After much guessing, the on again, almost off again, 2008 Presidential Debate was back on again.
Barack Obama and John McCain squared off in Oxford Mississippi.
The moderator was Jim Lehrer, who has a reputation being tough, and more importantly…fair.
Jim Lehrer once said that he stays humble during debates because before he goes on stage, he looks in the mirror and repeats to himself several times, “This is not about me.”
If only more people in the media had his sense of honor and ethics, the Fourth Estate would not be held in such low esteem.
The debate was supposed to only be about foreign policy, but life is event driven, not topic driven. Therefore, a healthy dose of economics was to be interspersed with global events during this debate.
Before getting to the debate itself, I would like to shamelessly self promote a debate between a pair of gentlemen who will be making the case for their respective candidates. If you are in the Los Angeles area, please check out my debate with this other fellow. Below is the flyer for that event.
FROM LEFT TO RIGHT
TO THE MIDDLE EAST:
A DEBATE ABOUT 2008
FEATURING
RANDY S
DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST
ERIC G
REPUBLICAN BLOGGER
MODERATED BY
BRAD G
JEWISH JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16TH
MEET ‘N GREET: 6:45 PM
DEBATE: 7:15 PM
HOSTED BY:
CHABAD JEWISH STUDENT CENTER @ USC
USC HILLEL
CHABAD @ USC
2713 SEVERANCE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90007
[email protected] FOR DETAILS OR TO RSVP
While I make the case for John McCain and Randy makes the case for Barack Obama, last night the candidates were on their own. Below is my recap of their debate without my surrogacy, although perhaps my analysis will make up for that. I do not expect either of them to provide analysis of my debate with Randy, but time will tell. With that, here is the debate recap.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/drunkblogging-the-first-presidential-debate/
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/26/a-historic-night-the-first-presidential-debate-of-2008/
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/d4dcfc4c-0f20-4580-b9aa-86dc97b3d9a7
They were both asked about the financial crisis. Obama called this “the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.” No, it is not. He said that we have to move “swiftly,” and “wisely.” He spoke of “oversight.” Naturally, he blamed President Bush, and linked him to McCain. It was standard boilerplate.
McCain started by offering prayers for Senator Ted Kennedy. While it was a very gracious thing to do, I personally am getting sick of McCain’s graciousness. It is never returned, and is seen by the left as weakness. Senator Kennedy has nothing nice to say about those on the right, and given how the left treated Jesse Helms, the right should offer nothing towards Senator Kennedy. McCain then spoke about the beauty of “coming together,” which is code for republican surrendering, liberals getting everything they want, and then blaming republicans anyway.
One of the reasons Jim Lehrer is such an excellent moderator is because he wants to get to the meat of the discussion. Realizing that neither man offered much substance in their opening remarks, he firmly asked each of them if they favored the current bailout plan.
Obama danced, saying that he “had not seen the language yet.” He then shifted to how the problem started. He simply does not answer questions. “We did not set up a 21st century regulatory system.” That phrase says nothing.
When asked if he would vote for the plan, McCain said, “I hope so.” He then said “sure.” He then shifted to accountability. “Greed is rewarded, corruption is rewarded.”
Obama agreed with McCain about accountability before bashing Wall Street.
McCain blamed Washington, DC, and Wall Street. McCain also praised the American worker, which sounds nice but means little.
The candidates were then asked how they would solve the financial crisis.
McCain spoke about cutting spending, saying he would “veto every spending bill that crossed his desk.” He then spoke about the 932 million in spending Obama has requested earmarks for.
Obama agreed that spending was out of control, and claimed that he no longer requested earmarks for his home state. He then claimed that McCain would give tax breaks for the wealthy. This was standard class warfare, not breaking any new ground. Obama again claimed that he would cut taxes for 95% of Americans, which would be tough since only 62% of Americans pay any taxes at all.
McCain then pointed out that Obama suspended his earmark requests out of political expediency, and not out of altruism. He also pointed out that Obama was proposing 800 billion in new spending. “The worst thing we can do in this economic climate is raise taxes.”
Obama then interjected, saying that he only wanted to “close loopholes.” That is code for raising taxes. Obama insisted he pays for all of his expenditures on things like health care.
McCain correctly pointed out that the United States has a 35% corporate tax rate, while Ireland has an 11% rate. McCain wants to lower our corporate tax rate, and Obama wishes to raise it. McCain wants to double the dividend “from $3500 to $7000.”
Obama kept agreeing with McCain, but he made a fascinating assertion. He claimed that due to loopholes, American corporations actually pay among the lowest corporate tax rates. This is ludicrous, but fascinating nonetheless. He also claimed that McCain wants to tax health care benefits.
McCain again hammered home that he has tried to control spending while Obama has not. Obama appeared to be holding back laughter at that point. They sparred over tax breaks for oil companies.
Lehrer then asked another hard hitting question. He wanted to know what the candidates would give up if the $700 billion dollar bailout plan was passed. This was a great question because candidates talk about cutting spending, but were now being asked for specifics.
