Quantcast

Do you want America to become a Socialist Nation?

Lucky~NOBama 2008/10/11 21:44:37
No Way..Save America! That is why I am voting for McCain!
Yes, I think Socialism works so I am voting for Obama.
Undecided
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Proof that Obama is a Socialist and will DESTROY AMERICA!






Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?
By P.J. Gladnick

The mainstream media thought that the membership of Todd Palin, who is not a candidate for any office, in the Alaska Independence Party important enough to report in such outlets as the Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, and the New York Times, among others.
So now that Barack Obama's membership in the far left New Party has been unearthed, will they report his membership in that Socialist organization?
Proof of Obama's membership in the New Party was discovered by the Politically Drunk On Power blog:

In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist 'New Party' was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations "fusion" reform platform as unconstitutional.

After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.
On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.

From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party':
"New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

You can find the above quote from the scubbed New Party web page at this Internet Archive Organization link. More confirmation of Obama's membership in the New Party can be found at an article in the November 1996 Progressive Populist magazine:
New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.

The Democratic Socialist Party of America also reported on Obama's New Party membership in its July/August 1996 edition:
The Chicago New Party is increase becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base.

First, in relation to its infrastructure, the NP's membership has increased since January '95 from 225 to 440. National membership has increased from 5700 in December '95 to 7000. Currently the NP's fiscal balance is $7,000 and receives an average of $450/month is sustainer donations.

Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Sub circuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. Although Delgado received 45% of the vote, he lost by only 800 votes. Delgado commented that it was due to the NP volunteers that he carried the 32nd Ward. Delgado emphasized that he will remain a visible community activist in Humboldt Park. He will conduct four Immigration workshops and encouraged NP activists to get involved.


Kudos to Politically Drunk On Power for digging up this information about Obama's membership in the socialist New Party. The question now is if the MSM will deem his party membership important enough to report on. They sure didn't hesitate to report on Todd Palin's membership in the Alaska Independence Party.


UPDATE: Yet more proof of Obama's close involvement in the socialist New Party from NewsBusters' Hermano who provided this link to the Chicago Democratic Socialists of American September-October 1995 New Ground 42 edition:

About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP's political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to "win". This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat.
So Obama signed a contract with the New Party? Verrrry interesting.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm...
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • azukitaa 2008/10/12 01:22:51
    No Way..Save America! That is why I am voting for McCain!
    azukitaa
    +14
    OMG! Please, even the question upsets me. I may not be more of a patriot then anybody, but I can sure as hell say NOOOOOO to SOCIALISM! It does not work, the ideology both written and in practice is a FAILURE, IT DESTROYS EVERYTHING, NO SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE, THAT is the first step to destruction of a country's dignity, self worth. It is important having health care, but god almighty work your ass off and it can be done. That is why USA is the best country ever. The goverment does not owe me anything, it gives me the liberty to pursue my own ideas, my own dreams, my wealth, my free spirit, CAPITALISM and knowing that I can make it as far as I want it's what it is about. How dare the government say that at 7 years of age a Cuban child can no longer drink milk and that is just one example, people read what socialism and communism does to people and a country. No, No, No I won't stand for it, it is not ok, it is not normal, and it will not happen in our country. God bless the USA.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • MindReader 2009/04/26 05:39:08
    Yes, I think Socialism works so I am voting for Obama.
    MindReader
    Actually, my answer is "No." No one picks "Yes." It feels left out.

    I thought we already were a Socialist Nation.

    Consider: We are tracked by SOCIAL Security Numbers.
    We have compulsory government socialized education for our children.
    We have Medicaid, Medicare and soon to be socialized medicine.
    When we hit 65 we fall in to the lap of the government with Social Security.

    So, why are we not already there? medicare socialized medicine hit 65 fall lap government social security
  • flbasketspace45 2009/04/23 17:37:04
    Yes, I think Socialism works so I am voting for Obama.
    flbasketspace45
    man calm down with all this socialist BS. GUESS WHO WON? Now you need to get OUR PRESIDENT and BECOME A COUNTRY instead of a DIVIDED PIECE OF CRAP!
  • obam 2009/01/10 00:05:07
    Yes, I think Socialism works so I am voting for Obama.
    obam
    Mc Cain is a complete loser.
  • conrman 2008/12/15 15:29:06
    No Way..Save America! That is why I am voting for McCain!
    conrman
    No to socialism.....
  • Military 2008/12/03 22:31:21
    No Way..Save America! That is why I am voting for McCain!
    Military
    +1
    Ask any Cuban if they like comunism. Ask any European if they like socialism. Ask any Canadian if they like universal health coverage. Then ask any Israeli if they like having to worry about car bombs. Now ask yourself these same questions because all 4 just might happen here in the next 4 years.
  • jaskaur 2008/11/10 03:40:28
  • Concerned 2008/10/26 19:15:19
    No Way..Save America! That is why I am voting for McCain!
    Concerned
    God help us if Obama is elected president of the strongest nation in the world, the United States of America!! Socialism, in American??? If you want to live in a Socialistic country then move to one, don't turn our beautiful country into one! It scares the heck out of me!!!
  • justchillin 2008/10/23 03:45:48
    No Way..Save America! That is why I am voting for McCain!
    justchillin
    NO,THATS WHY WE DONT NEED OBAMA
  • island in Illi 2008/10/15 08:01:11
    No Way..Save America! That is why I am voting for McCain!
    island in Illi
    +2
    There is no way I want to live in a Socialist/Communist nation. Go McCain/Palin!
  • Seth (crazy Iowan) *Burgundy* 2008/10/15 03:37:16
    Undecided
    Seth (crazy Iowan) *Burgundy*
    +3
    I don't know how it'll work out, but if one step closer to socialism is what saves this country from John W. McBush (John McCain and George Bush, he's the same dude in two different bodies). I have only lived through one republican president and I can say I don't like. In the first election I can vote in, I will be voting for Obama.
  • freedom... Seth (c... 2008/10/15 20:13:01
    freedomforever
    seth...one step closer is one step closer to your personal freedoms being removed, sometimes it is hard to see the bigger and longer term problems associated with our choices....we think oh if i steal this candy bar it is only a small thing and it will not hurt anyone...but it is small steps like this that turn people into criminals and lives ruined..this applies to our govt...due to both parties, dem & repub, we have had many small steps towards losing our form of govt, it is the best form of govt that exists on planet earth today(it isnt perfect, but neither are human beings) but it is getting erroded away by individuals such as yourself only looking at the short term, sometimes for personal gain, sometimes because they think it is best...but here we are at a precipice of freedom...dont let our country be like EU, Cuba, Russia et al...do more research to truly find out what we should do, listen to Ron Paul speeches......
  • Lucky~N... Seth (c... 2008/10/15 23:21:52
  • azukitaa Seth (c... 2008/10/16 13:24:54
    azukitaa
    We have enjoyed so much freedom for so long that we are perhaps in danger of forgetting how much blood it cost to establish the Bill of Rights. ~Felix Frankfurter
  • Souther... Seth (c... 2008/10/24 21:32:26
    Southern Man
    Welcome to your first poliical blunder.
  • Seth (c... Souther... 2008/10/24 23:46:17
    Seth (crazy Iowan) *Burgundy*
    +1
    Believe me, without all this controversy, politics wouldn't be this fun.

    I am voting for Obama. I don't think he is the best possible candidate, but I cannot vote for a Republican. I refer to him as McBush--everybody knows it's going to be another 4 years. America is facing two extremes: another president who is going to stick to selfish and stubborn conservative views, or a new type of president with perhaps the most radical agenda in years!! We'll see who wins. I already know I won't be able to handle McBush...but I have faith in Obama until he proves differently.
  • jams 2008/10/14 22:46:57
    No Way..Save America! That is why I am voting for McCain!
    jams
  • MS 2008/10/14 22:36:36
    Undecided
    MS
    +1
    Is this socialisim?

    GOOD EXPLANATION OF OBAMA'S TAX PLAN

    WSJ.com
    Obama's 95% Illusion
    oCTOBER 13, 2008

    It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.
    One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

    AP
    It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

    For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

    - A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

    - A $4,000 tax credit for college t...



