"Nobody likes discrimination. Everybody deserves a home.
But not a house of cards."
(If you have trouble viewing this video, it can be seen here and also here: click on "Burning Down The House")
I dare Democrat voters to watch this all the way through. (keep clicking the pause/play button to read the headlines/highlights, it goes fast) ... But most of you won't. It's "see no evil, hear no evil" when it comes to the truth about this issue.
TrackBack URL: http://www.prolifeblogs.com/mt/mt-track.cgi/4219
Annie B.: "John, firstly, I was talking to "reality" the ..."
Joe: "Hillary Clinton the next President? If Barack Obama ..."
Timothy: "Interesting points, I will mention this though. Roe ..."
John: "If you are a single issue voter then ..."
John: "I think that the U.S. will praise bush ..."
John: "Thanks Tim, We should not eliminate roe, women ..."
John: "JM's speech was touching. Did you notice how ..."
Wow!!!!!!
I never realized what an evil doer obama was. thank goodness john mccain is a maverick and stands for freedom and deregulation so we are never get screwed by big corporations again. we shouldnt even have a government, cause it's bad. our economy is sound still, cause we have workers who are all about job creation and freedom.
with president mccain we can bomb all of the middle east. he'll stop all the pork spending on everything but defense, so we can make more bombs to bomb evil doers with!!!
Go Maverick Go!!!
This video totally misses the point.
Barack Obama isn't like our other presidential leaders in one REALLY BIG WAY!!!
Anybody care to guess what it is???? (hint: you can tell just by looking at him!!!)
Wake up America. How can we be the greatest country in the world when we elect somebody that doesn't even look like us?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
I really hope Jessica is trolling, but it's so hard to tell these days. Unfortunately, racial hatred is resurfacing (not that it was ever so far from the surface) as Obama appears headed to victory. It's going to be an ugly month.
Meanwhile -- what is this post doing on the main page of prolifeblogs? It's got nothing to do with being pro-life, unless of course pro-life = saying anything, no matter how discredited (no pun intended), to get Republicans elected.
I recommend reading this article for an explanation of why attempts to blame the financial crisis on low-income (and usually minority) homeowners are low on fact and high on scapegoating:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162789
I don't agree with this link sucking up to any nearly any Republican (since being pro-life doesn't mean have a total alliegance to the Republican or Democratic parties), but hardly is this video promoting racism. Also, this video doesn't blame low income citizens for the economic crisis. It blames the bad government and corporate policies of both Republican and Democratic administrations (including the FED). Racism is bad at any circumstance. It's wrong to use racism against Barack Obama as it has been done on many times. Yet, sometimes others use false accusations of racism against people who just have simple disagreements with Barack Obama. Obama is right on some issues and dead wrong on other issues. That's my opinion.
Obama's record of leadership in ACORN speaks for itself. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was used and abused to expand loans to individuals unable to afford them.
In 1991, ACORN took over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.
Source: American Thinker
My point is not to pin the current crisis on Obama (the problem is systemic), but rather to assert he is not a different sort of leader.
"what is this post doing on the main page of prolifeblogs? It's got nothing to do with being pro-life..."
You see, we get roasted for being "single issue" voters when we focus solely on abortion, and then we get roasted when we are NOT "single issue voters."
Dems win either way. Damn us if we do, damn us if we don't.
And that from Jen R, who quotes one of the more left-leaning publications going, Newsweek.
Yet you don't believe all the other objective news articles quoted in the videos (accusing us of "saying anything, no matter how discredited")...because maybe you don't want to?
Good luck with that.
Bill Law's comment is the scariest yet, because it exemplifies far too many who have ingested what has now become the Obama Kool-Aid jello, it's so thick.
Are you disputing the information in the Newsweek article? Shouting "liberal! unclean!" at it isn't really a response.
Rather an eyeopening video. Wish that everyone could see it too. The news media elites are not getting this out so only emailers can get the word out.
The current crisis is an outcome of socialistic laws and corrupt politicians that use the power of the state to consume the lives of Americans. Such laws are always motivated by the greater good and the needs of the poor. In reality, they rob the productive and destroy and impoverish the very individuals who were supposedly helped.
We see a close tie between the injustice of the tyrant who kills the unborn and the big government that consumes the lives of its people.
