VIDEO: Stop The Bailout – Changing This Rule Could Save $350 Billion of Taxpayor Money

Senate supporters push adoption of “draft agreement” of “bailout plan” using the scare tactic that “money markets” will dry up. These supporters refuse to address the fact that 7.2 trillion dollars was loaned last week.

The supporters also ingore the facts put forth in the following video – one simple accounting change could save Taxpayors $350 Billion Dollars. 

Contact Your Senators Here:  Click on your Senators, Select the Contact Folder and then  click on the email address.

Contact Congresspeople: You’ll need your zip  code

A MESSAGE FOR MICHIGAN – Obama on Granholm “The Best Governor in the Country”

Minutes ago, while Barack was addressing a typical crowd in Detroit, he thanked his fellow Harvard Alum, Governor Granholm and referred to her as “The Best Governor in the Country”. Barack went on to state that when he is President, Governor Granholm’s polcies would lead the state out of “your economic woes”. Aparently, Obama is unaware that Granholm, thankfully, has only two years left to serve and that her first six years in office have been some of the worst in the history of the State. Not since the Carter Administration has Michigan seem times as bleak as these. 

Hold on to your seats Michiganders, Obama specifically enbdorsed Granholm’s Tax policies – can you believe that – he endorsed the Policies that have led to the economic ruin of Michigan.

Michigan – the choice is yours – Obama has told you (maybe I should say he has warned you) what you have to look forward to if he is elected to the White House.

One closing bipartisan comment – If Michigan Votes for Obama – they will be getting what they deserve. Michigan, after 6 years of Granholm, you should know better! 

Read About Obama & Granholm Tax Policy: 

Compare the Granholm/Obama Tax Policy with Governor Ted Strickland’s Policies (Strickland is the Democratic Governor of Ohio – a State on the economic rebound):

Democratic Speaker Pelosi – Republican Opposition is Unpatriotic – Exposes Dem Deal Lie


How can you believe anything that comes out of Democrat’s mouth these days. No wonder the old joke has been around so long – How can you tell when a Democratic Politician is lying – their lips are moving.

Earlier this weekend the Democrats rushed to the podium and announced to the Press “WE HAVE A DEAL”. That proclamation was a “bold face lie“.

Then the Democrats claimed – McCain “blew-up” the non-existent agreement – a lie upon a lie.

The fact that the Republican House was boycotting the negotiations went nearly unreported. The Democratic Spin was the third lie – Democrats claimed the hold up hand something to do with “Executive Compensation” and “John McCain”.  The truth – the Congressional Republican Caucus challenged Democratic attempts to flood the Bailout with additional spending and, how dare they, question whether the Paulson Bailout Plan, was in the best interests of the American Public. Should $700 Billion of Main Street’s Money be spent on Wall Street? How dare the Republicans ask that question?    

Late Friday night Democratic Congressman Barney Frank exposed the Democratic lie when he acknowledged that the House Republicans were Boycotting negotiations and had been boycotting the negotiations for days before McCain arrived back in Washington. McCain’s trip to Washington highlighted the boycott and changed the basic nature of negotiations. How could the Democrats dare to claim an “agreement” when the House Republicans were not even participating in the negotiations –

Today Pelosi confirmed the Republican Congressional Boycott and while doing so confirmed her lies concerning “A DEAL” this past Friday. Pelosi condemned the Repubican’s for boycotting the earlier negotiations and called the Republicans “unpatriotic” for looking out for the American tax payors while they challenged “The Paulson Bailout”.

Pelosi shouldn’t count her chickens before they hatch – the House Republicans have not committed to vote for the current proposal – in fact the final language is just being drafted as this post is being typed,

Contact Senator Pelosi and let her know what you think about her “un-patriotic” claim –

Contact your Congressperson and Senator and tell them to vote NO!

Contact Your Senators Here:  Click on your Senators, Select the Contact Folder and then  click on the email address.

Contact Congresspeople: You’ll need your zip  code



February 5, 2008

PERHAPS the greatest scandal of the mortgage crisis is that it is a direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards – done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it could lead to wide-scale defaults.

At the crisis’ core are loans that were made with virtually nonexistent underwriting standardsno verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant’s ability to make payments; no down payment.

Most people instinctively understand that such loans are likely to be unsound. But how did the heavily-regulated banking industry end up able to engage in such foolishness?

