Obama's Year Old Letter to Bernanke and Paulson Regarding Housing Crisis
Link
March 22, 2007
The Honorable Ben Bernanke
Chairman
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20551
The Honorable Henry Paulson
Secretary
U.S. Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220
Dear Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson,
There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures. Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.
We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes. And while neither the government nor the private sector acting alone is capable of quickly balancing the important interests in widespread access to credit and responsible lending, both must act and act quickly.
Working together, the relevant private sector entities and regulators may be best positioned for quick and targeted responses to mitigate the danger. Rampant foreclosures are in nobody's interest, and I believe this is a case where all responsible industry players can share the objective of eliminating deceptive or abusive practices, preserving homeownership, and stabilizing housing markets.
The summit should consider best practice loan marketing, underwriting, and origination practices consistent with the recent (and overdue) regulators' Proposed Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending. The summit participants should also evaluate options for independent loan counseling, voluntary loan restructuring, limited forbearance, and other possible workout strategies. I would also urge you to facilitate a serious conversation about the following:
* What standards investors should require of lenders, particularly with regard to verification of income and assets and the underwriting of borrowers based on fully indexed and fully amortized rates.
* How to facilitate and encourage appropriate intervention by loan servicing companies at the earliest signs of borrower difficulty.
* How to support independent community-based-organizations to provide counseling and work-out services to prevent foreclosure and preserve homeownership where practical.
* How to provide more effective information disclosure and financial education to ensure that borrowers are treated fairly and that deception is never a source of competitive advantage.
* How to adopt principles of fair competition that promote affordability, transparency, non-discrimination, genuine consumer value, and competitive returns.
* How to ensure adequate liquidity across all mortgage markets without exacerbating consumer and housing market vulnerability.
Of course, the adoption of voluntary industry reforms will not preempt government action to crack down on predatory lending practices, or to style new restrictions on subprime lending or short-term post-purchase interventions in certain cases. My colleagues on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs have held important hearings on mortgage market turmoil and I expect the Committee will develop legislation.
Nevertheless, a consortium of industry-related service providers and public interest advocates may be able to bring quick and efficient relief to millions of at-risk homeowners and neighborhoods, even before Congress has had an opportunity to act. There is an opportunity here to bring different interests together in the best interests of American homeowners and the American economy. Please don't let this opportunity pass us by.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
March 22, 2007
The Honorable Ben Bernanke
Chairman
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20551
The Honorable Henry Paulson
Secretary
U.S. Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220
Dear Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson,
There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures. Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.
We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes. And while neither the government nor the private sector acting alone is capable of quickly balancing the important interests in widespread access to credit and responsible lending, both must act and act quickly.
Working together, the relevant private sector entities and regulators may be best positioned for quick and targeted responses to mitigate the danger. Rampant foreclosures are in nobody's interest, and I believe this is a case where all responsible industry players can share the objective of eliminating deceptive or abusive practices, preserving homeownership, and stabilizing housing markets.
The summit should consider best practice loan marketing, underwriting, and origination practices consistent with the recent (and overdue) regulators' Proposed Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending. The summit participants should also evaluate options for independent loan counseling, voluntary loan restructuring, limited forbearance, and other possible workout strategies. I would also urge you to facilitate a serious conversation about the following:
* What standards investors should require of lenders, particularly with regard to verification of income and assets and the underwriting of borrowers based on fully indexed and fully amortized rates.
* How to facilitate and encourage appropriate intervention by loan servicing companies at the earliest signs of borrower difficulty.
* How to support independent community-based-organizations to provide counseling and work-out services to prevent foreclosure and preserve homeownership where practical.
* How to provide more effective information disclosure and financial education to ensure that borrowers are treated fairly and that deception is never a source of competitive advantage.
* How to adopt principles of fair competition that promote affordability, transparency, non-discrimination, genuine consumer value, and competitive returns.
* How to ensure adequate liquidity across all mortgage markets without exacerbating consumer and housing market vulnerability.
Of course, the adoption of voluntary industry reforms will not preempt government action to crack down on predatory lending practices, or to style new restrictions on subprime lending or short-term post-purchase interventions in certain cases. My colleagues on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs have held important hearings on mortgage market turmoil and I expect the Committee will develop legislation.
Nevertheless, a consortium of industry-related service providers and public interest advocates may be able to bring quick and efficient relief to millions of at-risk homeowners and neighborhoods, even before Congress has had an opportunity to act. There is an opportunity here to bring different interests together in the best interests of American homeowners and the American economy. Please don't let this opportunity pass us by.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
Advertisement
Judgment we can belive in!
March 24, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great, cz his letter was written the week AFTER Hillary proposed a plan. You are fight, judgement we can believe it, ACTION, not just talk... http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3894
March 24, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused—why is his letter "just talk", but her speech counts as action?
March 24, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because only Hillary's stuff counts. Everybody else doesn't count. When Hillary gives a speech, she doesn't use words she uses "patterned vocalizations and intonations," that makes them different from "just words." Barack Obama uses "just words.' Even when he writes them down on paper, they are still just words. Sometimes he uses words that actually exist, therefore he is opening himself to the charge of plagiarism, because he uses words that have been used before. Since Hillary doesn't use words, she doesn't have that problem.
Also, you should note that Hillary is in charge of time. Therefore she controls when things happen. That means she's also in charge of what happened "first" or "second." Actually she is in charge of "first" and "second." That way she can always be in first and not second place.
Finally, there is no "good idea" unless Hillary thought of it "first" and put it into patterned vocalizations and intonations or "symbolic representations of patterned vocalizations and intonations on thin sheets of smooth surfaced ink-absorbent material."
You should know that by now.
Obama = just words.
Hillary = patterned vocalizations and intonations delivered to the masses before anyone else.
Hillary Clinton: passing the crucial "patterned vocalizations and intonations" test "first!"
March 24, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because Obama spends most of his time parroting Clinton on the issues. That is why she had to point it out during debates that they always ask her the first question, and then Obama agrees with her. This is why the agree on most. It would be nice if Obama did something on his own before Hillary proposed it. It would make him appear that he actually is more than a just a smooth talking mouthpiece of the Limosine liberals.
Obama, the smooth talking Parrot. Maybe it is left over from his days of using Cocaine.