Off topic? Perhaps. Relevant? Absolutely!
The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
Jen, please, stop putting words in my mouth ('Shouting "liberal! unclean!"). There's a study proving that Newsweek and most of the MSM have a liberal slant. I don't have to "shout" anything.
Read this and you'll see why you're only getting a left-leaning slant on the facts from Newsweek:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
Again, I wonder whether you have anything to say about the information in the article I linked.
Again, in posting my post in the first place, I wonder whether you have anything to say about the information in the articles I linked.
But apparently you didn't review the facts presented to you, or you have no real response.
All you can do is snipe that our "racial hatred is resurfacing" or roast us for NOT being "single issue" voters.
Just the subtitle of that Newsweek article is smear enough. "The right blames the credit crisis on poor minority homeowners". I don't blame "poor minority homeowners" and most of us on the right don't AND NEVER HAVE, yet because you are TOLD that by Newsweek, it simply must be true.
You simply haven't read a single word I've written on this blog of late, and you NEVER watched those videos which showed WE BLAME THE MOSTLY DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED CONGRESSES, BILL CLINTON, JIMMY CARTER, REP. BARNEY FRANK, SENATOR CHRIS DODD, ALL THE HARVARD MBA'S AT FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ONCE WERE ON BILL CLINTON'S WHITE HOUSE STAFF AND YES WE DO BLAME THOSE REPUBLICANS WHO LET IT ALL HAPPEN TOO, BUT GEORGE BUSH, ALAN GREENSPAN AND JOHN MCCAIN WERE NOT AMONG THOSE LETTING IT HAPPEN BUT RATHER WERE SOUNDING THE WARNING SIGNALS AND CALLING FOR REGULATION AND CORRECTION OF FANNIE AND FREDDIE!
If you'd bothered to watch the videos, you'd know that what you call "predatory lenders" were FORCED BY CONGRESS PASSING THE CRA LAW AND THEN SUPERCHARGING IT IN 1995, TO CREATE MORE AND MORE OF THESE SUBPRIME LOANS and aggressively increase the numbers of them that they foisted on poor folk who couldn't afford them after the first 5 years!
You know nothing about true economics and financial industry laws apparently and choose to remain in the dark about them. Good luck with that, but don't drag my nation down with you in your ignorance and/or immaturity. Grow up or wake up and do your damn homework.
I don't think there's any need to yell.
I didn't talk about predatory lenders at all, nor did I say that you were exhibiting racial hatred, only that it is resurfacing and therefore I couldn't be sure if that racist comment was a troll. (I have seen some disturbing stories in recent days. I could link you if you're interested.)
The Newsweek article refutes the idea that the CRA is the reason (or even an important reason) for the crisis. It points out that:
* most of the institutions who participated in the risky practices that led to the crisis weren't subject to the CRA (I would add that CRA-covered institutions made less risky loans that non-CRA-covered institutions: http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf )
* most of the demand for subprime loans was not driven by, or even connected to, the CRA
* the CRA was in effect for a long time before we had a subprime crisis
* the CRA didn't force anyone to give loans with no money down, or other risky lending practices
* the CRA didn't force anyone to leverage suspect loans into largely fictitious wealth through these MBSs and CDSs, nor did it force the credit ratings agencies to give AAA ratings to this suspect paper.
* I'd also add that the CRA didn't force all these supposed financial geniuses at the investment banks (and, yes, at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to act like the housing boom would last forever and make decisions accordingly.
In short, the CRA and the people to whom loans were made under the CRA are scapegoats.
Do you dispute any of that? If so, why isn't that what we're arguing about?
Since the points didn't seem to be even read, never mind getting across to Democrat apologists who never read anything but what their Democrat-apologist-sources tell them, yelling seemed in order.
Here's one intelligent response to the Traiger "study" you linked to (which BTW, has not been officially published in any economic or financial journal to my knowledge so it isn't really vetted or passing-muster with peers in the financial industry, more on that below):
---------------------
What is not analyzed, of course, is the actual relationship between CRA banks and their foreclosure rates.
It analyzes the types of loans they provided, the prices they charged, and the percentage they kept instead of selling, but the only relationship to foreclosure rates mentioned it to the concentration of bank branches.
