Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hit Piece Blaming Dems For Economic Crisis, PLEASE DEBUNK

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 11:23 PM
Original message
Hit Piece Blaming Dems For Economic Crisis, PLEASE DEBUNK
 
Run time: 09:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
 
Posted on YouTube: September 24, 2008
By YouTube Member:
Views on YouTube: 0
 
Posted on DU: September 26, 2008
By DU Member: chknltl
Views on DU: 3247
 
Fellow DUers, This is a popular vid over on the freeprepublik*. It blames Dems, starting with Jimmy Carter up to Barack Obama, for the economic nightmare we currently face. It is absolutely a hit-piece against the Dems, likely originating from a repuke think tank. PLEASE debunk this. Warning: If you are not REALLY up to speed on recent economics and the political history that brought us to where we are today, (raises hand), you will be sick from watching this, (raises both hands).

IF we are to go out into the public to do what we can for Senator Obama, I feel it is crucial that we can refute most of the lies and spins. Like most DUers, I can do that to a degree but this time I am over my head. Please, will someone sit me down and go over this vid with me and point out the garbage. I suspect I won't be the only DUer looking for that education.
Thank you

*(-now and then I take a short peek over in freepervill in order to watch em squirm when stuff is going badly for their party-which is why I was there when I ran across this vid.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemperEadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. send it to fightthesmears.com to be debunked
they sent out a call for all things like this today...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. OUTSTANDING!!!! Thank you very much!
:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-08 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. DONE!!! Thanks again
I was utterly unaware that such a group was out there. (Well outside of groups like Media Matters and that agency Melanie Sloan works for, (CREW, I think it's called-Center for ethics reform in Washington or some such). It appears that the folks in your link who requested smears be sent to them work for the Obama campaign! :woohoo: I hope they send me something back-a link to the debunking would be fantastic! Thank you again
c
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemperEadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-08 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. you're welcome
Edited on Fri Sep-26-08 01:31 AM by SemperEadem
it was set up back when the right wing smear media were trying to electronically lynch Michelle Obama. The Obama campaign took a more immediate and decisive tack than the Kerry campaign did when the swift knuckleheads were smearing Kerry. Obama's team is not going to allow any smear to get traction or grow roots--they are obliterating it within 24 hours. They had a 40+ page rebuttal for that Corsi smear book within 24 hours a few months ago.

I haven't looked at the video you posted (my head is hurting too much from fielding BS all day long), but I dare say that most of what is in there has been debunked, if not by this site, but by factcheck.org and snopes.com. Check out those sites, too to see if there are any rebuttals on there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeMan451 Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. I tried
I have tried to find repudiation of this and so far have been unable. Can someone help with this, or is it true??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-08 02:50 AM
Response to Original message
5. I am being blocked from posting rebuttal to this on Youtube
I am able to post elsewhere on youtube but I am unable to post ANYTHING on this smear piece nor on any other piece by the author of this video. They are all pretty horrific smear-videos, he defends his vids pretty actively. I am fairly sure that he is from a repuke think tank. Hopefully someone here will go kick his ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. They're suggesting it took decades for the CRA to tank the economy?
So in their world, people who got "bad loans" could afford house payments for 15-30 years? :eyes:

The CRA did not require banks to offer special loan terms to people within a given community. In fact the FDIC (who governed banks required to meet CRA criteria) required the institutions to follow various rules and regs. The act in question requires banks to serve their community, it does not require banks to write bad loans.

Here is a bit of info from WIKI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Economics professor Robert Gordon has written that approximately half of the loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA and thus had no government obligation to offer credit to minorities. In the later part of the crisis, these mortgage companies made subprime loans at twice the rate of CRA banks. Another third of the major subprime lenders were regulated but had very little CRA involvement.<16> Gordon also makes the argument that the weakening of the CRA in 2004 was followed by intensified subprime lending.<16> ..........

Ellen Seidman, the former director of the US Office of Thrift Supervision,<18> has stated her belief that the CRA did not have an effect on the United States housing bubble. She observes that CRA banks were particularly warned to make responsible investments, citing one of her own speeches as an example. She noted that if unregulated independent mortgage companies make subprime loans, affiliated CRA banks should not be able to count them for CRA purposes although she did not indicate whether this practice currently occurs.<19> An analysis by the law firm of Traiger & Hinckley, LLP, which counsels financial services entities on fair lending and Community Reinvestment Act compliance, concluded that CRA banks were less likely than other lenders to make high cost loans or to foreclose in certain metropolitan areas; they also were more likely to retain their original loans.
<20>"


Here is the article by Robert Gordon:

AMERICAN PROSPECT

But CRA has always had critics, and they now suggest that the law went too far in encouraging banks to lend in struggling communities. Rhetoric aside, the argument turns on a simple question: In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?

The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity "largely came to an end by 2001." In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.

Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.

..............

Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."


More BS from the "blame poor/minorities" crowd. I'll be so glad when these people are a footnote in history.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-04-08 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Thank you for this mzmolly
I am by far ill equipped to be discussing this topic-hell I am fairly sure that I haven't even an econ-101 class in my old BA's (in Anthropology) history. What follows is my simplistic paradigm. You can accept my profound thanks for your help so far here and read no further, or read on for a better understanding of where I and most of America is likely at on all of this.

My mind has trended to believe that a large part of the consumer problem was a combination of factors starting with predatory lending and ending with the tanking of the economy. I truly am ill equipped to address those factors but from my simplistic point of view, this was a redistribution of America's wealth, (possibly deliberate and pre-planned) starting with deregulation, (likely republican) which encouraged the predatory lending.

Because deregulation allowed for those predatory lending practices, the REAL ESTATE INVESTOR, (from those who could hardly afford their first time home through those who purchased many many houses in order to sell or rent them out for profits), found themselves able to invest into much more than they normally would have considered.

To those real estate investing consumers, there was the expectation that their investment could be resold at any point in the future for some measure of profit. Houses DO go up in value, so the investment seemed like a safe idea regardless of any predatory lending that got the consumer into that investment to begin with.

Then the economy took a nose dive, jobs dried up due to being outsourced offshore due to deregulation, gas prices went up and up, taking consumer goods right along with them and the middle class started struggling as never before. Those real-estate investors found they could not sell their investments at the anticipated profit because there were fewer and fewer who could afford to purchase those investments. Worse, many of the predatory lent loans which started the real estate investors down this road had attached to them significant increases in how much of the loan needed to be repaid over time. So the investors found themselves holding onto homes they could not sell and monthly payments that went up and up and up all the while their own income was at best remaining static but most likely going down in an economy where the cost of everything was rising due to the price of gas going up.! (Long winded sentence-sorry).

Another-words IMO when ones cash dwindles to less than ones bills just when ones bills are BOTH unexpectedly and expectedly going up and ones back-up plan to sell ones assets is not possible because the value of those assets has gone down combined with a significant decrease in those who could even purchase those assets, one finds oneself facing BANKRUPTCY. Oh and WHO made it harder to file for BANKRUPTCY? Yep Republicans, evidence supporting my theory that this was all pre planned!

So that is the predicament the real estate investor found himself in! This led to a huge increase in bankruptcies among the American real-estate investors. Basically this was bust of the housing market. That bust was so large it made significant impact on the lending banks. It wasn't like the banks could sell off those foreclosed-on homes for any profits either. The banks were no more able to recoup their investments than the original borrower of the money for that real-estate.

The smoking gun for me is: Who has been the ones screaming the loudest about getting "Big Government" out of our affairs? Who has been the ones screaming the loudest about "freeing up the market"? Who has been the ones favoring tax decreases and deregulations for their good buddies the corporatists? The answer in each case is the REPUBLICANS! They dergulated us into this mess with their fiction of Trickle Down Economics. They even saw it comming and made it harder than hell to take bankruptcy as a way out! This is all the proof I need that those who have bought the republicans in congress have been the ones out to destroy America! THEY ARE THE TRUE TERRORISTS!

If Trickle Down Economics actually works why isn't Microsoft one of the the largest employers in America? It sure doesn't seem to me that the money owned by one of our richest capitalists has effected our jobs market in any way significant or even partially proportional to his wealth! No, Bill Gates does not have to do ANYTHING for us, (well at least according to the republican philosophy), he earned it, he can do what he wants with it. BUT when the two philosophies, Trickle Down Economics and Unregulated Capitalism (aka The Free Market) (both republican notions) are held up to each other both concepts work against each other. For me this illuminates Trickle Down Economics for what it truly is: A MYTH! For me our current crises illuminates a second myth: One can do what one wants with one's wealth in America's democracy (Unregulated Capitalism).

For democracy to persevere, we need to have a strong Middle Class, not a stronger wealthy class. Accdg to Michael Moore, only 700 Americans own more wealth than 90% of the rest of our fellow Americans. Whether or not his figures are accurate the wealth of America is NO LONGER in the hands of it's largest group of citizens, the middle class, (WE THE PEOPLE), it is again in the hands of the wealthiest of the wealthy! (The Great Depression was like that.) Many of those wealthiest of wealthy who currently hold America's lifeblood are NOT EVEN CITIZENS OF AMERICA!!!! I understand their reluctance to part with even a penny of that wealth but they ARE destroying our nation in their lust for even more! That $700 Billion bailout is the perfect example of this. Who HAS the money and yet who is supposed to in the end cover the bailout? Is it those wealthy 700 or is it the struggling 90% of the American citizenry? Trickle Down Economics and Unregulated Capitalism my ass!


mzmolly-I am aware that there is much more than this simplistic view as to why things are so dire right now, but that's pretty much all I have. I am likely no more ahead of the game knowledge wise than the average American. Taking what little I know into consideration, the best rebuttal I am able to come up with for that think-tank video is woefully inadequate. Thanks for your snippets, I've yet to fully digest them but they should provide a good start along the road of expanding my own economics paradigm. I've been asked by a friend to debunk the video because her sister, (who knows less on the topic than I even) has offered this (or something similar) up as proof that the democrats are at fault for our crises. The sister will likely not be swayed away from voting for mCcain but at least I have some ammunition to work with thanks to your effort.

Thank you
c
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. . Oops
Edited on Sun Sep-28-08 01:37 PM by mzmolly
Dup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
9. I've finished watching with the mute on and want to address a few ridiculous
claims.

1. Franlin Raines met Obama ONCE, he is not an adviser to the campaign. WAPO FACT CHECKER

"The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Franklin Raines as a close adviser to Obama on "housing and mortgage policy." If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself -- and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release."

On the other hand, McCain's campaign manager is on the Freddie payroll: NEWSWEEK

2. There is no evidence that the CRA had anything to do with the current crisis:
BIS WORKING PAPERS See Page 5.

Contrary to some media commentary, there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust. This Act only applies to depositories, and did not cover most of the important subprime lenders. Depositories showed a lesser tendency to write subprime loans than lenders not subject to the Act (Yellen 2008).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
10. Real Estate: Subprime Meltdown - CAP's Jakabovics on CNN
I'm not a huge fan of Lou Dobbs these days, but he was talking about the coming meltdown months ago along with Bush's lack of action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX7lkCxkR60
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiskeyTango Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Debunking compilation
This doesn't let the Dems off the hook completely. Blame can be spread around. But here is a collection of facts I collected from here and another forum.

Start with this right here.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/o...
Franklin Raines is not an Obama campaign advisor.

McCain's campaign manager is on the Freddie payroll:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/161218



According to Banks for International Settlements there is NO EVIDENCE the CRA had anything to do with the current crisis.

See page 5: http://www.bis.org/publ/work259.pdf?noframes=1

******************************

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberal...

But CRA has always had critics, and they now suggest that the law went too far in encouraging banks to lend in struggling communities. Rhetoric aside, the argument turns on a simple question: In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?

The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity "largely came to an end by 2001." In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.

Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.

Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/2002061...

Excerts from a speach President Bush made to St Paul AME Church in Atlanta June 17, 2002.
...Now, we've got a problem here in America that we have to address. Too many American families, too many minorities do not own a home. There is a home ownership gap in America. The difference between Anglo America and African American and Hispanic home ownership is too big. (Applause.) And we've got to focus the attention on this nation to address this.

And it starts with setting a goal. And so by the year 2010, we must increase minority home owners by at least 5.5 million. In order to close the homeownership gap, we've got to set a big goal for America, and focus our attention and resources on that goal. (Applause.)

And so here are some of the ways to address the issue. First, the single greatest barrier to first time homeownership is a high downpayment. It is really hard for many, many, low income families to make the high downpayment. And so that's why I propose and urge Congress to fully fund the American Dream Downpayment Fund. This will use money, taxpayers' money to help a qualified, low income buyer make a downpayment. And that's important.

One of the barriers to homeownership is the inability to make a downpayment. And if one of the goals is to increase homeownership, it makes sense to help people pay that downpayment. We believe that the amount of money in our budget, fully approved by Congress, will help 40,000 families every year realize the dream of owning a home. (Applause.) Part of the success of Park Place is that the city of Atlanta already does this. And we want to make the plan more robust. We want to make it more full all across America



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6...

September 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.




http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-...
1/20/2004
In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans


http://www.pgpf.org/newsroom/oped/ft /
Dave Walkers Op-Ed in the Financial Times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Welcome.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-04-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. THANK YOU WhiskeyTango
First, Welcome to the DU WhiskeyTango. :toast: With what you and mzmolly have put together I have more than enough material to draw on in order to debunk this. On occasion I have answered similar calls for help and found myself spending my time doing the research to respond to such calls. This was my first, I appreciate all the time you and mzmolly spent here for me. Thank You Very Much.

You have been a valuable asset to me in this, your very first post in this forum WhiskeyTango, I have no doubts that you will be a valuable asset to our forum. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatemedia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-04-08 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
14. Here's some stuff showing bush as the 'Shill in Chief' for the housing bubble...
Edited on Sat Oct-04-08 03:24 PM by corporatemedia
Here's bush, in 2002, telling people "with bad credit histories" to buy homes. And saying that they "don't have to have a lousy home for first time home buyers", that the "first time home buyer, the LOW INCOME home buyer can have just as nice a home as anyone else".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9viaJatpo

or read the Shill's words from the White House site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/2002061...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-04-08 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Thanks corporatemedia
Both of those links will get put to use, thanks again. 'thumbsup'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lil Missy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-04-08 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
17. It's no longer available.
:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 17th 2018, 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC