The Thirty Year Itch
Things said by Charles Krauthammer are generally not true, and today’s edition in which he once again busts out the old “blame the CRA” theory of the financial crisis is no truer:
For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That’s called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity.
See Robert Gordon for a thorough debunking in great detail. But just think about the chronology — the Community Reinvestment Act passed in 1977. By contrast, the current problem didn’t exist ten years ago at all. Or to remove considerations of partisanship, it didn’t exist twenty years ago either. That’s because it wasn’t caused by policy shifts undertaken in the late 1970s. This is, I would think, completely obvious.
Meanwhile, even if you believe that Jimmy Carter’s Time Machine suddenly forced bad loans into existence in 2006, did Carter really force financial services firms to make highly leveraged bets on complicated derivatives of mortgage-backed securities? Really?
55 Responses to “The Thirty Year Itch”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 26th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
You gotta love the Republicans. They’ll blame black people for everything.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Well, there is more to the CRA than the passage of the CRA in 1977. For instance, how performance in meeting CRA goalposts was used in bank merger review changed over time, as did the regulatory and competitive environment for banking in general, which affected how banks responded to these bank merger review standards. CRA provisions enforced and promoted one way in one economic context have different effects than CRA provisions enforced and promoted a different way in another economic context. Somebody ought to research this. But just pointing out that the CRA passed in 1977 doesn’t do the job, any more than pointing out that the National Security Act passed in 1947 suggests noting about our national security policy has changed since then.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
You know, everyone is running around now saying that Negroes caused the current financial crisis. And that is totally not true. It’s the Jews that did it.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Sarah, are you Donny’s daughter?
September 26th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
When Repiglicans have nothing left they reveal the deep ugliness and moral vacuity of their “characters.” The days between now and Election Day will look like the KKK and the Know-Nothings are having a big joint rally.
Anyone who ever actually worked in the mortgage industry knows how little the CRA affects the business. Krauthammer is a clueless party hack. He should go back to supporting torture and pointless war instead of adding another field of ignorance to his record.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
It used to be that they traced every economic up-turn to a Republican tax cut, and every economic down-turn to a Democratic tax increase, no matter how far back they had to go. (So the 90’s were the Reagan Boom, part 2, for instance.) It’s nice to see them at least branching out a bit.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Blacks and other minorities didn’t just cause the current crisis, they also caused WaMu to fail. At least, that’s what I read in the National Review!
September 26th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Has anyone asked the black Republican how he feels about these accusations?
September 26th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
You’ve been keeping tabs on Governor Palin’s church, I see.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
This idea that minorities and poor people caused the collapse reminds me of the 1980s “historians’ debate” in Germany, when Nolte and Hillgruber claimed that Bolshevism (Jewish, of course) made Hitler do it.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Krauthammer’s article is the most disdainful thing I’ve ever read. I marvel how conservatives/Republicans can get away with accusing liberals of being elitist. To CK, the public is the irrational, violent Mob:
“The mob is agitated, but hardly blameless. While the punch bowl — Alan Greenspan’s extremely low post-9/11 interest rates — was being held out, few complained about cheap loans and doubling home values. Now all of the sudden everything is the fault of Wall Street malfeasance.
…
“Capping executive pay is piffle. What we need are a few exemplary hangings. Public hangings. On television. Pick a few failed investment firms, lead their CEOs in chains through the canyons of Manhattan and give the mob satisfaction. Better still, precede the auto-da-fe — fire is highly telegenic — with 24-hour reality-TV coverage of their recantations, lamentations and final visits with the soon-to-be widowed. The ratings would dwarf “American Idol,” and the ad revenue alone would make the perfect down payment on the $700 billion.”
When it’s politically expedient, you use the rhetorical device of flattering the public and playing on its perceptions of an elite “other” that you’ve targeted, or you portray it as the irrational and stupid mob, and actually being the elite you always were.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
how performance in meeting CRA goalposts was used in bank merger review changed over time…Somebody ought to research this.
Somebody has. They found out blaming the CRA is stupid.
CRA banks were giving a minority of the home loans in these communities in the past 5 years, and the loans they were giving were much better looking (ie, fairer and less likely to cause default) than the ones other brokers were giving.
Also, CRA lenders were HANGING ON to their loans, like a traditional bank does. Not like the fly-by-night mortgage brokers giving NINJA and liars’ loans, whose entire business model was based on issuance fees, and offloading the risk to Wall Street in CDO-type instruments. So, CRA lenders wanted loans that could be repaid–not like the fly by night guys.
Oh, and also, banks had LESS incentive to make CRA loans than in years prior because they were merging less. And George Bush was president. He was notably worse on leaning hard on business to help out poor people than Clinton was.
So it’s bullshit to suggest CRA is behind this. Utter and total bullshit.
Ugh, and Fannie and Freddie got into subprime AFTER everyone else did! YEARS LATER! Everyone else was making a killing, so they jumped in, too. How can they have caused the creation of a subprime market that had existed and grown for years?
September 26th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Sarah is correct — in medieval times, Jews pioneered the practice of providing people with money in exchange for future repayment with interest. That’s called lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&scp=1&sq=september%201999%20fannie%20mae&st=cse
You could always blame Clinton.
New York Times
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
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.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
MoeLarryAndJesus:
Cluelessness was part of Craphammer’s stock and trade when he was supporting torture and war.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Calvin tells me: “MoeLarryAndJesus:
Cluelessness was part of Craphammer’s stock and trade when he was supporting torture and war.”
Oh, I know. Which is why I love the start of Matt’s piece: “Things said by Charles Krauthammer are generally not true.”
That should be tattooed on CK’s forehead.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Of course CRA is the culprit. It’s well known that it was a virus designed by Carter to remain dormant until George W. Bush was in office.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Also, it was the fault of that swimming pool that Krauthammer’s in a wheelchair.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Like “Objects in mirror are closer than they appear”?
September 26th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Then there is George Bush’s “The Ownership Society” launched in Oct. 2002 urging subprime lending so we all can be homeowners.
September 26th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Shorter Yglesias
Dr. Krauthammer is a fucking lying sack of shit.
September 26th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
You’re just not hip to these crises simmer, man! The decisions made by the current President will not be felt until long after we’re all dead and buried. The decisions by Clinton resulted in the recession just as Bush took office, the attacks against this country on 9/11, the anthrax attacks, hurricanes Katrina and Ike, and this financial crisis. The much vaunted Clinton economic boom was actually the result of Reagan and Bush’s bold leadership. The problems with the skyrocketing deficit during Reagan’s administration, two words, Jimmy Carter.
September 26th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
You obviously don’t understand the insidious nature of the Liberal Disease, Matthew. It SEEPS into the marketplace , like water flowing through the hull plates of the Titantic.
Its burdensome pull slowly growing.
Until with a giant sucking sound, the ass end of the Great Ship of State rises up into the air and then slides beneath the waves forever.
The seagoin’ life be a hard one, but I’d have no other.
September 26th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
“Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the “tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, “has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.”
And who is it that would eventually purchase those loans from the independent mortgage companies?…You guessed it, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They created another market for giving out these terrible loans.
Honestly, this is too easy. He’s correct that this wasn’t entirely the doing of the CRA, but it was a factor as was Fannie and Freddie, as was regulations…as was lack of regulations, etc. etc. etc. The reality is that much, if not all of the blame rests with the individuals that took out mortgages thinking that they could pay for them–and ended up defaulting. While there are certainly some tough circumstances out there and a bit of bad luck, there is far more blame to be assessed to the irresponsibility of Americans across the nation.
That being said, it’s time to get a plan together and stabilize things, we’ll have plenty of time to assess blame.
September 26th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
fletc3her makes a good point…. those Truman tax policies are just killing us.
September 26th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Rep. Michele Bachmann (one of the earliest, and press-conference friendly, renegade Republicans on the $700 billion) got an Op-Ed in today’s Minneapolis dainly, the Star Tribune, also trotting out the CRA nonsense.
Thanks for your post. I’ll draft a Letter to the Ed with some of the debunk!!
September 26th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
While that is most certainly true, no one could have had an irresponsible mortgage if so many lenders weren’t willing to trash their underwriting standards in an effort to make money on the back end.
Don’t get me wrong — there are plenty of folks who are in a mess of their own doing. But without banks deciding to put immediate profit ahead of long-term stability, along with other factors (the 2000 Phill Graham bill, etc.), they never would have been in such a position.
September 26th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
The core problem is that the beneficiaries of Jimmy Carter’s CRA who obtained 30-year mortgages in 1977 suddenly stopped sending in their payments last year. No one could have predicted Jimmy Carter racial and ethnic people government power over their heads subprime lending Charlie.
September 26th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Blame it all on Martin Van Buren’s disasterous economic policies . . .
September 26th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Matt,
You are being disingenuous. Krauthammer didn’t say the 1977 CRA is the sole cause, he said, “For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination.”
That’s absolutely true. Government and business have been conspiring together to debauch old-fashioned restrictions on lending for years, using the sacred word “diversity” as one major excuse.
I documented just some of these efforts to lower traditional credit standards, which sped up under Bush, here:
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_diversity_recession_or_how_affirmative_action_helped_cause_the_housing/
September 26th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Ed Smithe says:
“The reality is that much, if not all of the blame rests with the individuals that took out mortgages thinking that they could pay for them–and ended up defaulting.”
I love this blame-the-borrowers crap. Why do people buy houses? Because you hear your whole life that that’s what you should do. Because, as stated in a comment above, that “the ownership society” is a good thing. And why did these individuals think that they could pay for them? Because they applied for a loan and THEY WERE APPROVED!!! Even “flippers” were doing what businesspersons in this country are supposed to be doing – make investments to take advantage of circumstances to make money. Now all of a sudden (not really all of a sudden) after the lenders screw things up, it’s the fault of the borrowers. How does that work?
September 26th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
For a perfect example of the “bipartisan agreement,” see Bush’s 2002 speech on Increasing Minority Homeownership by cutting down payment requirements and the like:
President George W. Bush addresses the White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership at The George Washington University Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2002
THE PRESIDENT: …. I appreciate your attendance to this very important conference. You see, we want everybody in America to own their own home. That’s what we want. This is — an ownership society is a compassionate society.
More and more people own their homes in America today. Two-thirds of all Americans own their homes, yet we have a problem here in America because few than half of the Hispanics and half the African Americans own the home. That’s a homeownership gap. It’s a — it’s a gap that we’ve got to work together to close for the good of our country, for the sake of a more hopeful future.
We’ve got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap.
I set an ambitious goal. It’s one that I believe we can achieve. It’s a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we’ll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families. (Applause.) … And it’s going to require a strong commitment from those of you involved in the housing industry. …
I appreciate so very much the home owners who are with us today, the Arias family, newly arrived from Peru. They live in Baltimore. Thanks to the Association of Real Estate Brokers, the help of some good folks in Baltimore, they figured out how to purchase their own home. Imagine to be coming to our country without a home, with a simple dream. And now they’re on stage here at this conference being one of the new home owners in the greatest land on the face of the Earth. I appreciate the Arias family coming. (Applause.)
We’ve got the Horton family from Little Rock, Arkansas, here today. … They were helped by HUD, they were helped by Freddie Mac. …
Finally, Kim Berry from New York is here. She’s a single mom. You’re not going to believe this, but her son is 18 years old. (Laughter.) She barely looked like she was 18 to me. And being a single mom is the hardest job in America. And the idea of this fine American working hard to provide for her child, at the same time working hard to realize her dream, which is owning a home on Long Island, is really a special tribute to the character of this particular person and to the character of a lot of Americans. So we’re honored to have you here, Kim, and thanks for being such a good mom and a fine American. (Applause.)
I told Mel Martinez I was serious about this initiative… And the good news is, Mel Martinez believes it and means it, as well. He’s doing a fine job of running HUD, and I’m glad he has joined my Cabinet. (Applause.)
And I picked a pretty spunky deputy, as well, Alphonso Jackson — my fellow Texan. (Applause.) I call him A.J. …
I see Rosario Marin, who’s the Treasurer of the United States. Rosario used to be a mayor. Thank you for coming, Madam Mayor. (Applause.) She understands how important housing is. …
All of us here in America should believe, and I think we do, that we should be, as I mentioned, a nation of owners. Owning something is freedom, as far as I’m concerned. It’s part of a free society. And ownership of a home helps bring stability to neighborhoods. You own your home in a neighborhood, you have more interest in how your neighborhood feels, looks, whether it’s safe or not. It brings pride to people, it’s a part of an asset-based to society. It helps people build up their own individual portfolio, provides an opportunity, if need be, for a mom or a dad to leave something to their child. It’s a part of — it’s of being a — it’s a part of — an important part of America.
Homeownership is also an important part of our economic vitality. If — when we meet this project, this goal, according to our Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, we will have added an additional $256 billion to the economy by encouraging 5.5 million new home owners in America; …
Low interest rates, low inflation are very important foundations for economic growth. The idea of encouraging new homeownership and the money that will be circulated as a result of people purchasing homes will mean people are more likely to find a job in America. This project not only is good for the soul of the country, it’s good for the pocketbook of the country, as well.
To open up the doors of homeownership there are some barriers, and I want to talk about four that need to be overcome. First, down payments. A lot of folks can’t make a down payment. They may be qualified. They may desire to buy a home, but they don’t have the money to make a down payment. I think if you were to talk to a lot of families that are desirous to have a home, they would tell you that the down payment is the hurdle that they can’t cross. And one way to address that is to have the federal government participate.
And so we’ve called upon Congress to set up what’s called the American Dream Down Payment Fund, which will provide financial grants to local governments to help first-time home buyers who qualify to make the down payment on their home. If a down payment is a problem, there’s a way we can address that. And when Congress funds the program, this should help 200,000 new families over the next five years become first-time home buyers.
Secondly, affordable housing is a problem in many neighborhoods, particularly inner-city neighborhoods. … I’m doing is proposing a single-family affordable housing credit to encourage the construction of single-family homes in neighborhoods where affordable housing is scarce. (Applause.)
Over the next five years the initiative will provide home builders and therefore home buyers with — home builders with $2 billion in tax credits to bring affordable homes and therefore provide an additional supply for home buyers. …
And we’ve got to set priorities. And one of the key priorities is going to be inner-city America. …
Another obstacle to minority homeownership is the lack of information. You know, getting into your own home can be complicated. It can be a difficult process. I had that very same problem. (Laughter and applause.)
Every home buyer has responsibilities and rights that need to be understood clearly. And yet, when you look at some of the contracts, there’s a lot of small print. And you can imagine somebody newly arrived from Peru looking at all that print, and saying, I’m not sure I can possibly understand that. Why do I want to buy a home? There’s an educational process that needs to go on, not only to explain the contract, explain obligation, but also to explain financing options, to help people understand the complexities of a homeownership market, and also at the same time to protect people from unscrupulous lenders, people who would take advantage of a good-hearted soul who is trying to realize their dream.
Homeownership education is critical. And so today, I’m pleased to announce that through Mel’s office, we’re going to distribute $35 million in 2003 to more than 100 national, state and local organizations that promote homeownership through buyer education. (Applause.)
And, of course, one of the larger obstacles to minority homeownership is financing, is the ability to have their dream financed. Right now, we have a program that all of you are familiar with, maybe our fellow Americans are, and that’s what they call a Section 8 housing program, that provides billions of dollars in vouchers to help low-income Americans with their rent. It encourages leasing. We think it’s important that we use those vouchers, that federal money to help low-income Americans go from being somebody who leases to somebody who owns; that we use the Section 8 program to not only help with down payment, but to help with continuing monthly mortgage payments after they’re into their new home. It is a — it is a way to help us meet this dream of 5.5 million additional families owning their home.
I’m also going to encourage the lending industry to develop a mortgage market so that this script, these vouchers, can regularly be used as a source of payment to provide more capital to lenders, who can then help more families move from rental housing into houses of their own. …
Last June, I issued a challenge to everyone involved in the housing industry to help increase the number of minority families to be home owners. And what I’m talking about, I’m talking about your bankers and your brokers and developers, as well as members of faith-based community and community programs. And the response to the home owners challenge has been very strong and very gratifying. Twenty-two public and private partners have signed up to help meet our national goal. Partners in the mortgage finance industry are encouraging homeownership by purchasing more loans made by banks to African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities.
Representatives of the real estate and homebuilding industries, through their nationwide networks or affiliates, are committed to broadening homeownership. They made the commitment to help meet the national goal we set.
Freddie Mae — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — I see the heads who are here; I want to thank you all for coming — (laughter) — have committed to provide more money for lenders. They’ve committed to help meet the shortage of capital available for minority home buyers.
Fannie Mae recently announced a $50 million program to develop 600 homes for the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. Franklin [Raines], I appreciate that commitment. They also announced $12.7 million investment in a condominium project in Harlem. It’s the beginnings of a series of initiatives to help meet the goal of 5.5 million families. Franklin told me at the meeting where we kicked this office, he said, I promise you we will help, and he has, like many others in this room have done.
Freddie Mac recently began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers and create greater opportunities for homeownership. One of the programs is designed to help deserving families who have bad credit histories to qualify for homeownership loans. …
There’s all kinds of ways that we can work together to meet the goal. Corporate America has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place. Corporate America has responded. As an example — only one of many examples — the good folks at Sears and Roebuck have responded by making a five-year, $100 million commitment to making homeownership and home maintenance possible for millions of Americans. …
The non-profit groups are bringing homeownership to some of our most troubled communities. …
The other thing Kirbyjon told me, which I really appreciate, is you don’t have to have a lousy home for first-time home buyers. If you put your mind to it, the first-time home buyer, the low-income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anybody else. And I know Kirbyjon. He is what I call a social entrepreneur who is using his platform as a Methodist preacher to improve the neighborhood and the community in which he lives.
And so is Luis Cortes, who represents Nueva Esperanza in Philadelphia. I went to see Luis in the inner-city Philadelphia. … But he also understood that a homeownership program is incredibly important to revitalize this neighborhood that a lot of folks had already quit on. …
Again, I want to tell you, this is an initiative — as Mel will tell you, it’s an initiative that we take very seriously. … Thank you for coming. May God bless your vision. May God bless America. (Applause.)
September 26th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
fletc3her makes a good point…. those Truman tax policies are just killing us.
Dude, what about the freakin Homestead Act and all that free land??? I don’t remember who passed that, but it was just a ticking time bomb waiting to go off!
September 26th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Have you noticed that the Carter Administration is now responsible for everything that goes wrong? I thought that until recently that the consensus was that Carter had been ineffectual. Now, he’s apparently the seed that is flowering into economic and political time bombs thirty years later.
It’s been fascinating to watch “serious” conservative “intellectuals” abandon all personal integrity over the past few years in order to make any lame argument that will get them through a news cycle.
September 26th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
30 years !!!!
You never saw Back to the Future did you?
Of course it was Jimmy Carter’s fault. Or at least it will be.
September 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Imagine my shock that Steve Sailer shows up to blame things on poor brown people. Who’da thunk it?
Someone should tell the fool that white supremacism is a silly career choice. Even the National Review had no use for his David Duke Lite shenanigans.
September 26th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
THE F***ING HOMESTEAD ACT WAS A TICKING TIME BOMB WAITING TO BLOW!!!
September 26th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I think your ability to read with comprehension might need work. It’s entirely possible for a trend to start at some point in the past, get worse over time, and explode when the final straws arrive. In this case, the final straws mostly came from Barney Frank and his fellow travelers, who pushed very hard to have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac make loans available to people who could never pay them back.
But hey, let’s go with the “nothing that old could start a trend” thing, and claim that the 1953 overthrow of the government of Iran played no part in the events of 1979. Continuing, we’ll claim that the founding of Israel in 1948 couldn’t possibly be impacting Gaza and the West Bank today, because gosh – that was 60 years ago.
September 26th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Apparently, over the last 5 years, some $700 billion worth of new housing was provided to the USA’s poor and minority population, the largest and most successful housing program in world history.
Or, at least, that’s what this interpretation suggests. Somehow I don’t think that in the past 5 years some 3/4 of a trillion dollars’ worth of housing was pushed toward our nation’s poorer members.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
If you’ll read George W. Bush’s 2002 speech above, you’ll see that his goal was to expand minority homeownership by 5.5 million households. Multiply 5.5 million by, say, $200,000 each and you get $1,100 billion.
This was all part of Karl Rove’s plan to win Hispanics over to the GOP. Give them easy credit with zero down payments to buy homes and they’ll become home-owning Republicans voters.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Here’s the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: ‘The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.’
Barney & his buddy Chris Dodd in the Senate should be frog-marched off their respective floors in shackles, except Frank would probably enjoy the experience.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:24 am
read ‘em all, James Robertson – the only intelligent post. It’s getting so that it is barely worth the effort to read this shit any more.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 1st, 2009 at 7:03 am
viagra
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:39 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 6:23 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:43 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:09 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra