Sharpton Wants What’s In Your House
by Big Dog on May 6, 2010 at 21:42 Political
Al Sharpton is part of the social justice regime and he will not be satisfied until everyone is brought (down) to the same level. To Al, we will not have social justice until we all have the same thing.
We Won’t Have True Social Justice Until Everything Is ‘Equal in Everybody’s House’ Breitbart (Video)
This is the mentality that caused the financial meltdown. Sharpton and his ilk led by progressives in Congress enacted rules that forced banks to lend money to people who could not afford to pay it back. The purpose of the loans was to allow low income folks to buy homes. I have no problem with anyone owning a home but they should own a home they can afford and if they can’t afford one, they should rent an apartment.
Fannie Mae was established during the New Deal era to help low income folks afford homes. Over the years it has grown and during Carter’s disastrous presidency the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was established and this forced banks to lend money to people who could not afford the loans. Clinton went a step further and relaxed the rules to allow even more people to buy homes.
People bought homes they could not afford and many figured they could sell them for a profit and then the housing bubble burst and house prices fell leaving many people underwater. They were in homes they owed more on than they could get and they could not afford to keep paying for them. Thus, a high rate of foreclosure.
Thanks to the idea that we will not be equal until things are equal in everyone’s house, we have a financial meltdown. I guess they made sure we all suffered equally.
This does not stop morons like Sharpton from continuing to play the race card and working to make us all equal. We are all created equal but we do not have equal success in life and nothing a government does will change that. There will always be wealthy people and there will always be poor people and there will always be a lot of people in the middle. The reality is not everyone will be able to buy a home.
Unless we relax the rules and make sure that everyone can get a loan even if they cannot pay it back. That sounds like something Sharpton would like and would work.
Oh wait…
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Al Sharpton, CRA, equality, social justice
Man, you people sure hate Al Sharpton. I hope to God he never accidentally finds himself in the vicinity of an open carry get-together. (Or its predecessor- the Klonvocation.)
Dog, you know this Rekers cat? I think he’s big with the family values crowd, so I thought you two might be chums. He co-founded the Family Research Council with Dr. Dobson. Anyway, he was caught at Miami International with a male escort he apparently picked up on some website called “rentboy” or something. Story is they were on a 10 day European jaunt together. Weird.
Let’s hope the trip wasn’t official FRC business! Wasting time all day with a male escort when he could be out there preaching about the evils of homosexuality. What nerve.
PEACE
Don’t know who they are and don’t care.
Yes I hate Sharpton but he would never have trouble in any open carry place because law abiding people do not go around shooting people. Now, if he were running around inciting riots and people were getting hurt then he would need to go.
No, but perhaps I might take a lesson from the lefties, and put on a Union shirt, get a bat, and play Hank Aaron with Sharpton’s kneecaps. Now that might be humorous-
Shrpton is just one more self-promoter. He flacks whatever’s selling best among “his people” — and for quite a while now, that’s been the “social justice” canard.
Justice cannot be made “social.” The notion is absurd on its face. It destroys individual justice, which is premised on individual rights. But don’t expect the brainwashed on the Left to give that consequence any thought; it would implode their entire mental architecture. They’d be digging themselves out of their brain rubble until Kingdom Come.
I’m not a huge fan of Sharpton but I’ll defend him against your continued use of out of context quotes. Sharpton is not talking purely about economics or wealth. The house is an analogy connected to Obama being in the White House and nothing more. He’s not saying everybody should be at an equal level.
The myth of income redistribution is a lie your side tells about progressives so you can pretend we hate the rich and want everybody to have the same level of wealth. You call a few percentages more taxes on the upper brackets “taxing the rich to death” and “socialism” just to keep up the myth. But it’s just one of many, many lies you tell about American progressives.
You distorted Sharpton’s quote so you could go on another rant against CRA which is of course only played a minor role in the meltdown. The majority of subprime loans were made outside of CRA and the CRA loans performed better than the rest. The bottom line is that CRA did not force investors to bundle the loans up into risky CDOs which is what lead to the meltdown.
Without CRA would there have been as much subprime lending? Perhaps not. But blaming CRA is like saying without trees there would have never been a forest fire. Of course that’s true but it’s not the forest’s fault that somebody played with fire and burned the whole thing down around us.
Adam, you can’t sayu that what Sharpton said was not PURELY about economics (meaning that is was partly about it) and then say he was talking about Obama in the WH and nothing more. Those or logically inconsistent statements.
Sharpton and progressives want redistribution of wealth. That is what the health care does, what cap and tax does, what the tax system does. Explain how the top wage earners pay MOST of the taxes in this country.
The CRA was a MAJOR player. The rules were continually relaxed so that people bought homes with nothing down and had ARMs. As things went bad the rates adjusted up and they could not afford them.
The CRA loans did not perform “better.” Nearly all of those loans were subprime and bundled and sold. As we have seen, the GSEs, which are backed by the gubmint, had a major stake in them holding nearly 70%. The private market bundled them and sold them and people invested in them at a RISK. If you buy a risky investment and lose money then that is the way it goes.
When the GSE does it, taxpayer gets stuck.
Without the CRA there definitely would not have been as much subprime lending. And yes, it was responsible. People like Sharpton and ACORN protesting banks to make loans to the po folk so they can have a home THAT THEY COULD NOT AFFORD.
If you buy a home you cannot afford it is not predatory lending. If you are too stupid to understand the loan you should not enter into it. PERIOD.
The race baiters forced lending institutions to make subprime loans. Would they have made some otherwise? Probably but not enough to collapse the market.
“Those are logically inconsistent statements.”
If you read what I wrote you’ll see that I’m saying that the word house is connected to White House so to suggest that Sharpton wants whats in your house is simply a distortion. He’s clearly talking about the fact that a black man in the White House does not mean the struggle for equality in America as a whole is over. You’ve simply made it out to be about income redistribution because you want to rant about it some more.
“Explain how the top wage earners pay MOST of the taxes in this country.”
Is it really that confusing when the vast majority of taxes are paid by the people who hold the vast majority of the wealth in America? Yes, the rich pay more than the poor. They can afford it.
“The CRA loans did not perform ‘better.’ Nearly all of those loans were subprime and bundled and sold.”
Again, you just need to remember two things. CRA loans were a fraction of the total subprime loans and those that were through CRA peformed as well as or better than other subprime loans. It doesn’t get much simpler than that and I don’t see why you work so hard to ignore those two facts.
Here are some sources:
1. Vast majority of subprime loans were made outside of CRA and the majority were to middle and upper income classes:
Link:
Link:
Link:
Link:
2. The loans made through CRA performed better than the average subprime loan and were less likely to be securitized:
Link:
Link:
More than 96%of ALL mortgages are held by the FMs in the end- they are the guarantors, and if they are on shaky ground (and they are- Fannie Mae just had to beg for 10.8 billion MORE dollars from us) how secure is your mortgage, really?
And only a moron gives a mortgage to someone who cannot sustain that amount.
There were rules in banking for a reason- so the banks would not fail.
Sure, there will always be greedy banks- you punish those offenders, but there will always be poor people also, those who make the wrong decision, and should suffer for it- how else are they supposed to learn?
You DO NOT give everyone a trophy just for showing up- that just cheapens the trophy, and disses the true winner.
Just as in evolution, the fittest should survive- this is true in life, and in business also- to artificially prop up a business just because “it is too big to fail” is like trying to keep the mastodon alive after its time has come and gone- it would be wrong on several levels.
In other news the job numbers are out again and the revisions look good. Four straight months of positive job growth and an unemployment rate starting to tick back up as people start to look for work again. Obviously this is bad news for the Democrats somehow.
I noticed Limbaugh rolled out the Hannity style “Obama bear market” argument yesterday during the huge drop. It’s funny that it’s always an Obama market when it’s dropping but your side never likes to mention the Obama market when it’s on the rise as it has been for the vast majority of his presidency.
Yes, they look good. Unemployment is up .2%
The market glitch was a mistake, or so we are told. It has not been confirmed yet.
Seems this way for every leader does it not? When Bush was in office he got the blame for bad stuff and the good stuff was always because of something else.
Guys like Obama participated in this so he is just getting what he gave out.
What was it about politics not being beanbag?
Employers added 290,000 jobs. What good news. I wonder how many of them were part of the 600,000 census workers hired.
66,000…
Unemployment going up when jobs are being created is a positive thing in this case. It means people are starting to look for work again and are driving that rate up because of it. It could get as high as 11% before it starts to go back down again.
I don’t get the mentioning of Census jobs every time somebody mentions a jobs report. Do you think these temporary jobs don’t pay real dollars and don’t grow the economy?
Money is money whether you’re working full time or part time it still keeps the lights on and the cupboards filled.
Yes, the Census is contributing lots of jobs but just a fraction of net growth each month. As well, over 84% of payroll employment expansion has been through the private sector. Sounds good to me.
Adam, are you so blind you can’t see the stupidity of the question about census jobs? They produce nothing because they are paid for with tax dollars. They do not bring income to the government because we pay them more from taxes than we take from them in taxes. Public sector jobs do not create anything, they are a drag on the economy so continuing to add them tot he payroll is a loss of revenue.
But be sure not to make a big deal when the numbers rise after they lose their temporary gigs.
This is what you did with your it is good because people are looking for jobs now blather. When it was pointed out that the real unemployment number was higher because people stopped you all dismissed that. You can’t count them as unemployed if they stopped working, how ridiculous /sarc.
But now that they are looking again you want to have it both ways.
Let us see. The regime is well below the number of jobs it said it will create per month and is negative because it has not covered what it lost. The inflation rate is creeping up and our debt continues to rise.
We are in the eye of the storm and will get slammed when the other wall comes through…
“When it was pointed out that the real unemployment number was higher because people stopped you all dismissed that. … But now that they are looking again you want to have it both ways. … You can’t count them as unemployed if they stopped working…”
Try sarcasm all you like but you know the truth. We measure folks looking for work and not getting any because we don’t know who is out of work by choice. Our surveys can estimate this a little but on a whole it’s a very meaningless number. This is why attempts to say there is a “real unemployment” which is much higher is a joke and simply a political club for people like you to use on anyone who suggests things are headed in the right direction.
“The inflation rate is creeping up and our debt continues to rise.”
The inflation rate is growing higher than negative, yes. It’s actually decreased each month since January though so I’m not sure what you mean by creeping up.
The census jobs are temporary, and will lead nowhere- they are stopgap jobs, and cannot be taken seriously when looking at the numbers of jobless- because they will be back on the rolls if there is not real, concrete job growth soon, and the numbers will jump when that happens.
Blake:
Yes, without those useless Census jobs the job growth would only be…224,000. Oh wait, that’s a lot still, isn’t it?
What we need is a magical unemployment rate that counts everybody not working, even young children, then it excludes part time work too, and then we also count the number of jobs going to illegals somehow and add that in. I call it SUPER REAL Unemployment. Look, the Super Real Unemployment is 57%. Impeach Obama.
I don’t know why you work so hard to justify the failure. The CRA loans that were made by private lending institutions were SOLD to one of the GSEs which are backed by taxpayers. Got it yet? The pressure from the CRA and the government’s stooges protesting the unfairness of it all caused institutions to follow government regulation and issue subprime mortgages. Then the GSEs bought them. When stuff went south taxpayers were on the hook.
The income level of borrowers does not mean that upper and middle income earners did not have bad credit and were credit risks. They still got subprime mortgages through the CRA.
And who are you to decide if the rich can afford it? Why should they pay a higher percentage than the people who use those services?
But you did prove my point, it is about income redistribution. The rich can afford it so take it from them and give it to others. Nice Job…
Sharpton’s analogy to the WH is moronic. Blacks are in the shape they are in because of Democrats and the plantation they force blacks to stay on. It has nothing to do with the color of the person in the WH.
If they want equality tell them to stop listening to this race baiting moron and think for themselves.
Where was he when the black student only field trip was held? If we want equality in everyone’s home then the whites should have been allowed along.
The problem is that Sharpton’s idea of equality is when they take it from the oppressive white guys and give it to the black guys and when the blacks get a little more than others. Affirmative action…
I thought Obama was supposed to be post racial. Why are all his sock puppets following his lead and playing the race game?
“I don’t know why you work so hard to justify the failure.”
And I don’t know why you work so hard to blame CRA for the crisis. The facts go contrary to your story.
“Got it yet?”
No, I’m not following you in the least bit. You are arguing completely outside the realm of factual information.
Repeat after me. The vast majority of subprime loans were not through the FMs or the CRA. Got it yet?
“The rich can afford it so take it from them and give it to others. Nice Job…”
I’m sorry that you think the very wealthy of this country paying a few percentages more of their income than than most of us is some evil wealth redistribution scheme.
“Where was he when the black student only field trip was held?”
Right. The poor, poor white kids that didn’t get a field trip? It’s as if these scattered incidents make up for centuries of social inequality by whites against minorities.
“I thought Obama was supposed to be post racial.”
Funny. You think a lot of things that are only repeated by your side. That’s part of the echo-chamber you live in where one or two top folks say something stupid and the rest of you at the bottom repeat it so often it becomes reality to you.
Adam, quit the crybaby stuff. You do not justify a racist act by citing another in the past. In case you they did not teach you this, no one alive today has ever been a slave and these school children have not suffered past injustices. They have the same opportunity as anyone else.
And if you want to end any racial strife then stop using race. Allowing the blacks only field trip is wrong and you would be the first to cry if it was a white’s only trip.
Repeat after me racism is wrong no matter what the color of the person.
Let me help you Adam, you cite numbers up to 2004 which is convenient because it makes your case. From 2005-2007 the GSEs held nearly 70% of subprime mortgages. I will reprint from another comment:
Let us look at what they held from 2005-2007:
Government regulations preclude Fannie and Freddie from buying mortgages that don’t meet down payment and credit requirements. However, as the mortgage market changed, so did their business. Between 2005-2007, few of the mortgages acquired were conventional fixed-interest loans with 20% down. Fannie Mae’s loan acquisitions were:
* 62% negative amortization
* 84% interest only
* 58% subprime
* 62% required less than 10% downpayment.
Freddie Mac’s loans were even more risky, consisting of:
* 72% negative amortization
* 97% interest only
* 67% subprime
* 68% required less than 10% downpayment. Link
58 and 67 are bigger numbers Adam which means they held the vast majority, got it? This is a time when the Dem loyalists working there were making millions by taking risks and cooking the books.
I know you have trouble with all this because it does not fit into your world.
As for the rich, they pay far more than their share. And while we can disagree on that issue you cannot disagree that it is all about redistribution of wealth. You want to take it from the rich who “can afford it” and give it to those on the lower end. The 47% who pay NO FEDERAL TAXES but get money back, it is redistributed to them…
“You do not justify a racist act by citing another in the past.”
Wrong. I’m sorry that you think a tiny little thing like a blacks only field trip pokes holes in the myth of racial inequality in America.
“From 2005-2007 the GSEs held nearly 70% of subprime mortgages.”
What is your source for that?
“58 and 67 are bigger numbers Adam which means they held the vast majority, got it?”
What you’re citing is simply that the majority of their loans were subprime, not that the majority of subprime loans were the GSMs.
“I know you have trouble with all this because it does not fit into your world.”
It doesn’t go against my world view, it just goes against reality. My world view doesn’t depend on any of these things.
“The 47% who pay NO FEDERAL TAXES but get money back, it is redistributed to them…”
Again, it’s just a few more percentage points off the top. It’s not coming close to closing the gap between the rich in the poor which is what real redistribution is about and you know this.
Adam, if you won’t let people point out that the UE number is artificially low because people stopped looking you can’t excuse rising UE numbers by saying they started looking again. You just have to say that the number went up and not make excuses.
You don’t allow the excuse that they stopped looking then you can’t use the excuse they started.
The numbers were low and now they are going up.
And they might get to 11%? Wow, that is really way above where Obama said they would be if we passed the stimulus. Guess he used the Adam fuzzy math.
Or perhaps, he needed taxpayer money for payoffs.
We would have been recovering earlier if we had not blown so much money.
Adam, if government is the answer, it was a stupid question to begin with.
“You don’t allow the excuse that they stopped looking then you can’t use the excuse they started.”
Well, for clarity sake let me just say that I absolutely accept that unemployment rate doesn’t count folks who stop looking. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I deny that. On the other hand the unemployment rate is not “artificially low” in any sense. It’s measured the way it is for a reason and it’s not simply that people aren’t counted for political reasons as you have suggested before which is silly.
“Wow, that is really way above where Obama said they would be if we passed the stimulus.”
I’m going to just give up trying to correct the record on Obama and the 8% unemployment suggestion. I’m sorry you and your other readers are far too dense and stubborn to face the facts there. It’s sad, really.
“We would have been recovering earlier if we had not blown so much money.”
You cannot prove this of course. All we can do at this point is look at the recovery with the stimulus and seeing it headed in the right direction in almost every sense of the word you still insist it failed and you repeat desperate myths like what unemployment should have or would have been. Again, very sad.
Boy, Adam sure whipped your a$$ in that argument, Dog. I think you might need backup. Might wanna call in Flake!
I haven’t seen Barbara around here for awhile, but if she is reading, I’d like to point out to her that the world still has not ended. Babs, my friends and I have installed the antichrist in the White House yet Jesus has yet to return to sort everthing out. What gives? How long am I gonna have to wait, sista???
PEACE
I don’t think so Bunny.
Say goodbye. You just earned yourself a one way trip out.
Well Adam, the super real unemployment is around 17%
BD, why do you bother with Adam, Darrel, Bunny, and the rest? You couldn’t convince them that the sun rises in the East if the current Democrat manifesto said otherwise.
They’re cetainly diligent about harassing you. Give them credit for persistence.
Francis, I am not opposed to other points of view even if they come from people who are spoon fed propaganda from their messiah and his socialist party. We can debate and we can disagree. Adam is a good kid and fairly respectful (as any good southern boy should be) and Darrel is amusing in that he has such a high opinion of himself that it is often funny to read what he writes. He makes sense sometimes and is not afraid to say he was wrong if you can ever get him to admit it.
Bunny is just irritating. He tries the jive talking BS and uses insults that are unnecessary. Hey, we all get into a bit of name calling but have the respect to use a person’s name properly when addressing them. And all that peace, sista, blather is irritating. Reminds me of a nerd trying to be cool but with no concept of how to do it except from bad 1970s shows. He also has an obsession with homosexuality. I don’t actually care who is a homosexual or not but he seems to revel in discussing it. It might be an issue he needs help for.
I have to say I can take Bunny more than I can take Darrel and it is because Darrel has such a high opinion of himself and thinks he is so much more intelligent than the average person because he is so enlightened by being an atheist or whatever it is that he calls himself again and because he is a Democrat. And when has Darrel ever admitted being wrong about anything? Democrats modus operandi is to insult and talk down to you and offend you to where they can get a rise out of you then criticize you for it to get you to shut up. That is because we all know that socialism is just plain wrong and so what other means can they use–it is certainly not intelligent civilized debate.