats voted for the bill. All the Republicans voted for the bill. So why didn't it pass? Why was it never voted on in the full Senate?

It's a common parliamentary tactic. When you don't want something, put up two versions of it, and everyone gets to claim they voted for it, and everyone gets to claim they voted against it, an no one has to take responsibility for it.

If the Senate leadership would have wanted this bill, they could have had it.

To his credit, McCain wanted this bill, and fought for it. Obama, apparently, didn't. If McCain can find a good way to present that in a sound bite, it should be a vote getter for him, although I can't imagine it getting many votes for him. Ultimately, voters are more likely to reward results than effort. The results aren't so good.

It's a fact that civil rights lawyers (including Obama) did force banks to loan money to people who weren't really qualified, financially, for a loan.

And it's a fact that most of those people were..........African Americans. The guy in the break room wasn't being racist. He was telling the truth, as he saw it, and he wasn't putting lipstick on the pig. That's how he talks. He was saying exactly the same thing you were saying. He just got straight to the point.

The identification of race was not where he made his mistake, though. The thing is that a lot of factors conspired to send home prices throught the roof, and it was the middle class who bit off more than they could chew, leaving some really big bills. Sure, the people at the low income levels also got foreclosed sometimes but, in truth, not as often, and when they did they didn't leave the banks on the hook nearly as badly. The system could have easily weather a storm of foreclosures on poor black people, but when it hit middle class, generally white, people, it crashed.

It's a simple enough reason. The assumption that has been true for home lenders for over a century was that income levels rarely went down. If you were able to make the payments on day one, you could make the payments for years to come. Income almost always went up. That's not true anymore, and it bit the banks really hard. There are plenty of people at the low end of the middle class today, that used to be at the high end of the middle class, and they can't afford the homes they bought in better times.

Add to that a bubble in prices, a sudden shock of gas prices, and rising interest rates on adjustable rate mortgages, and you get the mess we have today.

I could also explain why the securities based on bundled low income mortgages barely lose any value, while securities based on bundled middle income mortgages lose a great deal more value, even at comparable default rates, but that's a bit of an advanced lesson.