March 25, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take another look at the date on the letter. It was written in March of 2007, not March of 2008 like you are claiming. He wrote it a whole year before the crisis hit, just like he foresaw what a mess the Iraq War would turn in to. Hillary, on the other hand, lacked the foresight and judgment in both situations to have actually displayed any timely leadership on either mess.
March 24, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's speech was also from 2007.
March 24, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms, there is a world of difference.
Hillary's speech mentioned some four generic ideas about the housing crisis in the overall context of a generic speech covering all her campaign points.
Obama's letter was addressed to government entities who could and should take charge of what immediately needed attention. Obama lists the specifics about the looming housing crises and his letter covered the whole gamut of possible solution responses which would be needed to nip the crisis in the bud.
March 24, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
He wrote the letter after Hillary's speech. He stepped on her ideas. He used to do that in Illinois. That's not wisdom. It's cheap one-upsmanship.
March 25, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, just like Hillary repeatedly "stepped on" Edwards' policy proposals by releasing very similar ones a week or two afterwards.
Can't have that. Better not elect any of them, right?
March 25, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never heard Edwards claim that Hillary stole his ideas. If she did, that's not a good thing. But two wrongs, don't make a right. Except for Obama....he made a Wright.
March 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama made a Wright? Here, why don't you follow this link: http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=33036.
There, you can see for yourself how Reverend Wright's words were completely taken out of context.
March 26, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
He "stepped on her ideas" by posing potential solutions, about which she never spoke? So if someone says, 'We should go to the moon,' and then I build a space ship, I step on their ideas; ideas that they never thought of in the first place? Go figure.
March 26, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
MsBehavin,
Here is another link. It speaks of Hillary's economy proposals, not a year ago, but now:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=senator_clintons_calls_for_bar
Doesn't look like they are such intelligent ideas for the country (though they might be self-serving.)
March 25, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, I guess we're going to start acting like kids by arguing about who said what first, huh? 'I thought of it first,' 'No I did!'. Please, give me a break and start acting like an adult.
March 26, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. And Hillary is just coming out with a proposal... today. One year too late. Kinda like her position on Iraq.
March 24, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am wondering why they haven't publicized this better, i.e. that he had both an understanding of as well as a substantive proposal for dealing with this issue well before it blew up into a crisis.
March 24, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, I think the media is so focused on Wright and McCarthy and Judas that they are incapable of reporting on those things that may actually impact lives.
As media consumers we have a responsibility to demand better.
March 24, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it wasn't Wright, McCarthy, or Judas, it'd just be Brittany Spears or Paris Hilton. (Maybe it is anyways, I haven't been paying attention to the MSM.) Economic policy is (a) boring and (b) complicated. Why would infotainment want to cover it?
March 24, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys are soooooo gullible. Hillary came out with a plan March 15, 2007.. http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3894
March 24, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it gullible to be interested in a letter written a year ago? I don't get it. So Hillary gave a speech at about the same time. The argument is that the PLAN was formulated by Obama 1 yr before Hillary floated it.
but then who really cares. Both Obama and Hillary are likely to be pretty much the same on the mortgage issue. Neither of them has a complete grasp on the issue and thats probably why they have been pretty quiet about it (not because they are in the pocket of wall street, though they both are). I think that their silence is GOOD. I don't want a president who is going to pop off about a complex issue from the hip.
March 24, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
MsBehavin,
Don't forget to look this over:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=senator_clintons_calls_for_bar
Her recent proposal is flawed
March 25, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
She represents only the interests of what state she is running in at the time.
Currently, she is a long time native of Pennsylvania, who understands first hand the problems that face that state.
March 24, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3894
He just reiterated what she said the week before March 15, 2007
March 24, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
MsBehvin,
Check this link yet?
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=senator_clintons_calls_for_bar
She wants Greenspan to save our economy!!
March 25, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but Hillary came out with a plan last March, 2007. Read it here:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3894
March 24, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
MsBehavin,
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=senator_clintons_calls_for_bar
She wants to put our economy's well being on villains #1 and #2!!!
Watch out!
March 25, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, One other thing, that plan was presented March 15th 2007 by Hillary, then on the 22nd, Mr Obama wrote a letter... Is it because a MAN says it that it becomes real even if he takes it from the woman? Makes it his own? Most of Obama's ideas are repeats of Hillary's cz he doesn't have a mind of his own..
March 24, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears that you have "Anger we can believe in." Carry on then.
March 24, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you read the Obama letter it was all goodness and wonder, when you read that Hillary first acted, it was Hillary supporter has anger issues. I get it..but won't let the opportunity to show that Hillary has what it takes to LEAD go unnoticed.
March 24, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think this is what caused jdw112 to accuse you of having anger issues:
You're going to hurt yourself if you don't stretch first before leaping to conclusions like that. ;)
March 24, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct. Thanks for the assist :)
March 24, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geronimo!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 24, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
MsBehavin,
I am not a Hillary-hater (although, as of late, her campaign has been trying my patience), so I went to look at the linked speech. While I agree that she mentions that the sub-prime mortgage situation is a burgeoning crisis, her speech does not provide "ideas" for solving the problem.
Specifically, Hillary discusses expanding FHA so more people can purchase homes. Barack, on the other hand, specified points that would have directly addressed the subprime problem.
BTW, the woman vs. man comment is ridiculous. As of the last time I checked, I am a woman and your perceived sexism has no place in whether I listen to one candidate or the other.
March 24, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it does:
As to why gturkey noticed Obama's letter and not Clinton's speech, I'd like MsBehavin to consider that maybe, just maybe, it's because gturkey likes Obama better and that it has absolutely nothing to do with sexism—just like how Kennedy's support of Obama (probably) had nothing to do with sexism.
March 24, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a woman, in business, I have noticed over my 30 + years in business, that a woman can make a statement, can come up with an idea, and no one supports it, Then a week later, a man says the same thing and BAM! What a fabulous idea he has..he takes credit for it. Happens every day in America. I see it time and again with Obama. WHy do you think Hillary objected to always being asked first in the debates, cz she would come up with the idea and then Obama would agree with her.. his validation to her idea, but most people walked away as if it was his plan.. She has come out first with almost all of the ideas he has in his campaign. This was just one of them and I grow weary of hearing how great Obama is when his ideas are really hers..
March 24, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
With professional women all in my household and background I will second your experinece Mz.
March 24, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't deny this happens, but you also must acknowledge that the reason one person is favored over another isn't always because of their sex or race.