Obama did not answer the question. “It is hard to anticipate what the budget will look like next year.” He then talked about how his energy plan would “free us in 10 years from foreign oil.” This had nothing to do with the question. He mentioned health care and education. He saus we must “invest” in them. Of course when he says invest he means “spend.” He also wants to fix the infrastructure. In fact, the entire answer was about new spending he would enact. The question was what he would cut. He wants to eliminate programs “that don’t work.” Of course, he did not name one.
When McCain mentioned that Obama had the most liberal voting record, Obama again laughed. I am not sure if this will be seena s Al Gore eyeball rolling in 2000 or George W. Bush angry sighing in 2004, but it was a tad obnoxious to me.
As for McCain, he actually listed specifics. He would cut ethanol subsidies, and cost plus contracts at the Defense Department.
Obama could not bring himself to cut anything. He again agreed with McCain, saying that we have to “make some cuts.” He did not offer one tangible cut.
McCain laughed himself when Obama claimed that he was liberal because he needed to counterattack President Bush. Obama claimed to work with conservative Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
McCain then proposed a spending freeze on everthing but defense, Veterans Affairs, and entitlements. The problem is that entitlements are the biggest part of the budget.
Obama stated that a spending freeze “takes a hatchet to what might require a scalpel. There are some programs that are currently underfunded.” He simply does not understand that a machete is needed. He wants to spend more on early childhood education. He wants to spend less on Iraq.
As the discussion tilted towards energy, McCain pointed out that Obama is against drilling. Obama kept laughing, which seemed condescending.
Lehrer then asked the candidates to answer if the current economic climate would even affect their budgets. Obama acknowledged that it required tough decisions, before going into the standard stump speech.
McCain then gave a strong response, saying that he did not want to ‘turn the health care system over to the Federal Government.” He then pointed out that Obama is proposing 800 billion in new spending, and that he could cut spending by canceling some of his own proposals.
Obama then referred to President Bush as “your President.” McCain reaffirmed the maverick credentials of him and Sarah Palin.
The debate then shifted to Iraq. The candidates were asked what the lessons of Iraq were.
McCain reaffirmed his concern with the initial post invasion strategy, before mentioning that he supported General David Petraeus and the surge.
Obama insisted we should not have gone in to Iraq in the first place. Obama keeps insisting how brave he was to stand up and oppose the war. It was not risky because he was not in the Senate at the time. He also insisted that “Al Queda was stringer than at any time since 2001.” This is completely false, but Obama has every right to be wrong.
McCain then pointed out that Obama was against the surge, which Obama claimed “exceeded his wildest expectations.” McCain then hit hard by pointing out that Obama did not go to Iraq for 900 days, and despite chairing a subcommittee dealing with Afghnaistan, never held a hearing.
The best Obama could do was praise his selection of Joe Biden. Obama even said that General Petraeus “has done a brilliant job.” Give Obama credit. He is smooth. He then stated that McCain was wrong about the war about WMD and the initial war.
McCain then pointed out that “Obama does not know the difference between a tactic and a strategy.” McCain reminded the audience that Obama will not admit that we are winning in Iraq. Obama keeps saying that is not true. McCain then pointed out that Obama voted to cut off funding for the troops.
Obama claimed that the funding issue was about a disagreement on a timetable. Obama stated that in 16 months, we should reduce our troops.
McCain mentioned that “Osama Bin Laden and David Petraeus both see Iraq as the central front in the War on Terror.” He pointed out thatr the success of the surge may have succeeded beyond Obama’s expectations, but not his own.
The debate shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan. The candidates were asked if more troops were needed there. More specifically, Mr. Lehrer wanted to know how many troops were needed, and when.
Obama eventually said that he would send 2 to 3 brigades, but other than that mainly carped about Iraq without answering the question. He said that we need to “press” the Afghan government. He did not say what that meant. He also said we need to “deal with Pakistan.” That also was left unexplained.
McCain pointed out that threatening to cut off aid to Pakistan was irresponsible, as was threatening military strikes into Pakistan. This was McCain pointing out that he was the adult in the race by saying, “You don’t do that. You don’t say that out loud.” He also kept reminding America that he has been to these places, and Obama has not.
Obama then dodged the issue, instead going for a rankout contest by criticizing McCain singing the “Bomb Iran” song to the tune of the Beach boys “Barbara Ann.” He stated that America “coddled” Pervez Musharraf. This is an area where Obama is fundamentally wrong. Working with Musharraf was the right thing to do.
McCain then spoke about his long record. It was another reminder of his experience vs the inexperience of Obama. Both candidates then told the obligatory story of the average citizen that agreed with them.
Obama then launched a broadside. “It was not true that you were always concerned about Afghanistan.”
McCain then shot back hard. “If you were that concerned, you would have gone to Afghanistan.” McCain reminded America of the places he has been, that he speaks from actually having been there. When McCain stated that Obama did not understand the situation, Obama laughed again.
Mr. Lehrer then shifted the debate to Iran.
McCain spoke forcefully, saying a nuclear armed Iran is “an existential threat to Israel.” He also added that “We cannot have a second Holocaust.” He again mentioned his “League of Democracies” proposal. He also stated that, “Iran has a lousy government.” He also brought up that Obama voted against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that would have labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Obama insisted that he believed the IRG was a terrorist organization, and always has. This man truly does know how to be for and against everything. He does not get called on it. He stated that we “cannot tolerate” a nuclear armed Iran. He wants more sanctions. Somebody ought to remind him that sanctions failed, and will fail again. Obama also mentioned why we must talk to people.
McCain then reminded the audience that Obama would meet with Armageddonijad “without preconditions. Obama tried to explain that preconditions was not the same as preparation. He would make sure that there were advance preparations. McCain accused Obama of parsing words. McCain emphasized the preconditions, and Obama laughed again.
Then Obama said something that made McCain laugh. “Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. He might not be the right person to talk to.” The Mullahs notwithstanding, this was a way of hiding on Obama’s part. Armageddonijad is absolutely the public face of the country.
Obama criticized the notion that “unless you do what we say, we won’t have direct contacts with you.” I wish McCain had said, “Exactly. Now you get it.” Obama seems to think that laying down tough parameters is a bad thing. Obama called Iran a “rogue regime.” He then admitted that it “may not work.” It is outstanding that Obama concedes that his methods may not work. He also insists that wasting time on a method that does not work will strengthen our position.
Obama blamed the current North Korea problem on our disengagement with them. Actually, it was Bill CLinton and his need to talk everything to death that allowed him to declare dialogue a complete success. North Korea simply violated the agreements they made. Obama alluded to McCain wanting to get tough with Spain.
McCain dismissed the Spain comments, and referred to Iran’s comments about Israel as a “stinking corpse.” He used that to explain that preconditions were required, and that Obama’s views on the subject were “naive and dangerous.”
They sparred over remarks made by Henry Kissinger. Obama was clearly on the defensive, as McCain reminded Kissinger was a 35 year friend of his.
Mr. Lehrer then brought up Russia, and how America should see Russia.
Obama blathered. He said that Russia”s actions in Georgia were “unacceptable” and “unwarranted.” We would “explain” to Russia the right way to behave. I am sure they would listen to us and thank us for the explanation. Obama never actually did say how he viewed Russia. He insisted again that he worked with Richard Lugar on securing loose nuclear warheads. This is sheer fantasy. He did not.
McCain brought up Obama’s reaction to the Russia-Georgia situation. He called Obama’s initial response “naive.” McCain also connected the dots by showing that the situatio between Russia and Georgia had worldwide effects on energy. He also stated that he would admit Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO.
Obama agreed with McCain, but insisted that he was tough from the beginning as well. He claims that he stated that Russia’s actions were “illegal” and “objectionable.” Somebody ought to explain to Mr. Obama that this is why many Americans see the democrats as soft on defense.
Obama then springboarded onto his green agenda, although thankfully he did not use the idiotic phrase “green collar jobs.” Obama explained that we had to “walk the walk, and not just talk the talk.” Perhaps he was referring to himself.
McCain mentioned that Obama is against nuclear power despite his protests to the contrary.
As for Dick Lugar, Obama laughed when McCain claimed that he was the one who supported Nunn-Lugar back in 1990.
Obama seemed very defensive when he actually decided to become the moderator of the debate. He turned to Lehrer and said, “Let’s move on.” He truly believes that any time he is asked a tough question, we should just move on.
The last question dealt with whether the candidates thought there would e another 9/11 type of attack on America.
McCain said that it is “much less than it was after 9/11. We have a much safer nation, but we are not yet safe.” He then again emphasized his bipartisanship on the issue. He also said, “I know our allies, and I can work closely with them.”
Obama again spoke of getting away from Iraq and towards Afghanistan and Pakistan. He also claimed that it is important that we are “perceived in the world” better. He insisted that we are “less respected now.” I wonder who he thinks does not respect us. Perhaps he worries that Iran does not respect us.
Obama laughed for the umpteenth time when McCain said that, “Obama still doesn’t understand,” with regards to the necessity to succeed in Iraq. Specific dates for withdrawal is an area of disagreement among the men.
McCain then firmly stated that he “doesn’t believe that Obama has the knowledge or experience, and that he has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas.” All the platitudes in the world from Obama do not minimize the truth of this statement.
For some reason Obama laughed again when McCain accused him of stubbornly clinging to beliefs, such as the surge not working. McCain also made it clear that Veterans knew that he “loved them and would take care of them.”
McCain ended very strongly by saying, “I don’t need any on the job training. I am ready to go right now.”
Obama then concluded by talking about his father in Kenya, and the 1960s. He mentioned that our standing in the world has slipped. This did not rebut the inexperience issue. He again mentioned education in what was a foreign policy debate.
McCain finished by saying, “I know how to heal the wounds of war. I know how to deal with our adversaries. I know how to deal with our friends.”
On style points, the debate was a draw in the sense that neither candidate landed a knockout blow or made a major gaffe.
I am curious to see if Obama’s constant laughing will be seen as condescending in the same manner that was Al Gore and his rolling eyeballs.
On substance, of course John McCain won. He has plenty, and Obama has none.
Yet image does matter, and despite being unable to offer anything tangible, Obama evades very well. He offers nothing, but makes it seem like he is actually saying something.
As expected, Jim Lehrer did an excellent job. He remains a first class moderator. He struck the balance of being tough but remaining polite, and not making himself the focus.
Obama comes across as a cerebral academic professor, which is what he was. He remains cool and detached.
This debate probably changed few minds. However, one positive was that it did deal with issues, and did not spend time on nonsense. I again give Jim Lehrer credit.
The answers were sometimes lacking, especially by Obama, but the questions were substantive.
This was a good debate about issues that mattered.
eric
Eric
I watched this Video “Burning Down the House, What Caused the Economic Crisis. I viewed the debate a whole lot differently then I would have if I had not watched this first.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH–o
Burning Down the House, What Caused the Economic Crisis.
Everyone should watch this video, and pass it around it needs to go viral. When I watched the debates last night, I had watched this video earlier it made me view the debates in a whole new light. The MSM reporting what has happening with Wallstreet right now but they are not reporting on how we got there. Why is that? Well a bunch of those networks are in the tank for Obama. What you are not being told and why.
I posted the link in the last post above this one.
http://www.youtube.c…
On the economy and domestics it was a toss up.
On foreign affairs Obama got his a$$ handed to him.
McCain definitley had Obama on the run a couple of times when it came to the middle east. Stammering, stuttering and interupting along with head shaking, dirty looks and that smug laughter are clear signs of discomfort.
What most people didnt catch was the self contradiction in his saying at first that Iraq and Afghanistan were separate issues and a minute or two later said they were not.
I’m going to watch it again today and get the details but it was at that point my wife and I looked at each other simultaneously and had that “WTF?” look on our faces.
Obama mostly said what we need to do.
McCain said what he has done and would do more often than not.
Its pretty clear that with McCain at least we can tell by past accomplishments what we are getting.
Obama is just too vague in being able to present any past accomplishments that would drive me to support him.
If I were a liberal
It is soooooooooo good to see a conservative complimenting the great newsman, Jim Lehrer. The NewsHour has been the finest news program on the tube for 25 years and looks to continue as such for the foreseeable future. If only more news programs were of such depth and quality.
As for the debate, well, let’s just day I’ve lost all faith in John McCain. Is endless repetitive stump speaking, his cocky nervous laugh, his endless repetitive “Obama doesn’t understand” sleaze, his outright lies… Disgusting. McCain probably beat the heck out of Obama politically, but on substance, to anyone who’s educated and knowledgable on the subjects covered, McCain showed himself to have sold his soul and country for the presidency and lied through his teeth through the entire debate. I have lost all faith in this man.
This isn’t new either. McCain was caught in lies all throughout the primaries as well. He has carried this on steadfastly into the generals. It would be excusable if it was just once or twice, or even a few times, and McCain corrected himself and apologized, or explained that a staffmember mislead him or such. But no. His lying has become a relentless constant in his camplain.
John McCain is a LIAR. I don’t care if he was a POW, he has shown himself to be a man of very little character. There’s no natural law I know of that prevents liars from being POWs, and from what I understand about American politics, being a liar is a prime-requisite.
I will post a list of McCain’s lies on my blog, because there’s too many to list here. Suffice to say, he lied about Obama (Obama is not proposing nor has voted to raise taxes on the vast majority of Americans), he lied about himself (he wasn’t even in congress when Reagan sent the marines into Lebanon), and he lied about the nation (Freddie and Fannie most definately did NOT cause this financial crisis).
John McCain is a liar.
JMJ
Laree, why are you passing around that racist propaganda? You know that’s not true. The mortgage meltdown was a result of deregulation of the market. If it was Carters fault, the meltdown would have happened years ago. Don’t you know when most of the failed mortgages were made? Hint: during the term of the one-party GOP state. You really shouldn’t pass around these racist lies. They’ll make you look really, really bad.
JMJ
Jersey.
You’re becoming very predictable and boring.
The meltdown was in good part due to those who bought more house than they could afford.
You called me a racist on the same issue a few days ago.
It is not RACIST to point out that most of those borrowers were oif a minority, so knock off the baiting.
It makes you look desperate and sleazy
Micky, I’m not calling anyone a racist. All I’m saying is that this sleazy rumor that’s being passed around the rightwing is racist and a lie.
JMJ
There has to be a racist and racism behind racist lies Jersey.
And that source is people. Which means you are calling someone a racist
Please, lets not start insulting my intelligence again.
We both know the tricks of the trade and how to call somebody something without directly saying it.
Dont try the semantic BS with me, I’ve come too far and am too smart with too much street sense to be BS`d like that
I would imagine this rumor originated from a racist or racists, yes. I first heard this rumor abourt a year ago from callers on C-Span. Though thoroughly debunked, the rumors continue to this day – such is the internet. People fell for it, I imagine, because it plays into their prejudices and/or polititical philosophies (black people are all lazy and uncreditworthy, most welfare staters are minorities, community reinvestment is socialism, and other such untruths).
JMJ
The fact of the matter is that minorities contributed the most to these unpaid mortgages.
Sorry if you cant swallow that pill, but its just that way.
That doesnt make someone a racist for pointing it out.
