Obama and His Subprime Supporters -- Are His Words For Real?

Thanks to the collapse of the subprime housing industry, millions of families stand at risk of losing their homes, in large measure because of unscrupulous lending policies by some of the biggest corporate hucksters this country has seen since the dawn of the Great Depression. Now, the nation's housing industry and overall economy is paying the price: foreclosure rates are skyrocketing across the country, while the nation teeters into a recession.

There were some interesting articles in Sunday's Washington Post regarding proposed solutions to crisis. One of the articles that caught my eye came from the Obama campaign. It was written by Austan Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, who serves as senior economic adviser to Senator Obama's campaign.

Professor Goolsbee, you may remember, was in the news last month when it was reported that he contacted Canadian officials to suggest that Senator Obama's harsh campaign rhetoric on trade and NAFTA shouldn't be taken seriously. Per Goolsbee, the senator's anti-NAFTA rhetoric, a Canadian official wrote, "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Professor Goolsbee assures us in his Post article that Senator Obama would take immediate steps to fix the foreclosure crisis. There's a problem, however. Just a year ago, Professor Goolsbee was defending subprime loans against critics who suggested that when high payments kicked in, borrowers would risk losing their homes.

Writing in the New York Times, Goolsbee defended subprime loans and warned regulators to "be mindful of the potential downside in tightening too much." He praised the risky loans for increasing the number of African-American and Hispanic homeowners, and warned that "that cracking down on new mortgages may hit exactly the wrong people."

Today, Professor Goolsbee's view of the mortgage crisis has changed. Now, however, having been fooled once by Goolsbee's public proclamations on a significant economic policy, we should be cautious before we accept his newfound support for mortgage reform.

There's an important reason to doubt the Obama campaign's public expressions of support for reform of the subprime lending industry: Contributors from the industry have provided more than a million dollars to Senator Obama's campaign. In fact, Senator Obama has taken $1.8 million from the folks who have pushed these loans on unsuspecting working families. He's taken more money from the top ten subprime issuers -- more than $400,000 -- than any other presidential campaign. Even today, following his economic speech in New York, the senator scheduled a fundraiser at Credit Suisse, one of the top sub-prime underwriters in the country.

Does Professor Goolsbee's get tough approach on sub-prime lenders really reflect Senator Obama's plans? Or do the lenders who have given so much to Senator Obama's campaign know something different? Is the Obama campaign once again talking tough in public while sending private messages behind the scenes?

Senator Obama should answer this simple question: Is he planning on following the public advice of Professor Goolsbee on the subprime crisis, or is he working behind the scenes to keep his fat cat contributors happy?

Comments

[memoryaid]

At least they don't run his entire campaign.

Clinton campaign manager was director for failed subprime lender

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clinton_campaign_manager_was_d.html#more

$1 million is peanuts to Obama. And I'll bet you anything you want it's money coming from individuals working in the industry, not companies themselves. Same story as oil companies - if a gas station attendant donates $50 online, it registers as "Shell" or "Exxon". You can try to smear him all you want, all he has to do is release the donation records.

On the other hand, Maggie Williams is all that's keeping Clinton's campaign together.

[BrianBoru3]

Looks like the article didn't fool anyone. What a pathetic disingenous attempt by McEntee to go after Obama. McEntee didn't rescue AFSCME he has been slowly killing it. The union is the same size it was when Wurf died. Smaller if you factor in growth in the public sector. Jerry Wurf built AFSCME. McEntee played racist politics to get appointed President by the Executive Board when Wurf died. Some believe he is still playing racist politics.

McEntee has squandered over $10 million dollars of AFSCME members money on this "battle against Obama". Why? What do AFSCME members gain from this? The clear answer is nothing except alienating 100% pro-AFSCME Senator. Yes, AFSCME has a 100% rating of Obama. So why spend all this money and now credibilty fighting him? The answer is that the chickens will come home to roost at the AFSCME convention this summer. He may not be directly elected by the members but they aren't stupid and they see what he has done with their money and reputation and they will speak out then. He is afraid of the convention. He should be. He should resign after squandering our money. He was supposed to protect it and spend it wisely. He should have saved the $10 million for the fall. We could have lived with Cilton, Edwards, or Obama.

[BigBen]

Yeah
our redeemer does not take money he makes it himself!

[cybersense]

Oh My, I really wonder how many of you really think Obama did not take any money from specials interests. This goes beyond what is normal here. All politicians take contributions from special interests. The difference here is that Obama is saying he won't, but he HAS! This is common knowledge, so why don't you look it up on a reputable source? If you want to defend him on this...do it with real knowledge will you? (rolling eyes)

[MichaelJames]

If the CEO of company X as well as the ten lowest paid workers each make contributions to a political campaign, all eleven contributions will be reported as coming from company X. Citing the number of dollars coming in from any one particular company is not sufficient to claim there is some sort of problem.