Interestingly enough, you seem to be drawing from a similar well as Rev. Wright. It's a valid well, but be aware that your experiences have prejudiced you just as Rev. Wright's experiences have prejudiced him and my experiences have prejudiced me.
March 24, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
OR BEN, I am a little bit crazy on this issue...we really need to think about sexism in this election, and look at WHO had great ideas first. Let's pretend that All of Obama's ideas were Hillary's. What is he going to DO when she isn't there to feed him the answers?
March 24, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
A) If we assume this, then can we not also assume that she'll still be having great ideas after Obama becomes president? Can we not also assume that she'll still make these ideas public?
B) As others have pointed out, neither Obama nor Clinton were unique in identifying the subprime issue nor other issues. There are plenty of smart Democrats out there, and I'd like to believe they'd be willing to work together.
March 24, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, as I am fond of pointing out from time to time, Hillary Clinton is in the United States Freaking Senate. When Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States, unless she takes her ball and goes home, she will be in the United States FREAKING Senate. Not barefoot and pregnant in a doublewide... Not doing Barack Obama's laundry or rubbing his shoulders after his hard day at work. She's a U.S. Senator! She was elected to the Senate representing the State of New York, which I guess she lived in after Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, Guam & Puerto Rico.
If the glass ceiling is holding Hillary Clinton down, it is preventing her from being the President of the United States of America! If the glass ceiling is holding Hillary Clinton down, it is holding her down in the U.S. Senate! If electing Hillary Clinton to the Presidency is going to mean I get held down in the Senate (other than in the gallery, by Capitol Building Police) I'm all in. She loaned her campaign $5 million! If that is being oppressed, please, oppress the hell out of me! Write me a check for $5 and I'll ride in the back of the bus all the way to the bank and I'll wait until all the white customers and all the women of any color have had an opportunity to conduct their business. I won't even sully up your water fountains or restrooms. I'll bring a bottled water and I'll "hold it in" until I find an establishment that caters to black male five millionaires!
March 24, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Male Angst?
March 24, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this were an election about who was first to introduce good ideas and plans, John Edwards would have locked it up long ago.
March 24, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
MsBehavin,
I'm sorry this has been your experience. Just as Wright's anger has been classified as a generational perspective based on his experiences, I wonder if your anger is based on a generational experience (as a 33 year old woman) with which I have not had to contend.
March 24, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, maybe you haven't had to contend because the women of my generation paved the way. I have two daughters, 31 and 33 and they saw the struggles I had to endure just to make it thru the day. I had two weeks maternity leave without pay when I had my children, that was considered "vacation" that year, no daycare credits, no say in what was happening at my workplace, controlled at that time by almost all men. You have no idea what it was to be humiliated publicly because your idea came from a woman's view. There were no laws about sexual discrimination until fairly recently. All I know is that most of what I have today I fought like hell to get and Hillary was behind all of us 100% trying to get rid of all of the obstacles that lead up to that glass ceiling. It is a shame really, that younger women haven't seen it and don't support her.
March 24, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
MsBehavin,
Or, you could take pride that your efforts and struggles have helped to make it so that my generation doesn't feel the need to vote for anyone based on gender, or race for that matter, but can choose the PERSON we connect with most.
I don't begrudge you the strong connection you feel with Hillary.
March 24, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The greatest shame in this is that you think we should vote based on gender. I think that is as irrelevant as hair or eye color.
March 24, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I vote based on what an elected official has done for their people, then I look behind that at the kind of person they are, then I look a little further into how they came to be. Just so happens that the person I feel is most qualified and who can actually deliver is a GIRL. As an Illinoian, I can honestly say Obama has delivered far less than Hillary, as far as what kind of person, I put them both into the same category: Politicians. As for their past, Hillary wins it hands down for me.
March 24, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will take you at your word even though the way you addressed gender issues in other coments makes it a strech to do so. Thankfully yours is a minority view in two out of three of the contests held so far. Even in the third of states she has won she was losing margin as people got to know the candidates beter. Time is not on her side and there is plenty before the remaining contests.
March 24, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but Obama is NOT proposing the same idea.
In fact, in the debates he has specifically rejected her moratorium idea, which in my book shows he understands economics better -- but that's me.
March 24, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh.
So......because women are subject to discrimination in the workplace....we should elect hillary clinton president? I mean, I agree that women are subject to discrimination. There is a great study from a top notch MBA school were students (these are exec MBA students, so business people over the age of 30, both men and women) were shown an academic paper by an author using an abbreviated first name (to shroud gender), then shown (to another group) with a female first name. The second group felt the paper (the same paper) was "strident" "overreaching" and so forth while the first group felt that it was "bold" and intelligent" (there were more controls to the study but you get the idea).
I agree that discrimination impacts women in the workplace and in politics. Period. That doesn't mean that every attack on Hillary Clinton is because she is a woman. It also doesn't mean that women need to support hillary clinton regardless of her policy positions just as black people don't need to support Barack regardless of his policy. We don't talk about the black vote coming out for Alan Keyes or Ward Connely, do we?
For one, Hillary Clinton isn't the only female politician out there. If you want a good female politician, there are quite a few to choose from that don't come part and parcel with the clinton legacy. Kathleen Sebilious (spelling). Susan Collins. Sarah Palin. Nancy Peloisi. Linda Lingle. Plenty. Not as many as there are male candidates, obviously, but it isn't like Hillary Clinton is the only one to come along ever.
And let's take on (just for grins) the "I get the first question" gripe. She got the first quesiton because she was the media annointed front-runner for a year until Iowa. She was at the center of the stage on every debate until they were down to three candidates. The center, with each other candidate at the periphery. And the fact that she asked the question was largely a sign that she was trying to play up the "media hates me" angle. The SNL line, the question line, they were scripted into there (just like Barack's lines). That was a deliberate attempt to push the media in a particular direction and it should be viewed as such.
March 24, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you call that a 'policy proposal' then I don't want to see what a comprehensive solution looks like. Hey buddy, why don't you read that again. She doesn't say how we should do any of that; she just says we should do it (some how). In short, she just pointed out areas of particular interest.
March 26, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The plan was laid out the same day, http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=270717
March 24, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you serious? Jesus. Where do you people come from. It isn't because a MAN acted or a woman acted, FFS.
1. Obama supporters are tired of Clinton's shit about every speech she makes being an important action and every speech he makes being nothing but words. They are both senators, not firemen. They talk/write for a living. Get over it.
2. They basically acted at the same time.
Combine those two and you have the recipe for responses that you have seen. Accept that both candidates have records they can run on (it is true). Accept that both candidates have holes in those records (it is true). Accept that neither candidate has claim to a monopoly on action.
If you don't, then you are basically deluding yourself.
Once you do, you will probably still support Hillary. That's cool. There are plenty of reasons to support her. But that doesn't mean her opponent is worthless. It doesn't mean she will win the primary. It doesn't mean that what her advisers say is truth.
The same goes for Obama.
Just take a deep breath and think about this for a minute.
March 24, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
She gave a speech to whom ?He wrote a letter confronting those that govern the situation, big difference.Plain & Simple, the guy is a cut above average.
March 24, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was her senate plan given to those who could do something about the issue. http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=270717
She REINTRODUCED The 21st century Housing Act on March 21st. http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=271038
March 24, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so damned tired of Hillary thinking she owns every issue and every idea. As if these ideas and proposals are not shared by any number of people at a given time.
Do read the speech, however. Of course she is substantive. So is Obama, if people would be fair.
BUT she seems to be taking credit for small businesses going on eBay. Did Hillary invent eBay success?
I'm surprised she doesn't have a mailer to that effect.
March 24, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHat you said is Silly,,, Hillary thinks she owns every issue...For as long as I have known her, she is on top of almost every issue. This is not a bad thing, This is a good thing.
March 24, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
How long have you 'known' hillary? How many issues was she on top of as first lady of Arkansas or the nation? How many issues was she on top of as a corporate lawyer? What did she do in her senate term to show you she was 'on top' of every issue out there?
March 24, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
She was really "on top of" that union problem when she sat on the board of Walmart.
March 25, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've read the speech and Obama's letter and find Obama's points more substantive. And I'm being objective. People can disagree on that, but it's my take.
Obama tackled the issue of predatory lending consistently as Illinois State Senator. He has experience in this issue, and these sorts of issues have been part of his public service his entire public life.
March 24, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said "Obama tackled the issue of predatory lending consistently as Illinois State Senator." What did he do? How did he tackle it? I live in Illinois, must have missed it,, enlighten me.
March 24, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did this turn into another Obama vs. Clinton thread? Both candidates have been really articulate on this issue. I think Clinton's call for a moratorium on foreclosures was spot on but so is this letter.
Fact is, Democrats knew this was going to be a problem and the other side didn't (or didn't care).
March 24, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to be the uniter and stress the truly important point here!
March 24, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uhh. No. This is one thing that really worries me about Democrats is this notion that you can just fix economic matters by fiot without considering the effects that such things have on free market's system of incentives.
Setting price controls on anything -- and that's what a moratorium would be -- has two effects, to reduce supply of that thing (because people can't make money at it anymore) and to increase demand for it than it would be otherwise if the price were allowed to rise.
So the result is to prevent the market's systems for self-correction to ever kick in.
Please pick up a copy of Henry Hazlitt's Economic's In One Lesson, which provides an easy to understand guide to these kind of issues, even if I don't agree with everything he says.
March 24, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where are any substantive suggestions in his letter? Threatening regulation for regulation sake is a red herring. Unfortunately, neither candidate or our party has adequately addressed this problem or the recent Fed driven acquisition of Bear Stearns by Chase. There are forces here that need calm heads that can work not only with Departments but with people in the private sector. Pontificating on this issue doesn't do anything for the folks that are being hurt daily. Not surprisingly Obamaistas just don't get it.
March 24, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kennedy's support for Obama has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with his hate for the Clintons.
March 24, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sure that there is some of that in Sen Obama's support. The anti hillary vote has become his since he is the non-Hillary in the race now. But he was beating her when the anti hillary vote was shared by other candidates.
March 24, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The right take away is they both had substantive plans a year ago. So we can debate the actual policy ideas rather than cackling about who is all words and who is action. Proposing plans is about as minimal an action as there is.
March 24, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, so how do you propose going about that? I am game, would love to see some real dialog here
March 24, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, short of getting out there with a gun and forcing CEOs of those engaging in the practice to stop it, I'm not exactly sure what action (vs. words) we should be encouraging Obama or Clinton to take!
After all, the Constitution is "just words" itself!
(I don't get this "just words" meme at all. Isn't that what politicians do—move words around?)
March 24, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Economides. That was my point in posting this.
March 24, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was your point in posting? Then..why not do the research on Sen. Clintons' proposals. Thought you said you were a Librarian. Would have thought that would have been a natural instinct. OR......were there other movtives behind the post?
March 24, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is only conjecture, but my guess is that you are implying that I posted this letter in order to accuse Hillary of not addressing this issue earlier.
As a librarian and non-idiot, if I were arguing the above, I would have said it in my original post and presented supporting documentation (or the lack thereof).
If, on the other hand, my intention was to make others aware that Obama was talking about this issue a year ago I would have posted "Obama's Year Old Letter to Bernanke and Paulson Regarding Housing Crisis" and posted a link to the letter.
BTW, I'm not sure if you realize this, but the tone of your posts really kind of makes you seem like a jerk.
March 24, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was actually thinking the same about your posts. Though I hope that I am a bit more straightforward in my thinking.
March 24, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, Economides. It's nice that they both at least recognized the problem. I give Clinton credit for saying something about it. That's about all these tidbits signify.
Why argue about who's on first? Who cares?
March 24, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The right take away is that they both haven't concentrated on this issue enough because both have spent far too many days on the campaign trail and not enough doing the people's business. Lets not kid each other. This effort has taken a toll on our ability as a party and a country to address these issues.
There should have already been real substantive hearings by house and senate on these issues. There also should been real discussions with the current white house how to head this financial crisis off at the pass. You've got feel bad for Bernacke....he's got a white house and congress that doesn't want to be involved in this issue at all.
The Liquidity issue is going to be number one throughout this year and next. We've expanded the money supply by 15% already. Inflation can't be far behind not to mention squandering of our inherited wealth as a nation........If we don't get our heads around this as a party it will come back to bite us in the ass later this year..
March 24, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hillary's record shows clearly that she hasn't taken her eye off of ANY ball. I find it hard to believe that over the last year, she continues to propose legislation, take on new issues. She hasn't missed a beat. I am exasperated noone is looking at all of this.
March 24, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your there Ms. She hasn't taken it off at all. I was trying to be generous. The Gentelman from Illinois has been absent from the US Senate in a similar fashion to his days in Illinois. Polishing up his speeches maybe? I dunno.
March 24, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
My heart weeps for Bernanke.
Didn't Dubya say he had to work over the weekend a little while back? Brutal. He would've had to Tivo all the college basketball games! What a dedicated man, that Bernanke. It's too bad he's saddled with such a lousy President and a do-nothing, no bills to filibuster Congress, eh Lulvull?
March 24, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bernacke? Or whoever has the job isn't the issue. Its the growing foreclosure problem that is threatening major cities like Cleveland with a broken system. There is a major problem with school funding in Cleveland as it is and this will only make it work.
I realize most folk here are more than a little well off and it isn't a real problem. Out here in the real world....it has very real consequences. Make fun if you like........Shows the true colors of the "progressive" movement.
March 24, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or how about tent cities springing up in Southern California?
March 24, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am counting on inflation to make my house note affordable.
March 24, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go ahead and hold your breath
March 24, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
just because things cost more doesn't mean you will earn more.
March 24, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary presented her speech to her supporters in Upstate New York, Obama addressed his concerns to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and to the Secretery of the Treasury.
Which carries more weight? The speech by a candidate to their supporters, or an official document from a sentaor to administration officials?
In the end, though, both the speech and the document fell on deaf ears, as it is now a year later and the issue has yet to be seriously addressed.
Shouldn't all of this anger be directed towards the Bush administration?
March 24, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has been her focus for quite awhile.4 Bills, one of which is the 21st Century Housing Act http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/housing/subprime/index.cfm
January 30, 2008
Senator Clinton Introduces the Mortgage Refinancing Initiative Act of 2008
January 24, 2008
Statement from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Regarding Today's Agreement on Economic Stimulus
December 14, 2007
Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Senate Approval of FHA Reform
December 3, 2007
Senator Clinton Calls for Immediate Action to End Foreclosure Crisis
September 28, 2007
Clinton Introduces Home Ownership Protection and Foreclosure Prevention Bill
September 20, 2007
Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Federal Housing Administration Reform Bill
August 22, 2007
Statement of Senator Clinton on Bush Administration Support for Modernizing the Federal Housing Administration
August 17, 2007
Senator Clinton Calls on President Bush to Provide Leadership on Mortgage Crisis
June 29, 2007
Statement of Senator Clinton on New Subprime Mortgage Lending Standards
June 14, 2007
Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Record Foreclosures
March 21, 2007
Clinton Reintroduces the 21st Century Housing Act
March 15, 2007
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Speaks to Bloomberg News About Her Speech to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition on the Growing Crisis Facing those Holding Subprime Mortgages
March 15, 2007
Senator Clinton Announces Initiative to Address Growing Crisis Facing Subprime Mortgage Holders
March 15, 2007
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's Remarks on Subprime Lending to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition
March 24, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
All Hillary Clinton does is peddle policy; she's a true policy wonk. The problem is the president isn't supposed to draft legislation for the congress to pass, it's the other way around. If that was the case, then why have a US Congress to begin with?
The president is supposed to have vision, she or he is supposed to be a leader. She/he is not supposed to merely draft legislation (this isn't the New Deal) she/he is supposed to have the judgment required to make the right decision when it matters.
That's why Obama got it right on Iraq. Clinton got it wrong on Iraq, she got it wrong on healthcare in the Clinton administration (because she didn't even have the judgment to compromise; hell she didn't even include Democratic congressment in on the discussions), she got it wrong on Rwanda, etc.
So, Hillary has experience alright, but just the wrong kind of experience (and in this sense, so does Obama; I don't care what legislation he peddled in Illinois). She can't speak out when the chips are down and she has to make a decision. Whenever she does, she gets it wrong.
I'll take judgment over experience any day, as I'm sure everyone else would.
March 26, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all fairness, Hillary delivered a plan to the Senate that same day to go along with her speech.
Still, yes, let's focus on our unity.
March 24, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. It shows once again that we have two good candidates.
But it also does show a difference in style.
Obama calls for a summit to develop a strategy and uses a series of pointed questions to frame it. Hillary puts forth a set of proposals that's she's come up with.
Both equally count as action, not just talk.
Obama's approach it seems to me is more likely to result in action because it involves other players from the beginning in development of the proposal to fix the problem. Getting people on board from the beginning like that is actually more likely to result in action then just telling people what you think we should do.
March 24, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is key.
This is the key reason why Hillary's health care effort failed.
And this difference in approach is why Obama will be a more successful president.
March 25, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are right, it is all about the approach. Obama is more the kumbayah and Hillary is more take the reins. Both approaches can be effective, but which one will be the most effective with the "suits" on Capital Hill? Somehow I don't see some of these old farts managing in the kumbayah fashion. WHat I do see is Kennedy and others backing Obama because they think they will be able to run over him. If he gets elected, I hope they don't, but I am not taking any chances. I want leadership I can count on and for me, again, personal choice, Hillary is my girl.
March 25, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
gturkey -
I am an Obama supporter, but I was a librarian first. ;) So I have to ask, what is your source for this letter, please?
Thanks.
March 24, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
.... Did you click the link? It's on the US Senate website.
March 24, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a librarian too, in fact, an information literacy librarian. The letter is linked to from the original post and is accessible from Senator Obama's .gov site. You can also find articles discussing it by searching LexisNexis newswires.
March 24, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Common,
Pardon the baseball analogy but its like saying a home run out of the park means more than one inside the park. Both score runs.....who cares. The essential point still is that both Candidates and thier party and followers need to get around this issue. Its huge. We ignore it at our own peril.
March 24, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually disagree. If you look at the history of Hillary and Obama in the Senate, you find that Obama's proposals are always joined by lots of co-sponsors, often from both parties.
But Hillary has submitted bill after bill with just her name on it that goes absolutely no where.
Obama supporters have pointed out a couple of things that Obama actually got done like:
Lobbying legislation that passed and has his name on it as one of the principal sponsors.
Nuclear proliferation legislation that has his name on it.
I believe there has been some other things as well.
Name one piece of legislation that Hillary was a principal sponsor or co-sponsor of that has passed the Senate.
March 24, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too many to list, so here is the site, go past the resolutions, the bills start around number 12. http://clinton.senate.gov/senate/legislation/ although, you have to get past some of the "nonsense" which Obama also has lots of..
March 24, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was interested in bills that got PASSED that she sponsored.
I see a lot of bills she sponsored here, and many do have co-sponsors, but not much of substance passing.
March 24, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
In her time in the Senate, Hillary has sponsored 22 bills that have become law. They include:
— a bill that extended the availability of unemployment assistance.
— a bill which established a program to assist family caregivers.
— a bill that provided benefits to public safety officers who were killed or injured during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
— a bill that protected children from injury in and around motor vehicles.
But Hillary's accomplishments in the Senate are not limited to bill sponsorships. Among her many other legislative accomplishments:
— Hillary worked with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to expand access to health care for the National Guard and Reserve.
— Hillary passed an amendment that created a national program for teacher and principal training and recruitment.
— Hillary used Senate rules to force the Bush administration to make emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, available over the counter.
Meanwhile, the email gives Sen. Obama credit for every bill he introduced or signed on as a co-sponsor, whether or not they became law. The reality is, since Sen. Obama joined the Senate (applying the same standard the email applies to Hillary) he has sponsored two bills that have become law:
— a bill that sought to promote democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
— a bill that named a post office.
March 24, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is completely and utterly false.
I don't know what e-mail you're talking about but Obama has gotten passed among other things:
---the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 that became LAW,
That law gave us the website where we can see who the government is giving our money to:
a href='http://usaspending.gov/'>http://usaspending.gov/
--The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act that became LAW,
---The 2007 Government Ethics Bill that became LAW
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/tag/bills+passed
In fact, this blogger came to endorse Obama only after she happened upon his legislative record not from listening to his speeches:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html
And if you're interested in a more detailed comparison of Clinton's and Obama's record in the Seante in just 2007, go to this diary on Daily Kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
This is why it absolutely infuriates so many Obama supporters when Clinton people say he's all talk and she has so much experience. The truth is, he's done a ton.
And there's his record in Illinois as well:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
March 24, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Daily Kos...or the Obama for God website. Pretty objective they are.
March 24, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to ignore all of the other substance there because you're averse to a domain name.
March 24, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that ethics bill, where the lobbyists can wine and dine all you want except you have to do it standing up...OOPS, got a little hole in that bill,,,,
March 25, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The daily KOS? You must be kidding me! If that is where you are getting your information, then I fully understand why you are voting the way you are viting.. Goodness gracious. Have you read any books? I have read all of Obama's and all of Hillary;s. I have read every book written about them, some nice, some not very nice at all. I voted for Hillary in Feb and will vote for her again and again as she is clearly the woman I want managing our foreign policy, our domestic issues and our economy. Just as I go to websites you all send me to and review actual details, I don't go to other blogs to get information. Especially not information that has been altered or exploited to make the case for Obama or any candidate for that matter. Try as hard as you can to get real information.
March 25, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her speech, just a speech she gave in 2007 -- empty rhetoric or pretty words. What did she actually do about it after that?
His letter, an appeal to the government authorities which actually have jurisdiction to act, asking them to take several specific concrete steps to address an emerging problem. Action combined with words.
March 24, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
She submitted a plan to the Senate. We don't have to dismiss her to acknowledge that Obama also acknowledged the problem.
March 24, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
where is his bill to address it, where is his legislation that would have gathered up all of the supporters to get something done? He is, after all, someone who is in an elected official capacity to DO SOMETHING.
March 24, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right here:
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070425-obama_durbin_in/
March 24, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mt. Laughable. Did he ever followup? Did he propose legislation? Did he ask the banking committee in the Senate to have hearings? Ummmmmmm no actions as usual. Just words from Obama
March 24, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to ask, because I seriously don't know the answer, aside from a letter and a speech, what substantive legislative action did either of these Senators take to address this issue for the last year.
As to some prior posts the Dems bear responsibility for this mess as well as the Repubs. As far as comments against regulation go, regulation worked by and large pretty well, they needed to be modernized not gutted.
March 24, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
How sad that we're here arguing about a week's difference between our two candidates, instead of out talking to our neighbors about the YEAR's difference between our candidates and the GOP's--especially McCain, whose economic team is headed by the Bubblemeisters themselves.
And too bad the economy is still not a major issue in this campain. (See Krugman's latest here.)
March 24, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, now we are getting somewhere.. The STOP FRAUD Act, which is aimed at stopping mortgage transactions that promote fraud, risk, abuse and underdevelopment, will provide the first federal definition of mortgage fraud and authorize stiff criminal penalties against fraudsters. the Act protects the rights of borrowers to challenge lending practices in foreclosure proceedings. This protects homeowners once they have been Duped, AND allows criminal penalties against the firms that duped them. It doesn't address quite a few issues. 1. remortgaging current sub prime high interest rate mortgages. 2. The issue with their mortgages now being more than a house appraises for.
March 24, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It protects consumers BEFORE things go wrong by defining mortgage fraud for the first time and establishing penalties for it so that lenders don't do it in the first place.
But yes, it also allows people to bring it up in foreclosure court, which also offers protection after the fact.
I will agree it's less ambitious than Clinton's.
And let me point out this was a REINTRODUCTION of this bill.
OBAMA FIRST PROPOSED IT FEB. 14 2006 -- LONG BEFORE CLINTON'S 2007 SPEECH AND PROPOSAL.
March 24, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supporters must be so proud. Everything Obama does is timely, on target and prescient. A truly remarkable man. Unlike Obama who is selfless and only thinks of others, everything Hillary does or says is motivated by political gain no matter how well intentioned it seems. How can you not support a person like that,
March 24, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Furion pointed out the link, which I missed. This is a great post. Thank you for it and for the link. I'm recently retired, and don't have ready access to LexisNexis.
March 24, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice use of the "Gender Card". More of the Clintonista Scorched Earth policy I guess.
March 24, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please direct me to the legislation this letter led to that got us out of this crisis.
What's that? This letter did nothing? No legislation? Failure to accomplish anything?
Oh.
The great unifier indeed. He's got nothing, absolutely nothing on his side of the balance sheet.
March 24, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Words on a page which led to......what?
Words and inspiration are great. Unfortunately that is not the same as actually getting things done.
He would make a wonderful speechwriter.
March 24, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
They lead to perfection obviously that only Obama can lay claim to. Of course, he does his perfection in a very harmonious way only making sure all of his common man is looked after before himself. Jesus incarnate I think I heard him referred to
March 24, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he's perfect in every way
March 24, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grimshizzle, you hit the nail on the head.