    ""





    ""

    '""""'""'

    '

    """"

    ""

    ''''

    ''""

    ""''



    Is this socialisim?

    GOOD EXPLANATION OF OBAMA'S TAX PLAN

    WSJ.com
    Obama's 95% Illusion
    oCTOBER 13, 2008

    It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.
    One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

    AP
    It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

    For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

    - A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

    - A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

    - A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

    - A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

    - An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

    - A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

    - A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

    Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

    The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

    The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

    The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

    It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

    There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

    Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.



    www.djreprints.com
    (more)
  • Lucky~N... MS 2008/10/14 22:45:45
    Lucky~NOBama
    +1
    Obama is a CONFIRMED Member of the “NEW Socialist Party” whose mission is to take over America and make it a Socialist!

    Stop Obama
  • Mr D 2008/10/14 19:34:39
    No Way..Save America! That is why I am voting for McCain!
    Mr D
    +1
    He is a Socialist comunist marxist
  • dr t jr 2008/10/14 19:34:00 (edited)
    No Way..Save America! That is why I am voting for McCain!
    dr t jr
  • Dragonez 2008/10/14 18:21:23
    No Way..Save America! That is why I am voting for McCain!
    Dragonez
    +1
    Just listen to his answer to the working man 10/12/08
  • Broadsword 2008/10/14 18:12:48
    No Way..Save America! That is why I am voting for McCain!
    Broadsword
    +2
    Obama's books talk of 'economic injustice' in America... they way that Obama told that small business plumber that he was going to redistribute his wealth (even to non-tax payers) is nothing but socialism. You want economic justice... work for it and pay your share of taxes.
  • Teddie Broadsword 2008/10/15 19:07:01
    Teddie
    The small business plumber would see his tax rate go down.
  • blondie 2008/10/14 18:00:50
    Undecided
    blondie
    +3
    You right wingers don't get it. America is a socialist nation. Corporate Socialism. Corporations run everything. It is time to take America back. Wall Street has to be reigned in. Never again should we allow a company to get so big that if it fails, it effects every aspect of the economy. Just one example: The insurance companies and drug companies make billions in profits and spend millions in advertising. Why do you think they were with President ush in writing the drug part of medicare? Certainly not for the people. Only for profit.
  • Broadsword blondie 2008/10/14 18:14:36
    Broadsword
    +3
    But what we don't need is more and faster socialism!! I agree we need to reign in the free handouts to special interests on Wall Street.
  • Dragonez blondie 2008/10/14 18:35:39
    Dragonez
    +3
    If Obama would win the Presidency then the Democrats would totally control the government. Democrats like Obama (socialist), Pelosi (idiot and blindly partisan), Dodd (gets earmarks from Fannie Mae and 'sweetheart mortgages'), Franks (has an affair with an executive of Fannie Mae, while keeping over-sight off their backs) , Raines (CEO of Fannie Mae till it started tanking, then stepped down and took millions with him).

    http://www.usnews.com/blogs/b...
    Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response.
  • Teddie Dragonez 2008/10/15 19:09:52
    Teddie
    +2
    The GOP had COMPLETE control of Congress and the Executive for 6 years (2000-2006) and filibuster/veto power control of Congress for 2 (2006-2008). Nothing happened that they didn't want to have happen. Period.

    So how you blame our present circumstances of the Democrats is beyond me (and a lot of other people.) If the Republicans were so aware of the danger we were in, WHY didn't they do anything about it? Most of the big winners on Wall St. - if not all - are Republicans. They gained a lot from GOP control. Think.
  • Dragonez Teddie 2008/10/15 19:31:56
    Dragonez
    Darn it here I go again, having to educate the uneducated.

    http://www.usnews.com/blogs/b...

    Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
    October 06, 2008 05:10 PM ET | Michael Barone |

    Corrected on 10/08/08: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated the year Barney Frank and Herb Moses broke up. They broke up in 1998.

    Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president.

    Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged. The GSEs' mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental ...''

    Darn it here I go again, having to educate the uneducated.

    http://www.usnews.com/blogs/b...

    Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
    October 06, 2008 05:10 PM ET | Michael Barone |

    Corrected on 10/08/08: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated the year Barney Frank and Herb Moses broke up. They broke up in 1998.

    Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president.

    Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged. The GSEs' mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental status was to package or securitize such mortgages, but the lion's share of their profits—which determined top executives' bonuses—came from speculation.

    I point to some one ALOT smarter than you or me.
    (more)
  • Teddie Dragonez 2008/10/16 20:39:42
    Teddie
    It is clearly a complex situation to which a number of things contributed, However, consider:

    Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/25...

    By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

    WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

    Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

    Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

    Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

    Federal Reserve Board data show that:

    * More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were ...



    '

    ""'



    "'"

    '

    '





    ''













    '

    "'"

    '

    ''

    '

    '

    """"

    ""
    It is clearly a complex situation to which a number of things contributed, However, consider:

    Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/25...

    By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

    WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

    Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

    Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

    Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

    Federal Reserve Board data show that:

    * More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

    * Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

    * Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

    The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

    Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages.

    "I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.

    Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

    It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.

    This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

    To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.

    But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

    Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

    During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

    In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

    Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

    About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.

    Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.

    Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities.

    Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."

    Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.

    What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

    These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

    In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

    "Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

    In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."
    McClatchy Newspapers 2008
    (more)
  • jams Teddie 2008/10/15 20:44:23
    jams
    +1
    What makes you think most Wall Streeters are Republicans? My experience has been the opposite? In fact..................

    Democrats are darlings of Wall St.
    Donations to Democratic campaigns prompt concern that the candidates will go soft on regulation of the financial markets.

    March 21, 2008 in print edition A-1

    Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who are running for president as economic populists, are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign contributions from the troubled financial services sector.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2...
  • Teddie jams 2008/10/16 20:45:51
    Teddie
    +1
    Trust me, Wall St. is Republican. The fact that donations are now starting to go to the perceived likely winners is only how politics work. Money flows to those in power. The GOP has so screwed up the nation that it would be a triumph of Fox News and propaganda for the GOP to win.
  • jams Teddie 2008/10/16 21:02:11
    jams
    Clearly articulated, Dottie but incorrect.

    While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/port...
  • blondie Teddie 2008/10/16 16:46:56
    blondie
    Dottie, You are mistaken. The Republicans had a veto proof majority even during President Clinton's term. Democrats didn't regain a majority until 2006. The senate still does not have a fillibuster proof majority. If the Gop wanted to do anything before 2006, they could have pushed it through. The reason the senate has such a loww approval rating is because they won't work together for the benefit of the american people. They are afraid of losing political clout. As far as fanny and freddie, it was to help low and moderate low income people to get homes. The BIG WIGS found a way to trick people into getting into subprime mortgages that would reset into high interest rates so that they couldn't afford them. Shame on you all for blaming the poor. And by the way, fannie may exects. are on J. McCains team.
  • Teddie blondie 2008/10/16 20:43:03
    Teddie
    Thank you. I was only going back to 2000 for some reason, but you are right, the GOP has been running the show since Clinton. I agree with you completely.
  • Dragonez Teddie 2008/10/16 20:55:20
    Dragonez
    Yet we had no mortgage crisis or financial meltdown until the Democrats took control of the House...go figure.
  • freedom... blondie 2008/10/14 21:18:29
    freedomforever
    +1
    so how is obama going to change any of that, everything he has written about his plans include just more of the same only more of it
  • jams blondie 2008/10/14 22:48:13
    jams
    +1
    What do you think a "Corporation" consists of?
  • Teddie jams 2008/10/15 19:11:57 (edited)
    Teddie
    +2
    A corporation is a legal fiction that protects investors from liability and creditors. That is all it is - a way for people to put their money together and engage in commercial transactions for profit in a way that doesn't put their personal assets at risk. It has a Board of Directors and CEO, and then various classes of shareholders and bond holders. Control of the corporation lies with the majority shareholder. What do you think a corporation is?
  • jams Teddie 2008/10/15 20:40:55
    jams
    Just that.

    I was responding to a suggestion from someone that said "Corporations run everything" and "It's time to take it back". Which is naive at best and stupid in reality.
  • Teddie jams 2008/10/16 20:47:35
    Teddie
    Well, they have had a pretty good lock on our government.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 19 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/24 05:47:20

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals