Actually Republicans have gone out of their way to not mention race when race should have been mentioned – because they know it is not PC and they will get beaten up for it.  But Franks is correct, it is all about race, and handouts to people of color – but the prize for brining out the race card HAS to go to Franks – the racist criminal that he is.  I’d sure like to see that man in a federal prison for the rest of his life where he belongs.

In fact, conservatives are already on record as blaming minorities in the financial meltdown. Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, for instance, asserted that “Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster.” Michael Reagan wants to bring back redlining. WorldNetDaily blamed “unsound – though politically correct – lending practices.”

In other words, right-wingers were playing the race card long before Barney Frank did.

Why are you liberals so racist?  Are you so desperate that you ALWAYS have to try to call others racists when the only ones with racist hearts are YOU?  There is no way that Franks was responding to Cavuto or Reagan went he made his disgusting remarks – even an idiot knows that the racist here is Franks – and always has been.  He is just as despicable as your race hustlers Jesse, Louis, and Sharpton.

I’m just pointing out the simple fact that Republicans and conservatives played the race card long before Frank did. I don’t see what the problem is.

If it’s bad for Frank to do it, it’s bad for conservatives to do it as well. I don’t see any condemnation of those conservatives, just Frank. Please explain.

When people do the wrong thing- like attack the commission in 04 that was trying to tell them of systemic problems in housing and lending—it matters not if you are black or white or in between. Bad politics knows no color, just as greed knows no color. 

ACORN is supposed to help poor disadvantaged families—but they’ve done more harm than good. Why not tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may? 

Before you call me a racist- I will tell you up front that Obama has more white blood than I.  Entitlement will bring the country down even more- it doesn’t work in a capitalist society.

If you’re looking for “social justice” a euphemism for socialism, then Obama is definitely your man.

Franks (and Dodd) has been in the middle of this mess since its inception.  If this were in business, he would be out and possibly in jail.  What, if anything, can be done to impeach (if that’s an option with Congressman) or recall him?  The damage he has caused (again, with a little help) to the nation and the world is huge.

Terry K.

Your attempt at equivocation with what Reagan and Cavuto said, and the strong-arming of a congressman on banking institutions to give out loans to unqualified minority borrowers is ridiculous.

People like you and Barney Frank are trying to deflect attention and blame away from himself, Dodd, and the root-cause of this problem, Clinton and Carter; Carter for signing the Community Reinvestment Act into law, and Clinton for intensifying it, and getting us into this mess. Of course, I also blame Bush and the Republicans for not trying to fight this crazy policy, or at least addressing and warning the American people about it in a loud manner.

I’m sure that Michael Reagan, Cavuto, and others are well aware that low-income Whites have benefited from half of the sub-prime loans given out, so Frank’s use of the race card shows what an unfit moron he is to head any office.

I really hope this arrogant creep gets what he deserves along with the idiots who keep voting him in.

The very simple reasons for the current problem are 1.) government de-regulation of critical national businesses; 2.) expecting big business to self-regulate and act responsibly; 3.) believing the free market somehow has the magical ability to correct or solve all problems.

In a word?  Hyper-capitalism.

In a phrase?  Hyper-capitalism run amok.

Certainly no individual nor any single organization is at fault.  This is a collective problem resulting from special business interests being able to overly influence a sufficient number of politicians who, in turn, orchestrated a “de-regulation/free market/open trade” policy that, in the end, obviously DOES NOT WORK!

Blaming it on an effort to provide affordable housing or inner city people who couldn’t afford the mortgages they were given is just plain stupid.  The real culprit is hyper-drive profit-seeking (and plenty of “profiteering”) and the development of more-and-more esoteric profit centers.

In the future, think “managed economy”!

In the future, think “regulate” critical businesses” while including effective “oversight” and business “accountability” supported by sufficient “sanctions”.

Rules, boundaries and limitations.

TK -  “Blaming it on an effort to provide affordable housing or inner city people who couldn’t afford the mortgages they were given is just plain stupid.”

You mean to say, then, that giving out loans to poor people who can’t afford to pay them back is an intelligent way to conduct business?
Who’s supposed to pick up the tab when the borrower can’t pay back the loan?

RE: pizcaj, Post #9;

Obviously, it was stupid to give out mortgage loans to ANYBODY and EVERYBODY who couldn’t pay them back – - whether inner-city blacks and Hispanics – - poor white trash – - or alligator-shoed, Gucci-briefcase-carrying, bottle-blonded, BMW-driving real estate babes engaging in speculation in multiple, new and high-priced residential units – - or their Yuppie male, know-it-all counterparts, the Fixer-Upper Flippers – - or the soon-to-be-white-collar-retirees buying that McMansion or two as rental houses in the newest and bestest subdivision in town!

MY POINT:  The problem is SO B-I-G – - that it’s stupid to blame it on only a couple individuals, one or two orgnizations, a single type of activity – - or a particular and specific demographic group.  (Or only two presidents, one congressman and a senator.) 

De-regulation (going back at least 30 years) and lack of oversight created a runaway, profiteering system that simply – - SELF-DESTRUCTED!

And PLENTY of Republicans, as well as some Democrats, helped it along – - and it didn’t get really out of hand until the last few years when Wall Street investment banks began securitizing residential mortgages.

And, the other side of the coin is that the residential construction business between, maybe 2002 and 2006, was the single largest source of American jobs and payroll dollars – - and realtors, appraisers, home inspectors, title companies, insurance carriers and mortgage brokers also made a ton of bucks!

Now, though, we’re paying the piper – - and developing an effective solution is W-A-Y more important and productive than purely partisan ranting and raving about “who caused it”.

Please, please don’t forget this President’s lobbying for homes for 5.5M low income minorities.

The housing market went bananas, that was not the time to try to provide ‘affordable’ housing for low income people.  There were, and still are, very few houses on the market that are affordable for low income people.

If we try to tell ourselves the real reason for all this is because anyone gave a flip whether low income people had a house or not, we are deluding ourselves.  It was so greedy corporations, and their politicians could make a bundle doing deceitful things, and when the ‘house’ of cards collapsed, they could make the taxpayers pick up the pieces.

It’s just that simple, the fact they gave loans to people who could not in three lifetimes pay for them, is the means for this – not the reason they did it.

I read a story about a man, who made $9 an hour and got a loan for $615K home. He said his wife worked and his daughters and they ‘put the pencil to it’. Anyone who even considers buying a home that expensive, shouldn’t have to sweat an application or ‘put the pencil to it’.  The sad part is, that house was probably a $350K house just a year before.  Still way out of his reach, though.

While I like the idea of everyone having a home, I’m pretty sure that making it possible for ‘poor people to have just as good a house as anyone else’ (the President’s words), is not the government’s job.  I don’t think we will find it in the constitution.

TK,

I realize and agree with you that the sub-prime loans are just a part of this mess, and that little or no over-site is definitely a big part of the problem, as well. I misinterpreted your post #8 as you not blaming, at all, the irresponsible bad loans.

Believe me, TK, I’m well aware of the complicity of both parties in this, as ladytexan has just explained in #11. These bastards are purposely running us into debt, so as to usher in government take-over in getting us faster towards their ‘New World Order’ as Daddy Bush used to refer to.

Forget about McLame and the ‘Almighty’ getting us out of this one.

pizcaj: Blaming the CRA is a lie. In fact, only about 20 percent of subprime loans were issued by financial institution subject to the CRA.

And how are you so “sure that Michael Reagan, Cavuto, and others are well aware that low-income Whites have benefited from half of the sub-prime loans given out”? Do tell.

Does it make a difference if whites or minorities got the loans?  That’s just misdirection. 

All of them are just trying to get our minds off the fact that they messed this country around, big time.  They have hurt every citizen of this country with this.

This was one thing this country was together on – rich, poor, male, female, and citizens of every skin hue. 

That scares them so they are going to put this race thing in there so we will, once again, move in to our little groups and divided we can be conquered.  Playing one against the other.  That’s the only reason to do it and they, both sides and the media are doing it.

I mean they can’t have the people of this country working together or all of us angry with them at one time.

They are afraid the serfs might get together and do our own version of ‘storming the castle’ –

Let’s talk illegal aliens, now – that’s a whole ‘nother ball game.

Terry K. –
[“Blaming the CRA is a lie. In fact, only about 20 percent of subprime loans were issued by financial institution subject to the CRA.”]

You mean to say then, that the other 80% of subprime loans where given out on the bank’s own free will, with no government pressure put on them?
I seriously doubt that.

[“And how are you so “sure that Michael Reagan, Cavuto, and others are well aware that low-income Whites have benefited from half of the sub-prime loans given out?”]

I’m sure of this, Terry, because it is part of their livelihoods to know such facts, just as it’s part of the livelihoods of Chris Matthews, Bill O’Reilly, and Rachel Maddow to be aware of such a rudimentary fact; especially with the subject of subprime mortgages, the bailout, and the economy being the focus in our daily news cycle these days.
It’s what these various commentators do with such facts, in using or not using them, in order to push their particular political agenda to their audiences.

In Barney Franks case, he chose to ignore the 50% of White borrowers and instead, focused on the other 50% of minority borrowers in order to play the race card so as to divert attention away from any wrongdoing on his part.

By the way, are you in favor of giving out loans to financially unqualified applicants?

Re: pizcaj, Post #12;

I truly believe the concept leading to the current economic problem originally came about over a hundred years ago as part of the overall plan of the western world’s ultra-rich known as The New World Order.  I futher believe that a very concerted effort began with Reagan’s presidency (and the vice-presidency of George H.W. Bush) to push the plan to fruition.

I think their first effort was the deregulation of the S & Ls and the attendant crisis – - which turned out not to be a B-I-G enough effort (only about a $150 billion meltdown and a too small market crash) – - and in which judicial authorities (and those ‘not in tune’ with the program) happened to intervene (note that we have no judicial intervention in the current crisis). 

I further believe the ‘globalism’, ‘offshoring’, and ‘internationalism’ (including NAFTA, CAFTA, the North American Union, et al) of, especially the last fifteen years, are also a conscious part of the overall plan.  And Clinton clearly went along (and is apparently still going along) with it, too.

(Truthfully, I don’t think all of the negative economic changes that have occurred over the last 20 or so years could have come about IF unions had remained a strong component of the political elements of our economy).

Note:  I happen to live relatively nearby to a town which, in 2001-2002, probably had a population of, maybe, 10,000, probably 99% white, residents.  With the advent of “easy credit”, the leadership of that town decided to “promote growth”.  Within about five years – - the population of that town exploded to more than 60,000 – - most of whom many might call “the working poor” – - most (if not all) working in (very) low-paying service jobs (to which most commuted long distances) – - and almost all of them white.  And the place is 75 to 100 miles away from the nearest really urbanized areas – - and has no ACORN chapter operating in its environs!

So, at least in my experience, I can certainly verify that plenty of small town, low income WHITES got plenty of quick’n’easy residential mortgage money they probably shouldn’t have!  Naturally, unemployment and foreclosures in that town are now at record high levels!

The current national problem encompasses ALL demographics, is 15 or 20 times bigger than the market crash and S & L meltdown of 20 years ago, and was promoted to one degree or another by BOTH political parties.  And, in the final analysis, it’s based on unregulated greed and rampant profiteering resulting from insufficient regulation and, apparently, no governmental oversight whatsoever.

Historically, every extra-ordinary boom we’ve had has had its extra-ordinary bust! 

And so, now the Republicans are “The New Socialists”.  While we’re stupidly and endlessly arguing about stuff like abortion, guns and global warming – - the politicians and uber-businessthieves ran off with all the money (and jobs).

???

pizcaj: The CRA applies only to depository institutions, i.e., banks and S&Ls;—the point of the CRA is to get banks to invest in the neighborhoods in which they have branches. Mortgage companies, even ones affiliated with banks, are not subject to CRA. The vast majority of subprime loans were made through these mortgage companies, roughly 80 percent.

And of course I’m not in favor of “giving out loans to financially unqualified applicants.” Why don’t you ask the folks at, say, Countrywide why they did it?

Over the last 25 years, every administration and each Congress has chosen to go along with the deregulation and tax incentivizations big business was intensely lobbying for in return for financial re-election support from these big businesses and related special interests.

This whole economic problem right now is the result of politicians making their own self-preservation their primary priority.  Today, government at all levels represents government!  Not its citizenry nor its grass roots, man-on-the-street constituents.

Terry K.- “Mortgage companies, even ones affiliated with banks, are not subject to CRA. The vast majority of subprime loans were made through these mortgage companies, roughly 80 percent.”

Again, Terry,

You’re trying to say that the roughly 80% loans that are not subject to CRA were made on those mortgage company’s own free will, with no outside governmental pressure at all coming down on them?
Maybe pressure from Fannie Mae, HUD, or from threats of lawsuits from NAACP, ACORN, etc.?

Of course there was political strong-arming done by various government and community elements on those mortgage companies. You think those companies were so inane as to do this on their own?
The CRA is only one tentacle of the octopus that created this politically correct insanity.

pizcaj: You’re making allegations you don’t back up. Where’s your evidence that mortgage companies were pressured by outside forces to issue subprime loans? How do you know that internal sales practices that put loan generation ahead of ability to pay played no role?

Terry K.,

Sorry, my error.

You were correct in your assertion that subprime loans not subject to CRA were not done under governmental pressure. It was verified in Dick Morris’ book “Fleeced”, although, he claims that 71%, and not 80%, of subprime loans are not subject to CRA. He said that the 71% non-CRA subprime loans were mostly done by unscrupulous brokers and lending institutions who basically conned potential borrowers into taking out mortgages that the brokers knew would most likely default, knowing the financial profile of the targeted borrower.

Would you agree with me then, Terry, that severe penalties should be enacted on those loaning institutions to discourage such chicanery on unsuspecting borrowers, as well as abolishing the Community Reinvestment Act?