Obama is trying to get away with a hit and run

Our esteemed President talks a lot about how the Republicans drove the car in to the ditch.  Yessiree, that's what the Republicans did alright.  Now don't you worry though, cause he's not giving the keys back.  Nosiree, he's holdin' on to those keys cause if the Republicans get ahold of 'em they're gonna drive that car right back in to that great big ol' ditch.  Of course there's just one teensy weensy problem with the President's story-the Republicans weren't behind the wheel when that car went in the ditch.  It was the Democrats who were driving.  And it wasn't a ditch, it was a cliff.  And we haven't hit bottom yet.  Steve Capelli, commenting on  Guess what the New York Times didn’t like:

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009 it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, the start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

At the time:

1. The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

2. The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

3. The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

4. George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember the day…

1. January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

2. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

3. Thank Congress for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment to this CRISIS by dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco’s!

(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001, because it was financially risky for the U.S. economy, but no one was listening).

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?

OBAMA.

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie??

OBAMA and the Democratic Congress.

So when someone tries to blame Bush…

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007…. THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!” Bush may have been in the car, but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving. Set the record straight on Bush!

So, as you listen to all the commercials and media from the Democrats who are now distancing themselves from their voting record and their party, remember how they didn’t listen to you when you said you didn’t want all the bailouts, you didn’t want the health care bill, you didn’t want cap and trade, you didn’t want them to continue spending money we don’t have.

“It’s not that liberals aren’t smart, it’s just that so much of what they know isn’t so” -Ronald Reagan

The Democrats are trying to bluff their way out of taking responsibility for their own failures.  They are hoping that you and I won't remember the role they played in creating the housing crisis and then thwarting any efforts to prevent the crisis from blowing up in our faces.  In case there is anyone suffering from selective memory loss there is this:



These people need more than just their driver's licenses revoked.  Throughout the video the Democrats insist that Freddie and Fannie are in fine shape and they berate the regulator who is desperately trying to tell them otherwise,  At one point Rep. Maxine Waters crows about the easy underwriting and the availability of 100% financing.  These people blame Bush because they can't put the blame where it really belongs-directly in their laps.

These are the people who took the car and left it a mangled wreck and now they want to continue driving our economy.  I say not a chance in Hell.

Pay up, Sucker!

“Obama often chides others for being irresponsible. When he does, the effect is a bit like Richard Nixon calling others ruthless.”

Thus writes Kyle Smith in The end of responsibility

The latest in a string of doozies since Obama took office involves the rumor that Freddie and Fannie will be directed to reduce the balances of mortgages that are deemed to be “underwater”. Smith:

That’s right. If you bet badly in the housing-market casino of the Aughties, the government is thinking of refunding some of your chips so you can play again. You may have heard something about a sub-prime real-estate bubble that popped and nearly took down the financial system with it? President Obama wants to double down.

Unlike most rumors, this one became more, not less, plausible when you examine the details. The White House has made it clear in recent months that it is frustrated by what the Framers called “the legislative branch,” what President Obama calls “politics” and what I call “the wishes of the American people.”

Obama craves a short-term sugar rush for the economy. If he feels cornered, betrayed and alone, he could use his new ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a free federal candy store and tell America to line up and pig out.

Rewarding subprime borrowers would be characteristic. In more ways than one, Barack Obama seems to want to be known as the Sub-Prime President.

So, if you are among the millions who didn’t buy more home than you could afford, didn’t fall for creative financing gimmicks aimed at setting monthly payments artificially low, and despite these hard times has kept up with your mortgage payments, the administration has a name for you, “Sucker”.

When the principal on a mortgage is crammed down that money doesn’t just disappear-it still has to be paid for. Obama is simply shifting the payment from the homeowner to the taxpayer. Once the plan goes through you will be paying your own mortgage and a portion of your neighbor’s.

Smith likens this to the auto bailout:

When they build the irresponsibility Hall of Fame, there will be a special exhibit on the autoworkers who drove GM and Chrysler into insolvency. The UAW knew it was driving up wages and benefits to unsustainable levels, but it also knew that the Democratic Party had its back. Ordinary bankruptcy would have voided its contracts. Instead, GM endured an Obama-customized restructuring that punished its lenders and left the UAW almost untouched. The UAW did suffer the gross insult of its workers being forced to report to duty on the Monday after Easter — in 2011. In 2012, they go back to getting Easter Monday as a paid holiday. Post-restructuring, their pay and benefits are still around $50 an hour.

Like a lung-cancer survivor waking up from surgery and whispering, “Bring me Marlboros,” the UAW is already hinting that it expects to be rewarded with a nice bump after its contract expires next year, and Obama has told the workers he is excited by the prospect.

Unlike the bank bailouts, the Detroit aid (which is costing 30 times the value of the 1979 lifeline to Chrysler) has no chance of breaking even, Gregg Easterbrook wrote on Reuters. To do that, stock in the new GM would have to rise to the old company’s all-time peak valuation. You’ll see George Clooney driving a Yugo before that happens. Moreover, included in the GM bailout was a gift to GM’s finance arm — a subprime lender.

Yep, Obama is faithful adherent to the “There’s a sucker born every minute” school of thought. We, the ever responsible taxpayers were put on this earth to finance whims of our better, Mr. Obama. And should we dare to complain about the burden we are being asked to bear and pass on to our children, we are quickly reminded that we are racists. Discussion over.

So, pay up Sucker, and remember, in Obamaland you can never give enough.

Are Bonuses for “Fat Cats” Bad? Depends on Which “Fat Cat”

That was then:

US President Barack Obama has hit out at Wall Street "fat cats," expressing anger that banks bailed out by the government again plan huge bonuses as millions of Americans battle poverty and unemployment.

"I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street," he said in an interview with CBS television to be aired today.

And this is now:

The Obama administration pledged Thursday to provide unlimited financial assistance to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an eleventh-hour move that allows the government to exceed the current $400 billion cap on emergency aid without seeking permission from a bailout-weary Congress. (emphasis added)

The Christmas Eve announcement by the Treasury Department means that it can continue to run the companies, which were seized last year, as arms of the government for the rest of President Obama's current term.

But even as the administration was making this open-ended financial commitment, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disclosed that they had received approval from their federal regulator to pay $42 million in Wall Street-style compensation packages to 12 top executives for 2009. (emphasis added)

Let’s see, the “fat cats” who are paying back the taxpayers are undeserving of bonuses but the crooks at Fannie and Freddie who were instrumental in causing the housing bubble and are permanently living off the taxpayer dime, now they deserve bonuses of up to six million dollars each. Gotcha.

While President Obama has been demanding accountability of Wall Street he sets a different standard, a lower standard, for himself and his administration.

Common Sense and Home Ownership

Or more appropriately, making loans to provide home ownership.



Via Stacy McCain, Ready for the Mother of All Bailouts?



The FHA is on the hook for lots of "underwater" loans, taken out by low-income homeowners who got special low down-payment deals and -- in case you didn't notice -- unemployment hit a 26-year high in August, with no prospect the 9.7% jobless rate will go down any time this year. Dave Hogberg of Investors Business Daily reports:


FHA-insured loans have more than tripled from 530,000 in fiscal year 2007 to 1.7 million thus far in 2009. The Government National Mortgage Association, which securitizes FHA loans, has boosted its mortgage-related issuance to $287 billion from $85 billion. Yet during that same period, the FHA's loan delinquency rate has climbed to 14.4% in Q2 from 12.6% two years earlier.OK, so guess what the consequences are now?



As job losses continue to mount, why would someone facing economic difficulties try to keep a home that is worth less than the money owed on it?



More at the Hot Air Green Room.



As someone who did loans for the first twenty years of my life straight out of college the current "housing situation" makes me crazy. Let me explain how this whole mortgage problem came to pass as a former lender.

Once upon a time, if you did a mortgage loan the chances were pretty darn good that the loan was golden. It had to be because as a lender you were putting money out there at a relatively low rate of return for a relatively long period of time. You could do that based on some assumptions.


First, the prospective homeowner was investing too much in to securing the loan to walk away from it. Back in the day, and we are only talking about a decade and a half ago, the buyer had to put a pretty good chunk of change down on the purchase of a home PLUS pay closing costs out of pocket. As a result, people worked and sacrificed in order to save up enough of their own money before they had any kind of shot at getting a home. By the time a couple had the money to secure a loan, they were both financially and emotionally invested in the home.

Second, prospective buyers had to prove that come hell or high water, they paid their obligations. A single "30 day notice" on a credit report could end any hope of receiving a mortgage. On top of that, the buyer had to have at least three months of income, over and above the down payment and closing costs, sitting in a liquid account to show that they could make their payments in the event they had an unforeseen event.

Third, it was assumed that the value of the home would increase over time and therefore, the owner's risk of loss would increase as the lender's risk of loss would decrease. Foreclosure might have been a pain in the lender's tailpipe but it didn't result in a loss. For the homeowner, it was a huge loss and the consequences were unthinkable.

Boom! Everything changed. The powers that be be declared that home ownership was a God given right not a privilege and the push was on. If lenders didn't make enough home loans there was government enforced hell to pay. HMDA, CRA, loan, loan, loan. No money? No credit? No job? NO WORRIES! No money down. No income verification. Don't worry lenders. Throw everything out the window because we (the government) may be forcing you to make these loans but we are also letting you off the hook via Fannie and Freddie and FHA, so knock yourselves out. Guess what happened.


Lenders, under enormous pressure to lend, and with the ability to sell off their risk, created programs that put people who should never been put in to homes in to homes. Were lenders greedy? You bet your backside. Lenders figured out that they could make money by doing exactly what the government demanded that they do. Predatory? Was the government predatory?

So, almost full circle back to Stacy, "As job losses continue to mount, why would someone facing economic difficulties try to keep a home that is worth less than the money owed on it?" They wouldn't. Unintended consequences. The homeowner hasn't got so much invested, financially or emotionally, to stay and fight for a home whose value holds no value. And on the bright side, with the changes in the bankruptcy laws, they can be back in another home, no money down, in three years or less. The biggest loser, as always, is the taxpayer. Now the circle is complete.