United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Tea Party Convention's Racial Brouhaha: Obama Won Because Jim Crow-era Law Not On Books - Tancredo
Source:
NY DAILY
URL Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol ... mark_literacy_tests_to_vo.html
Published: Feb 5, 2010
Author: NY DAILY
Post Date: 2010-02-05 13:31:24 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 30497
Comments: 79
The opening speaker at the first National Tea Party Convention called President Obama a "committed Socialist ideologue" who was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote." "You have launched the counter-revolution," the speaker, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), told 600 or so delegates of the grassroots movement assembled at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel in Nashville Wednesday night. "It is our nation. Tancredo also insisted on using Obama's middle name, Hussein, and said he was thankful Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona lost the 2008 presidential election because Obama has mobilized an uprising. "People who could not even spell the word 'vote' or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House," he said. Tancredo, a failed 2008 presidential candidate, made his reputation as a rabid foe of illegal immigrants. The literacy tests he pined for were once used in the South to keep blacks from voting. Tea Party followers played a role getting out the vote for Republican Scott Brown, who last month took the Massachusetts Senate seat held for decades by Democratic liberal icon Ted Kennedy. The group may prove crucial to Republicans seeking gains in November's congressional midterm elections. Convention attendees paid $549 for access to two full days of events at the convention, set to culminate Saturday evening with a speech by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who reportedly was promised as much as $100,000 for the gig. In an op-ed article in Wednesday's USA-Today, Palin said she would "not benefit financially" from the event, pledging to throw any compensation she would receive "right back to the cause." But the high cost of event and the largess lavished on Palin have alienated many in the conservative grassroots movement. Tea party activists "generally are not the type of people who would gravitate to some very expensive hotel to dine on lobster and steak and listen to someone speak," right-wing blogger Dan Riehl said Wednesday. Convention spokesman Mark Skoda also acknowledged that Nashville defense attorney Judson Phillips and his wife Sherry Phillips, founders of the for-profit Tea Party Nation Inc., will also "make a few bucks" on the event. But he fended off criticism like a true capitalist. "Have we gone so far in the Obama-socialist view of the nation that 'profit' is a bad word -- in particular, if we're using it to advance the conservative cause?" Skoda asked. Friday's planned sessions feature such titles as "Defeating Liberalism Via the Primary Process" and "Why Christians Must Engage." Despite the conservative bent, ire aplenty was directed at both parties. Tancredo rippped into McCain, saying the Arizona senator would have presided over big budgets and lacked a tough stand against illegal immigration. "Thank God John McCain lost the election," Tancredo said. Delegate William Temple from Georgia, who wore a kilt, said he wanted to work against "Republicans, Democrats and Independents who have been in Congress too many terms." "We're sick of everyone," he said. But Jim and Julie Dam, who drove five hours from Indianapolis to be at the convention, told ABC News they they are not interested in forming a third party. "We want conservative Republicans," Jim Dam said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Amen to that! Can anyone visualize a VP Palin?
I wonder when liberals will realize this kind of bullshit line of attack just further inflames the opposition to this administration and congress.... I also wonder when liberals will realize its about the economy, not the personalities involved. 3.3 million jobs lost SINCE the faux stimulus package was signed by President Owe-Bama.
Its getting uglier out there...
1.5MM of those jobs were, in fact, lost BEFORE he signed the stim...and given that the stim wasn't like waving a magic wand, adding in March you're @ 2.2MM of that 3.3MM and April you're @ 2.9MM...
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
I also wonder when liberals will realize its about the economy, not the personalities involved. 3.3 million jobs lost SINCE the faux stimulus package was signed by President Owe-Bama. FWIW! Worst Year For Jobs Since '45 Annual loss biggest since end of World War II. Unemployment rate rises to 7.2%. By David Goldman, CNNMoney.com staff writer Last Updated: January 9, 2009 (emphases mine) NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The hemorrhaging of American jobs accelerated at a record pace at the end of 2008, bringing the year's total job losses to 2.6 million or the highest level in more than six decades. A sobering U.S. Labor Department jobs report Friday showed the economy lost 524,000 jobs in December and 1.9 million in the year's final four months, after the credit crisis began in September. The unemployment rate rose to 7.2% last month from 6.7% in November - its highest rate since January 1993. The steep annual drop in jobs marked the highest yearly job-loss total since 1945, the year in which World War II ended. "We're seeing a complete unraveling of the labor market and are on track for getting beyond 10% unemployment," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute. The total number of unemployed Americans rose by 632,000 to 11.1 million. November, in which 584,000 jobs were lost, and December marked the first time in the 70-year history of the report in which the economy lost more than 500,000 jobs in consecutive months. "We have a bigger economy now, but even on a proportional basis, the last months have been the worst since [1945]," said Kurt Karl, head of economic research at Swiss Re. "It's just an enormous acceleration of job losses." By comparison, the 2.6 million jobs lost in 2008 nationwide were equal to the number of jobs found in states such as Wisconsin, Missouri or Maryland. Under-employment at a record high A growing number of workers seeking full-time jobs were able to find only part- time work. Those working part-time jobs - because they couldn't find full-time work, or their hours had been cut - jumped by 715,000 people to 8 million, the highest since such records were first kept in 1955. The so-called under-employment rate, which counts those part-time workers as well as those without jobs who have become discouraged and stopped looking for work, rose to a record 13.5% from 12.6%. Calculations for that measure began in January 1994. "The existing unemployment figures are greatly understated," said billionaire steel tycoon Wilbur Ross in a recent interview with CNNMoney.com. "They count as employed someone who used to have a high-paid manufacturing job, and now is working at a Wal-Mart or a Wendy's." In another discouraging sign, the average hourly work week fell last month to 33.3 hours - the lowest level in history - from 33.5 hours. Even with a modest 5-cent gain in the average hourly salary, the average weekly paycheck fell by $2 to $611.39. Job losses widespread Job losses were spread across a wide variety of industries. Manufacturing lost 149,000 jobs, the leisure and hospitality industries cut 22,000 jobs, and the mining industry shed 1,000 positions. Even in the midst of the holiday shopping season, retailers still slashed payrolls by 66,600 workers last month. Professional and business services jobs, a category seen by some economists as a proxy for overall economic activity, dropped by 113,000. And financial services jobs fell by 14,000. Only two of ten industry categories were hiring last month. Government hiring, which has stayed relatively strong throughout the downturn, added another 7,000 jobs in December. Education and health services also grew payrolls by 45,000 employees. Construction employment shrank further by 101,000 jobs, and the rate of construction unemployment soared to 15.3% - by far the highest of any group. "Today's jobs report ... is conclusive evidence that it is time to put people back to work building America," said Terry O'Sullivan, general president of the Laborers' International Union of North America. "Now it's time for Congress to move to create jobs with the same urgency as they did on the $700 billion Wall Street bailout." (The Obama Solution) Call For Stimulus President-elect Barack Obama has begun his push for a massive stimulus plan, aimed at creating or saving 3 million jobs over the next two years. Lawmakers have called for rapid action to address the extraordinary stresses facing the labor market, including spending hundreds of billions of dollars on new infrastructure projects. "This morning, we received a stark reminder about how urgent action is needed," said Obama at a Friday press conference. "Clearly the situation is dire, it is deteriorating and demands urgent and immediate action. For the sake of our economy and our people, this is the moment to act, and act without delay." Many economists have said job losses will continue to accelerate without government intervention. "The country is losing half a million jobs in a month, and if the government doesn't act quickly, there's no reason that wouldn't intensify," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com before a Democratic Steering and Policy Committee forum Wednesday. Infrastructure experts agree, saying unemployed construction workers are eager to get back to work. "Putting money into highways won't by itself end the recession, but it will put a lot of skilled workers back on job," said Ken Simonson, chief economist for The Associated General Contractors of America. December's job losses were expected to be deep, as employers looked to slash payrolls to free up balance sheets for the new year. But large-scale cutbacks may continue throughout the first half of 2009, economists say, as the nation's economy continues on its slow path to recovery. "I think this [level of job loss] is going to continue at least through March," said Tig Gilliam, chief executive of Adecco Group North America, a unit of the world's largest employment firm. "The many clients I've spoken with are not expecting an economic bounce-back soon. They're making the painful and difficult decisions to adjust their capacity for the reduced demand for their goods and services." Gilliam and Karl both expect about another 1 million jobs to be lost in January and February before the declines begin to shrink to about a 200,000 level in June. Both said stimulus will help, but they doubt infrastructure jobs will have as quick of a boost as lawmakers hope. "Infrastructure projects won't have an effect until late in the year," said Karl. "Tax cuts may have a more immediate impact, but as we saw with the last stimulus package, they may have no economic impact at all." In another sign that more losses will come soon, temporary employment, including workers employed by temp agencies, fell by another 80,600 jobs last month. Employers often cut temporary workers before they begin cutting permanent staff. The economy has lost more than 2.5 million jobs in the current recession, which began in December 2007, far surpassing the previous two recessions, and just below the 2.7 million jobs lost in the 1981-1982 recession, which had the deepest unemployment in the 70-year history of the report.
Looks like that Research 2000 poll showing that Republicans are off the reservation was spot-on.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
The GOP has turned to Rep. Paul Ryan to write their own counter-budget proposal. Ryan's last budget plan would have achieved balance by 2060 by replacing Medicare with a voucher program, phasing out Social Security for those under 55, moving to a flat tax, and replacing corporate income taxes with a VAT Boehner is already distancing himself from Ryan's ideas. That again is the problem with the GOP, all they can do is complain, they can't offer ANY credible alternatives.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
I know. Whats amusing is comparing the leftwingnuts rants about the 'Bush Economy' when unemployment was below 5% to what they are claiming today, with it TWICE THAT.
Its getting uglier out there...
Part of the reason Owe_Bama's poll numbers dropped is he kept trying this spin out, and it kept backfiring. Yuo should learn from it, and adjust accordingly.
Its getting uglier out there...
See tagline:
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
The economy only began to tank and the deficits mount when the Democrats controlled Congress.
Smart enough to not spin? Hey, you can learn! (laughing)
Its getting uglier out there...
Unemployment was supposed to remain under 8% according to Obama and his administration. Its double what the average was under Bush. Bottom line is its Owe-Bama's economy, and he's failing at running it.
Its getting uglier out there...
Thank you Bill Clinton...
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
Compared to the present fookin dildohead VP? Easily! Sneakypete, have you ever been married? Said things you later regretted?
"Compared to the present fookin dildohead VP? Easily!" "Tancredo/Palin"? Interesting, at least we know where Tancredo stands on illegal immigration, unless he's went like the other's and done a flip flop while no one was looking. Anybody know where he stands 'today' on the path to citizenship and deportation of the illegals already here?
Dems have been in control of budgets and legislation since January of 2007. Its 2010, and the voters are not happy. spin that...(laughing)
Its getting uglier out there...
Unemployment was less than 5% and the deficit was 160 billion when the Democrats took over Congress in 1/2007. Look what those stats are after they took over.
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 limits Congress' ability to increase spending or increase/decrease taxes in any meaningful way. It also requires the POTUS to outline and submit his spending priorities [Congress doesn't spend it appropriates]. The Executive Branch creates the budget and has the power to veto any spending outside the budget authority - which Boy Blunder did when he denied the $35bln Congress appropriated to insure uninsured children. Laying the blame for budget and an economy on a Congress not one year in power is laughable. Yinz's dog won't hunt.
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
All spending originates in the House. Your chart would be more accurate if it had Republican Congress and Democrat Congress. Clinton does deserve some credit for the deficit coming down though. He was forced to sign the Republican budget. As Bush deserves a lot of blame for the budget deficit as he signed the democrat budgets. And Obama deserves all the blame for the current deficit as it is his and his demonic parties doing.
Truthfully speaking there is no constitutional authority for that program.
Under the USCON, the Congress has the power to create agencies and agents of the federal government and the purpose and intent of these agencies is left unsaid. While, any agency or agent is under the limitations of power that are detailed regarding the Federal governments limited/forbidden powers regarding the rights of people, providing health care, under an agency that is created to so provide, and that does not encroach on Congress' limitations is a CONSTITUTIONAL exercise of authority.
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
Only bills for raising revenues must originate in the House. There is no constitutional estoppel on appropriation bills originating in the Senate.
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
Actually, had he signed the Republican budget he'd have spent MORE. When Clinton shut down the government over the budget, the GOP Congress actually wanted to spend more - even though that wasn't the basis of the dispute.
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
Did the economy tank because Democrats won control of Congress, or did Democrats win elections because it was clear GOP leadership was bringing on economic disaster?
Your question is the answer...as I said...the GOP is acting as if this is 1993...it isn't.
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
Yes. They refused to act On Bush's calls for GSE reform.
The GSE's had 0 to do with the financial crisis. And the economy tanked in 2007. Any issue with the GSE's did not occur until 2008.
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
Bullshit. Correct the GSE problem in 2007, and many problems are avoided. Any derivative or other issues can be traced back to its core at the GSEs.
Only for half a term. Remember, she likes to resign because only a dead fish goes with the flow.
WTF? Congress wanted cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, environmental controls, and the EITC, not more spending. The government was shut down as a crass political move by Clinton. He refused to even meet with senate leadership to work out a compromise.
Good points....(chuckle)
None of the conduit failures that took down Northern Rock, Bear Stearns, WAMU, Wachovia, Redwood etc etc etc which are the lynchpins of the financial meltdown are in any way associative to any GSE. You've displayed your ignorance on this topic previously, padlock. Replaying it isn't going to change it. The GSE's are still with us...none of the above companies are...
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
ANd they wanted to spend more in other areas e.g. national defense. They also ignored the economic and revenue forecasts of their own CBO and promoted forecasts that turned out to be so far off the mark anyway...
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
You've displayed your ignorance on this topic previously Maybe you are the one who should be educated. Those entities collapsed becuase of all the worthless GSE backed paper they purchased. Watch and learn. All documented here: What caused the financial crisis?
Bzzzzt...Northern Rock didn't fail in August of 2007 because of FNMA paper. Margin calls issued on leveraged private issue sub-prime paper owned by hedged funds didn't precipitate the liquidity crisis that began that month. The failure that Spring of Bear Stearns' hedged fund which owned private label alt-A paper that had spiraled down in value was in no way related to GSE's. The markets that were ancillary to this paper, CDO's, CLO's, CDS's, and which became dislocated as a result of these failures and took down Merrill, Lehman, AIG are in no way related to GSE's. As I said, you've displayed your ignorance before. You look stupid, You are stupid and as long as you promote the idea that two companies which still exist in the same form now as they did then means you will continue to be stupid.
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
Something else to chew on...home buying peaked in 2004/05...valuations peaked around the same time...banks cut back on its overall mortgage lending in 2006. This created a vacuum for non bank financial companies to move into. IF you look at the decline in bank lending and the associative increases in non bank lending, you'll discover the roots of the crisis...
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
http://www.aei.org/outlook/29015
In no way related, huh? Subprime mortgage hedge fund crisis On June 22, 2007, Bear Stearns pledged a collateralized loan of up to $3.2 billion to "bail out" one of its funds, the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Fund, while negotiating with other banks to loan money against collateral to another fund, the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Enhanced Leveraged Fund. Bear Stearns had originally put up just $35 million, so they were hesitant about the bailout, however CEO James Cayne and other senior executives worried about the damage to the company's reputation. The funds were invested in thinly traded collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Merrill Lynch seized $850 million worth of the underlying collateral but only was able to auction $100 million of them. The incident sparked concern of contagion as Bear Stearns might be forced to liquidate its CDOs, prompting a mark-down of similar assets in other portfolios. Richard A. Marin, a senior executive at Bear Stearns Asset Management responsible for the two hedge funds, was replaced on June 29 by Jeffrey B. Lane, a former Vice Chairman of rival investment bank, Lehman Brothers. During the week of July 16, 2007, Bear Stearns disclosed that the two subprime hedge funds had lost nearly all of their value amid a rapid decline in the market for subprime mortgages. On August 1, 2007, investors in the two funds took action against Bear Stearns and its top board and risk management managers and officers. The law firms of Jake Zamansky & Associates and Rich & Intelisano both filed arbitration claims with the National Association of Securities Dealers alleging that Bear Stearns misled investors about its exposure to the funds. This was the first legal action made against Bear Stearns, though there have been several others since then. Co-President Warren Spector was asked to resign on August 5, 2007, as a result of the collapse of two hedge funds tied to subprime mortgages that were managed by Spector. A September 21 report in the New York Times noted that Bear Stearns posted a 61 percent drop in net profits due to their hedge fund losses. With Samuel Molinaro's November 15 revelation that Bear Stearns was writing down a further $1.2 billion in mortgage-related securities and would face its first loss in 83 years, Standard & Poor's downgraded the company's credit rating from AA to A. Matthew Tannin and Ralph R. Cioffi, both former managers of hedge funds at Bear Stearns Companies, were arrested June 19, 2008. They are facing criminal charges and are suspected of misleading investors about the risks involved in the subprime market. Tannin and Cioffi have also been named in lawsuits brought forth by Barclays Bank, who claims they were one of the many investors misled by the executives. They were also named in civil lawsuits brought in 2007 by investors, including Barclays Bank PLC, who claimed they had been misled. Barclays claimed that Bear Stearns knew that certain assets in the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Master Fund were worth much less than their professed values. The suit claimed that Bear Stearns managers devised "a plan to make more money for themselves and further to use the Enhanced Fund as a repository for risky, poor-quality investments." The lawsuit said Bear Stearns told Barclays that the enhanced fund was up almost 6% through June 2007 — when "in reality, the portfolio's asset values were plummeting." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_Stearns
But I suppose your next argument is to claim that the collapse of the subprime market "was in no way related to GSEs" LOL
The sub prime paper in question was alt-A paper issued by Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Trust and owned by a Bear Stearns hedged fund. GSE's can only purchase bank mortgages. As I said, you're stupid.
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
Several regional FRB's examined the crisis and have found that the CRA had nothing to do with the fnancial meltdown. Evidence on CRA and the Subprime Crisis Over the years, the Federal Reserve has prepared two reports for the Congress that provide information on the performance of lending to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods--populations that are the focus of the CRA.3 These studies found that lending to lower-income individuals and communities has been nearly as profitable and performed similarly to other types of lending done by CRA-covered institutions. Thus, the long-term evidence shows that the CRA has not pushed banks into extending loans that perform out of line with their traditional businesses. Rather, the law has encouraged banks to be aware of lending opportunities in all segments of their local communities as well as to learn how to undertake such lending in a safe and sound manner. Recently, Federal Reserve staff has undertaken more specific analysis focusing on the potential relationship between the CRA and the current subprime crisis. This analysis was performed for the purpose of assessing claims that the CRA was a principal cause of the current mortgage market difficulties. For this analysis, the staff examined lending activity covering the period that corresponds to the height of the subprime boom.4 The research focused on two basic questions. First, we asked what share of originations for subprime loans is related to the CRA. The potential role of the CRA in the subprime crisis could either be large or small, depending on the answer to this question. We found that the loans that are the focus of the CRA represent a very small portion of the subprime lending market, casting considerable doubt on the potential contribution that the law could have made to the subprime mortgage crisis. Second, we asked how CRA-related subprime loans performed relative to other loans. Once again, the potential role of the CRA could be large or small, depending on the answer to this question. We found that delinquency rates were high in all neighborhood income groups, and that CRA-related subprime loans performed in a comparable manner to other subprime loans; as such, differences in performance between CRA-related subprime lending and other subprime lending cannot lie at the root of recent market turmoil. In analyzing the available data, we focused on two distinct metrics: loan origination activity and loan performance. With respect to the first question concerning loan originations, we wanted to know which types of lending institutions made higher-priced loans, to whom those loans were made, and in what types of neighborhoods the loans were extended.5 This analysis allowed us to determine what fraction of subprime lending could be related to the CRA. Our analysis of the loan data found that about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods. Such borrowers are not the populations targeted by the CRA. In addition, more than 20 percent of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by independent nonbank institutions--that is, institutions not covered by the CRA.6 Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis. Of course, loan originations are only one path that banking institutions can follow to meet their CRA obligations. They can also purchase loans from lenders not covered by the CRA, and in this way encourage more of this type of lending. The data also suggest that these types of transactions have not been a significant factor in the current crisis. Specifically, less than 2 percent of the higher-priced and CRA-credit-eligible mortgage originations sold by independent mortgage companies were purchased by CRA-covered institutions. I now want to turn to the second question concerning how CRA-related subprime lending performed relative to other types of lending. To address this issue, we looked at data on subprime and alt-A mortgage delinquencies in lower-income neighborhoods and compared them with those in middle- and higher-income neighborhoods to see how CRA-related loans performed.7 An overall comparison revealed that the rates for all subprime and alt-A loans delinquent 90 days or more is high regardless of neighborhood income.8 This result casts further doubt on the view that the CRA could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis. Unfortunately, the available data on loan performance do not let us distinguish which specific loans in lower-income areas were related to the CRA. As noted earlier, institutions not covered by the CRA extended many loans to borrowers in lower-income areas. Also, some lower-income lending by institutions subject to the law was outside their local communities and unlikely to have been motivated by the CRA. To learn more about the relative performance of CRA-related lending, we conducted more-detailed analyses to try to focus on performance differences that might truly arise as a consequence of the rule as opposed to other factors. Attempting to adjust for other relevant factors is challenging but worthwhile to try to assess the performance of CRA-related lending. In one such analysis, we compared loan delinquency rates in neighborhoods that are right above and right below the CRA neighborhood income eligibility threshold. In other words, we compared loan performance by borrowers in two groups of neighborhoods that should not be very different except for the fact that the lending in one group received special attention under the CRA. When we conducted this analysis, we found essentially no difference in the performance of subprime loans in Zip codes that were just below or just above the income threshold for the CRA.9 The results of this analysis are not consistent with the contention that the CRA is at the root of the subprime crisis, because delinquency rates for subprime and alt-A loans in neighborhoods just below the CRA-eligibility threshold are very similar to delinquency rates on loans just above the threshold, hence not the subject of CRA lending. To gain further insight into the potential relationship between the CRA and the subprime crisis, we also compared the recent performance of subprime loans with mortgages originated and held in portfolio under the affordable lending programs operated by NeighborWorks America (NWA). As a member of the board of directors of the NWA, I am quite familiar with its lending activities. The NWA has partnered with many CRA-covered banking institutions to originate and hold mortgages made predominantly to lower-income borrowers and neighborhoods. So, to the extent that such loans are representative of CRA-lending programs in general, the performance of these loans is helpful in understanding the relationship between the CRA and the subprime crisis. We found that loans originated under the NWA program had a lower delinquency rate than subprime loans.10 Furthermore, the loans in the NWA affordable lending portfolio had a lower rate of foreclosure than prime loans. The result that the loans in the NWA portfolio performed better than subprime loans again casts doubt on the contention that the CRA has been a significant contributor to the subprime crisis. The final analysis we undertook to investigate the likely effects of the CRA on the subprime crisis was to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods grouped by income. We found that most foreclosure filings have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods; in fact, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA.11 Two key points emerge from all of our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA- related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, as I stated earlier, we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
To repeat: The final analysis we undertook to investigate the likely effects of the CRA on the subprime crisis was to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods grouped by income. We found that most foreclosure filings have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods; in fact, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA.11 Two key points emerge from all of our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA- related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, as I stated earlier, we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
mmmmm The Northern Rock Crisis How The Subprime Crisis Will Affect Bank Savings Northern Rock has really put its shareholders through it this month. And its customers, for that matter. Having applied for an emergency Bank of England loan at an extortionate rate (the last resort for banks) the mortgage lender sent a clear message out to the world: our business model is flawed: danger ahead! Why? Because Northern Rock relies on the global credit markets to run its business. Only a small portion of its customers’ savings support its mortgage lending function. So when the horrors of the subprime crisis began to unfold this year, interbank lending started to dry up. And Northern Rock had nowhere to turn for a credit injection. The Credit Crunch The fact that high street banks are scared to lend money to each other is a big deal. These are global, multi-billion pound organisations with pretty good day-to-day cash flow. But once their subprime exposure becomes clear, many leading institutions could have a lot of new debt on their hands. They just can’t afford to be lending to others right now – least not with other providers who can’t pay it off on demand. http://mortgagesloans.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_mistakes_of_northern_rock As I said, peel away the layers of the financial crisis, and you will find timely GSE reform could have prevented it. Or at least greatly mitigated it.
It's more complicated than that. The entire subprime fiasco can be directly traced to CRA and the GSEs. I can quote a thousand sources verifying that.
I don't give a shit how many of your fellow morons you quote who, when you get down to it are simply quoting each other and nothing remotely factual in basis. YOU cited Bear Stearns, dummy. Their failure is unrelated to GSE's and CRA. But keep being stupid.
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
Northern Rock, stupid, is A UK bank.
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
So? There is a hideous amount of debt in the global financial system, created by slack rules and regulations, specifically among US subprime mortgage providers.
You can't separate the CRA and GSE from the overall financial market. Bear Stearns was not able to borrow the money it needed to operate because banks had been weakened by the subprime crisis caused by the CRA and GSE.
And the economy was sitting on a massive and growing CDS bubble.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
IMHO the fiasco started when Clinton and GOP Congress enacted Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
So the GOP is wrong then to trumpet the election of Scott Brown as allowing it to stop HCR? Well I'll be darned.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
And that was directly tied to the blockage of GSE reform by the Democrats #### Credit default swaps In the credit default swap (CDS) market, the standard contracts typically used between parties to a swap define the action of placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship to be equivalent to bankruptcy, because of the change in management control. In CDS parlance, this is termed a credit event, and that triggers the settling of outstanding contracts for the derivatives, which are used to hedge or speculate on the potential risk that a company will default on its bonds. The two GSEs have approximately US$ 1.5 trillion in bonds outstanding, and since the market in credit default swaps is not public, there is no central reporting mechanism to verify how many credit default swaps are linked to those bonds. One estimate floated is US$ 500 billion, and that the entire CDS market has a notional value in the vicinity of US$ 62 trillion. Settlement on the contracts, will likely be the largest in the market's decade-long history. Credit-default swaps on Fannie and Freddie have been among the most actively traded the several months leading up to the conservatorship. "Thirteen 'major' dealers of credit-default swaps agreed 'unanimously' that the rescue constitutes a credit event triggering payment or delivery of the companies' bonds," according to a memo circulated by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) after the conservatorship announcement. The day after the conservatorship announcement, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, which sets industry standardized contracts for financial derivatives and swaps, announced it was working on a protocol on how to evaluate and settle Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac credit default swaps. Most of these swaps were settled on October 6, 2008. Paradoxically (in relation to typical experiences when a company issuing bonds has a "credit event"), the value of the two GSEs bonds rose to the vicinity of par value after the conservatorship. This means, that some owners of swaps that were hedging against the risk of a bond default, may be worse off, since the value of the bonds may be higher than when they purchased the swap. Cash auctions are reported to be scheduled for October 2008 to settle CDS contracts in relation to the GSEs
It happened THE OTHER WAY AROUND moron...and CRA had nothing to do with anything... What did I tell you about being stupid, stupid?
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
Northern Rock was not under US law nor did GSE's buy Northern Rock's mortgages. Are you deliberately being stupid?
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
Before the mega-enforcement of the CRA and the irresponsible practices of the GSEs, there was simply not a problem with ultra-risky subprime mortgages. Why do you think that is? By 2008, the GSEs owned over 5 trillion dollars in residential mortgages, about half the total U.S. mortgage market. Their net worth was only about $100 billion. And yet you see the problems with the GSEs with their extremly risky loans and heavy leveraging as no big deal.
The US subprime market affected global finances. Are you deliberately being stupid?
How disingeneuous of you, Suzanne. That comment is sooooo liberal!
Sneakypete, have you ever been married? Said things you later regretted?
Northern Rock's failure had nothing to do with anything occuring in the US. I posted the conclusions of the FRB which renders moot any of your points. CRA had nothing to do with the financial meltdown. GSE's had nothing to do with the financial meltdown.
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
Yet you listed it as an example of a company failing because of circumstances that had nothing to do with GSEs. If this company had nothing to do with anything in the Us, why mention it? You know damn well the US subprime market affected this company.
Funny...you didn't say it was untrue. She did quit (not to assume a higher- level office) and did, in an incredibly meandering, borderline incoherent, speech make reference to dead fish. Such an icon.
I caught the end of her speech on C-SPAN and her Q&A session. She appears to be bi-polar or something along those lines.
in an incredibly meandering, borderline incoherent, speech Funny, you didn't post that she resigned for the benefit of the state and the people of Alaska. Why? That's exactly how I judged the bullshit that oozed from Obama's SOTU "speech".
Sneakypete, have you ever been married? Said things you later regretted?
Faggot Freddie playing psychoanalyst! Too fookin funny! Sneakypete, have you ever been married? Said things you later regretted?
when the Republicans controlled Congress?
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
Collapse, in Review But Democrats ignored the warning signs .
Sneakypete, have you ever been married? Said things you later regretted?
I've stated that the FINANCIAL meltdown, which was not limited to the US, had nothing to do with the GSE's. Now you're asking me why I mentioned a failure that contributed to the financial meltdown but had nothing to do with GSE's? You ARE stupid.
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
And you are wrong. GSEs accounted for 50% of US mortgages, and you ridiculously want to claim that the failure of the GSEs had nothing to do with the subprime crisis. It doesn't matter that a company isn't investing in GSE backed securities, bonehead; if the GSE failures are affecting the lenders such that they can't get needed credit, the GSEs are the problem -- domestic or international.
The Democrats control Congress by a larger majority and Mandingo of DC can't get his proposals accomplished. Think about it.
And yet folks like you blame the Democrats for everything. Think about it.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
Fuck off, padlock. I work in the industry and you're talking out of your ass. YOU cited Bear Stearns which did not fail because of one penny of GSE debt or CRA. YOU cited Northern Rock a UK bank. YOU cited CRA when the FRB's analysis clearly showed most of the sub prime failures to be in neighborhoods not covered by CRA. The point for you to have offered up any hard data or research to support your ludicrous assertions has come and gone and I am not going to engage you in your usual "IS TOO!!!" nonsense as if YOUR word meant anything.
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
ROFLMAO...the financial meltdown occurred and that brought stress to the GSE's therefore the GSE's caused the stress... BOT logic...it's what's for breakfast...
...McCain's chances of gaining the [2008] GOP nomination died in South Carolina in 2000, and simply won't ever recover. Badeye posted on 2007-04-04 12:55:23 ET Reply Trace
What that has to do with the Democrats tripling the deficit is beyond anyone's understanding. Dems have controlled all budgets since January of 2007. Thats fact. We've gone so far into debt on their watch our kids and grandkids, and GREAT grandkids will never be able to pay it back.
Its getting uglier out there...
So let me get this straight, somehow the Democrats actually controlled the Congress when Bush enacted his huge tax cut, massively spent on 2 wars without paying for it, and enacted the biggest expansion to Medicare since its inception (again without paying for it). This is what I'm supposed to believe? Are you out of your mind?
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
I could have sworn spending bills required the President's signature. Again, see tag line:
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
Dems have controlled Federal spending since January of 2007. You can't spin it. Its plain fact. And we have produced record deficits with each one the Pelosi led House and has produced.
Its getting uglier out there...
"Thank God John McCain lost the election," Tancredo said.
#2. To: Brian S (#0)
#3. To: Badeye (#2)
3.3 million jobs lost SINCE the faux stimulus package was signed by President Owe-Bama.
#4. To: Badeye, war (#2)
I wonder when liberals will realize this kind of bullshit line of attack just further inflames the opposition to this administration and congress....
#5. To: Brian S (#0)
#6. To: war, brian S, badeye (#3)
1.5MM of those jobs were, in fact, lost BEFORE he signed the stim...and given that the stim wasn't like waving a magic wand, adding in March you're @ 2.2MM of that 3.3MM and April you're @ 2.9MM...
#7. To: Murron (#4)
#8. To: go65 (#6)
they can't offer ANY credible alternatives.
#9. To: Badeye (#8)
Part of the reason Owe_Bama's poll numbers dropped is he kept trying this spin out, and it kept backfiring. Yuo should learn from it, and adjust accordingly.
#10. To: Badeye, murron (#7)
I know. Whats amusing is comparing the leftwingnuts rants about the 'Bush Economy' when unemployment was below 5% to what they are claiming today, with it TWICE THAT.
#11. To: go65 (#10)
#12. To: go65 (#9)
#13. To: go65 (#10)
#14. To: Badeye (#13)
(Edited)
Its double what the average was under Bush.
#15. To: Badeye (#13)
#16. To: dont eat that (#11)
The economy only began to tank and the deficits mount when the Democrats controlled Congress.
#17. To: dont eat that (#11)
#18. To: Fred Mertz (#1)
Can anyone visualize a VP Palin?
#19. To: Ibluafartsky, Fred Mertz (#18)
"Can anyone visualize a VP Palin?"
#20. To: go65 (#16)
#21. To: go65 (#17)
#22. To: Badeye, padlock (#20)
#23. To: go65 (#17)
#24. To: war (#22)
which Boy Blunder did when he denied the $35bln Congress appropriated to insure uninsured children.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#24)
(Edited)
#26. To: A K A Stone (#23)
(Edited)
All spending originates in the House.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#23)
He was forced to sign the Republican budget.
#28. To: dont eat that (#11)
The economy only began to tank and the deficits mount when the Democrats controlled Congress.
#29. To: lucysmom (#28)
#30. To: lucysmom (#28)
Did the economy tank because Democrats won control of Congress
#31. To: dont eat that (#30)
(Edited)
#32. To: war (#31)
The GSE's had 0 to do with the financial crisis
#33. To: Fred Mertz (#1)
Amen to that! Can anyone visualize a VP Palin?
#34. To: war (#27)
ad he signed the Republican budget he'd have spent MORE.
#35. To: Suzanne (#33)
#36. To: dont eat that (#32)
(Edited)
#37. To: dont eat that (#34)
(Edited)
#38. To: war (#36)
None of the conduit failures that took down Northern Rock, Bear Stearns, WAMU, Wachovia, Redwood
#39. To: dont eat that (#38)
(Edited)
#40. To: dont eat that (#38)
#41. To: war (#39)
Although the media are full of talk that we face a "crisis of capitalism," the underlying cause of the financial meltdown is something much more mundane and practical--the housing, tax, and bank regulatory policies of the U.S. government. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, penalty-free refinancing of home loans, tax preferences granted to home equity borrowing, and reduced capital requirements for banks that hold mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) have all weakened the standards for granting mortgages and the housing finance system itself. Blaming greedy bankers, incompetent rating agencies, or other actors in this unprecedented drama misses the point--perhaps intentionally--that government policies created the incentives for both a housing bubble and a reduction in the bank capital and home equity that could have mitigated its effects. To prevent a recurrence of this disaster, it would be far better to change the destructive government housing policies that brought us to this point than to enact a new regulatory regime that will hinder a quick recovery and obstruct future economic growth.
#42. To: war (#39)
The failure that Spring of Bear Stearns' hedged fund which owned private label alt-A paper that had spiraled down in value was in no way related to GSE's.
#43. To: war (#39)
#44. To: dont eat that (#42)
(Edited)
#45. To: dont eat that (#41)
(Edited)
#46. To: dont eat that (#41)
#47. To: war (#39)
Northern Rock didn't fail in August of 2007 because of FNMA paper.
#48. To: war (#44)
#49. To: padlock (#48)
It's more complicated than that. The entire subprime fiasco can be directly traced to CRA and the GSEs. I can quote a thousand sources verifying that.
#50. To: dont eat that (#47)
#51. To: war (#50)
Northern Rock is A UK bank.
#52. To: war (#49)
YOU cited Bear Stearns, dummy. Their failure is unrelated to GSE's and CRA.
#53. To: dont eat that (#21)
Unemployment was less than 5% and the deficit was 160 billion when the Democrats took over Congress in 1/2007. Look what those stats are after they took over.
#54. To: dont eat that (#48)
It's more complicated than that. The entire subprime fiasco can be directly traced to CRA and the GSEs. I can quote a thousand sources verifying that.
#55. To: Badeye (#20)
Dems have been in control of budgets and legislation since January of 2007.
#56. To: go65 (#53)
And the economy was sitting on a massive and growing CDS bubble.
#57. To: dont eat that (#52)
(Edited)
You can't separate the CRA and GSE from the overall financial market...banks had been weakened by the subprime crisis caused by the CRA and GSE.
#58. To: dont eat that (#51)
(Edited)
So?
#59. To: war (#57)
#60. To: war (#58)
#61. To: Suzanne, Fred Mertz (#33)
she likes to resign because only a dead fish goes with the flow.
#62. To: dont eat that (#60)
(Edited)
#63. To: war (#62)
Northern Rock's failure had nothing to do with anything occuring in the US.
#64. To: Ibluafartsky (#61)
How disingeneuous of you, Suzanne. That comment is sooooo liberal!
#65. To: Suzanne (#64)
#66. To: Suzanne (#64)
Funny...you didn't say it was untrue.
#67. To: Fred Mertz (#65)
She appears to be bi-polar or something along those lines
#68. To: dont eat that (#56)
And that was directly tied to the blockage of GSE reform by the Democrats
#69. To: go65, dont eat that (#68)
blockage of GSE reform by the Democrats
#70. To: dont eat that (#63)
Yet you listed it as an example of a company failing because of circumstances that had nothing to do with GSEs. If this company had nothing to do with anything in the Us, why mention it?
#71. To: war (#70)
I've stated that the FINANCIAL meltdown, which was not limited to the US, had nothing to do with the GSE's.
#72. To: go65 (#68)
when the Republicans controlled Congress?
#73. To: dont eat that (#72)
The Democrats control Congress by a larger majority and Mandingo of DC can't get his proposals accomplished. Think about it.
#74. To: dont eat that (#71)
And you are wrong.
#75. To: dont eat that (#71)
#76. To: go65 (#55)
#77. To: Badeye (#76)
What that has to do with the Democrats tripling the deficit is beyond anyone's understanding.
#78. To: Badeye (#76)
Dems have controlled all budgets since January of 2007.
#79. To: go65 (#78)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]