When is it okay to mention the pitfalls of minority home ownership pandering?
If you’re a conservative writer who dares to point out the downside of government policies that loosened lending standards for first-time minority homebuyers, you’re a RAAAACIST. (See, for example, here and here.)
But if you’re the New York Times wanting to point out how George W. Bush’s minority home ownership pandering is responsible for the subprime crisis, you’re simply SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER!
Steve Sailer observes that the Times is finally catching up to him.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Bush philosophy on home ownership helped create catastrophe » A Couple Things » A couple things about politics, sports, travel, and other stuff.
- Who Caused that Mortgage Mess Again? | The Sundries Shack
- When is it okay to mention the pitfalls of minority home ownership pandering? « Top Daily Digest Reading
- Nothing Says They Have Learned A Lesson Like GMAC Lowering The Credit Requirement From 700 To 621 | Right Voices
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Subprime crisis
Pundit & Pundette
» Westboro haters have enough to go around for everyone
Pundit & Pundette
» Guess what? Hasan frequented strip clubLegal Insurrection
» Pelosi's Abortion Land Mine ExplodesStop The ACLU
» Hasan Tried To Contact al Qaeda. Sounds Like A Jihadi To MeEd Driscoll
» Go Flag Yourself, Mr. President!JustOneMinute
» Stay Classy, Ezra!protein wisdom
» Quote of the Day [Darleen Click]
The Dem house organ speaks the party line and you are surprised?
NYT = fish wrap.
Get out the “.jpg” file Michelle.
When it destroys the economy.
When is it okay to mention the pitfalls of illegal Alien home ownership pandering?
There was a point in the Clinton term where the question was asked, “Is the President relevant?”
While they still have the power to really screw up your life, I think having observed the Federal government the past 16 years and especially the last two years, I think it is fair to ask if the Federal Government is really relevant to our lives anymore?
Name one thing they can to has any real value to us, other than roads and defense?
NYT = all the garbage thats unfit to print… Newsrags are losing more credibility each day. Unfortunately they still grab a large portion of this nation’s attention with our headline reading mentality. A lot of folks never read past the inflammatory headline and the NYT knows it. Sheeple being lead down the primrose path. Sadly there is a grain of truth to this one as Bush joined the liberal mindset (again) in pushing for minority home ownership without proper over-sight to make sure that folks could afford the homes they purchased. That last part about affording the payments and the upkeep is kind of important to the equation regarding owning a home.
you’re a RAAAACIST if you believe people must enter this country legally .
you’re a RAAAACIST if you dared to question the chosen one PEBO.
you’re a RAAAACIST if your conservative.
you’re a RAAAACIST if you believe people should pay their own debt.
Really OT
Unsubstantiated rumor- Obama has approved February Israeli attack on Iran’s nukes.
Per my boss, who reads oil pricing blogs- oil has been falling the last couple of weaks despite apparent balance now in supply and demand and weakening dollar, because people in the know in Europe are selling oil from strategic reserves and attacking the dollar so oil and the dollar are really cheap before an Israeli strike on Iran, so a sudden jump in the dollar and $50 jump in crude prices will start from the lowest possible level.
Internet searches reveal no hard info on any of this. Iran, however, is in a world of hurt with $40 oil.
You’re a RAAAACIST if you didn’t vote for OBAMA, unless you are black, then you are an Uncle Tom.
When is it okay to mention the pitfalls of minority home ownership pandering?
Right now is the time to mention the pitfalls of minority home ownership pandering and any other situation where the term “racsist” is used to brow beat those who disagree with the liberal viewpoints speak up.
That also goes for the term “homophobic” which is catching up as a brow-beating term when those who follow the natural law of nature speak out against a minority group who demands that their abominable life-style be condoned and accepted as “normal”. It’s a perverse sexual lifestyle and always has been. Speaking the truth is always the best course of action.
Somewhere along the line, people have to take a stand and say enough is enough-especially those who have a forum with which to do so.
Eventually, the name-calling bludgeons will have to be ignored and identified for what they are.
That would suggest a conspiracy
Interesting article – if I read it right, the democrat party ceased to exist after the turn of the century. Christopher Dodd was obviously sucked into a black hole, and as for Barney Frank and his “wife” Fannie Mae board member Herb Moses… I refuse to speculate.
And it is NOT sex.
it’s all bush’s fault despite the fact that the policy and law began in the clinton admin, and the prime architect was a clinton appointee. i do think bush shares blame for not forcing his republican congress to rein in spending and rein in fannie and freddie schemes to put people in houses.
Just don’t blame Backside Bandit Barney Frank and his former boyfriend at Fannie Mae.
According to Kanye West, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people”. How can he then be to blame for this crisis?
To be honest, I’m uncomfortable with talking about this as a “minority homeownership” issue. It’s a “people who can’t pay their mortgage” issue.
I understand the fallacy of “community redevelopment” and the idea that homeownership is a “right”, which of course it is not. But plenty of people who belong to so-called, “minority groups” are keeping up with their mortgage obligations just fine.
Now if we can remove oil form commodities trading, speculators can’t artificially drive up the price – AGAIN.
Mister P
Platonic homosexual liaisons – now that’s a thought.
I guess you believe the spread of aids was foisted on our society by heterosexual relationships. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Let’s make everyone believe that one.
NOT sex? Get serious.
I guess, from a legal standpoint, I support the right of anyone to do what they want behind closed doors, no matter how perverse, as long as all involved are consenting adults.
But even if 1 or 2% of monkies in the wild will display “gay” behavior, it is still an abnormality. It is incapable of producing off spring. From a purely non-religious point of view, sex is supposed to be fun as an inducement to continue the species. Homosexuality does not do that.
From a religious point of view, I can’t think of a non-pagan religion that endorses that kind of behavior.
So, even if homosexual tendencies have some genetic and environmental component, and there is only limited choice involved for those afflicted with it, in my opinion, they are free to do what they want in private, get lawyers to draw up power of attorney agreements so they can watch over a ‘partner’s finances and make medical decisions, as long as they don’t demand a societal approval in the form of marriage.
The liberal mindset is like a 17 year old boy who gets his parent’s credit card and starts buying up a lot of stuff for his girlfriends and buddies.
***
Then the bills start coming in to his folks–after he has moved out of the house.
***
Guess what–the American People are the parents! And the bill for these stupid actions will be coming home soon.
***
John Bibb
About half the adult population has reproductive organs designed to be penetrated during the sex act.
And the rectum isn’t it. Anal sex almost always involves small tears and fissures, which provides a pathway for disease transmission.
There is speculation that women that engage in frequent anal sex may develop antibodies to sperm that may reduce their fertility, due to repeated exposure of the blood stream to sperm.
Of course, the promiscuity certain members of the gay community are known for (cough- Andrew Sullivan- cough) also led to the spread of AIDS. IIRC, I read the average sufferer of Pneumocystic carinii pneumonia/Kaposi’s sarcoma in NYC in 1983 reported an average of over 300 different sexual partners the previous year.
Good analogy.
Lending standards for first-time minority home buyers went further than racial minority–just about anyone who could not afford to buy a house, make the payments and do the up keep was encouraged to buy–it was a “Human Right to Housing”. All through the housing boom they kept creating new classes of needy people-mostly white, lots of immigrants-illegal or other-hispanic, black-students-whatever to keep the money flowing. As the boom continued these same people were encouraged to borrow against the escalating equity of their homes-up to 125%! It was a crash ready to happen. And now they want to put even more money into this pit. The moon bats can yell RAAAACIST all day long-the crash is here and Government policy caused it.
While this crash has caused a huge amount of pain and I believe responsible for the wider economic crisis I am bemused by the so called smart people who fell. There are indeed all kinds of us who say this coming. When the market hit 14K I bailed. When the housing boom was still hot I sold one rental-and for the first time ever I did not buy another. I took a hit on the taxes and now sit on the cash.
Fedzilla Compassion generally causes pain. So I guess I am a RAAAACIST–at least I am sitting on my cash-what ever that is going to be worth.
Again, all this whining from the left about “rights”, but crickets chirping when people are expected to be RESPONSIBLE for their own actions.
Good for you for bailing out at the apex of the market…
Boy did this thread get jacked! Anal ologies not withstanding!
I guess you passed Propaganda 101, but failed Biology. At most you can call “Homosexual contact” a form of duo masterbation, but it is no more sex than masterbation.
cheapseat …
You are correct that Clinton pushed the minority home loans aggressively … however he did not originate the problem … you can thank Jimmy Carter for the laws that started all of the problems … Clinton just exacerbated it with his heavy-handed legal threats against banks and mortgage lenders if they did not meet proper quotas … and guess who the monitoring groups were that made sure it stayed in the news … ACORN … yep … one and the same … and that was at the time Obama was involved with ACORN … need I say more?
I wouldn’t say it is so much “minority” home ownership as much as it is “poor/no credit, zero down, balloon mortgage” home ownership.
Of which, there just happens to be more minorities in those circumstances. Being a minority isn’t a red flag for fiscal irresponsibility, poor credit history/financial decisions is.
ditto here
Good morning DL.
If there is one liberal on this blog with a brain it is Chap.
Chap, I sure would like to here your take on this one.
Morning Soap …
Actually Chap and I have discussed the fact before that Carter was the one that started all of this and that Clinton worsened it … not sure if we have addressed the ACORN link though …
Why don’t you try doing something about it? For instance, you could try this. Or, buy yourself a 1000 gallon tank and fill it while the price is low (You know what that would make you? Right. A speculator.)
What you say is true. BUT, the impetus was to get minorities into home ownership without any regard to their long term ability to handle the obligation; the “we’ll deal with that when it happens” mindset. Lots of other people certainly fit the criteria, but the plain intent was minorities, and specific minorities at that.
It is just another of the continuing examples of the paternalistic attitude of the Democrats to certain groups of people whom they think are incapable of functioning without their “help.” It got rolling under Johnson’s “Great Society” and took off from there.
The New York Times hasn’t “spoken the truth” since Moby Dick was a minnow.
The main driving legislation that started all of this was Jimmy Carter and the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) of 1977 … one of the first things he pushed after his election …
Yup. Or I could believe that when gas was $4.5/gallon with consumption down from the previous year during the same period, speculators didn’t make a difference.
NYT = Narcissistic Yuppy Truthers
The illegal alien housing problem would hqave never been a problem if we didn’t have any illegal aliens. I say we still need to round them up and deport them. But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
To use a couple of old phrases, I think this is a slippery slope or maybe a thin edge of the wedge issue. When the CRA was enacted, it was targeted to poor, inner city (read minority) borrowers who had little chance of getting conventional loans. Even qualified borrowers sometimes did face issues of redlining.
In banking circles it was always known (wink, wink) that some of these loans would fail. But, they would be a small portion of the loan portfolio and would become a cost of doing business. Then, Congress said to the banks, “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” and banks had to allow everyone to get the same relaxed loan requirements.
At least that was the way it was when I was in the business. Then it really hit the fan when Freddie and Fannie started running a hedge fund of sorts. I don’t even begin to understand this, unless they needed to get high yields to cover the losses from these programs.
We should learn the lessons of history. If you start a program that “bends the rules” it will come back to bite you. And we will all suffer.
It’s not the intent of the behavior that counts, it’s the perception of the victim.
Therefore, Conservatives are in the wrong. ALWAYS.
Agreed…but in this case, the true victim is all of us who pay taxes.
On what? ACORN’s apparent involvement? Or the subprime mortgage mess?
As to the latter, I think that it is a case of good intentions leading to bad policy leading to bad practices leading to disatrous results.
I also agree that the oringinal impetus for lowering lending standards was the government’s push to open up the process to minority and lower income prospective home buyers. I will blame the liberals here.
I also think however, that once the floodgates were open but before things really started to go sour, banks and mortgage companies realized they were making money hand over fist on these (since they more often than not were just selling the paper rather than holding it) and that led to a precipitous race to the bottom (in terms of credit worthiness) in order to attract more and more borrowers. It seems to me that for the past decade or so, these lenders were not being forced into anything by the government. They were aggressively marketing and pushing these mortgages. No one needed to hold a gun to their head.
This was exacerbated by the fact that MBS’s and things like credit default swaps and other exotic financial instruments served to separate the risk from the reward at its most basic level–the decision as to whether or not to lend THIS PARTICLAUR BORROWER money.
Moral of the story….
Everyone effed up big time. We ended up getting the the worst results of govenrment intervention coupled with an absolute failure of the free markets to see where this was heading (or willfully ignoring it and taking a “get it while you can” attitude) and adjust accordingly.
As to ACORN: Their job, like any other lobbying group, is to push the items that benefit their constituency, even to the detriment of society as a whole. Same as any union, AARP, any business lobby, etc… Their job is not to try to figure out hat is best for the country. One hopes, with all groups representing each side and angle of an issue and each pushing up against the other, that from the messy process what actually IS good for the country will come out.
Take what my wife does, for example. She represents people with disabilities. Often in, say a guardianship case, there are three parties. One trying to get guardianship over the ward, the ward resisting guardianship and then a third person called a guardain ad litem, whose job it is basically to give its opinion on what would be in the best interest of the ward. Note this is entirely separate from what the ward wants, or what the potential guardian wants. My point is that my wife is duty bound to represent only what the ward wants, even though sometimes that is clearly not in the ward’s best interest. But it is an important side to have aired nonetheless. Each person has their role and the point is to provide as much information and points of view so that the judge can presumably make the best and most informed decision.
I hope that makes sense. I am not sure it does.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…..
I believe home ownership falls into the pursuit of happiness category. It’s not something that’s given. You have to pursue it.
Other items under pursuit of happiness:
cars
credit
large screen tv’s
ect…….
Please add to the list.
Liberalism (in the form of guilt, ego, complacency, venality, & incompetence) is the immutable death knell of all successful societies. There’s nothing new about that at all.
Nothing to see here, nothing to see; “move on”, “move on”.
Thanks Chap,
Notice I said “liberal with a brain”?
Watch out for those zombies!
Hi there Chap … You and I have bounced the CRA thing around for a long time here …
The more folks learn about how all this came about the more it should give them all lots of reason to worry when they hear the words “Government Oversight”
…
…
Well, if speculators have that power why aren’t they exerting it RIGHT NOW???
Liberals just can’t argue. They can’t face the facts. Libs learned that while it’s nice to have more people owning homes, people which can’t pay back the loans will not keep those homes. Libs don’t want us driving car, using gas and otherwise creating carbon and yet, will bailout the car manufacturers to keep those union members voting for them. Libs want to make decisions for us, but don’t want to own the consequences. Why aren’t the libs blaming Carter, Clinton, Frank, Dodd and every other nanny state supporting nutjob for creating the housing crisis? Because Bush stole the election twice and thwarted the liberal agenda! Unfortunately, we might have to suffer through the weak economy until the libs learn that what they want to do will not work.
Yeah. There’s the problem. One of the defining characteristics of liberalism is the inability to understand that the right to pursue happiness does not in any way, shape, form or manner state or imply a right to have it.
In fact, they see no worth in the pursuit itself, as Conservatives do. They think that if you exercise your constitutional right to pursue but fail to achieve happiness, you’ve been cheated.
By Conservatives, of course.
It is a down market – right? (Check you 401-k and get back with me if you do not agree.) At least it was the last time I bought stock which I am holding until it swings up again. When consumption is down and the price continues to rise based on trading (during an up market), you are going to see what we had with oil at $130+ per barrel. If the price oil was based on supply/demand alone, oil could not have gone as high as it did as quickly as it did. I could be wrong – but I am not.
P.S. FDC,
A commodity, like stock, is traded to make a profit. Buy low, sell high. So, if invertors in oil bought at peak and the commodity begins a free fall (like oil and most stocks did), you are going to see the price of that commodity fall as well. Stocks (and commodities) price rise and fall due to the ability to make a profit (or to keep from losing you assets).
ACORN was only one of the orgs that pressured Congress since 1977. There was also La RAZA pushing for illegals to have home ownership. Their goal was to get them intrenched in the communities which would make it very difficult to “deport” them at any time because they have “roots”.
Another interesting point is that both of these orgs started right about this same time–coincidence???
God, I love being a xeno-homo-phobic RAACCCISSSTTT. Gives me a reason to get up in the am!!
/sarc off
Nor would it have dropped as fast. These same speculators took it in the shorts. They had to sell quickly. It is all about risk and reward. At some point it is ALL risk and NO reward.
Don’t forget the white people–with nice lifestyles and even college edjumacations–who tried to make some “easy” money flipping a house they never intended to live in. Ever. Calling it a “home ownership problem” is as inaccurate as calling it a “minority mortgage problem.”
My collie says:
Why don’t you call PETA and get a lawyer? I’m a proud speciesist.
Neither of soap box’s response address his claim that speculators have the POWER to artificially raise oil prices.
HOW do they do that, soap box?
HOW did they do that when stock prices were declining all year, while oil prices went in the other direction during the first half of the year?
And please tell us the difference between futures trading on the commodities market for, say, gold, silver or pork bellies,and “speculating” in oil futures (which you seek to forbid).
It IS interesting that, during the last six months or so, retail gasoline prices have declined by roughly 50%.
However, I don’t believe that has been accompanied by (or caused by) a commensurate decline in demand during that same time (at least, not anywhere near the tune of 50%).
So, assuming that’s true, price fluctuations have to have something to do not merely with actual supply and demand, but with perceived/anticipated supply and demand.
Does that sound right? Comments?
Let’s talk pork. Suppose that the “speculators” were going to “guess” pork futures would go up because there was a sudden increase for demand. Suppose that sudden demand declined by a tremendous amount, the “speculators” would begin to bail knowing a sudden decrease in demand will drive the price down a bit (and it will). The problem with this bailing out of the pork futures market is that most (if not all) of the “speculators” will bail that sinking ship. This works conversely. If the “speculators” guess pork futures are going to go down and a sudden increase in demand threatens to drive the price up, they are all in to make a profit (and you will see the price increase is going to be disproportionate to the market).
If you were paying attention, oil was skyrocketing while demand was decreasing. The market will support that for a time. Know what killed the housing market in South Florida? “Speculators”, who came in and flipped properties making a buck and driving the prices up beyond what the market would sustain. When it was time to bail, the “speculators” did and left the market to adjust back down where it belongs (and it has). Did they do this because they had special powers? No, they did it to make a buck – lots of them.
“Speculators” have no special power – none. If the “speculators” see the potential to lose everything (in any commodity), watch how quickly they all bail and the prices freefall. Of course, watching it happen is not the same thing as believing it did not happen. Maybe you are hung up on the word “speculators”. How about “investors” instead?
Gold is not a fair comparison. Gold does well in a declining market. People will rush to gold when the dollar is weak. Since our gooberment is printing money like it grows on trees (which make the dollar weak), you have seen gold go up (unless you are not paying attention).
This is all basic stuff. Do you really believe the price of oil is based on how much gas people pump in their tanks?
Sorry so long.
Not just too long, no explanation as to how oil futures traders artificially drive up prices.
Just a bunch of bull about speculators in other markets who magicially “know” when they have to get out — as if there are always willing (and apparently clueless) buyers ready to “get in.” None of those house flippers, for example, got burnt or foreclosed — nahhh. They all saw it coming and got out.
I guess you didn’t notice that worldwide demand for oil was NOT decreasing, but increasing during the oil price run-up. Then came the market crash, and then came the oil price declines as economies declined worldwide. Kinda skews your reasoning that oil speculators can levitate the price independent of demand.
Cheap money uniquely drives up gold prices, eh? Well, it also drives up housing prices. And last time I looked foreign money invested here had a large impact on low interest rates fuelling the housing bubble.
And no I don’t believe the price of oil is based on how much gas people pump into their tanks, and I never said I did.
Funny how you don’t mention OPEC or the pricing power of the Saudis, who can open/close their pipelines and influence prices far more than these speculators you so blithely speak off.
Bottom line: You haven’t given a single reason why oil is uniquely susceptible to “speculation” independent of market conditions. Not one.
Don’t forget the fixed costs like taxes. They don’t fluctuate.
It was Carter that improvised the CRA, and Clinton with the Federal Reinvestment Program that enhanced the CRA. Bush tried twice to bring in legislation to give oversight into the practices of the lending conglomerate. Fannie and Freddie both contributed heavily Democrats to keep this from coming to a vote. The threads from the leadership of Fannie and Freddie (all of which should be called before a court of justice) lead to Barnie Frank and our President Elect.
When is it OK to mention? When it has become a significant factor contributing to the economic recession. I think many here would agree that low income defaults are a problem and you should mention it.
However, the largest category of defaulters is the middle class, not the low income (I’m uncomfortable with the term “minority”) borrowers. Yes, the low income category defaulted at a high rate, but it is the middle class that has defaulted in larger numbers.
Chap explains the rest of the issue quite well. I just wanted to add this part.
Odd how every discussion here, no matter the topic, spawns some gratuitous gay-baiting.
Why the infatuation? Do we have some latent homos here?
What you wrote made sense. Your assumption that ACORN and other liberal groups are only out to further their constituency, regardless of the consequences to society, should be counterbalanced by opposing gorups views is ideal but not reality any longer. The libs have done a masterful job of making PC so pervasive in society, and the mantra of the MSM, that there are no truly organized resistance groups to their harmful demands and policies. Anyone who opposes them is shouted down as a racist. Although just a term, receiving that label in public has dire consequences to someones private life (your job as businesses can’t afford to have the bad publicity is just one example). So there is no true oppostion to shut down thier ridiculous demands.
I also agree on the good intentions gone awry. It proves the old saying, “the road to h*ll is paved with good intentions”. For example, an immigrant detention facility outside my city is up for renewal. It holds illegals and their families (including children) for deportation hearings. It’s more like a resort (a far cry from jail) than a prison though. The do gooder lawyers and usual ethnic grievance group suspects are demanding it not be renewed because it holds children who “did nothing worng, it was their parents actions”. As well as the illegals did nothign really wrong (that is another argument). If they win, they will have sent a message to any contemplating comign illegally, “bring your children along and the Americans will not detain you”. Essentially encouraging parents to use their children as shields and to place them in dangerous situations. Of course, when that problem arises, the do gooders will demand somehting else be done or changed leading to new unintended consequences. It never ends and all the problems that come with uncontrolled immigration increase. But by golly, they shut down a faciltiy designed to (and paid for by taxpayers) provide a safe detention for children and illegals rather than putting them in an unsafe environemtn like a jail. If we don’t detian them then hter is no reason to have immigration laws at all.
To be clear, I did not limit myself to “liberal” groups. I don’t expect the NRA or the oil lobby or any gorup, however you would label them poitically, to worry about what is objectively best for the country (though I am sure they would all say that their interests and the nation’s interests are coincident). I expect all of them to agressively pursue their selfish (I mean that non-pejoratively) interests.
Nor did I assume you were limiting yourself. Your posts are usually clear and make a good thought provoking point. I would argue that the NRA (and I am not a member) is actually upholding the 2nd amendment to the constitution for all Americans, which is a noble goal, as opposed to La Raza or the NAACP which only looks to further the cause of a specific race/ethnic group (something that would be demonized if a group esposing the same policies for whites existed). IMHO, ethnic grievance groups create more animosity toward their groups than they solve. The oil lobby, I agree. They have an economic interest wiht no regard to what is best for the nation.