What do you think of Powell's endorsement?

[glockmail]

Well as you saw glock I said perhaps in my earlier posting, I really have no way of knowing. Spite though is to do something in defience of or contempt of. So after his being let go as a result of in fighting between the parties I mentioned above I honestly don't see who he is in defience of. As for the contempt part, a case can be made that he might hold Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and Andy Card in contempt. However IMO it's a simple matter of loyality for Gen. Powell. His loyality was in many ways by the DoD taken advantage of and left Gen. Powell with not much of a choice. Does that tend to make a person spiteful? I can't honestly answer that for Gen. Powell I can only go on his record, which has always been one where he was very loyal to those he served under. He also voted for LBJ and at one time was a democrat and then he was an independant up until 1994 until he decided to commit to the Republican Party. He is noted for being very moderate and is not the type to leap into a situation without deep consideration even in warfare. IMHO glock Gen. Powell's choice of Barack Obama is no great suprise and is a result of what I had mentioned in my previous posting. I just don't see this as a spiteful act, given the history of Gen. Powell. I doubt though he holds Don Rumsfeld in very high regard though.

I don't see how a General who came up with the Powell Doctrine could vote endorse a candidate that is known to be weak on defense. I've read your opinion but IMHO it's race, spite or both.

 

[Navy1960]

I don't see how a General who came up with the Powell Doctrine could vote endorse a candidate that is known to be weak on defense. I've read your opinion but IMHO it's race, spite or both.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one glock and honestly I see both of the candidates as more aligned with Powell Doctrine generally. Which basically says that the Military should be used as a last resort, and only when there is a clear exit plan. One more thing that Gen. Powell is noted for is his staunch support for use of mass power when US Forces are committed to battle, "Hit the enemy Hard, and Hit them often, and fast , so that that they never get up again" . A lesson I believe that Gen. Powell took away from Vietnam. This policy was not something that was paid much attention to by the Rumsfeld DoD, in his qwest to fight the war on the cheap. It's a big time issue that I personally have with the DoD run by Rumsfeld, especially in defense appropriations. Thats a complete other story for another thread. However, I respect your opinion, but I must disagree that Gen. Powell did this simply for spite or for racial issues. as that would imply that he is somehow a shallow person. Having seen Gen. Powell in action and from what I know of his long career, this just does not fit with his character.

 

[sealybobo]

The problem with your original argument is that you were trying to play the race card. I want no part of that. If you want to use that as a crutch, use it on somebody else.

Now you're asking me questions about Alan Keyes and JC Watts, and you're brining in the GOP for some reason. I really don't know where you're going with this. Perhaps you can explain.

3 days ago you right wingers said you would have voted for Powell. Now you are accusing him of all kinds of racial things. LOL.

 

[glockmail]

We will have to agree to disagree on this one glock and honestly I see both of the candidates as more aligned with Powell Doctrine generally. Which basically says that the Military should be used as a last resort, and only when there is a clear exit plan. One more thing that Gen. Powell is noted for is his staunch support for use of mass power when US Forces are committed to battle, "Hit the enemy Hard, and Hit them often, and fast , so that that they never get up again" . A lesson I believe that Gen. Powell took away from Vietnam. This policy was not something that was paid much attention to by the Rumsfeld DoD, in his qwest to fight the war on the cheap. It's a big time issue that I personally have with the DoD run by Rumsfeld, especially in defense appropriations. Thats a complete other story for another thread. However, I respect your opinion, but I must disagree that Gen. Powell did this simply for spite or for racial issues. as that would imply that he is somehow a shallow person. Having seen Gen. Powell in action and from what I know of his long career, this just does not fit with his character.

I respect yours as well friend. And I agree that it doesn't fit his character But I don't see any other explanation. I don't see massive force as something that Obama would use. I see him more of Carter II and apparently Biden thinks so as well with his latest bit of truth telling that he is now taking a day off to figure out how to spin it.

 

[xsited1]

3 days ago you right wingers said you would have voted for Powell. Now you are accusing him of all kinds of racial things. LOL.

Now I understand. You have me confused with a right winger. Please find the 'right winger' you were originally referring to and argue with him (or her).

 

[N4mddissent]

Powell was seen as more moderate than most figures in the administration, he was spared many of the attacks that have been leveled at more controversial advocates of the invasion, such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. At times, infighting between the Powell-led State Department, the Rumsfeld-led Defense Department, and Vice President Dick Cheney's office had the effect of paralyzing the administration on crucial issues, such as what actions to take regarding Iran and North Korea.
Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You want to see why Gen. Powell did not endorse John McCain look no further than the relationship between DoD, Andy Card, the Bush Administration and how Gen. Powell was used in that situation. I have ZERO respect for Don Rumsfeld and it does not surpise me whatsoever that Gen. Powell took his loyality elsewhere.

I am glad we agree on our respect for Colin Powell. I honestly hold him in high enough regard that I would question whether he would let the ill-treatment he received from those in the current administration to spill over into his objectivity when choosing which candidate to support. I feel like the moderate Colin Powell is still the moderate Colin Powell and I think that if people would consider the primary campaign, perception, and reputation of John McCain in 2000 when Colin Powell supported him and compare it to the campaign and perception of John McCain 2008 it would be very clear why Powell as a moderate felt he could no longer support his campaign.

 

[dilloduck]

They know he's black .. and liberals give him a pass because of it.

They do the same thing with Rice.

Everyone else who is a Bush insiider be damned.

not entirely true----you can resign, write a "tell-all" book and you will be given a pass also.

 

[N4mddissent]

They know he's black .. and liberals give him a pass because of it.

They do the same thing with Rice.

Everyone else who is a Bush insiider be damned.

I have to say that I find it surprising and a bit offensive that you feel I would base my considerations of Colin Powell or Condi Rice on their race. I have had a great deal of respect for Colin Powell, and after considering a good bit of information about his role and the consequences within the Bush administration have made my judgments on that basis. Several of my posts on this thread discuss my perception of him, and while I feel he must accept some responsibility, I believe to him it is a burden and while it perhaps reduced the regard I hold him in, it did not eliminate it.

As far as Condi Rice, I hold her in no regard whatsoever and feel she is at least as culpable as any other Bush administration official in the mistakes that have been made.

 

[CornbreadOracle]

Now I understand. You have me confused with a right winger. Please find the 'right winger' you were originally referring to and argue with him (or her).

His confusion is understandable. We all look alike.

 

[Striker]

I work with this dumb woman who's a die hard Republican. You should have heard her when her house was being foreclosed. She wanted to be bailed out. Everything she said about her situation was so anti Republican.

I tried to use it to recruit her. She even believed it was predatory lenders that screwed her over. It wasn't a bad decision on her part. So I tried to explain that the GOP disagree with her and the Democrats do want to try to help the homeowners. But she is still voting GOP.

So today she's furious that blacks are voting for Obama ONLY because he's black. I said, "it isn't ONLY because he's black". There are other reasons.

And i tried to tell her that more people are NOT voting for him because he's black than there are people voting for him only because he is black. She is a typical Republican. She doesn't hear a fucking word you say.

So you just write off idiots like her. The funny thing is, she doesn't know the facts either. So she's voting for McCain, just like she did Bush twice.

Even if blacks are voting for Obama because he's black, at least they are voting in their own tax bracket. The GOP cost her her life savings, 401K, home, etc, and she's still going back for more.

Perhaps, if you'd spend less time trying to persuade someone at work who KNOWS SOMETHING and less time spewing the DemoRat's talking points, you'd find time to get a G'damed clue as to who started this crap by mandating welfare mortgages and dangling the prospect of obscene profits AND a guaranteed bailout in front of the same lenders that gave kickbacks to FannyFRANK (pun intended) and Obama bin Laden, YOU would convert and rid yourself of the all too probable possibility of being complicit in the fall of the greatest experiment in personal freedom the World has ever known. This WAS foreseen. Read the following. All of it. Learn. YOUR PARTY CAUSED THIS. STOP THE LIES. And please, don't come back w/ a recitation of all the other ills you percieve the Republicans are guilty of. For once, just TAKE THE DAMNED BLAME AND OWN IT.

Somewhat prophetic article from NY Times (9 years ago)......


New York Times
Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Did you read it? Did you understand it? Hell no. I sincerely hope you personally pay dearly for your malfeasance if you continue on your path to madness. I also hope our Caucasian Children don't pay too dearly or too long for your Treason.

Unite. Now. Before it's too late.

 

[GigiBowman]

I think it just proves that Obama has "very telling ties"

 

[sealybobo]

Perhaps, if you'd spend less time trying to persuade someone at work who KNOWS SOMETHING and less time spewing the DemoRat's talking points, you'd find time to get a G'damed clue as to who started this crap by mandating welfare mortgages and dangling the prospect of obscene profits AND a guaranteed bailout in front of the same lenders that gave kickbacks to FannyFRANK (pun intended) and Obama bin Laden, YOU would convert and rid yourself of the all too probable possibility of being complicit in the fall of the greatest experiment in personal freedom the World has ever known. This WAS foreseen. Read the following. All of it. Learn. YOUR PARTY CAUSED THIS. STOP THE LIES. And please, don't come back w/ a recitation of all the other ills you percieve the Republicans are guilty of. For once, just TAKE THE DAMNED BLAME AND OWN IT.

Somewhat prophetic article from NY Times (9 years ago)......


New York Times
Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Did you read it? Did you understand it? Hell no. I sincerely hope you personally pay dearly for your malfeasance if you continue on your path to madness. I also hope our Caucasian Children don't pay too dearly or too long for your Treason.

Unite. Now. Before it's too late.

See, you just told me not to come back with important facts that would debunk your malarki. But I will anyways. The GOP sent jobs oveseas and cost hundreds of thousands of people their jobs. Fuck that. Millions. Because those manufacturers fed the restaurants and all other local business' and when millions of people lose their jobs, it causes a recession/depression.

The idea that poor people alone were able to crash the global economy is laughable. Your opinions mean nothing. Maybe your lies and propoganda will work again in 2012.

The fact that you idiots didn't even admit there was a crisis makes your opinions now SHIT! I/We've been telling you this was going to happen for 6 years. Jobs going overseas, wages going down, companies letting people go. And the entire time you always came back with, "yea, but did you see the DOW today, it's doing great, my stocks are doing great".

Not you specifically, but your kind. And you expect me to listen to you now? You should have listened to me for the last 8 years.

Just know that you are wrong. About everything. Life, economics, politics, war, social issues. WRONG! And your time is up!

 

[BlackAsCoal]

I have to say that I find it surprising and a bit offensive that you feel I would base my considerations of Colin Powell or Condi Rice on their race. I have had a great deal of respect for Colin Powell, and after considering a good bit of information about his role and the consequences within the Bush administration have made my judgments on that basis. Several of my posts on this thread discuss my perception of him, and while I feel he must accept some responsibility, I believe to him it is a burden and while it perhaps reduced the regard I hold him in, it did not eliminate it.

As far as Condi Rice, I hold her in no regard whatsoever and feel she is at least as culpable as any other Bush administration official in the mistakes that have been made.

I didn't intend to imply that every democrat is the same, but my perception is that Powell gets a pass because he's black .. except in the black community where he gets no such pass.

Powell was a Bush insider who knew the truth of the deception that was costing America in lives, resources, and power. He went to the UN and made the most convincing case for war on evidence he knew was false, redacted, and concocted. That is the truth of Colon Powell .. now if you can make lemonade out of that onion .. which cost American lives .. I don't know what to tell you and I don't have a clue what you base your appreciation of Powell on.

 

[Striker]

See, you just told me not to come back with important facts that would debunk your malarki. But I will anyways. The GOP sent jobs oveseas and cost hundreds of thousands of people their jobs. Fuck that. Millions. Because those manufacturers fed the restaurants and all other local business' and when millions of people lose their jobs, it causes a recession/depression.

The idea that poor people alone were able to crash the global economy is laughable. Your opinions mean nothing. Maybe your lies and propoganda will work again in 2012.

The fact that you idiots didn't even admit there was a crisis makes your opinions now SHIT! I/We've been telling you this was going to happen for 6 years. Jobs going overseas, wages going down, companies letting people go. And the entire time you always came back with, "yea, but did you see the DOW today, it's doing great, my stocks are doing great".

Not you specifically, but your kind. And you expect me to listen to you now? You should have listened to me for the last 8 years.

Just know that you are wrong. About everything. Life, economics, politics, war, social issues. WRONG! And your time is up!

You can't do it can you? You don't have the personal qualities it takes to stay on point and address the facts. You default, by rote, to the talking points Pelosi and Frank and Reid and, (as Louis FarraCON so tellingly called Obama,) 'the Messiah" spoon feeds you. You see it in front of you. You DO see it but you choose to lie.

Can you dispute anything in the Article I posted? Do you dispute the origins of the economic crisis? Do you dispute your own parties leaders? They admit that the housing crisis is the cause of the current troubles. Who was behind this credit giveaway? The Dems. And greedy corporations. Corporations that gave kickbacks to politicians in both parties. But Barney Frank took the most bribe money as Chairman of the Banking Committee, followed closely by the "Messiah." The Dems orchistrated this. They made it ILLEGAL to call employers and verify income for HOME LOANS. INSANE. They covered the crooked corporations butts. And now we pay.

Corruption. Lies. Hypocrisy. That is YOUR kind. Your mouth is full. Swallow. It belongs to YOU.

 

[glockmail]

Now we know the real reason for Powell's turncoat.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Colin Powell will have a role as a top presidential adviser in an Obama administration, the Democratic White House hopeful said Monday.

"He will have a role as one of my advisers," Barack Obama said on NBC's "Today" in an interview aired Monday, a day after Powell, a four-star general and President Bush's former secretary of state, endorsed him.

The Associated Press: Obama: Powell will have a role in adminstration

 

[GigiBowman]

Now we know the real reason for Powell's turncoat.

The Associated Press: Obama: Powell will have a role in adminstration

How much does that job pay? $249,999? lol

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Perhaps, if you'd spend less time trying to persuade someone at work who KNOWS SOMETHING and less time spewing the DemoRat's talking points, you'd find time to get a G'damed clue as to who started this crap by mandating welfare mortgages and dangling the prospect of obscene profits AND a guaranteed bailout in front of the same lenders that gave kickbacks to Fanny[MAE] (SNIP)

Monday, September 22, 2008

The Truth About Minority Home Ownership Initiatives



A new talking point that's rapidly gaining traction in right wing circles is that the root cause of our current financial crisis was the push by Democratic lawmakers to expand home ownership among minorities. Right wing commentators are arguing that these initiatives were reckless and that they led to the large-scale issuing of risky loans, which led us down the road to where we are today. Neil Cavuto made this argument on Fox today, and Pat Buchanan echoed it on Rachel Maddow's show just a moment ago.

Putting aside for a moment the very real racism embedded in this argument, does it even make sense on its own terms? The answer is quite clearly no. And the reason for that is pretty simple. Expanding minority home ownership was a key Republican initiative. It was a central part of the Bush Administration's "Ownership Society." Bush and Cheney ran on it in 2004. Don't believe me? This is from an August 2004
press release that's still on the White House website:

Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America's vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America's Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush's initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:

American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;

Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;

Helping Families Help Themselves. The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and

Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.
​

It's certainly true that there was Democrat support for many of these initiatives, but minority home ownership was a signature Republican issue for virtually the entire Bush administration. Bush called for "broader home ownership, especially among minorities" in his very first State of the Union speech.

And I certainly don't mean to suggest that this was an unworthy goal. The problem, of course, was that the push to expand home ownership was not accompanied by reasonable regulations and safeguards against predatory lending. Expanding home ownership was seen as an end in itself; it didn't seem to matter to the Bush administration that much of the increased ownership was the result of sketchy lenders preying upon vulnerable populations and talking people into taking complicated, expensive loans that they could not afford.

Moreover, it wasn't just the reckless lending that was the problem. It was the deregulated banking environment that allowed for the commoditization and securitization of these loans and the highly leveraged investments in them. Minority and low-income communities were largely the victims of this process and they are the ones paying the highest price right now in terms of home foreclosures. The real irresponsibility was on the part of lawmakers in Washington (during a time when both the White House and Congress were controlled by Republicans) and investors on Wall Street (whom the taxpayers are now being asked to bail out).

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2008/09/truth-about-minority-home-ownership.html



As you can see, it was NOT Democrat6s, it was STRAIGHT UP BUSH. Your nemesis "Frank" was in the minority party at the time this was done.

 

[GigiBowman]

Yeah, well all that proves is that Bush was a Democrat just like I thought! lol

 

[glockmail]

.... it was STRAIGHT UP BUSH. ....

Is Obammy running against him still?

 

[jschuck12001]

I could care less about endorsements!