I think it's more of a problem for someone connected to a campaign to have actually been on the board of one of those subprime lenders. Sort of like Maggie Williams of the Clinton campaign:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/29/clinton-campaign-manager-_n_94064.html

By the way, when are the Clintons going to release Hillary's earmarks, their tax returns and the list of donors to the Clinton Presidential library? I'd like to know who, including any foreign governments, may have helped them to amass the significant wealth that they have amassed in the time since Bill left office. Until that happens, she is anything but "fully vetted."

[several]

Ok people, listen up, especially those of you who have never donated to a candidate because you are really embarrassing yourselves when you talk out of your *ss.

The maximum any donor can make to a presidential candidate is $4600 ($2300 for the primaries and $2300 for the general elections.)

When you donate to a presidential candidate you have to give the name of your employer.

All donor data must be submitted to the FEC which they then make available at http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do

One of the search options there is to search by employer. When a bunch of employees who work in the same industry make donations to a candidate this IS NOT THE SAME as that industry donating to the candidate nor is it the same as those donors employer having made the contribution.

From the candidates pages which are accessible from: http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do

Senator Barack Obama
Contributions:
Individual $192,757,471
PAC $250

-=-=-=-=-=-

Senator Hillary Clinton
Contributions:
Individual $151,690,862
PAC $1,162,939
-=-=-=-=-

Senator John McCain
Contributions:
Individual $58,950,601
PAC $684,294

"Common knowledge" and facts are vastly different things. Consider yourself schooled.

[cybersense]

Look, so much for Obama's experience or Judgement on this. You can get this information in more then one place. Look, perhaps we should just say that Obama is a victim of preditory lending himself.
Would that be okay with all of you? That way his doesn't have to say he used his judgement.

[idontthinkthisishelping]

Posted March 27, 2008 | 04:47 PM (EST)

>>Professor Goolsbee, you may remember, was in the news last month when it was reported that he contacted Canadian officials to suggest that Senator Obama's harsh campaign rhetoric on trade and NAFTA shouldn't be taken seriously. Per Goolsbee, the senator's anti-NAFTA rhetoric, a Canadian official wrote, "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

[MichaelJames]

The only problem is that those initial reports about Goolsbee allegedly "winking and nodding" to the Canadians were subsequently found to be patently false. Pay special attention to the part that says:

"The Canadian embassy in Washington officially said it "deeply regrets" the affair, and that "there was no intention to convey, in any way" that Obama was being inconsistent about NAFTA."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lecia-shorter/clintons-nafta-attack-ag_b_89973.html

"...On Thursday, February 28, the Canadian embassy in Washington called the CTV story about Senator Obama "untrue": "The Canadian Embassy confirmed that at no time has any member of a Presidential campaign called the Canadian Ambassador or any official at the Embassy to discuss NAFTA. Last night the Canadian television network, CTV, falsely reported that such calls had been made. That story is untrue. Neither before nor since the Ohio debate has any Presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson or the Embassy to raise NAFTA....

[snip]

Thankfully, the Canadian government denounced the entire matter yesterday, silencing all of the political pundits who exhausted the air waves over the weekend. Senator Clinton's camp is silenced on the matter as well. The Canadian embassy in Washington officially said it "deeply regrets" the affair, and that "there was no intention to convey, in any way" that Obama was being inconsistent about NAFTA..."

All facts are based on information from factcheck.org."

[HaveyouPerspective]

"The Straight Scoop On Election "08 From the Hillary Clinton Campaign"

Thank you for playing. If this was your first attempt at journalism, better luck next time and thank you for playing. If not, stop. Now.

I also added up the donors at Open Secrets, and Hillary comes out on top (or for our purposes on the short end). And let's not forget the difference between Lobbyists and small donors.

[cybersense]

Well, so much for Obama's claim to being part of "low to medium income" housing initiative.

Wasn't that Obama's experience claim? I guess Obama would be in that category of "victims of preditory lenders"?

Judgement. He doesn't understand what he does not know.

[RevRick]

Where to start? First you made a slight typing error. You claim Obama has received "$1.8 million from the folks who have pushed these loans".

Your source http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6698 says that "Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans."

Now about your source http://facts.hillaryhub.com that bills itself as "The Straight Scoop On Election "08 From the Hillary Clinton Campaign"

Tip 1

A good journalist or even opinion writer should be wary whenever one campaign offers "statistics" about another campaign.

Tip 2

Be extra wary when someone cites a source you cannot easily confirm. Unfortunately http://facts.hillaryhub.com cites cq.com as their source. This is the website of Congressional Quarterly and you need to be a paying subscriber to access the information.

To Be Continued¦

[RevRick]

Tip 3

Clinton"s site claims that "Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans." It then lists 10 companies with donations and when added up total 1.18 million.

It also claims "Sen. Obama has taken more money from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans than Hillary. Sen. Obama has received $434,420 from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans. Hillary has received $364,950."

If someone is giving statistics, and they are not being consistent with their terms, i.e. saying top companies and listing ten companies that give one total and then saying the top ten companies, without listing the companies, and that gives another total, they are trying to mislead you.

Tip 4

Make sure the candidate in question isn"t throwing rocks while living in a glass house.


I couldn"t check Clinton"s source. So I did my own research.

Clinton"s site lists:

Lehman, GMAC, CS First Boston, Countrywide, Washington Mutual, Citigroup, CBASS, Morgan Stanley, Centex, and Goldman Sachs.

According to http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search_donor.asp

Donor Employer:

Lehman Obama $274,207 Clinton $264,610

GMAC Obama $3,400 Clinton $1,750

CS First Boston $0 for both

Countrywide Obama $13,350 Clinton $10,350

Washington Mutual Obama $11,652 Clinton $7,800

So far Obama is slightly ahead¦

Citigroup Obama $199,860 Clinton $383,852

Clinton just pulled way ahead!!

CBASS $0 to both

Morgan Stanley Obama $210,550 Clinton $385,420

Centex Obama $1,350 Clinton $0

Goldman Sachs Obama $367,550 Clinton $495,550

Total Obama= $1,082,919 Clinton= $1,549,332

[Militiades88]

Saw Obama donations from Wallsteet companies linked to this post. If one were a complete retard you're supposed to believe Clinton the senator from New York took nothing from these same companies.

[desertblues]

The more we find out about our "transcendant" candidate and his advisors, the more skeptical we should be. Most ordinary voters don't have a clue about what he may stand for or who's really got his ear. We do know a bit about Goolsbee and his "spiritual advisor", who else is he planning on taking with him?

[HaveyouPerspective]

Educate yourself, for your own sake.

[Memorye]

This election is bought and pay for by the Big Corporations . The real issue is this war . Both Democratic candidates does not plan to end this war. Great for the defends companies. They both will have a hard time to win this election because of sexism and racism. Ask yourselves why is the defends companies giving the most money to Obama and Hillary only. There plan has worked. The American people are soooo divided just what they really wanted. The money has won. The big loser is the American people. At the beginning we should have voted for a person that was really for the people. {Kucinich}. But the big Media blocked him out . If you will remember the one and only debate that Kucinich was in on the big media he won. Since that one he was block out. But the American people did not care nor did the other Candidates. So we will get what the big corporations wanted McSame . .

[Countess]

This is an incredible piece of nonsense coming from the campaign that is taking more lobbyist money than Obama, McCain and all the other once candidates combined. Clinton is not only the candidate of white trash but is also wall street and K street's darling.

[flyguy14222]

Hmm let's see....the light is begininning to creep in the room, quick blow out the candle and deflect the criticism on our Messiah!

[HaveyouPerspective]

Look around, there are facts here like ripe fruit for the picking. Grab one and take a bite!

[Memorye]

Just like a Obama supporter trash the person when they nothing to say.

[MaineMike]

I think your opinion would appear a little more objective if your data reference didn't point to the Clinton "Fact Hub" web page.

[daveny]

Hey, I work for an investment bank and I donate to candidates -- mainly democratic ones who promise, if anything, more regulation.

What exactly am I getting in return, again?

[JAJ2007]

Hasn't Obama raised somewhere north of $150M overall? So - employees at companies that issue subprime loans have given ~$1M - less than 1%?

Not to mention these employees aren't necessarily the CEO, VP, etc. They could be the security guard, the secretary/administrative assistant, the accounts payable/receivable clerk, the mailroom person, the IT guy/gal...

Let's get real people...

[cybersense]

"Let's get real people"

Okay, bring it on. It seems that you forget how much Obama has taken from special interests.
Have you forgotten? Of course you have. Look, it's one thing to say you like him, it's another to say that he is above all that. Your Obama is not the God you think him to be.

[gjoh]

Regular Americans who were victims of the sub-prime mortgage scam have contributed 30 Million and counting. Who do you think Obama is going to listen to?
That's why we continue to contribute to his compaign. Just watch and see how much he raises this month.

[SkimaskBob]

couldn't have said it better

[Memorye]

Big Corporations

[HaveyouPerspective]

... contribute to Hillary Clinton more than any other candidate in this election (including those who've already dropped out).