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

[awb]

this is the 2nd post by this author claiming he is an Obama supporter yet falsely portraying an issue:

Sen Clinton in fact is the recipient of the largest amount of money from all subprime lenders
opensecrets.comm)

Finance Sector : donations to date:
Hillary Clinton: $18,059,348
Barack Obama: $15,087,469

Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans.
Hillary Clinton has taken $2,538,181 from the top issuers of subprime loans -

Obama received $266,907 : Lehman
Hillary received $264,610 : Lehman

Obama received $5395 : GMAC
Hillary received $4714 : GMAC

Obama received $150,850 : Credit Suisse First Boston
Hillary received $110,450 : Credit Suisse First Boston

Obama received $11,250 : Countrywide
Hillary received $8,050 : Countrywide

Obama received $9052 :Washington Mutual
Hillary received $7.800 : Washington Mutual

Obama received $161,850 : Citigroup
Hillary received $383,852 : Citigroup

Obama received $170,050: Morgan Stanley
Hillary received $385,420: Morgan Stanley

Obama received $1150 : Centex
Hillary received $7,300 : Centex

Obama received $351,900 : Goldman Sachs
Hillary received $440,300 : Goldman Sachs

Hillary received $258.920 : JP Morgan-Chase & Co

Hillary received $185,000 : Price Waterhouse-Coopers

Hillary received $172,900 : Merrill Lynch

Hillary received $157,575 : Ernst & Young

and worst -- -
Hillary received $152,090 from now defunct Bear Stearns

------------------------------
The Clinton campaign keeps doing this - point to an Obama "fault" - when they are so much more dirty/guilty. What is this strategy? - Obama is almost as bad as we are? Strange strategy

[AreYouFibbing]

kinda reminds me of other Obama supporters then.....amazing how the golden boy is not to be questioned under any circumstance.

[raskolnikov72]

dipstick -- $1MM < $35 mm (Feb fund raise total) < $55 mm (Mar fund raise total). Do the math. Who do you think Barack is more beholden too? follow the money -- coming from million + donors contributing less than 200/per .. wake up.

BUSH-CLINTON-CLINTON-BUSH-BUSH (thanks James Carville)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/did-carville-and-mccurry-_b_31333.html

wake up, people.

[Darkbane]

Kinda reminds me of Clinton supporters........allergic to facts and truth. Oblivious to the fact that Hillary is more in the pocket of corporations and big business THAN MCCAIN.
What do we need to find a video of these figures or facts so you all have to face the music.

Question Obama till the cows come home but don't be MAD that your girl can't compare. Check the numbers........do a little research. Stop being sheep and accepting Hillary just because Bill was good.

[MadeinAmericaProud]

Thank awb, for keeping us current and balanced, Valid data supports America.
An equal balance of information for the uneducated not to be held at the level.
Like on TV the other side is there, they just have an opportunity to speak.
If I am willing to read the author article give me balance data. I respected the writer, please give me respect as the reader. Balance is helpful to all not just some receiving misinformation, outdated dated data, Obama taxes have been released, I stop asking for the other side.

[MichaelTenery]

Question away. Just provide facts.

[MadeinAmericaProud]

Thank you thank you thank you (Here Here)
HuffPost release Mr. Obama's tax records, your current article posting data is dated 3/9/08.
Your readers know more than you do. This is not the first time. One blogger was calling this site trash. Defending I may have spoke up too soon.

[lmrgreen]

Yes! And did anyone notice the link in the blog is to a Hillary-run "fact check" page! Of course it will slant it towards Hillary.

Thanks for digging out the real facts.

[JWLANDSCAPES]

Actually, Obama says he is not funded by lobbyists and special interests. Hillary does not say that. Obama lies, like he did about Reverend Wright on Keith's show, like he did on Rezko in the debates, like he did about his work on the streets of Chicago. A bunch of bull, politics as usual.