The differences between Obama and Clinton are real but incomparably small compared to their differences with the idiots on the other side of the aisle.
I think it's important to debate this issue but sadly it quickly degenerates into a "my candidate is better than your candidate" bash-fest!
Ben is also correct (btw, love your posts dude!), let's focus on our unity.
THE most important thing is that we get a DEM in the whitehouse in November. I understand there are strong feelings on each candidates side but let's get over ourselves and admit that we will actually vote for the DEM candidate in November instead of pouting about it!
Finally, is it just me or do some of you guys have WAY too much time on your hands to be researching all of these legislative bills that were passed/voted down????????
March 24, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy. this is the first fair and balanced discussion that I have seen todate.
But, I notice a lot of Hillary Rodam Clinton, but not a single Barack H.....(not allowed to actually say) Obama.
John fitzgerald, Geo Walker, Herbert Walker,Franklin Delano, Dwight David, Richard Millhouse....but Barack H......Obama. Just change it to Baracko, it's the Obama part that bothers most. Or maybe Jeramiah, that is biblical, I think.
I just can't get on to the tone of this discussion
March 24, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
geeze it, this guy Barack sees and projects or ejects the answer before anyone can state the problem.
What do you call that gift? Clarvoyency or something like that.
I just heard from one of the Wright justifiers, that the the Rev is a prophet. Combine that with the gift Obama has and guess what, they know the outcome or he wouldn't even be running.
Time for Clinton and McBush to toss in the towel.
March 24, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of Hilary ideas on how to fix the foreclosure are terrible ideas for people that don't own a home.
The problem with the current situation is that homes are way over value especially when compared to income across the country. What needs to happen is that home prices need to come back down so the relationship between home prices and income are back at historic levels.
Now the problem with the current mortgage system is that the only way to bring the home prices down quickly is through foreclosure. If a person owes more on their mortgage than their home is worth, the only logical thing for him to do is allow for his to be foreclosed on. Then the lender can sell the home in the market and determines a new value for the home.
Hilary's proposals were to have a foreclosure moratorium for 60 days. Here second proposal were to freeze interest rates for 5 years. While both these proposals keep families in their home it doesn’t address the underlining issue. That people’s homes are worth less money now than when they paid for them. So even though they can stay in their home and afford the monthly payments. They can't move because can't sell their home because their mortgage is more than what their home is worth. This also prevents the market from determine a fair value for a home.
In conclusion Hilary's proposal sucks because it would allow home prices to be artificially high. It would also trap people in their homes.
March 24, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, adamchaz!
FINALLY, someone gets past "Who proposed something first?" and on to "Is it a good idea?" The idea that because there is real pain involved in the bursting of the housing bubble, therefore the Federal government should do what it can to cement the bubble in place, is a profoundly bad one. It is the same sort of market interference as NYC's rent control, or CA's Prop. 13. In the long run, these ideas benefit some people, but at the expense of distorting the real estate market indefinitely. The costs outweigh the benefits.
That's not to say that the government can't pass laws to encourage market transparency, or to punish dishonest lenders. But the government should not try to decide what real estate values should be -- that is the market's job.
March 25, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to make sure you understand that you can only be foreclosed on IF you own a home. Your last sentence; "In conclusion Hilary's proposal sucks because it would allow home prices to be artificially high. It would also trap people in their homes." is not an accurate depiction of what would happen. Remember we are ONLY talking SUBPRIME Mortgages. This is her plan:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6693 3/24/2008
These are some facts:
Hillary Clinton's Plan to Protect American Homeowners
Impact for African American Families and Communities
Today, Senator Clinton announced her plan to protect American homeowners from the growing housing crisis, which threatens to drive our economy into a painful downturn. The housing crisis has a disproportionate impact on African-American families, and threatens to set back the gains in homeownership among African-Americans that we have seen over the past decades.
"Over the past week, we’ve seen unprecedented action to maintain confidence in our credit markets and head off a crisis for Wall Street Banks. It’s now time for equally aggressive action to help families avoid foreclosure and keep communities across this country from spiraling into recession,” said Clinton. “The solution I’ve proposed is a sensible way for everyone – lenders, investors, mortgage companies and borrowers - to share responsibility, keep families in their homes, and stabilize our communities and our economy."
There is a significant impact in the African American community, consider:
Fifty-two percent of mortgages to African-American families in 2006 were subprime loans, compared with 22 percent for white families. [Center for Responsible Lending, 2007]
African-American borrowers were 2.7 times more likely to be issued a high-cost loan and 1.8 times more likely to be issued a high-cost refinance loan than white borrowers. [ACORN, 2007].
African-American women are particularly at risk: they received subprime mortgages at the highest rate of any demographic group - despite having slightly higher credit than their male counterparts. [Consumer Federation of America, 2006]
Senator Clinton has been speaking out for over a year on the need to take action to address our housing crisis, and has been out in front in calling for major reforms: from cracking down on unscrupulous mortgage lenders to establishing a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and a five-year interest rate freeze on subprime mortgages. After more than a year of downplaying the problems in our housing market and criticizing Senator Clinton’s proposals, the Bush Administration now says it is willing to consider more aggressive action. But the time for mere consideration has passed. That’s why today Senator Clinton proposed a new plan to protect American homeowners. Her efforts will directly help African American families and communities:
Senator Clinton’s new action to help at-risk homeowners restructure their mortgages will help African-American families stay in their homes. Senator Clinton believes we should extend the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) capacity to guarantee restructured mortgages as proposed by Rep. Frank and Sen. Dodd, and that the government should stand ready to play a more proactive role in purchasing, restructuring, and reselling underwater mortgages. These steps will help hundreds of thousands of African-American families avoid foreclosure and maintain the value of their homes.
Senator Clinton’s $30 billion fund for states and localities will help African-American communities fight the foreclosure crisis in their neighborhoods. Senator Clinton understands that communities with high rates of subprime lending and mounting foreclosures are at risk of falling into devastating downward economic spirals. She believes that if we can extend a $30 billion lifeline for a Wall Street bank, we should be able to extend $30 billion to help these communities stem the impact of mounting foreclosures. Subprime lending has been particularly prevalent in majority African-American communities. In New York City, for example, 46 percent of mortgages in the African-American neighborhood of Jamaica, Queens, were subprime, compared to just over 3 percent in mostly-white Bay Ridge, Brooklyn – despite nearly identical median household incomes. As foreclosures mount, Senator Clinton’s $30 billion lifeline can be used to buy and rehabilitate foreclosed properties and ward off blight. Senator Clinton is committed to providing these neighborhoods with tools they deserve to weather the storm as the mortgage crisis deepens, including:
Supporting Efforts to End Discriminatory Lending Practices. There is substantial evidence of discriminatory lending practices in the subprime industry. As one lawyer from the NAACP observed “it’s almost as if subprime lenders put a circle around neighborhoods of color.” Senator Clinton’s $30 billion fund will provide support for community-based efforts to investigate and pursue claims against discriminatory lending practices.
Encouraging Responsible Borrowing. Senator Clinton’s $30 billion housing stimulus will also support homeowner counseling and education programs to make sure families have the information they need to make the right decisions. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have estimated that between one-third and one-half of all subprime borrowers could have qualified for prime mortgages.
March 25, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
From your link:
"Details on Senator Clinton’s Plan to Protect American Homeowners
1. New Action to Help Millions of At-Risk Homeowners Restructure their Mortgages and Stay in Their Homes. The share of mortgages entering foreclosures is at an all-time high and housing prices are falling at record rates. Already, 8.8 million Americans owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, the highest number since the Great Depression. If prices fall another 15 percent, one-third of all mortgages would be similarly "underwater." This trend threatens not only millions of families but the effective functioning of our credit markets as banks become less willing to make loans. The liquidity crunch is rippling through the economy, affecting everything from state and local tax revenues to student loans."
First of all, 30 billion dollars, divided by 8.8 million underwater mortgages, equals less than $4,000 per home. The only dollar cost specified in Clinton's plan is thus preposterously insufficient to deal with the existing problem -- still less so if, as she says, fully 1/3 of all mortgages go underwater. (I find it hard to believe her statistic, that as many as 1/3 of ALL mortgages would go underwater with only a 15% drop in home values. ALL mortgages? Not just new mortgages, or subprime mortgages?)
I am a homeowner, and naturally I'd be much happier if the value of my home didn't decline precipitously. But this proposal, which implies that the Feds can prop up the housing market by bailing out irresponsible lenders and borrowers, is a very bad idea.
March 25, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all likelihood, she is not saying she would PAY OFF the mortgages, only give the people enough money to get up to date on their payments while they worked to refinance them at a decent interest rate. So 4,000 would be approximately 4 months backpayments.
March 25, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S I stay up late so as to read and assess everything, and get in the last digs. As some unfamous person said, the early bird gets the worm
Screwed that one up didn't I.
If anyone thinks I'm pokeing fun at you, feel free to say so.
My wife thinks that I have gone walk-a-bout.
Goodnight and plesant "Dreams......", What audacity. But there is hope, and our time has come, and damm right we will.
March 24, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quick thread recap and comment:
Senator Clinton gave a speech March 15, 2007 to local supporters regarding her assesment of the impending mortagage crisis.
Senator Obama sent this letter March 22, 2007 to the key players in the mortgage crisis.
-
Senator Clinton followed up her speech with a reintroduction of her 21st Century Housing Act on March 21, 2007 (originally introduced May 25, 2006)
Senator Obama followed up his letter with a reintroduction of his Stop Fraud Act on April 25, 2007. (originally introduced June 11, 2006)
-
So, it appears as though we have two key Democratic Senators from two major states in the Union, being properly advised by intelligent and aware people of the situation around them. They chose to take action in different ways (feel free to read their own words for a full picture of the differences and plans), and thus ... we are where we are.
Which is nowhere, in large part because we lacked the political will to accomplish this goal ... and that is in large part because our political will was being obfuscated elsewhere during this time ... maybe the 146,000 troops in Iraq at that time know where the political will went (those who have returned safe and unharmed anyway).
Can we finally look at this predicament as two candidates on the right side of the fence ... nothing more.
March 25, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh, he has it all wrong. The problem isn't deadbeat poor people losing their homes, the problem is the integrity of the financial system, and I don't see much prescience in this letter at all. Just some hand wringing about how dumb people who took mortgages from dumb bankers willing to lend to poor people were gonna have problems when the rates reset, which *everyone* knew was coming down the pike.
March 25, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stupid ideas transcend age, income and gender. However, to paraphrase G. Orwell, some stupid ideas are more equal tan other. Take for example the vote to go to war.
Last night, while watching ``Bush's War'' I had an epiphany which I would like to share with you.
Sometime, shortly before the war, GWB looks over the existing evidence (unlike many senators that will remain unnamed) and is shoked: "Is it all we have?" he asks Tenet, who blurts out the infamous ``slam dunk''.
If a person as incurious as our president has had this moment of hesitation, can you imagine what HRC's vote would have been if she actually read the damn files. She is without a doubt a very intelligent person. If only she cared enough to do her job.
Apparently she had not learned from this mistake, for it was the Mother of all Mistakes. Last fall, she gangs up with Lieberman to stir trouble in Iran.
In true paranoid fashion, I believe that the various spy agencies saw a war with Iran in the near future, panicked and made public the intelligence estimates which poured cold water over hot tempered bellicose plans.
Now I keep hearing Orwellian NewSpeak from the Clinton's camp trying to cover up the nakedness of the emperor.
Don't let this fool you. They're butt naked and they're mooning us.
Felix
March 25, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure, but what's that got to do with the topic?
March 25, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Source?
March 26, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! All of you!
Hillary isn't running against anyone right now.
A good idea is a good idea; and a good thought is a good thought. Obama took the good thought, whether it came from Hillary, Edwards, or David Letterman, and put it on paper and sent it to someone who could/should check into it and do something about it.
That's the difference between "just words" and action.
He spoke against the war publicly when it was considered "unpatriotic" by many to do so.
Remember, our candidate as Democrats is Barack Obama. Those that like him are glad about it and will vote for him. Those that don't like him better get over Clinton and vote for him or the country will definitely be going into a black hole.
September 24, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are people still talking about Hillary's failed candidacy? Sounds like picking at a wound to me. We have serious problems here people - Hillary supporters who continue to attempt to undermine the only alternative to McCain/Palin, the most ridiculously dangerous ticket to rise from the swamp in many a year, are just bringing into question their own ability to make responsible judgments in a crisis.
October 8, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink