Rest of the story: Obama’s discount home loan
From Judicial Watch’s Jill Farrell (background links/info here):
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) notified Judicial Watch this week that it has “closed the file” on our complaint against Senator Barack Obama for allegedly accepting a below market rate mortgage loan in 2005 not available to the general consumer. In its factual and legal analysis, however, the FEC does confirm that Obama obtained a discounted loan but said no laws were violated.
So, to sum: Yes Barack Obama did receive a special below-market loan the rest of us couldn’t get. And a big “no” to the idea that he ought to be held accountable for it. Upset? So are we.
Here’s a bit of the back story.
According to Judicial Watch’s original FEC complaint, filed July 8, 2008, Obama reportedly received a home loan of $1.32 million at a rate of 5.625 percent, although the average going rate on that day according to two different surveys was between 5.93 and 6 percent. Unlike what was reportedly available for the general consumer, this special below market “super super jumbo” loan, was secured without an origination fee or discount points.
According to The Washington Post, which first raised questions about Obama’s mortgage, the favorable interest rate would save Barack Obama $300 a month, which over the life of the 30-year loan, would be at least $108,000. Judicial Watch contends these preferential loan terms constitute an illegal corporate campaign contribution to Obama.
As Judicial Watch noted in its complaint, Northern Trust has supported Barack Obama’s political campaigns for elected office since 1990. Moreover, Northern Trust Vice President John O’Connell essentially admitted the company provided Obama preferential loan terms because of his position in the U.S. Senate. (Obama was a senator at the time.) “‘A person’s occupation and salary are two factors; I would expect those are two things we would take into consideration,’ O’Connell told The Washington Post [emphasis added]. “This was a business proposition for us.”
Now, the FEC’s legal analysis dismissed O’Connell’s admission. The FEC based its decision to exonerate Obama largely on the fact that Northern Trust claims it provided preferential terms to other “similarly situated borrowers” in addition to the Obama. Northern Trust’s new explanation was that 8 of 14 of similarly situated borrowers (including Obama) received a mortgage loan discount.
Who are these unnamed “similarly situated” borrowers? Are they also elected officials? We don’t know because neither Northern Trust nor the FEC have been forthcoming with any details.
Needless to say, as I told the press this week, for the FEC to base its decision to excuse Obama on the fact that a few other unnamed borrowers also received sweetheart mortgages seems irresponsible. Look no further than the Countrywide which doled out corrupt to numerous public officials to see the massive hole in that logic.
The fact is Northern Trust’s president admitted Obama received the loan, in part, based on his position. This is improper and almost certainly constitutes an illegal campaign contribution (or gift). In our view, the FEC’s response is inadequate and it certainly does not serve the public’s interest.
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.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama’s new campaign candy: More mortgage aid, homeowner “bill of rights”
February 1, 2012 11:39 AM by Michelle Malkin
88 Comments
One cheer for the belated SEC lawuit against Fannie/Freddie execs
December 16, 2011 11:53 AM by Michelle Malkin
45 CommentsBailing out the world
November 30, 2011 09:35 AM by Michelle Malkin
131 CommentsBreaking: Barney Frank will not seek re-election
November 28, 2011 09:54 AM by Michelle Malkin
168 CommentsSnortalicious: Chicago corruptocrat/Fannie fat cat William Daley wears Occupier costume
October 17, 2011 01:56 PM by Michelle Malkin
20 Comments
Here are your 1 percent-ers: Obama’s bundlers
October 17, 2011 03:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
79 CommentsJohn McCain Understands the Frustrations of ‘Occupy Wall Street’
October 12, 2011 09:07 PM by Doug Powers
122 CommentsWho’s Up For Another Fannie Mae Bailout?
May 9, 2011 11:20 AM by Doug Powers
67 Comments
Categories: Subprime crisis
Redstate
» Morning Briefing for February 14, 2012Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad jokeJustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
It’s not like he didn’t pay 128K in taxes or something like that! Give the man a break. He is a public servant!
Last thing Obambi wants to do is make Americans think there are two sets of rules.
Just words.
I hope these people realize that “average” means that some people will naturally get a higher rate and some will naturally get a lower rate. Do they have any idea what Obama’s credit rating is or what else he had to put up for collateral?
Sometimes there are perfectly valid reasons for “preferential treatment.”
Transparency we can believe in!
So in otherwords nothing is wrong because more than just one politician got preferential treatment. Perhaps it was bi-partisan treatment.
Now, what rate did Rezko get on the ‘adjoining’ property?
On February 19th, 2009 at 12:43 pm, chapoutier said:
Sure. Okay. Can you name Obama’s “valid reasons”?
Hint: it has to do with collectivism.
Even if this didn’t break an FEC law… I doubt a gift tax return was filed for this gift. Sounds like an Internal Revenue Code violation to me.
hmm… Seems like we’ve covered IRC ‘oversights’ before
Apparently there is no cling factor to the transparent Saran wrap that surrounds Obama!
Rich and connected people get treated better than the regular set???
No, because like everyone else here, I have no access to Obama’s loan application.
But the FEC did mention that since the loan, the Obama’s have invested 3 million with the Bank. it is certainy not unusual (or illegal) for a bank to try to lure a big customer in with preferential treatment.
And as I said before, if Obama’s credit history was better than other borrowers, of course that will drop the interest rate.
All animals are equal; but, some animals are more equal than others?
Who’d a-thunk it?
Hardly. the AFR in June 2005 was 4.48% for a long term, monthly compunded loan.
Little late now.
Corruption is as corruption does.
Actually, Chappy, I don’t think you understand the word “average.”
The problem is that Obama appears to have “unnaturally” gotten a lower rate. He got that lower rate because of his INFLUENCE just like Chris Dodd.
You seem to live in an “Animal Farm” world and see no problem with “some animals are more equal than others.” But that is not the ideals our nation was founded upon.
granite,
It’s too bad Orwell isn’t alive today…he’d be praised as an Oracle. He’d also be well over one hundred years old, so it’s probably for the best he’s not around.
TXGator,
At my age, “well over 100″ doesn’t seem as old as it did 30 years ago. But the irony of all this would probably kill the poor guy if he were still around.
Is this the same bank that got DEMOCRAT Chris Dudd his nice mortgage too?
Please expalin your definition that does not involve taking a bunch of people at a range of rates and finding what the middle is.
Appears from what? He got a slightly lower than average rate? Again, about half the people getting these jumbo loans are going to get better than average rates. Other than that it is pure speculation.
But it is what our credit system is based on. Otherwise banks would just have one rate for everyone, regardless of the the credit history or rating of the borrower, or any of the other myriad of factors that a bank uses in making its determination.
Yeah, it is a bit silly to presume that giving an honest, hard working US Senator a sweetheart deal that saves him hundreds of thousands of dollars over several years could actually influence their actions.
I am sure the banks that arranged loans for Dodd and Obama and others just thought they were nice guys. And everybody wants to be nice to nice guys! I bet my bank has a special mortgage window for “nice guys.” You just have to know where to look.
That would explain the 20% mortgage rate Chappy probably has…
I’m with you WarEagle82. I wonder how long my knees and back will hold out to a ripe old age. My guess is they won’t, but I’ll still keep trucking. Maybe, maybe not.
My favorite definition of irony occurred to me recently. A shortstop for the Houston Astros, Miguel Tejada I believe was his name, was charged with LYING to CONGRESS.
That is about as ironic as, well, anything ever has been.
Or maybe they were very credit worthy and had the potential to bring a lot of deposits into the bank. I did not read anywhere in the FEC report where the bank relied on the relative niceness in making its determination.
Again…
BELOW AVERAGE DOES NOT EQUAL BELOW MARKET.
I have always felt that the FEC was about as effective as the UN.
So this is in no way surprising.
They will pillory a candidate for the equivalent of illegal parking and ignore an armed robbery. The FEC like serves no partical purpose.
Can you imagine Obama walking into a bank, signing that little clipboard at the front, taking a seat and waiting to talk to a representative?
Probably just made a call to his connections, didn’t he?
He might not have gotten special treatment, but with his rhetoric, you would think he would abhor the appearance of impropriety.
Dear, dear Chappy,
Please feel free to continue to defend the blatantly obvious corruption that engulfs the Democrat Party, Obama and virtually everyone around him. It is instructive and amusing to those of us watching your tortured logic and hypocrisy.
Blago’s wife was the realtor for that deal. Fact.
Simply compare the background and conduct of the people who receive large contributions from Fannie Mae and you will understand all you need to know.
Maybe the mortgage company made the not unreasonable assumption that a highly visible public figure with a high net worth is not much of a credit risk.
Chap,
I believe the problem lies in “the rest of us could not get”.
I digress, you voted for him and you will not find fault in him.
I’m cracking up over here because Rush is playing “Banking Queen”.
It’s a song about Barney Frank, and, yes, it is set to ABBA’s “Dancing Queen”.
Hilarious. I’m immature, no doubt, but I don’t take myself too seriously.
It’s pretty obvious that “rules” don’t apply anymore. Neither does the Constitution. It’s an “anything goes” government now. The government elite have their “standards” and the rest of us have ours. Who, but someone totally out of touch or a complete fool, believes we have an honest government looking out for the best interests of the country?
Is this what situational ethics and moral relativism on steroids look like?
You mean like a $75 Billion mortgage bailout?
It’s no coincidence that Northern Trust supported Barack Obama’s political campaigns since 1990 and provided Obama preferential loan terms. Notice the link between Michelle Obama and the Chairman of the Board of Northern Trust Corporation:
Personally, I think the “Chicago Council on Global Affairs” is a Socialist/Communist think tank, along the lines of goal #37 of the Communist Goals (1963)
It’s also amusing to watch strained inferences.
Hey chapoutier,
Whose name is on the deed for the “Obama’s” home?
Hint: It’s not the Obamas.
I’m sure you have prepared yourself for the mocking, scorn, ridicule and derisive dismissal you will receive from socialists/fascists/statists.
Nothing to see here folks, just another Democrat thief and liar. Just go about your business like you’re wearing blinders.
Most.Ethical.Administration.Ever.
Yeah, you Dem’s can sure pick ‘em
Thanks for the fascism.
Perhaps the bank just found them warm.
Reason 1: Quid pro quo
I’m curious – Rezko?
AlohaGuy,
Both Rezko and Northern Trust are involved…
Actually, I could care less if he saved a half percent on his interest rate for a home loan. All of these politicians have sweetheart deals of some kind. This is minor compared to the other perks they receive.
I’d be more interested on why Michele Obama’s income soared after Obama was elected to the state senate.
I’d like to know why a man like Obama would spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to prevent any of his records from being released including his birth certificate where it would only take $15 to produce. This is something any other American is expected to produce when asked.
Obama had no qualms on getting his political opponent’s private divorce records made public to win his senate seat. Why is he exempt?
Call it “conspiracy theory” all you want. When someone goes to that extreme to prevent even his Occidental college records from being released, methinks he has something to hide.
It could come to nothing. No harm, no foul.
However, it could be the one thing that cuts this presidency short. I don’t think we can survive more than 6 months of this failed, Islamic sympathizing, communist leaning, president.
Neither does the guy who owns the electrical contractor business I represent. Neither does the president of the IT company I represent.
Please. Tortured logic is assuming that everyone gets the freaking AVERAGE rate. Did all MLB players hit .264 in 2008? Or do we assume the ones that hit higher cheated or the ones that hit lower were cheated?
Tortured logic is also not taking into account the many many factors that go into an interest rate, but merely assuming because Obama happens to be in the approximately 50% that by definition, will get a lower than average rate, this is proof of illegal activity.
Tortured logic is also saying that “taking into account one’s profession” equals “giving special treatment to politicians.” Hint for you all. Any bank application any of you fill out asks for your occupation. Did you ever wonder why?
Depends on who “the rest of us” is and what the criteria is for determining who is an “us” and who is a “rest of us.” Apparently 8 of 14 similarly situated borrowers got similar loans from this bank.
I don’t know about Obama’s home deal, but I do know that Northern Trust is about as unscrupulous as they come. I rented from an agent of theirs. She found out I was going to be gone for a few months and put the townhome up for sale and then tried to get me to buy it before the week was out. Found out later, after I consulted with another agent, that the Northern Trust agent was part of the company which owned the property, so she got paid beyond the normal commission for selling the place. She never revealed that information to me, despite state law. I then attempted to buy a different place from another realtor who also worked for Northern Trust. He lied to me, tried to bully me into buying the place after I backed out and was totally supported by Northern Trust. I wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole now. Stay away from NORTHERN TRUST!
On February 19th, 2009 at 2:06 pm, iamsaved said:
Hear, hear!
Frankly, this whole thread is a waste of time. He got/didn’t get preferential treatment? So what? This was all pretty much public before the election. He’s been elected, it’s over, let’s just moveon.org.
Tell me again how he did this? Or are you just going to rely on the old “media attack dogs that he apparently had under his thumb back then” argument?
There, fixed that for you — to show how witless your comment was. “Public figures”, especially Chicago politicians, are notoriously corrupt. Any bank performing “due diligence” would have the fiduciary duty not just to take that into account, but to look more closely, rather than make an unreasonable assumption.
What worries me is that this bank has 14 borrowers show up who are Stalinist community organizers whose wives are overpaid for positions at a hospital that the hospital now thinks is an unnecessary position, and have criminals co-sign their loans and sell the property to them at below market rates. Oh yeah, Chicago.
just define the issue away. average price equals market price in any area. this is like saying the rich. what is rich? average tax record income is lower than 40k per year. so if you make 80k are you rich? are the average homes in california or manhatten the same as the average home in indiana? since our congressmen make over 4 times the average pay of americans, plus all the perks and pension, are they rich? if caroline kennedy inherited 50million dollars, but has never had a paying job, is she rich? what if she has her money in tax free munis so she never pays a dime of tax, is she really rich? without rich employers, there will be no jobs, and that includes government jobs because tax free munis are debt by government agencies, but they will have no ability to pay, so they won’t be able to borrow. ask california.
Or two Harvard-educated attorneys, one with a best selling book, with another on the way, who both made 6 figure incomes from their jobs.
Coincidences follow Obama like Michael Jackson follows little boys with monkeys.
No… Market price is what a similarly situated buyer would be able to negotiate in an arms length negotiation. Just because the average price of gasoline is about $2.00 a gallon in the US doesn’t mean the market price for San Francisco is that.
So citizens aren’t allowed to speculate about Democrat presidents, only Republican ones? Aren’t you being overly defensive? You know, there’s often a grain of truth to every “speculation.”
I know…the media would have absolutely no interest in a scandalous divorce involving a Senator, a hot TV actress and sex clubs unless the Godfather was pulling their strings.
None whatsoever.
Speculate away. Just don’t expect anyone to take it seriously. Also don’t expect not to get called on it.
One of whom might end up in a position to be of enormous help to banks by meddling in the morgage market. Thank goodness that didn’t happen.
Yeah, but when the papers are sealed, they wouldn’t know about it…
Chap is trained to argue,right or wrong.He is also ate up with the Dem thinking process.You can argue with him until you are blue in the face or until the cows come home and he will never agree with your side.It is amusing to read his post since you can see his points from a mile away.He won’t have second thoughts even when BHO becomes a complete failure.He bought into it and now he is owned.
Exactly.
More like precede:
besides the remarkable coincidences of the unsealing of records of divorce proceedings of two consecutive political opponents, that both just happened to occur before an election;
there are the oh-so-remarkably convenient crises of skyrocketing fuel prices, and turmoil in the real estate and fiancial financial markets, both of which just happened to occur before a national election.
BHO does not pass the smell test.
My apologies chapoutier for insinuating that the Chicago media, and later the national MSM, has been fawning over Obama for the past several years.
With their journalistic integrity at stake, I’m sure they would never show bias of any kind let alone do “investigative” reporting of a Republican over a Democrat. These people live the “fair and balanced” mantra every day.
One should never believe these modern day journalists would do any dirty work for the likes of Barack Obama. Coincidences. Just pure coincidences.
You will agree though that might other comment was spot on won’t you?
Well they knew about 2 of the three factors, didn’t they? And I am sure they were curious as to any possible third factors. After all, I recall hearing plenty about this divorce in the media long before the more juicy details came to light.
And wasn’t this an LA County judge that released the records? Amazing Obama’s tentacles reached so far when he was still just a lowly state senator from a state two time zones away?
More like I am trained to spot BS arguments and spurrious logic.
Friends & associates in high places can move mountains, and reach half way across a country. Rahm “Tiny Dancer” Emanuel’s brother is a Hollywood producer.
chap: fixed it for ya!
chap: Are you not the least bit interested in just where the Obama’s managed to scrape together $3 million after having just purchased a home? If I had that much money in the mattress at home, I would seriously think about doing something other than stuffing it in a bank account where it will draw 3-4%!
Ya see, chapoutier. The data should be analyzed.
First, let’s look at the actual loan. Putting aside the “below average” issue for now. I absolutely care if the loan was a statistical outlier. However, it seems as if the bank/FEC haven’t provided enough data to make that determination.
Second, let’s take a look at the average thing.
Of course there’s nothing fishy about someone hitting above the average.
However, if a trend analysis reveals that 80% of all above average hitters used the same nutritionist, then there could be something there.
I have no problem with a bank trying to offer wealthy buyers discounted loans. However, I do have a problem with a bank offering discounted loans to policy makers. If the other 7 of the 8 (out of 14) discounted loans went to wealthy clients that aren’t in a position to affect policy then I would agree that this is a non-issue.
Chap, don’t you think the way that piece of property adjacent to the Obama’s land was subdivided to reduce its value under the zoning laws, looks too suspicious to have been entirely above board?
My guess would be from the sale of his two best selling books (1.9 million dollar advance, not to mention royalties), not to mention the fact both of them made very good salaries.
1) The book was a best-seller only because there was no other way to find out anything about the man.
2) In spite of the $$$ they were allegedly “earning” they still managed to b!t@h about the price of arugula and paying for their daughter’s piano lessons!
From what I know of the details (which is not much)…it is at least fishy.
That only shows that Bill Ayers is a good ghost writer
Thank you, Corkie, for bringing the crux of the matter to the foref
Thank you. I respect your opinion, regardless of whether I always agree with it or not.
corkie,
I would agree with most of what you have to say, but the bank is not in any position to be simply releasing data on its other borrowers to satisfy Judicial Watch’s curiosity.
The middle is known as the “median”.
The average is also known as the “mean”, which is a statistic that is used to estimate unknown values, and is not necessarily the “middle”.
In the case of the mortgage survey, the probability of observing a given value diminishes relative to its distance from the mean. If, in the sampled mortgage rates, the standard deviation was 0.1 percentage point, then, in rough terms, you’d expect to find about 66% of all mortgages in the (5.93% survey) sample between 5.73 and 6.13.
So, the average, or mean, in this case, does not give us any indication of the probability of observing Obama’s mortgage rate in the population of mortgage rates represented by the sample. The reason is that we’re missing some key information about the shape of the distribution.
What would be interesting is to know something more about the distribution of mortgage rates and estimate the probability of observing a given mortgage rate (say, Obama’s). If it was more than about 2 standard deviations from the mean, you might say that it was an unlikely event, and maybe suspicious. If not, then, well, not.
Sorry to go all technical, but it’s important to try to understand what you can and can’t infer from a sample mean.
Rich people are the cheapest people. This is almost universally true.
Fru,
That was indeed helpful and thank you for correcting my crude math analysis. Curious, do you know what the standard deviation would be on mortgage rates, or were you using that .1% by way of example?
So in other words, we really don’t know if the bank (and therefore) Obama’s loan was shady or not.
I agree that the headline probably should just read, “Questions Still Remain” rather than “Something Appears Shady.” But I certainly wouldn’t agree that there’s definitely nothing wrong.
My pleasure. No, I made up the 0.1% just to illustrate, and really haven’t the slightest idea how mortgage rates would be distributed. My guess is that they would tend to clump around credit-rating strata, and maybe competition would tend to skew them a bit to the left (no political point being made here
, but even then I’m just making $#!+ up.
…and where, exactly, did the $$$ for that come from? Can anyone believe a relatively unknown junior senator other than an annointed one would actually get such a princely sum for scribbling down some words.
BTW, there is a great deal of speculation that a “ghost” was involved, but that’s OK, someone found a way to transfer some wealth to “My Favorite Socialist.”
Now there is a fauxtoshop opportunity — antenna rising up from behind “Uncle Barry’s” head with Joe Biden playing the part of Bill Bixby!
Khalid Abdullah T C Almansour ring any bells?
Actually, that’s not true.
Median is the value of the “middle” data point. It is not the “middle” of all the data points.
Consider the multiset {1, 2, 2, 180, 200}.
The median is 2 in this case, but nobody would consider 2 to be the “middle.” The middle would be considered the 77.
So, I’d say that chapoutier is more correct that most people consider the average to be the “middle.”
I can agree to this. I don’t believe I ever claimed that Obama definitely did not receive and knowingly accepted preferential treatment based on the fact that he is a politician. It just irks me when people are ready to bring out the pitch forks and torches based on an average interest rate.
WRT Obama and the whole Jack Ryan thing…I was reading up on Obama’s first opponent in the Primary, Blair Hull…apparently the reporter that first broke the news about a restraining order filed against Hull by his wife admitted that he was receiving significant pressure from Obama’s guys to pursue the story. While not proof, that Obama did the same wrt Jack Ryan, and certainly not proof that he did anything illegal (though maybe unscrupulous), I will admit that it is compelling evidence and once and for all back off any claims that Obama did as such.
Why would you complain to the FEC about bribery? That should go to the FBI.
Concur. More data is needed prior to bringing out pitch forks.
Maybe, but what politician wouldn’t? Any campaign (R or D) would try to accelerate the release of bad information about their opponents.
I don’t even fault Obama for making a public announcement that the information should be off limits AFTER he knew it was going to be publicly released. I probably would have done the same thing.
Yes, that’s exactly right. So it’s a matter of which “middle” you’re talking about. In the case of your dataset, there was no observed value of “77″, nor was there one even close, so in respect of that dataset, “77″ isn’t a very interesting number.
In your example, you might say the “middle” is also 100.5 (halfway between the minimum and maximum values).
So, your criticism of my point is valid, in that I should have been more precise in saying that the observation with the same (or as near as possible to the same) number of values above it as below it is the median.
However, my larger point is still that you can’t tell much about the relationship of an observation to a population given only the mean of a sample (or, for that matter, even the entire population).
As much as Obama getting a “special” mortgage deal on the basis of some unspecified corruption fits my view of the man, from the data I’ve seen, his mortgage rate isn’t a data point that either supports or contradicts that hypothesis, even given the two samples.
Now, I’m speaking simply on the basis of the samples and the quoted rate. Maybe there’s other evidence, but that’s outside the scope of what my post was about. Your mileage may vary.
Yes, halfway between the minimum and maximum data points is another way to represent the middle. (However, it is often skewed by outliers on both the upper and lower limits – therefore, the minimum and maximum values are often removed prior to finding the halfway point.)
Point taken.
Ironically, rich LEFTISTS are the cheapest people. Conservatives, and Rich conservatives, have recently been statistically shown to be far more generous with charitable contributions than leftists. One need only look at the charitable contributions of the Obama’s, Gore, Clintons, and a few others to demonstrate this point.
As is so often the case, Chappy gets it wrong.
WarEagle, there is a difference between uncharitable and cheap.
And recycle them. BTW, it’s “spurious”. Like all lawyers, you use only the arguments that advance your case, true or not, and ignore or disparage everything else.
He was referring to his clients.
The extra “r” was for “really” spurious.
Lawyers are a strange breed. I once worked for a law firm and helped write some software that evaluated bills.
It turned out that several firms were habitually bad at making even small payments and would run up huge balances for fees.
I would point out that “firm x” owed $1 million in fees and services and hadn’t made any payments in x months. The managing partner would then tell the billing attorney that we should stop performing work for “firm x” until they paid up. At that point, the billing attorney would ALWAYS SAY, “I can’t stop doing work for them! They are our BEST client.”
One time I made the mistake of stating the obvious, “They can’t be your best customer if they don’t pay their bills.” I thought one of the senior attorney’s head was going to explode. The managing partner could barely stop from falling off his chair. It was one of those “priceless” moments.
Only a lawyer could claim a client that never paid his bills could be his “best client.”
Oh, I thought you might be European and rolling your rrrr’s.
No. Only an attorney that has to make so many billable hours a year and is probably not an equity partner.
Oh, yeah, they were almost always equity partners. Several of the worst ones were named partners on the letterhead. Strange breed indeed.
All right. Then they are dumb.
Anyone who sticks up for any politician that gets a sweetheart deal like that has got their eyes closed and their brain turned off.
Heck – if you get a below market rate loan from a family member, much less a bank – the IRS wants you to report it as income.
This is stealing from other taxpayers, essentially. It’s why the IRS goes after people who don’t report income.
Another example of the two-tiered system in the US. There’s the very rich bankers who play for the pull for favorable rules and decisions from politicians, and the politicians who play that game on the other side.
This doesn’t pass the fairness check in any way shape or form.
Note in the prior post – by loan – I’m talking about a home mortgage loan.