Micky, I haven’t seen this video, but from what I am reading here, I”m getting a bad feeling about it. Does it actually lay the reason for the mortgage crisis at the FEET of one race?! If not, then the accusation of racism is coming from the beholder, and he owns that problem.
My understanding is the policies that set the table for this were initiated in Democrat administrations, and then every attempt to fix the situation made by any of the Republican administrations -particularly this one – was given the cold shoulder by the Democrats in congress.
But no matter WHO did it, the simple FACT remains….you cannot cure the illness by treating the symptoms. You must attack the source. The actual need here is to OBJECTIVELY see how this happened REGARDLESS of what partisan action brought it on, IF ANY! There are realities of what works and doesn’t work in economics, no matter who initiates it, or doesn’t. I don’t CARE who did it, frankly. I am SICK TO DEATH of the good of the country being sacrificed on the alter of partisan power.
In my humble opinion, having to REAP what has been SOWN here, is VERY instructive of what works and doesn’t. The whole partisan finger pointing is no longer just embarrassing, tedious and counterproductive. At THIS point, WE the taxpayers and the financial community are about to be sacrificed on the selfish alter of their power plays.
If our current political system has twisted the founders vision of our republic to this PETTY abomination of POWER lust, then its time to find another system. As it is, WE THE PEOPLE are being held HOSTAGE!!!
“The fact of the matter is that minorities contributed the most to these unpaid mortgages.”
Really? And where’d ya’ get that from, Micky?
JMJ
HEy, Carole – what was that all about?
JMJ
Jersey, I’m not your monkey.
We had a debate on this subject a few days ago.
Go back in the archives.
No Carole, its not at the feet of one race.
Popular belief is that Freddie and Fanny were motivated to give loans to people of lower income brackets, thats what they do.
Unfortunatly most of those people, the majority, as we all know are minorities.
I am not blaming this solely on the people or Freddie and Fanny.
But there was a lot of un accountabiblity going on amongst all 3.
Bush got in front of the whole nation and basically said this was where the problem originated.
But everyone is getting hosed who even brings up the fact that the majority of foreclosures are coming from minorities.
Middle income and rich white people dont go to Fanny and Freddie.
For anyone who would care to see what I have to say about this without me having to thru this all over again heres the link.
https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/09/wall-street-yes-to-moral-hazard-no-more-bailouts-ever/#comments
I discussed this a few days ago. Not the video, but the crux the whole situation.
As far as the video goes, so far it makes sense.
I’ll have to take the time to look at the whole thing.
But just the beggining of it is right in line wth what I was saying at the link to the other days debate;
“I dont need anymore proof when its evident that the whole purpose behind Freddy and Fanny was to cater to those who have a harder than average time getting into a house.
Which as a fact are minorities which as a fact are more prone to financial difficulty which as a fact are more tempted to take a deal thats too good to be true.
The fed was obligated to help Fanny and Freddy since it was the fed who initiated the whole institution with the purpose of helping less fortunates.
But, you cant sit there and accuse me of supporting what you think is not true when at the same time you come out and say that its “rumored” that F&F were being prejudiced because the GOP was pulling the strings ?
Is that accurate ?
I mean jeez, you even said yourself it was a rumor.
I dont think its too far a stretch to think that the fed said “well, we know this caliber of client is risky, but go ahead anyway. If your bottom falls out we’ll help you”
And its most certainly not racist !
That accusation by you guys is getting awfully thin and weak and only creates problems for the left as race mongers.
Lets not forget that I’m well aware of poor white folks who are subjected to many of the same problems as minorities.
Its just a fact that most of the failures are within minority households and communities.
Sadly, because still, thats where the majority of poverty and lower incomes reside.
So spare me the race crap. I’m just dealing with the facts.
[…] I guess a lot of people do (Malkin even called it “a historic […]
Micky, I’m asking you an honest question. After reading your prior post, I scoured the net for stats on just what is the demogrprahic breakdown of the foreclosures. Not only could I not confirm or disprove your statement – I couldn’t find ANY demographic stats whatsoever that included a racial breakdown of the foreclosures. Sure, I found some stats that showed the minorities and working class whites were disproportionately hit by the crisis (surprise, surprise – the poorer you are the less cresit the banks give you, the higher the interest rates on your loans – the standard misguided vicious cycle of poverty in American) but I was completely unable to find exactly what they were disproportionate to!
So, please, really, where do you get that from???
And you never have shown any proof whatsoever. You guys just have theorized that because of acts like Fair Housing and Community Reinvestment – neither of which demand high interest rates or loans to the uncreditworthy – small community banks (which wouldn’t even exist without these acts) were somehow forced by the government to give bad loans. You never discuss the hit-n-run closings, bundlings and securitizations. You never mention the fact that it’s the big banks who’ve been most affected – not the small community banks (besides, would you rather go back to the days of Redlining? It’s a racist argument no matter how you look at it). Everything about your theory smacks of racism and classism – blaming the working class for the follies of the wealthy. Sycophancy of the wealthy and scapegoating of the poor – typical conservative cognitive dissonance in action.
JMJ
http://perfunction.typepad.com/perfunction/2008/09/us-deploys-troo.html
The US has deployed troops to Israel I do think this is in Response to Iran – and it’s many threats to Israel and America.
Its called common sense.
In your case maybe a lack of cognitive dissonance.
Narrow your search down to poverty lines.
Ya know, the people with the least money are the ones who have trouble paying bills ?
Yup, this is how libs bail themselves out of a pointed intelligent debate.
They call common knowledge racism.
You guys cant have it both ways.
The left has always been crying about how oppressed minorities are and how the country is just bubbling over with them
But when we point out their failures due to that oppresion we are called racist.
Freddie and Fanny were given incentive to cater to lower income families and singles.
That incentive was the premise that if these clients failed in their obligations the fed would back Freddy and Fannie.
Well guess what ?
To point out that the majority of our poverty stricken or lower income families are that of color is not racist.
To point out that the majority of foreclosures would be coming from that majority is not something that really needs to be documented if you can put 2 and 2 together.
get with reality bro.
But here, I’ll oblige you anyway.
http://www.hispanictips.com/2006/02/22/report-minorities-hit-hard-by-home-foreclosures/
“The New York Times reports that the rate of black home ownership fell slightly in 2005, to 48.8 percent, from 49.7 percent in 2004, and that some studies suggest that an increase in home foreclosures for minority borrowers could be a reason.
It also reported that home foreclosures among minority homeowners could rise further in coming years due to rising interest rates and the greater use of so-called subprime loans, which charge a higher interest rate, by those borrowers.”
I’ll do this one link per post so Eric doesnt have to do a bunch of moderating.
http://dismalist.wordpress.com/2008/01/06/african-american-foreclosures-and-the-current-mortgage-crisis-coincidence/
“But what it is NOT, and should not be called, is racism, and I hope it doesn’t come down to that. A lack of education about the process, perhaps. I’m sure thre are cases of real estate professionals taking advantage of minorities who were just trying to achieve the American Dream. However, for a racial component to exist, you have to assume that all or most real estate professionals are non-minority…which is definitely not the case in PG County. This is simply a case of economic forces at work, working against households who are not aligned with the realities of today. “
http://www.foreclosuredataonline.com/blog/sub-prime-mortgages/were-foreclosed-sub-prime-mortgages-targeted-to-minorities/
Some statistics seem to bear out this minority-targeting assumption. For one thing, Blacks were 2-3 times more likely to get high-cost loans than Whites were. Asians ran a close second, followed by Hispanics. FHA data shows that neighborhoods where the majority of residents have lower credit scores also had a greater concentration of high-cost loans. Other facts show that the biggest lenders in minority neighborhoods were those that dealt only in sub prime loans, while full-service banks that offer a full range of mortgage loans tend to locate where they can expect the greatest number of deposits, so they have few branches near to minority areas .
That ought to be enough to prove that I’n not talking out of my arse or being racist.
Micky, I don’t think you understand the F&F business model (like that liar, John McCain). Fannie and Freddie do not originate loans. They purchase loans from loan originators (private banks and lenders), turns them into securities, and sells them on what they call the “secondary mortgage market” (the market you guys are gullible enough to blame for all this mess rather than the lenders who should know better). That sleazy idiot, John McCain, makes the same mistake of blaming F&F for loans that they did not originate in the first place. F&F are there to prevent collapses by removing faulty loans from the marketplace. The reason F&F had to be bailed out (and only a small portion of the total bailouts have gone their way) is because the private banks and lenders were making extremely bad loans and no one was watching them – the Bush regulators, like every other Bush administration worker, failed at their job. If I were you, I’d look up F&F and actually learn what you’re trying to talk about.
AND YOUR LINKS PROVE NOTHING. There are no comparisons between demographics, just the facts we all already could have easily and confidently assumed – minorities and working class whites are hit harder by the failure than the wealthy and middle class whites. You have shown NO DATA WAHTSOEVER that “The fact of the matter is that minorities contributed the most to these unpaid mortgages.” Either you’re lying, just making things up, do not know how to read statistics, or are just repeating a racist lie. WHich is it, Micky?
Look. I know what it is – you canservatives can not be man enough to admit that your heros of capitalism turned out to be LYING, CROOKED, CRIMINAL, THEIVES nad that your heros in the GOP are all APPEASERS OF CRIMINALS.
JMJ
Stop spining jersey by starting to insult peoples understanding of the system.
Freddie and Fanny are at the heart of this matter.
“is because the private banks and lenders were making extremely bad loans and no one was watching them -”
yea ! And they bought those crappy loans.
My links prove that it is not racist to put the attention on minorities.
That is what your original beef was all about.
Now, since I have made it clear that minorities are the ones who owe on most of these bad mortgages you would like to try and switch to something else.
“Either you’re lying, just making things up, do not know how to read statistics, or are just repeating a racist lie. WHich is it, Micky?”
The links are from reputable realtors who have reputable data, but of course from the sound of it you wewre as disengenuous as ever and didnt even read it.
“”Some statistics seem to bear out this minority-targeting assumption. For one thing, Blacks were 2-3 times more likely to get high-cost loans than Whites were. Asians ran a close second, followed by Hispanics. FHA data shows that neighborhoods where the majority of residents have lower credit scores also had a greater concentration of high-cost loans.””
FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY DATA JERSEY!!!!!
Go read the info and stop being such a blowhard and use your head.
lower income people are the ones who were sucked into these loans.
Lower income people have a harder time making ends meet and paying their bills.
Minorities are the majority of lower income Americans.
Tell me. what is racist about that ?
Tell me ?
Dear ole buddy.
YOU !! Are the one making claims of racism on my part.
Hence, you must be the one to do the proving, not me.
“minorities and working class whites are hit harder by the failure than the wealthy and middle class whites.”
Gee, I wonder why ?
JMJ;
“I would imagine this rumor originated from a racist or racists, yes. ”
I am one of the people you are accusing of spreading this so called rumor which is basically just a fact.
————————————————————————————-
“Across the nation, black and Hispanic borrowers helped fuel a multiyear housing boom, accounting for 49% of the increase in homeowners from 1995 to 2005, says Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. But Hispanics and African-Americans were far more likely to leverage the American dream with subprime loans — higher-cost products for buyers with impaired credit — that are now going bad at an alarming rate.
About 46% of Hispanics and 55% of blacks who took out purchase mortgages in 2005 got higher-cost loans, compared with about 17% of whites and Asians, according to Federal Reserve data. The South Side of Chicago, with a large concentration of minority borrowers, has a high concentration of subprime loans and the state’s highest foreclosure rate. In Boston, where defaults are rising — especially in minority areas — 73% of high-income black buyers (those making $92,000 to $152,000) and 70% of high-income Hispanics had subprime loans in 2005, compared with 17% of whites.
Concentrated foreclosures in minority neighborhoods could reduce property values. The NAACP, National Council of La Raza and other civil rights groups recently called for a six-month moratorium on subprime home foreclosures. Problems are centered on subprime borrowers who took out adjustable-rate mortgages, which are now resetting at higher rates, increasing the monthly payments.
Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies
Federal Reserve data.
NAACP.
These sources are reputable jersey and a lot more than anything you have come up with to disprove me
“Now, since I have made it clear that minorities are the ones who owe on most of these bad mortgages you would like to try and switch to something else.”
Okay, that it. You’re lying. You still have shown no proof that most of the foreclosures came from minority borrowers. All you’ve done is hypothesized what you obviously want to believe by extrapolation. Blacks only make up about 12% of the popluation and roughly half of them live in their own homes. Hispanics make up about 15% of the population and roughly half of them own their own homes. Blacks average about 3 persons per household and hispanics average about 3.5. Now, looking at this conservatively (ignoring the probability that homeowners probably have smaller families, a typical symptom of the middle classism), figuring the opoulation of the US at 300,000,000, that means that there are roughly 12 million black homeowners and about 13 million hispanic homeowners. That’s 25,000,000 homeowners out of about 122,000,000 homeowners – roughly 20% of homeowners. Now, even if these minorities are twice as likely to default, they would have to be FIVE TIMES as likely to default to equal the number of likely defaults among non-blacks and non-latinos.
Are you following me here, or is math not your thing? (It’s one of my things, ya’ know.)
Now, from what I understand, race is not a filing requirement for foreclusore, therefore there may be no way to ever know just how many of the foreclosures come from minorities, and Lord knows the Bush administartion (standard GOP MO) doesn’t like to keep track of racial demographics. But let’s just say that most of the foreclosures are from minorities – what does that say to you? Minorities are less creditworthy? Less trustworthy? Are minorites more suspetable to the urge to overextend? What exactly are you trying to say about minorities?
Care to retract yet?
JMJ
“Okay, that it. You’re lying. ”
No I’m not.
You just dont want to deal with the truth.
Its all right there coming from good sources.
Most poor people are minorities.
get over it.
Hmmm…
you asked for data and facts, I give you links and sources., you call me a racist liar and yet you have nothing still to back up any of your claims or assertions.
O.K Jersey.
I’ll take your word for it.
Cuz thats all you ever have anyway
Gotta keep racism alive so you guys can get that minority vote ?
Right ?
So, in order to accoplish this you must scream racism at every convenience or slight mention of etnicity.
Micky, please top stating untruths. None of links say that minorities represent most foreclosures. You do know that, right? All they say is that minorities are disproportionately hit by the crisis. (Duh.) That’s it. Blacks and hispanics own only about 1/5 of the mortgages in America (and I’m sure the number is even lower). This means, they would have to be five times as likely as whites to foreclose just to match the number of foreclusres by whites. Do you really believe that these minorities are five times as likely as whites to foreclose? Just what do you think of hispanics and blacks? What is it with you guys? I mean, I would agree with you if you were to say that there is a culture of “soft-redlining” out there whereby minorities get higher interest rates from lenders than do whites as a genneral rule and that is yet more proof of the sereverity of institutional racism that is alive and well still in America today. But if you’re saying that blacks and hispanics deserve that treatment, then what does that say about you?
I think I proved my points here, Micky. All if them.
JMJ
“Micky, please top stating untruths. None of links say that minorities represent most foreclosures. You do know that, right? All they say is that minorities are disproportionately hit by the crisis. (Duh.) ”
Look, that says what I’ve been saying but now you would like to go back your little tricks by engaging in sematics.
“disproportionately”?
Yea, go “DUH” yourself.
I do know what it says because I actually searched for and read them.
That is much more than what you have accomplished so far other than the same ole “take my word for it” tactics.
Your stating the proportiosn of Black and hispanic home ownership is an innaccurate red herring as minorities are more than just the black man.
You’re spinning again because thats all you’ve got. And you have failed to realize that my sources show that there are lower income whites involved also. But the majority of these foreclosures are on minorities.
Get used to it, its not racism on my part just to point out the obvious
You and the party you are voting for make me ill.
You propel false accusations of racism and propoel intentional victimization at the hands of it just so you can convince these people on a regular basis that they are oppresed only so you can promise entitlements in exchage for votes.
Its much like slavery was except you are just using them for a different purpose now.
I never said anyone deserved anything. Please show me where I said that.
You proved nothing but the fact that you dont agree with me
Micky, you’re beat.
“The fact of the matter is that minorities contributed the most to these unpaid mortgages.”
Lie.
“Unfortunatly most of those people, the majority, as we all know are minorities.”
“Most poor people are minorities.”
Lie. (Most are white) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104520.html
(Notice the poverty rates are higher in the Red States…)
You lied all over the place here. I think you have a personal probalem with certain minorities.
JMJ
All your link states is the poverty rates.
It does not describe the foreclosure rates for these minorities.
Sorry man, way off the mark.
The point is that most of this happened because freddie and fanny were given incentive to cater to lower income households. The majortiy of which were minorities.
This is made crystal clear in my sources.
You dont like it, thats your problem.
Calling me a racist is just a cheap disgusting underhanded ugly way to shift the blame from what was an example of how entitlement minded procedures are bankrupting this country.
Right now our government has issued the largest implementatuion of socialism I have ever seen as a result of wealth redistribution incentivised by the government thru guarnateeing institutions bail outs in case of failure.
They gave fanny and freddy license to buy up all these failed mortgages no matter who or what small bank issued them.
I have a problem with certain minorities ?
Hardly, how far up did you have to reach to pull that one out ?
I have a problem with bailing those out that dont take the brunt of there actions with personal responsabiblity and approach them with honesty.
I have the same sentiments for all the whites that knowingly took loans they knew they could not afford simply hoping to turn the property before the inevitable happened or counting on the fed to bail them out when that time comes.
It shows an incredible sense of contempt and childish anger to call someone a racist off the cuff simply because you are pointing out how a majority of minorities have become vitims of their own greed, lack of education, info, swindling flim flam loan officers anfd institutions breeding false hopes.
Give it a rest, you look more dumb than you claim me to be racist
I’m still trying to figure out how Obama is rated even or ahead of McCain on the economics part. I honestly don’t understand. When Jim asked, “What will you cut?” Obama said “I will spend more on…” and McCain gave specifics. The best he can do is cut funding for Iraq. I don’t understand why no one told him it’s a bad idea to call your ally cheap bastards who should be spending their money on our troops. Sure, I think it’s a great idea, but maybe they want to repair the stuff the terrorists keep blowing up, increase the size of their police and national guard, and generally get into the latter half of the 20th century where national infrastructure is concerned. We go in, blow up all the hidey holes where Saddam and the terrorists are, then the terrorists try to blow up everything else, and Obama says the Iraqis aren’t displaying their appreciation enough with money. Dude. We’re doing this for principles, not money. If it was a money issue we would have taken ownership of the oil pipelines to give credence to the lie “war for oil”.
There were some definite style points Obama had in his favor. He knew people at home were listening so he talked to the camera part of the time. He looked at McCain when answering. McCain seemed too nervous to look at his opponent and had that nervous laugh. He was best when he got serious. Obama seemed deferential to the rules and moderator’s call to end debate at certain times. Fine. Obama wins on style. Everyone knew that going in. But his answers were by and large so vapid or uselessly argumentative. Dodge the question and blame the other guy. I wish someone had pointed out this is exactly the SAME political stunt that has been used forever. He’s the SAME kind of politician as all the others who run for office. His policies are more of the SAME kind of leftist methods to raise taxes and spending regardless of the circumstances. The only thing different about him is his skin color and who cares about that? It’s the policies, not the pigment of the politician that are important. His policy positions are bad drenched in honeyed words. Hire more federal government, spend more taxes, charge more for businesses to exist in the US. These are bad ideas.
I actually like some of Obama’s ideas, though. Putting government info that should be available to the public out on the net? Good. Trying to get the differing departmental computer systems able to share information? Good. I appreciate a lot of Obama’s technological ideas, but those are methods or, if you will, tactics. His strategy of increasing the size of the government is bad. It’s even worse than Bush’s increase of government because at least Bush tried to fix Social Security by allowing me to invest part of my retirement money before the feds spend it all and then tell me I have nothing. Obama has no similar plans. It sounds like Bush spending on steroids with a winning smile and the slogan “Change You Can Trust”. Nope. Not buying. It’s the SAME old SAME old. Or event the same recent. Don’t want Washington to have more money. I want them to spend less.
Well. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.