Nowhere does it state the answer to what should be the obvious question: Do CRA banks have a higher foreclosure rate?
Even the hypothesis doesn't address the real question: Our hypothesis is that the CRA, which requires banks to help serve the credit needs of their local communities, including low- and moderate-income (LMI) neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking practices, may have deterred banks from engaging, at least in their local communities, in lending practices that fuel foreclosures.
And what exactly is being looked at? The percentage of loans from CRA banks that foreclosed as compared to non-CRA banks?
No. Instead, the study looks at 1) the proportion of high cost loans; (2) the pricing of high cost loans; (3) the proportion of originated loans retained by the lender; and (4) the relationship between foreclosure rates and concentration of bank branches.
It should naturally follow that if CRA banks didn't engage in the activities that were responsible for the foreclosures, then the forceclosure rate should have been much lower.
Even the conclusion doesn't mention whether CRA foreclosure rates were higher or lower: Our study suggests that without the CRA, the subprime crisis and related spike in foreclosures might have negatively impacted even more borrowers and neighborhoods. Compared to other lenders in their assessment areas, CRA Banks were less likely to make a high cost loan, charged less for the high cost loans that were made, and were substantially more likely to eschew the secondary market and hold high cost and other loans in portfolio. Moreover, branch availability is a key element of CRA compliance, and foreclosure rates were lower in metropolitan areas with proportionately greater numbers of bank branches.
Interesting study, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
CONTINUED...
....
Someone challenges the above commenter Madresfield, with this and s/he responds:
-----------------
"Originally Posted by Lib
"Don't try that not relevant crap, Madresfield, did you miss this paragraph?
"High cost loans3 are a primary driver of the foreclosure crisis, as borrowers who are unable to afford their mortgage payments default on their loans. There is a very high statistical correlation (0.816) between the proportion of lending that is high cost and the foreclosure rate in the MSAs analyzed.4 Default rates are expected to rise in 2008, as monthly payments increase on mortgage products that permitted borrowers to pay lower “teaser” rates for the first few years of a loan."
"Read my other thread on why these CRA banks did so well in not originating problem loans. The CRA requires them to use only safe and sound lending practices in carrying out their non-redlining. Fact. Inconvenient for Republican scapegoaters but a fact nonetheless."
Then it should be a given that the CRAs had a lower forclosure rate. I can't seem to find that little fact anywhere, though.
---------------------
Then maybe read more on that thread, like
http://debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=997047&postcount=17
The point, as even admitted to in the video in this post, is that it was a great idea to help others less fortunate manage to buy homes, if it was done right. When CRA was supercharged by Clinton in 1995, it started to unravel the entire system to what we have today. It doesn't say that ALL CRA banks did all bad loans. You'd know that if you even watched it all.
CONTINUED...
LAST CONTINUATION OF THAT RESPONSE:
But the evidence pointing to CRA/1995 and Fannie and Freddie and what they allowed and/or required, is all there. A biased, money-making-on-this-issue law firm's boardroom "study" notwithstanding:
"Traiger and Hinckley LLP, by the way, has made a name for itself by its focus on CRA law and helping banks implement it. Their study is the most commonly referenced proof that the CRA has had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis, but surely a stronger argument could be made based off of reports that did not originate from law firms making their money from the very legislation being studied."
http://headlinebistro.typepad.com/headlinebistro/2008/10/01/index.html
Also Traiger's dishonesty is pointed out here:
"(It’s worth noting that a number of apologists for CRA and the effects that legislation has had on the mortgage market, including the Traiger-Hinckley, LLP study referred to here earlier, have taken to using the term “high cost loan” interchangeably with “sub-prime.” This is decidedly dishonest. A “high cost loan” has a very specific definition, detailed in Section 32 of Regulation “Z” of the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), which itself is an amendment to the original Truth In Lending Act. While all Section 32 “high cost loans” are sub-prime, only a small portion of sub-prime loans qualify as “high cost loans.”)"
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/mortgage_market_101/
T&H should not be taken seriously. They're too biased and if it was a Republican's cause they were championing they'd be run out of town on a rail. Whether the Democrats like it or not, they too are a joke, along with Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, et al.
All jokes that, frighteningly, most people in this country, including you, Jen R, are ignoring rather than fixing.