Illinois politicians show the nation what's important to them
Posted by aogMonday, 14 September 2009 at 21:26
TrackBack Ping URL
The Senate voted 83-7 to cut off all federal funding for ACORN in response to the videos of ACORN employees appearing to be willing to help out with underage prostitution. I can’t say I was the least bit surprised to find that of the seven Senators voting to keep ACORN federal funded are my two Senators, Durbin and Burris.
P.S. Don’t forget that Durbin is in line for Senate Majority Leader if Senator Reid is recalled by Nevadan voters.
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 04:15|
Rough, didn’t you know that ACORN is enforcement arm of the CRA.
In the sense that you appear to mean it, yes.
However, the CRA isn’t an agency or organization, and has no “enforcement arm”. It’s a package of law and regulations. Any person or group, such as ACORN, could file a complaint against any other person or group whose behavior is within the scope of the CRA - just as one might with regard to the ADA. Here is a piece that will help explain ACORN’s relationship to the CRA: IBDeditorials: Why The Mortgage Crisis Happened, By M. JAY WELLS.
Further, I infer that you are asserting that ACORN was one of the principal actors and causes of the housing bubble and its collapse, through its interaction with CRA implementation. However, although the CRA enabled the housing bubble, neither it nor ACORN can be held responsible for the current crisis by any reasonable person, since the CRA merely influenced the climate in which the fateful and interlocking decisions were made that brought us here, by people such as (but certainly not limited to) Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission Christopher Cox, Treasury Secretaries John Snow and Henry Paulson, (especially the latter), Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, and ultimately, POTUS George W. Bush.
It would be as loopy as blaming WW II on the Treaty of Versailles - like the CRA, it set the stage, but was it directly responsible for the crisis that followed? Absolutely not.
ACORN voter fraud and intimidation were also largely responsible for electing Obama and that isn’t a laughing matter.
Wow, ACORN sure was God-like a short year ago. How the mighty fall.
Obama defeated McCain by over 8.5MM votes, or about 15% of McCain’s total vote tally. It wasn’t even close. Also, Obama had approval poll ratings of almost 70% when inaugurated, and a month later was still at 60%. If Obama had pulled a 2000-style Bush squeaker, (or ‘60 JFK), if public opinion was evenly split in approval, then there might be some merit in speculating that “voter fraud and intimidation” were responsible for his win. However, given the spread between the candidates’ vote tallies and the massive public support for Obama, it’s just not credulous. McCain is a fine man who was the wrong candidate for the times, and he just plain lost.
Friday, 18 September 2009 at 00:35|
I believe that if McCain hadn’t overtaken Obama in polls after the convention, there would be no financial crisis today. Obama was such an obvious empty suit that without a crisis, even the mass media wouldn’t been able to hide it.
Perhaps you misunderstand the scope of the crisis.
To begin with, although electoral politics had something to do with why it wasn’t prevented, the bubble & bust was not a political tool of any political party, faction or power group.1
Further, the bust absolutely could have been prevented if we’d acted in 2005, and there was a chance that the impact could have been lessened if we’d acted in 2006, but because we didn’t act the bust was INEVITABLE by 2007, before Obama even announced his candidacy for President. It didn’t matter who was elected to the Oval Office - Hillary, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney or even Ron Paul - the damage had been done. (Although Paul or Romney might have done a better job than Obama with handling the damage control.)
Finally, the bust resulted in a global recession, soon to be a depression, and every, repeat EVERY major American bank is technically and functionally INSOLVENT. (And most European banks too.) They’re being kept on life support because The Powers That Be feel that we’re better-off with zombie banks rather than a bankrupt financial sector, which is true in the short run but hemlock in the long run.
This isn’t a political trap, cunningly crafted and precisely activated. It’s the Charge of the Light Brigade.
Here are two more articles describing how we got where are finance-wise. Canada Free Press and IBD Editorial.
Did you possibly mispost that Canada FP link? Because although the linked article is all about ACORN, there’s nothing in it about economics.
As for the IBD editorial… Really, all I can say is that I sincerely hope that their publication’s investment advice is orders of magnitude more insightful than their editorial economic analysis.2 The CRA and ACORN were NOT responsible in any meaningful way for either the boom or the bust. (Which is another thing: Was IBD warning of impending doom in 2006, and excoriating the CRA and ACORN for causing the economy to boom in such an unsustainable way? I’ll bet that instead they were cheerleading the rise in the equity and housing markets, which, if the CRA was responsible for the entire American finance sector’s loose lending, means that IBD used to be a de facto ACORN cheerleader. Whence cometh this late-life conversion?) Also, there were parallel loose lending standards and housing booms in Britain, Eastern Europe, Ireland, France and Spain, among other places. Is it IBD’s contention that the CRA and ACORN had a GLOBAL REACH ?!? That’s both absurd and hilarious. And if that’s not their position, then how do they explain the global nature of the RE bubble, if it was caused by the CRA and ACORN?
Further, IBD pegs the ACORN-related lending as being in the “billions”. Even if we were to say that the amount was $100 billion, as of 2006, Federal Reserve statistics show that total household real estate assets were $19.8 trillion (Statistical release Z.1 (Flow of Funds), table B.100 (Household Balance sheet), line 4). Even if ACORN somehow touched or affected $500 billion worth of loans, that would still be only 2.5% of the entire U.S. housing market at the peak of the bubble. How is it again that ACORN caused everything?
I’m sorry to hear you’ve made irrevocable changes in your life. It’s always a good idea to hedge your bets…
That’s often true, but hedging is not how fortunes are made. (Although that’s often how they’re kept.) They’re typically made by being both all-in and correct. I’m all-in. As to correct… Time will tell.
Besides, my ultimate hedge is the American economy in toto. If I’m correct, then the risks of doing nothing are EXTREME. But if I’m entirely wrong, and we recover quickly and the party resumes, then I’ll be able to reposition in three years or so, and enjoy the boom. I find that risk and result, mainly the loss of potential opportunity, to be far more bearable than the risk and hideous cost of doing nothing in the face of what I perceive to be a looming Götterdämmerung.
1 (Although one could make a very cogent argument that it was and is a class-based event, with the elite, the wealthy, the powerful and the connected, regardless of political affiliation, fleecing the lumpenproletariat during the boom, and robbing their kids and grandkids during the bust - with the help and sanction of both major political parties. [However, Middle America can take some grim and bleak satisfaction from the darkly humorous fact that the mania lasted so long that most of the original hucksters and flim-flam artists BEGAN TO BELIEVE THEIR OWN CON, and started to participate in the speculation, thinking that with their genius and inside knowledge, they could surely call the end and dump their trash in time to get out. But largely, they didn’t.])
2 As opposed to the fundamental CAN-SLIM investment advice of IBD founder William O’Neil, which is quite valuable.