From the current hand-wringing, you’d think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards – at the behest of community groups and “progressive” political forces.

In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of “redlining” – claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.

In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications – but the overwhelming reason wasn’t racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.

Yet a “landmark” 1992 study from the Boston Fed concluded that mortgage-lending discrimination was systemic.

That study was tremendously flawed – a colleague and I later showed that the data it had used contained thousands of egregious typos, such as loans with negative interest rates. Our study found no evidence of discrimination.

Yet the political agenda triumphed – with the president of the Boston Fed saying no new studies were needed, and the US comptroller of the currency seconding the motion.

No sooner had the ink dried on its discrimination study than the Boston Fed, clearly speaking for the entire Fed, produced a manual for mortgage lenders stating that: “discrimination may be observed when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants.”

Some of these “outdated” criteria included the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, credit history, savings history and income verification. Instead, the Boston Fed ruled that participation in a credit-counseling program should be taken as evidence of an applicant’s ability to manage debt.

Sound crazy? You bet. Those “outdated” standards existed to limit defaults. But bank regulators required the loosened underwriting standards, with approval by politicians and the chattering class. A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.

Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with “100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don’t report it on your tax returns.” Credit counseling is required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed “the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted.That lender’s $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.

Who was that virtuous lender? Why – Countrywide, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, recently in the headlines as it hurtled toward bankruptcy.

In an earlier newspaper story extolling the virtues of relaxed underwriting standards, Countrywide’s chief executive bragged that, to approve minority applications that would otherwise be rejected “lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit.” He’s not bragging now.

For years, rising house prices hid the default problems since quick refinances were possible. But now that house prices have stopped rising, we can clearly see the damage caused by relaxed lending standards.

This damage was quite predictable: “After the warm and fuzzy glow of ‘flexible underwriting standards’ has worn off, we may discover that they are nothing more than standards that lead to bad loans . . . these policies will have done a disservice to their putative beneficiaries if . . . they are dispossessed from their homes.” I wrote that, with Ted Day, in a 1998 academic article.

Sadly, we were spitting into the wind.

These days, everyone claims to favor strong lending standards. What about all those self-righteous newspapers, politicians and regulators who were intent on loosening lending standards?

As you might expect, they are now self-righteously blaming those, such as Countrywide, who did what they were told.

Stan Liebowitz is the Ashbel Smith professor of Economics in the Business School at the University of Texas at Dallas.

Accountability For The Subprime Crisis – Where were you Barney

Barney Frank Told Us So…Again.

By Jim Conley • Sep 6th, 2008 • Email This Post to a Friend •  Print This Post

Remember back in July when Rep. Barney Frank told the Boston Globe that the mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were “not in danger of going under.” And that, “their prospects going forward are very solid.”

Remember that?

Guess it depends on your definition of solid.  Because today it has been announced that the two companies will be placed under federal control.

Frank is chair of the House Financial Services Committee, and his comments in July were offered to shore up investor confidence in the two quasi-government agencies.  Now taxpayers get to pony up tens of billions in order that these companies might go forward, solidly one hopes.

You know, for someone who is quick to tell others how wrong they are [see this on the St. Aidan’s project], Frank’s tenure as chair of Financial Services has seen one disaster after another.

The log in one’s eye, and all that.

Update: Tomorrow’s Times has a story up on the federal takeover that features this:

“We have just had to nationalize the two largest financial institutions in the world because of policy makers’ inaction,” said Josh Rosner, an analyst at Graham Fisher, an independent research firm in New York, and a longtime critic of the government-sponsored enterprises. “Since 2003, when these companies’ accounting came under question, policy makers have done nothing. Even though they had every reason to know that the housing market’s problems would not be contained to subprime and would bring down the houses of Fannie and Freddie.”

Since 2003?  How could Frank be shoring up confidence in these firms when it was widely known that their accounting methods were suspect?

Well, it’s because those who finance his campaigns are the very industry his Committee is suppose to oversee.  And he thinks we’re chumps.

SEE THE VIDEO: Barney in his own words – Simply breathtaking.

Read Professor Stan Liebowitz’s Article On the History of The Crisis Here:

Read Thomas DiLorenzo’s Article, “The CRA Scam and its defenders.”

%d bloggers like this: