1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Rebuttals please!

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by bododie, Sep 27, 2008.

  1. bododie

    bododie New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Update: The New York Post has an article out today that parallels this account. CLICK HERE to read.


    THEY GAVE YOUR MORTGAGE TO A LESS QUALIFIED MINORITY


    On MSNBC this week, Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter tried to connect John McCain to the current financial disaster, saying: “If you remember the Keating Five scandal that (McCain) was a part of. … He’s really getting a free ride on the fact that he was in the middle of the last great financial scandal in our country.”

    McCain was “in the middle of” the Keating Five case in the sense that he was “exonerated.” The lawyer for the Senate Ethics Committee wanted McCain removed from the investigation altogether, but, as The New York Times reported: “Sen. McCain was the only Republican embroiled in the affair, and Democrats on the panel would not release him.”

    So John McCain has been held hostage by both the Viet Cong and the Democrats.

    Alter couldn’t be expected to know that: As usual, he was lifting material directly from Kausfiles. What is unusual was that he was stealing a random thought sent in by Kausfiles’ mother, who, the day before, had e-mailed: “It’s time to bring up the Keating Five. Let McCain explain that scandal away.”

    The Senate Ethics Committee lawyer who investigated McCain already had explained that scandal away — repeatedly. It was celebrated lawyer Robert Bennett, most famous for defending a certain horny hick president a few years ago.

    In February this year, on Fox News’ “Hannity and Colmes,” Bennett said, for the eight billionth time:

    “First, I should tell your listeners I’m a registered Democrat, so I’m not on (McCain’s) side of a lot of issues. But I investigated John McCain for a year and a half, at least, when I was special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee in the Keating Five. … And if there is one thing I am absolutely confident of, it is John McCain is an honest man. I recommended to the Senate Ethics Committee that he be cut out of the case, that there was no evidence against him.”

    It’s bad enough for Alter to be constantly ripping off Kausfiles. Now he’s so devoid of his own ideas, he’s ripping off the idle musings of Kausfiles’ mother.

    Even if McCain had been implicated in the Keating Five scandal — and he wasn’t — that would still have absolutely nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis currently roiling the financial markets. This crisis was caused by political correctness being forced on the mortgage lending industry in the Clinton era.

    Before the Democrats’ affirmative action lending policies became an embarrassment, the Los Angeles Times reported that, starting in 1992, a majority-Democratic Congress “mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains.”

    Under Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001.

    Instead of looking at “outdated criteria,” such as the mortgage applicant’s credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named “Caylee.”

    Threatening lawsuits, Clinton’s Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn’t a joke — it’s a fact.

    When Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches, political correctness was given a veto over sound business practices.

    In 1999, liberals were bragging about extending affirmative action to the financial sector. Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein hailed the Clinton administration’s affirmative action lending policies as one of the “hidden success stories” of the Clinton administration, saying that “black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded.”

    Meanwhile, economists were screaming from the rooftops that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the moment the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn’t get out of their loans by selling their houses.

    A decade later, the housing bubble burst and, as predicted, food-stamp-backed mortgages collapsed. Democrats set an affirmative action time-bomb and now it’s gone off.

    In Bush’s first year in office, the White House chief economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, warned that the government’s “implicit subsidy” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with loans to unqualified borrowers, was creating a huge risk for the entire financial system.

    Rep. Barney Frank denounced Mankiw, saying he had no “concern about housing.” How dare you oppose suicidal loans to people who can’t repay them! The New York Times reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “under heavy assault by the Republicans,” but these entities still had “important political allies” in the Democrats.

    Now, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, middle-class taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the Democrats’ two most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers and welfare recipients.

    Political correctness had already ruined education, sports, science and entertainment. But it took a Democratic president with a Democratic congress for political correctness to wreck the financial industry.
     
  2. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    Under Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001.

    Do you have a link for the above?
     
  3. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
  4. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    Thank you gen, I cant use that one though

    I am arguing with my boss and I have to find links that wont make him roll his eyes. I like Ann Coulter but I need like a .gov or NYtimes or something :)
     
  5. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    How about these?

    US Treasury:

    Whats important to understand is the term "Redlining"... here's the definition as Democrats have applied it (Obama probably wrote it):

    This was a real problem until Congress passed the following:

    Banks that get sued for discrimination don't tend to "Win" in the court of public opinion - regardless of an actual courts decision. Thus, financial numbers alone were looked at as qualification for loans and there had to be a concrete and well documented reason for denying "people of color" a loan - lest they lose big time to a Lawsuit on the charge of Racism.

