It's interesting that you single out Obama and cherry pick figures-without any comparisons to judge what crime Obama has committed in your mind.

As someone not of Wall Street I look to other fair and balanced indicators to make up my mind.
First Paul Volker is a widely respected leader and expert in the financial affairs of this country -respected by everyone from Carter to Reagen , from Larry Kudlow to Senator Kent Conrad.

-Volker endorsed Obama and his outlook on economics.
-Secondly according to CREW, another fair arbiter of information, as of Sept. 07 Obama received 99% of his funds from individual contributors. Of the 'other' 1%, only 26% came from business. Whereas Clinton received 88% from individuals, and they were huge donors from wealthiest families who topped George W. Bush's Pioneers, and of the remaining 12% of 'other' donors -more than half came from business.

I believe we'd like our candidates to receives some support from some businesses, yes?? I mean they too live here don't they and have an interest in this country??
But for you to aim this article against Obama specifically, without mentioning Clinton, well -good luck with your new Republican daddies giving you or 'the middle class' the time of day.

Do you know what change looks like? It looks a lot like reason. There are good arguments and ideas on both sides of the aisle. There are also REALLY BAD arguments and ideas on both sides of the aisle.
You seem to think everyone in this country is a washington politician who must be blindly on one side or the other. Thankfully, some of us are intelligent and capable of reason.
People LIED on their mortgage applications. They did. They shouldn't benefit from this. Lenders LIED too. Lenders lied to borrowers AND to investers who bought the loans. Lenders also conspired with appraisers to deceive further. If you want to blame one side the lenders were worse, but BOTH did have culpability.
God forbid a politician believes people should take responsibility for their actions...and a democrat no less. A democrat who actually believes we shouldn't just give handouts to people who made bad choices, a democrat who believes we should fix a broken system rather than coddle those who were supposedly taken advantage of...will wonders never cease?
There is a reason Obama appeals to independants and republicans. He is the only one who (at least sometimes) speaks reason.

Do you know what change looks like? It looks a lot like reason taking over politics. There are good arguments and ideas on both sides of the aisle. There are also REALLY BAD arguments and ideas on both sides of the aisle.
You seem to think everyone in this country is a washington politician who must be blindly on one side or the other. Thankfully, some of us are intelligent and capable of reason.
People LIED on their mortgage applications. They did. They shouldn't benefit from this. Lenders LIED too. Lenders lied to borrowers AND to investers who bought the loans. Lenders also conspired with appraisers to deceive further. If you want to blame one side the lenders were worse, but BOTH did have culpability.
God forbid a politician believes people should take responsibility for their actions...and a democrat no less. A democrat who actually believes we shouldn't just give handouts to people who made bad choices, a democrat who believes we should fix a broken system rather than coddle those who were supposedly taken advantage of...will wonders never cease?
There is a reason Obama appeals to independants and republicans. He is the only one who (at least sometimes) speaks reason.

Of all of Obama's economic policies, his reluctance to bail out every single homeowner is probably the least Wall-Street-friendly. Some homeowners can't afford to remain in the houses they live in; I can't afford to own a house at all. Do I get a bailout? Will I get a bailout if my landlord raises the rent and I can't afford it any more?

As glad as I was to see this article and learn something new, I must wonder how Clinton's plan would effect an already fragile middle class. I would really like to see this blog do a side by side of the candidates as I think you guys offer a different perspective than most.
Also, Adam, I was wondering where you found that information about Clinton and Obama as I would really like to get to read it for myself. Thanks.

In my opinion, there are some reasonable points made above and one particularly uninformed point. Let me address the uninformed first.

To Adam, who trots out the worn and misguided notion that the subprime crisis was in part created by people who "lied", I ask, what are you referring to? I can only assume you are talking about "No Doc" loans, in which borrowers are not required to provide verification on income that is traditionally required. First of all, No Doc loans make up a minority of the subprime loans currently out on the street. Secondly, the practice of brokers and originators inventing and fasifying borrower income, without the borrower's knowledge, has been widely acknowledged and documented. No such evidence has been documented about the vast amount of primary resident homebuyers (as opposed to investor buyers). Lastly, to the extent it did happen, it was because the lender invited the lie through the misuse of the "No Doc" product, which was originally designed for people who were working off the books. Like ARMs and other exotic loan features, No Doc loans were widely misapplied by the subprime lending industry to people they were not originally designed for.

The bottom line here - and I've said it a thousand times on my blog - it is the LENDER'S responsibility to create sound underwriting criteria and to dictate the terms of the loan. In a closing, the borrower is the least informed of everyone in the room.

Of course borrowers have a responsibility. No one is denying that. But this is about how we frame the problem and the structure of the industry that gave rise to it. The rise in foreclosures didn't happen because, suddenly, more borrowers are stupid, or because more are lying, but because the subprime mortgage industry introduced a series of abusive products while Federal regulators sat by imposed no consumer protection. It was the underwriting criteria and broad practice that created the crisis, not the individual act of individual borrowers. And to suggest otherwise is to advance the argument that the lending industry wants as the prevalent narrative in order to avoid blame, and more importantly, liability for their actions. Show me a portfolio of loans - any kind of loans - that goes bad and I will show you bad underwriting practices, not risky borrower behavior.

Where does my perspective come from you might ask? From being the co-founder of a financial institution and lender in "high risk" Bedford-Stuyvesant; by having talked directly to countless borrowers targeted by abusive loans; by having talked to foreclosure prevention lawyers and counselors; by my experiences as a borrower who was himself targeted by an abusive loan; by having done exhaustive reseach and community education on the issue of lending abuse.

As for the other responses to my blog, you accuse me of "cherry picking" information. Actually, I was quoting an article from the Nation. And while I might have used the Nation's article to highlight a criticism of Obama, you will also find in my previous blogs and articles criticisms of Hillary Clinton, the policies of Bill Clinton, President Bush and countless Republicans. I have also praised Obama in the past as well.

Economic justice and the narrative of the subprime crisis are things I take very seriously, and while I think Barack Obama is a very attractive candidate in many respects and is great on some issues, some of his policies are wide open to a progressive critique. Only his most narrow minded supporters would deny that. So are the policies of most of the other presidential candidates.

The Washington Post, the Times and other News outlets have been reporting on Barack's large corporate supporters for some time now, so the Nation is hardly alone. And Paul Volcker? That only strenthens the Nation's argument about financial industry support.
Having said that, corporate money is everywhere, DMI included. The financial service industry is not inherently evil, of course, nor are they incapable of progressive ideas, but the fact that a man touting change and independence receives so much money from the financial services industry and Wall Street (as opposed to just "businesses") is not immaterial, especially when we've seen so many policies and pieces of legislation in the last few years driven by large corporate and Wall Street interests/money.

In that context, any person who helps feed the dangerous notion that the subprime and foreclosure crises are ultimately about borrower "lies" and "greed," needs a firm and corrective smack down.

Very nice smackdown indeed Mr. Griffin.
">http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com has had this number coming up for awhile...a pittance to the homeowner, massive taxpayer bailout to the poor seasoned money professionals, obliviousness by the media-main stream media, that is. Didn't see the Obama 'focus blame on the negligible amount of unscrupulous home owners' meme coming. He has been promising and running on the idea of change. He hasn't been running on the promise of 'change for the better for those who need it most'. That would require presenting the details that those who want change for the better would demand. So you can't really blame him. Can

Let me just say that while Barack Obama's and even Hillary Clinton's anti-foreclore/subprime mortgage correction strategies are less than what I would call progressive, they are brilliant and earth shaking when compared to John McCain, who as offered NOTHING as far as a stategy for tackling the mortgage and foreclosure crisis.

Hi, This is peter. Are you looking for information regarding home loans and mortages. We can ell provide you with the information. For details on them please visit us.
_____
Peter

Home Loans