[Memorye]

I agree

[Memorye]

all this is showing Obama and Hillary both are for Big Business.. Now which is for the the little American People. So little American's keep sending your last dollar and see what it will get us.

[havisham]

whether you support clinton or obama, it's time to give your candidate of choice a reality check. both have crackpot economic advisors and both are up to their elbows in questionable donations from the financial sector. whenever there's a post here about one of the two candidates, that candidate's supporters generally start and infantile barrage of name-calling and accusation flinging. why is it not possible to actually take seriously the criticism of the candidate that one endorses. obama and clinton are right of center on a lot of economic issues, and he may be further right than she is. if you don't like that, why not write to obama or clinton--tell them you're a supporter but you're disappointed by specific aspects of their policy proposals or the ways that they are funding their campaign? it's much better than the tired, troglodyte in-your-face non-thought that usually goes on in this forum.

[kunzarina]

YES! Thank you! It's nice to see someone here who actually researches the facts and uses critical thinking.

[adl]

The NAFTA story is questionable at best, although people like this author retell it as if the Canadian government didn't come out and say the whole NAFTA thing was false. So he has $1.8 million from subprime loan people - a campaign that has raised $50 million in a month. So what?

[BitJam]

No big surprise that the Clinton campaign has nothing but lies to offer us. Old, used, discredited lies at that. The whole Nafta-gate lie was thoroughly discredited by the Canadian government. Their prime minister said that the story was blatantly unfair to Obama and that nothing was said that was inconsistent with Obama's public position.

Yet here you go repeating that discredited story without bothering to mention that it was discredited.

[KDH]

"Admisers" should have been "advisers"

[GoreyFantod]

I'm guessing "flooping" should have been "flopping." :)

[KDH]

Flip-flooping admisors+Obama = Kaos

[Demoid]

JERRY McENTEE LONG AGO STOPPED BEING A LABOR LEADER TO BECOME A TOTAL WHORE FOR THE CLINTONS. NOW HIS SLAVISH DEVOTION TO HILLARY CLINTON IS DIVIDING HIS UNION AS NEVER BEFORE. A GROWING NUMBER OF AFSCME LEADERS, ESPECIALLY AFRICAN AMERICANS, ARE STARTING TO VOICE THEIR DISGUST OVER McENTEE'S DECISION TO SPEND MILLIONS OF DUES DOLLARS TO SLANDER OBAMA. NO WONDER PEOPLE ARE JOINING.S.E.I.U. -- THEY HAVE THEIR PROBLEMS, BUT AT LEAST THEY'RE NOT A SUBSIDIARY OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN!!!

[patrice37]

So how soon can you get rid of this goon, and where do I send a check?

[Moose49]

Methinks he got seduced at the idea that starting in 2009, he'll start getting invited again to watch movies with the Prez in the White House film room. Now, he's panicked that it will be Andy Stern, Joe Hansen, Jimmy Hoffa and Bruce Raynor who'll be getting these invites instead of him. What that has to do with the concerns of a garbage man, I don't know, but this is what happens when people spend too much time inside the Beltway.

[NuttyProf]

hey! how come Morgan Stanley gave more to Hillary!!

[GoreyFantod]

Quelle surprise! All three viable candidates for the presidency have funded their campaigns, in part, with fat cat Wall Street money. I'm shocked to find out that there's gambling going on in this casino...

Now, could you explain why you've written a post that makes no mention of Senators Clinton & McCain and THEIR glaring conflicts of interest? Do you really expect us to believe that Alan Greenspan & Robert Rubin are best-suited to fix the mess they helped to create? How about letting us in on why your post makes no mention of who you're endorsing... I did notice in your biography that you've personally benefited from Presidential appointments in the past thanks to Bill Clinton. I'll be union 'til I die, despite leadership who persist in selling their membership to the highest bidder.

Anyway, yeah, Mr. McEntee, the leadership of both major political parties and most large unions (AFSCME, anyone?), have sold themselves to the largest corporate bidders for a handful of beans - thanks for the news flash.

[xrmychick]

Perhaps because Obama is the one claiming that he's all about changing politics as usual in Washington, getting rid of the lobbyists, Hope and Change, blah, blah, blah....

[indieskip]

Please fact check this on opensecrets.org

- Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans. cq.comm] - Obama received $266,907 from Lehman. Cq.comm] - Obama received $5395 from GMAC. Cq.comm] - Obama received $150,850 from Credit Suisse First Boston. Cq.comm] - Obama received $11,250 from Countrywide. Cq.comm] - Obama received $9052 from Washington Mutual. Cq.comm] - Obama received $161,850 from Citigroup. Cq.comm] - Obama received $4600 from CBASS. Cq.comm] - Obama received $170,050 from Morgan Stanley. Cq.comm] - Obama received $1150 from Centex. Cq.comm] - Obama received $351,900 from Goldman Sachs. Cq.comm]

- Clinton received $259,310 from Lehman. opensecrets.orgg] - Clinton received $1,700 from GMAC. opensecrets.orgg] - Clinton received $110,450 from Credit Suisse First Boston. opensecrets.orgg] - Clinton received $8,050 from Countrywide. opensecrets.orgg] - Clinton received $7,800 from Washington Mutual. opensecrets.orgg] - Clinton received $236,600 from Citigroup. opensecrets.orgg] - Clinton received - from CBASS. opensecrets.orgg] - Clinton received $385,570 from Morgan Stanley. opensecrets.orgg] - Clinton received $2700 from Centex. opensecrets.orgg] - Clinton received $366,150 from Goldman Sachs. opensecrets.orgg]

Total for HRC from same sources - $1,370,280.00

And as by second grader learned this year $1,370,280 > $1,180,103

[Amminadab]

So the both do the same things. Hillary is just better at it, and more effective in results.

Point taken.

[tea in the harbor]

By "Better at it," do you mean squeezing out money from others? Because if you mean running a primary race the facts would indicate she's not.

[jazzman]

This should be the content of the post not the words of a Clinton surrogate or at least the HuffPost ought to put this qualifier right underneath the post.

[AreYouFibbing]

yeah but the author says he supports Obama

[Idiocracy]

LOL, nice indieskip, but i think youre over most peoples heads with this heavy math..

')

There is ONLY one choice for America

Obama 08

[authoritarianbootlicker]

Obama has taken more from the public than all of these so-called investment banks combined. You might even want to tally up how much those who are on the bad end of the sub-prime deals have given. The small donor's tally is greater than what's being discussed in this post and that's all I care about.

[AbbieXHoffman]

But Obama can't claim to be of the people if he takes this much money from corporations. He owes these corporations. Again--Obama supporters closing their eyes and ears to facts. Amazing.

Look all candidates take money from corporations and large entities and all candidate owe something for them. Obama may owe less, but he is dishonest to claim he is independent of them. That's is misleading.

[kunzarina]

Interesting numbers -- I heard differently from NPR today which put Obama at almost double the 1.8 million number. Center for Public Policy, I think, but not sure. All three are in bed with Wall Street. It's only Obama who is pretending not to be. I think that's what bothers me the most. I know we don't have a real progressive here, I just don't like wolves in sheep's clothing.

[feelfree]

Obama is looking more and more like a Washington insider.

[LODYS1]

Fair game and good argument, but if you don't click on Mcentee's bio, a reader would not know that he heads AFSCME who long ago endorsed Sen. Clinton. That said, how much does labor contribute to Democratic campaigns?

[elbram]

Insider enough to get to the nominee spot, yes...making decisions that help his special interest groups over the American people...no way.

[AbbieXHoffman]

How do you really know that? We don't know this guy. I guess we could take his word for it but.......

You really don't think he owes these people anything? If not, have you been in the real world yet? With all respect, it just doesn't work that way.