    [Side Note] Only a handful of cases actually went to court as a result of the Congressional Acts but it soon became apparent to Race Hustlers, like the Just-Us brothers, that there was money to be made getting banks to settle out of court. [Side Note]

    Suddenly being poor, and at high risk of default, was not a good enough reason for someone to be denied a loan.... Seems like someone important was an activist in Chicago during that time.... Huh, name escapes me.

    So if your bank has a branch in a poor neighborhood, you better issue loans to people for no reason other than they have an account with you... or else your bank will be taken to court, found guilty in public opinion as Racists, and the courts decision will be irrelevent to the damage done to your PR.

    How about some info on the CRA itself?

    Community Reinvestment Act:
    Found under section 25.42 Data collection, reporting, and disclosure, we find the following as being "optional" under subsection (c) Optional data collection and maintenance--(1) Consumer loans:

    (iv) The gross annual income of the borrower that the bank considered in making its credit decision.

    An "option" that will count against your bank if you collect such data in determining the loan... landing you in one or all of the following dilemmas:
    • Lower Banking Score by the Regulators
    • Being Sued for Discrimination
    • Protesters outside your bank

    Lastly, and mostly another side note, has anyone heard the Media talking about the origins of the CRA? What about the "Community Activists and Organizers" who pushed for the Act... Groups like ACORN and CITIZENS ACTION PROGRAM?

    I guess nobody of importance ever worked for those groups at that time, and they certainly weren't part of the push for getting the CRA passed... I mean, we'd hear about that, right? :rolleyes:
     
  6. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've been talking about this for weeks, finally someone else takes notice! As I've said before, the legislative basis for the crisis was the Carter/Clinton Community Reinvestment Act.

    Read Jonah Goldberg's article on this:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/Jona...wall_street_fat_cats_arent_at_fault_this_time

    The main instrument was Fanny Mae, headed by Bubba Clinton's point man Franklin Raines:

    Read up on that sucker
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines

    All republicans fault??? Yeah Sure Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
     
  7. Petunia

    Petunia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
    Thank you, I stole some of this too, excellent summary!

     
  8. Pidgey

    Pidgey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I had thought to start a thread on this article that I came across but this thread looks like it's on topic. However, I notice that in this thread so far, there doesn't seem to be much participation on the part of our more liberal members. Anyway, this article:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

    ...is so obviously incorrect in laying the blame for the current financial crisis on Congressional Democrats when it's all so clearly the fault of Republicans. That article refers to a piece of legislation by Hagel and cosponsored by McCain linked here:

    Text of S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

    Now, obviously, the mention in the full text of that proposed legislation about limiting "golden parachutes" and criminal proceedings against parties committing fraudulent activities must somehow benefit evil Republicans while denying sustenance to innocent Democrats. According to the first article, blockage of this "reform legislation" was successfully blocked (Yaaay!) by Democrats in 2005 (thank goodness!) so that we, the oppressed proletariat, could continue to deny Republicans from disproportionately redistributing the wealth in their favor.

    So, since I don't currently have the time, could some of my fellow oppressed proletariat please oblige by uncovering the applicable records that definitively demonstrate Republican complicity in this matter?
     
  9. bododie

    bododie New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because they can't belie facts, well they do constantly, but not here. If the Dems in Congress felt even for a second that it was all Republican fault they would attack like a feeding frenzy. Instead they adopt the "let's work across the isle, non partisan" baloney. Libs have difficulty admitting error. It comes to fruition anyway. Best example I can think of, is California. Liberalism has caused the state to go bankrupt, and now they want to blame it all on Arnie. I haven't lived there since he became Gov., but I did for 40+ years before that, and I can tell you exactly what caused it's ruination. Now the libs that caused the problem with their bleeding hearts, are jumping ship like rats. I'd like to hear Hitlary's answer to the accusations against Bill's administration.
     
  10. Pidgey

    Pidgey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So, you're saying that the reason our liberal members haven't rebutted the points in this thread is something like that line in Ghostbusters where Dan Aykroyd told Bill Murray, "personally, I like the university--they gave us money and facilities. We didn't have to produce anything. You don't know what it's like out there--I've worked in the private sector: They expect RESULTS!"
     
  11. bododie

    bododie New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, I think it's more a case of if they don't have some issue to complain about they don't feel alive.
     
Loading...

Share This Page