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?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Your argument is silly.
Go to opensecret
Last I heard, all of them were big subprime lenders... and their contributions to Hillary's campaign make up a higher percentage of her total fundraising revenues than Obama, by a considerable margin.
Frankly, Obama doesn't *need* these big financial donors... certainly not anymore. He's got over a million of us Americans contributing, instead. What could they possibly hold over his head in order to get him to take their side of the argument? They simply have no pull anymore, because we, Obama's supporters, have stood up and paid for our candidate so that he can afford to say no to special interests.
I also find it interesting that you didn't point out that Hillary Clinton's subprime mortgage bailout plan would also bail out real estate "flippers" and speculators who own more than one house.... and that this, in turn, helps bail out the subprime mortgage lenders, in that they don't have to go into foreclosure and get pennies on the dollars for their loans.
Of course, Obama's plan only assists those who got a subprime mortgage for the home that their family lives in... and not for any kind of speculative purchase.
But hey, if you want to be silent about the candidate who wants to reward home flippers and bail out subprime lenders, go ahead...
It doesn't matter anymore.
Obama has been put on a red, white and blue pedestal so high, he'd have to get caught with blood on his hands for people to maybe consider any notion that he's not "The One". People wanted to fall in love, and this infatuation with Obama hasn't had time enough to work itself out for people to see through both their minds as well as their hearts. This is America... it's more about image than substance, and hey, Obama makes us look way cool.
Apparently not everyone.
Sometimes substance comes in a beautiful package. The two are not mutually exclusive. And the fact that you speak of hearts and minds indicates that you are not a wayward Republican but perhaps a confused Democrat. When you have had enough time to see through your heart and mind, what do you expect on the other side? The folly of the Clinton's, or the promise of Obama?
It's funny that you mention blood on Obama's hands, because his is not the campaign that seems hell bent on such a scene.
Judging by the comments it doesn't look like, thankfully, you're fooling anyone Gerald.
Cutting and restricting sub-prime loans DOES negatively impact a lower income families ability to achieve home owner-ship. I think Goolsbee's rather tepid "be mindful" is a fairly weak "defense" of the big bad sub-prime lender. Know the difference between legitimate and predatory sub-prime lending.
Also, it was Clinton's campaign that approached Canada first about NAFTA, both campaigns did. You mean to tell me that politicians engaged in rhetoric? Impossible!
Further, the vast majority of Clinton's donations are from PACs and lobbyists; a small portion being individual donors. Obama's is almost exclusively individual donors, nearly half of which haven't contributed more than $200 (meaning that's a deep well of money he could tap for a GE run).
Our President is the may we hire as the jockey to ride our horse. Is there ever a time to pull in the reigns?...
http://the
Good question.
If Obama follows true to history, such as in the cases with his backers from the nuclear power industry and Tony Resco, Obama will likely continue play behind the scene legislative shell games that favor his big money backers at the expense of the common citizenry.
See "Is Obama The Frankenstein Of Carl Rove"
http://the
Interesting that you don't explain to the readers that these "subprime supporters" are simply a group of EMPLOYEES who WORK FOR THE COMPANIES that happen to be in the mess. So, when I fill in my company name when I donate, I become part of that group. You should clarify, because you pulled the point directly from HRC's "just words" press release. Now, these "fat cat supporters" could be a secretary or a mail room clerk, why don't you mention that? Oh that's right, I already know the answer.
Um, why didn't you provide a link to the original article?
This is a pretty disingenuous article - These people have contributed $1million.
If the argument is that Obama is going to be loyal to big donors, I hardly think that Obama is going to be beholden to a group that has only netted him $1million when his other supporters (nearing 2 million now) have donated far more.
Yeah, this is exactly how the Republican machine is going to spin it if Obama is the nominee.
Gerald, let's review some of your own words, shall we?
"We're not about the business of swift-boating any Democratic candidate. We will not be party to any kind of effort of this type. Our campaign is about promoting Hillary Clinton - not tearing down any other candidate. Our number one priority is having the strongest Democratic candidate to take back the White House in November."
How easily you stray from your own principles ... without, I may add, any specific evidence to show.
since Obama doesn't take money from PACs, the money came from individuals.
The piece is a LIE!
It's not a lie, but Hillary Clinton's donors involved in the subprime mess are more numerous and greater. Countrywide is a big one.
But Gerald McEntee is supporting Hillary Clinton for two reasons - he expected her to win, and he enjoyed enormous personal favors under Bill Clinton's administration, which he didn't want to jeopardize by asking any icky questions about NAFTA, welfare reform, or any of the other anti-worker and anti-labor policies that administration passed.
Obama's money comes from individuals - doesn't it? How could you say he gets corporate cash? No PACs, no Lobbyists. If people who happen to work at a bank like Obama for whatever reason - and give him money - you count that as corporate donations?
The real roots of the current crisis, correctly identified by Obama in his recent speech - are here:
http://www
You have no idea of what you are saying! You are kidding, you have to be~!
You are kidding me right? This isn't a joke? Obama raises more than $1M a day and I'm supposed to be worried about a measly $1M from people who work in banks? Refresh my memory...h
Hey, Gerry -- did Mark Penn, union-buster extraordinaire, ghost-write this piece for you?
I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of AFSCME members who support Obama and your vice presidents who endorsed him in Oregon, Illinois and elsewhere will be thrilled to see that you've gotten down in the gutter with the slimey Clinton attack machine.
Obama's biggest contributors to his win here in Chicago are from the sub prime lenders, and the population hit the hardest by them here in Chicago? The african american population. Obama is joke.
Facts, please. Provide facts.
Once again, missing the fact that these are EMPLOYEES of these companies. VERY large companies.
You are misrepresenting how that data is gathered and its quite sad.
http://www
Here is some other large donors according to those charts.
University of California $275,046
Harvard University $264,941
University of Chicago $179,147
Google Inc $259,010
But hey this is all small potatoes when you account for Obama raising 55,000,000 in 1 month. Unlike Clinton, Obama biggest support is from the people.
So this isn't lobbyist money? Or what do you call this? Perhaps, small potatoes like Obama's lead in this primary? At what point do you Obamaphiles draw the line and stop making excuses?
That's right, it's not lobbyist money. It's from individuals who happen to be employees of or members of a given organization. They're fooling you with smoke and mirrors.
You shouldn't let your hatred for Obama get in the way of understanding simple facts.
It looks like that'll be up to Hillary's better judgement. Let's hope she has an ounce left. Once she sees there's no possible positive outcome for her campaign, then I'm certain everyone will stop making excuses for her.
And, yes, these donations are all from individuals: 1 million plus strong. Would you like me to send you a link to contribute?
Here's the important quote from that page that details donors:
HOW TO READ THIS CHART: This chart lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Each Company is giving a number and the lobbiest of that company goes out and get people to give. Tell each person to use their number on that check. It does not count to that company if someone giving list that company as their place of work..
"Senator Obama should answer this simple question: Is he planning on following the public advice of Professor Goolsbee on the subprime crisis, or is he working behind the scenes to keep his fat cat contributors happy?"
These so called fat cats averaged 109$ a person. I guess like everything Clinton (or surrogates) say you have to look at the words and ideas they redefine here. If 109$ in donation is a fat cat then my 16 year old son is a "whale". To use economic parlance.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
