DHHS asked to investigate spike in Medicaid funded abortions for rape

The following letter and chart were just publicly released.

The Hyde Amendment restricts federal taxpayer funding for abortion under Medicaid only for cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. In FY2007 the number of funded abortions more than doubled - attributable to an increase in abortions paid for under the rape exception, entirely concentrated in 1 state, IL. Abortions funded under that exception in IL increased from 20 in FY2005 to 84 in FY2006 and 363 in FY2007

Word is IL Department of Public Health officials are dragging their feet on the DHHS investigation, the cause for DHHS's delay in response to congressmen. IDPH is now saying it'll have the requested info in December - conveniently after the election. I have 2 guesses where the spike in "rape" abortions will be found: either among Planned Parenthood mills or Cook Co. Hospital. Click to enlarge:

dhhs slide 1.JPG

dhhs slide 2.JPG


Comments:

Tax payers should NOT have to pay for ANY abortions in ANY case EVER.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 1, 2008 5:00 PM


Hmmm...... right there in Obama's home state... what a coincidence!

Posted by: Doyle at October 1, 2008 5:04 PM


No more should tax payers have to pay for the funding of the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and even more Iraqi citizens.

If only we could pick where our tax money went...

Posted by: Leah at October 1, 2008 5:06 PM


geesh...ILL has a REALLY high rape rate. don't you think they should be looking into that? or has making a rape claim become an easy way out?

Posted by: becky at October 1, 2008 5:14 PM


well, maybe if the US is spending 700 Billion on helping out Wall Street, maybe, just maybe there won't be any money for PP, and abortions....
we can always hope.....

Posted by: Patricia at October 1, 2008 5:26 PM


More power to 'em. Medicaid pays for birth, so it should pay for abortion.

Posted by: reality at October 1, 2008 6:18 PM


Really? No one saw this coming?

Posted by: Kristen at October 1, 2008 6:23 PM


"No more should tax payers have to pay for the funding of the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and even more Iraqi citizens."


America is funding the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens? Are our taxes dollars funding Al-Queda terrorists Leah? I didn't know that.

Posted by: Jasper at October 1, 2008 6:40 PM


Gosh, do you mean an abortionist would LIE!? Just to get MONEY? I know they kill babies, but they'd never stoop to telling a FIB!

Posted by: Christina at October 1, 2008 6:53 PM


How the heck is an abortion doctor supposed to know if a woman has been raped or not?

Posted by: Hal at October 1, 2008 6:57 PM


Yeah, reality because killing your child and giving it life are totally the same thing and should be equally supported!

Here's a great video detailing Obama's involvement in the subprime mess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4

Posted by: Lauren at October 1, 2008 7:04 PM


Hal, 6:57PM

There's something called a police report. Your insurance won't pay for any claim of theft, vandalism, etc. without one. If anything rape victims should be encouraged to file police reports, to both capture the rapist and spare other women from being victims.

Posted by: Mary at October 1, 2008 7:05 PM


Hal, my recommendation would be that to have a state funded abortion, one should have to also file a police report against the rapist.

Posted by: Lauren at October 1, 2008 7:13 PM


Hal, Come on. You know better. You know this stinks to high heaven. You know that there is a clinic or chain of clinics who are telling women who are hesitating at the price who say, "If you just sign this paper saying you were raped, the government will pay for this."

Do you really think that 280 more women in Illinios alone were raped in the last year, conceived a child, and wanted an abortion than in 2006? Why would Illinois alone be seeing such a spike? Why aren't there news stories every night about how the danger of being raped in Illinois is greater than all of the other states in the US combined?

I did my undergrad thesis on the Hyde Amendment, so I know a great deal about it. So please bear with me. You may believe that federal tax dollars should subsidize abortion (States are free to use their own funds to support abortion through Medicaid or other programs; hence California is not listed above). But the current law prohibits federal funds for being used for the same purpose. As the pro-choicers remind us pro-lifers, you must respect and obey all laws, and if you must object to them, you can petition and lobby to have them changed. Somebody's breaking the law here, Hal, and you know it.

Now, Illinois does fund abortions using its own money (required by court order- Doe v. Wright, No. 91 CH 1958 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Dec. 2, 1994)- ordering abortion to be funded as any other pregnancy/general health service). So, what's the incentive for an abortion clinic to bill the federal government for a rape abortion as opposed to the state for a regular abortion? Well, I don't know where you live, Hal, but Illinois' Medicaid system is drastically messed up, and its idiot of a governor (truly, this man is an idiot who once said, "I have nothing to fear but the truth" in response to questions about federal corruption investigations) is trying to add thousands to the roll each year by expanding eligibility requirements. Meanwhile, the state pays claims 180-250 days after they are filed (6-9 MONTHS!), and often for chump change. I know a doctor who received $15 from the state for a 15 minute follow-up appointment six months after the appointment. Can you imagine why medical providers are fleeing the system? Can you see the incentive for a clinic to lie about the cause of the abortion in order to get federal reimbursement? You get more money in a shorter amount of time! Why the heck wouldn't you bill the feds? And Illinois certainly won't object, because that's another bill that they won't have to pay sometime next summer.

Anyway, I need to get the kids ready for bed, but I'll try to add more later. But please, before you defend or try to come up with a justification for this, use your head. Women aren't coming up with lies like this, not in one state and nowhere else. Someone is either falsifying records or encouraging women to lie/perjure themselves, and that's a crime.

Posted by: Michael at October 1, 2008 7:33 PM


I'm sure Doug Kimec can explain it.

Posted by: Zee at October 1, 2008 7:53 PM


That's cute, Jasper. I like how blind you are. I suppose you think the US is still "liberating Iraq," don't you?

Posted by: Leah at October 1, 2008 8:32 PM


They are, Leah. My husband says the native Iraqi translators he talks to couldn't be more greatful. I'm flad you went to Canada. Please stay there and enjoy your socialized medicine. Try not to come down with any fast-acting, life-threatening disease.

Posted by: xalisae at October 1, 2008 8:37 PM


Why would anyone think Planned Parenthood would do this?

Just because they tell teens how to avoid the parental notification/consent laws on their teenwire website.

Just because on the same teen website they say that PL'ers are mistaken when we say "pregnancy" begins at conception. Even though the medical dictionaries are very specific that "pregnancy" is the time period from conception to birth and that it is when a woman is carrying a fertilized egg.

They also state to these teenagers that abortion is protected under the constitution which is false. Roe v wade was found to be constitutional, not that it is IN the constitution. Huge difference. Slavery was not IN the constitution but was considered constitutional - make sense?

On the same teen website they also say that abortion is "much safer than childbirth", even though their own research arm, the Guttmacher Institute has admitted in several reports that it is only one tenths time safer. Meaning - both have less than a 1% chance of maternal mortality.

On the same teen website they state that having more than one abortion is perfectly safe, even though the CDC and Guttmacher have both produced research stating the exact opposite. That one abortion is safe, but every abortion after that increases a woman's risks.

also on the same website they tell the teens that abstinence only education teaches homophobia.

No....why would anyone think they would lie?

I found all these lies in just one place, teenwire.com and in under 15 minutes. Image what I could find in any of their other websites.

Good Grief - I'm so sick and tired or everyone protecting an organization that constantly violates the laws.

Think about it - abortionist consider themselves successful when 1/2 of their patients die. (Its in the gynecology medical textbooks that when caring for a pregnant woman, you are caring for more than one patient).

Posted by: Valerie Jane at October 1, 2008 8:39 PM


*glad

Posted by: xalisae at October 1, 2008 8:40 PM


X - I know you were trying to be rude, but I'm glad I came to Canada too. I certainly will try not to come down with any fast-acting, life-threatening diseases (thanks for the kindness), but if I do I know I will be in good hands. You see, here in Canada, doctors aren't paid exorbitant amounts of money, and so there are less of them. But when there's an emergency or a life-threatening disease, the health care is top-notch. There are only waits for minor things (because of overcrowded emergency rooms--when will people learn to not go to the hospital for the flu?) and elective surgeries.

Ignorance like yours is what makes the States an undesirable place to live. I have never been happier than I am now.

Posted by: Leah at October 1, 2008 8:49 PM


Good. At least we can agree. I'd hate to have my husband put his life in danger and sacrifice his time with his family for some ungrateful little snot-nosed brat.

Posted by: xalisae at October 1, 2008 9:02 PM


"No more should tax payers have to pay for the funding of the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and even more Iraqi citizens."

A. They volunteer. They aren't sent.

B. Should we just eliminate our entire military?
I mean if you're going to second guess them,
maybe we just shouldn't have a military.

Soldiers fight in wars. Some of them die. Cats meow. Dogs bark. Birds fly.

Posted by: mk at October 1, 2008 9:07 PM


"That's cute, Jasper. I like how blind you are. I suppose you think the US is still "liberating Iraq," don't you?"

Leah, the US has already liberated Iraq from a murderous dictator. Why do you hate the U.S and the faboulous work the soldiers are doing?

Posted by: Jasper at October 1, 2008 9:09 PM


So...45 year old Brian Sinclair dying after a 34 hour wait in an ER and not being discovered until several hours after his death is just a figment of everyone's imagination. Ok.

Posted by: xalisae at October 1, 2008 9:14 PM


Xalisae- there are people in US emergency rooms that die in the waiting rooms because they're ignored.

Posted by: Rae at October 1, 2008 9:18 PM


Okay, Brian Sinclair might have been a tragic accident, but it appears that he wasn't the first. He died just weeks after a similar situation with an 82 year old woman...

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=7adbedb5-7fcb-48ef-ad5a-68b8b975c0de

Posted by: mk at October 1, 2008 9:20 PM


even when that does happen (rarely), I'm sure they don't sit there stone-cold for hours (nearly a day) like this guy did.

Posted by: xalisae at October 1, 2008 9:22 PM


X, that happened here in the States, too.
Esmin Green- NYC (this one was caught on tape, and most of the google results I got on "death in hospital waiting room" were on her case)
Mary Tate- St. Louis
Edith Rodriguez- LA
Michael Herrera- Dallas (this was right about the time the poor guy in Canada passed away)

No country's perfect- each tries to do its best for its citizens (with a few exceptions, of course).

Posted by: Wichita Linewoman at October 1, 2008 9:26 PM


I can't afford health insurance right now. I'm in the States. I hope I don't get sick/injured, because I can't afford that either.

Posted by: Wichita Linewoman at October 1, 2008 9:27 PM


Rats- I posted a bunch of links, but I have to wait for an admin to approve them.

@Witchita Linewoman: I wish you the best in not getting ill or injured. Just about 2 months ago I had an accident at work where I completely dislocated my left elbow. I had to wait over 4 hours in the ER to have it put back into place (they could have reduced the elbow much sooner and streeted my butt so I wasn't taking up a bed in the ER, but I ended up being there for 6 hours total). I have been getting the bills from the hospital and everything ended up being nearly $6000.00. I can't imagine what I would have done if I hadn't had insurance and/or this wasn't a worker's comp claim.

Posted by: Rae at October 1, 2008 9:31 PM


Oh my gosh, I just looked at that chart. If you take away Illinois, there were only 5 abortions due to rape in 21 states...

WOW! Go Bloodgoyavitch. Go Obama.

Posted by: mk at October 1, 2008 9:32 PM


@MK: My two fairly liberal Chicago friends haaaaate your governor.

I hate him too- because apparently he really jacked up the price of tolls...*cough*. :)

Posted by: Rae at October 1, 2008 9:38 PM


Rae,

I don't see your post??? I'd be happy to approve it, but I can't find it...are you sure you hit "post"?

Posted by: mk at October 1, 2008 9:38 PM


get a better job/join the military/vote for mccain so you can shop for your own insurance with an allotment (which will also work to drive prices down through competition).

also, heaven forbid you ever need somethin crucial for a pain-free life yet deemed non-essential, like a joint replacement.

Posted by: xalisae at October 1, 2008 9:39 PM


Rae,

Chicago was rated the most stressful city in the US.

Hmmmmmm...

We have the highest taxes, the worst schools, the TOLLS...and we want our senator to be president???

Posted by: mk at October 1, 2008 9:41 PM


@MK: Yeah, I'm pretty sure I did post it. Bugger it. It doesn't matter, it's all "liberal" news sources anyway- full of lies, of course.

Posted by: Rae at October 1, 2008 9:43 PM


lol Rae,

Okay. I just checked again, and nothin'!

I'm off to bed. I love you girl.

Posted by: mk at October 1, 2008 9:44 PM


http://patientcruelty.com/

Posted by: xalisae at October 1, 2008 9:47 PM


MK,

I hate Blago too. Except for AllKids. I like AllKids, I hope they keep that so Gabriella can have health insurance, because it's really good health insurance. Before that, her private policy was $300 a month, and that din't cover sh**.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at October 1, 2008 9:47 PM


@X: Holy propaganda websites, Batman!

Posted by: Rae at October 1, 2008 9:49 PM


are the quotes from the physicians there fabricated? it's kind of hard for me to see these things very well on my blackjack, so I was just skimming quotes and sources.

Posted by: xalisae at October 1, 2008 9:54 PM


is this better?

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html

Posted by: xalisae at October 1, 2008 9:58 PM


I have no idea- but based on the graphics of the website, it looks no better than " http://www.jesus-is-saviour.com ".

Baaaaaaaaaaah. I'm about ready to pop a proverbial cap in Al Franken's and Norm Coleman's azzes.

Posted by: Rae at October 1, 2008 9:58 PM


There is a distinction between law enforcement and what happens in a clinic or hospital. In Illinois, medical care - including rape kit (sorry Gov. Palin), examination and antibiotics/virals as indicated - are covered by state funds for uninsured patients who state they are victims of a sexual assault regardless of whether or not the patient wants to file a police report. The same is true of providing abortion services. The form submitted to Medicaid, signed by the physician, states that the patient stated the pregnancy results from rape or incest. No further 'proof' is required and, of course, this is intentional as we know sexual assault and incest are highly underreported. It is not the role of a physician to be act as the truth police... doing so would undermine the doctor/patient relationship. Are some patients who do not have the financial resources to pay for an abortion less than truthful? Maybe, but then direct the anger at the legislators who devised the current system, not the physicians who are following the current statues.

Posted by: green at October 1, 2008 10:00 PM


yes, we should be sure to have this system changed by legislation, also. If the numbers WERE accurate, I'd say this makes a greate case for mandating that charges be filed against an attacker in the cases of rape abortions so that these people can be brought to justice, rather than leaving them on the streets to strike again.

If it were someone running around spreading AIDS instead of just progeny, I doubt people would be so willing to let these crimes go unpunished.

Posted by: xalisae at October 1, 2008 10:10 PM


well, if I ever cite http://www.timecube.com/ as a resource, I'll turn in my opera browser.

Posted by: xalisae at October 1, 2008 10:24 PM


@X: Hahahahahaha. That website was HIGH-larious.

Now- I'm not saying the Canadian system is good- it definitely has issues. However- please stop acting like the American system of healthcare is all rainbows and kittens. I'm an American- been one my entire life and I will tell you that every single doctor I've ever had EXCEPT my ER doctor and my surgeon a few years ago- have been woefully incompetent and generally treated me (as a patient) like sh*t on a shingle.

I know, I know...anecdotal evidence from a "liberal" is probably as useless as one can get.

Posted by: Rae at October 1, 2008 10:42 PM


Yeah x, "get a better job." I read somewhere that only 1/4 of the jobs here provide adequate health insurance, and only 1/4 of those provide to the employee's family. Yeah everyone- get a better job- that will solve the problem...

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 1, 2008 10:58 PM


Pull yourself up by your own boostraps, PiP!

(Even though that's physically impossible to do.)

Posted by: Rae at October 1, 2008 11:03 PM


Rae,

what if all I have are rope sandals?

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 1, 2008 11:23 PM


@PiP: Then you're SOL- because there is no saying "pull yourself up by your rope sandals".

Posted by: Rae at October 1, 2008 11:27 PM


Frak, that should say, "because there is no saying that says, 'pull yourself up by your rope sandals.' "

Posted by: Rae at October 1, 2008 11:28 PM


I guess you are right, Rae. Those ropes are not very sturdy. It's not like I can climb or repel in them. No go.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 1, 2008 11:30 PM


well, government is obviously not the way to handle healthcare, as evidenced by the current financial crisis, and when people start talking about things like socialized medicine, I get antsy (and, I was lashing out, quite frankly. belittling the US's anti-Al Qaeda efforts is something I take personally, so I tried to respond in kind).

HealthINSURANCE COMPANIES need reform. There are a lot of people, in many different industries, that need pay caps. Reason, concern for your fellow man, charity, and conscience are supposed to temper greed in a capitalistic society, and they're not as much as they should be. Step in, but not hard, and don't mess with the doctors or actual care provision. That's why I prefer McCain. Lightly regulated capitalism when needed is better than socialism.

I will admit, to a certain degree, I lack perspective in this area because i've been lucky and worked hard. My first job had a sweetheart deal with Kaiser Permanante because it was a non-profit special ed. school. But there have been times in my life that I haven't had coverage and needed it desperately. I've just never felt entitled. Coming from a very large, rather poor family meant we didn't have much besides our pride, and we'd die before asking for a hand-out.

Posted by: xalisae at October 1, 2008 11:50 PM


http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.27.6.w472/DC1

Be careful what you wish for.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 1, 2008 11:56 PM


@X: I wasn't really advocating for socialized medicine. I personally think it will not work in our country because a) we're too large and b) medical school is too expensive- doctors USUALLY become doctors because they want the big payday. The big checks they get when they finally become doctors is all that really gets them through the hell that is medical school. Take that big payday away from them, and the number of doctors will plummet- I guarantee it. I know I wouldn't bother going to medical school and becoming a doctor if I knew I wasn't really going to get paid much better than a suburban high school teacher.

Posted by: Rae at October 2, 2008 12:05 AM


Meh. Many things that are rather important aren't even covered in that article because they said they don't know. :/

Posted by: xalisae at October 2, 2008 12:10 AM


oh oh and who's excited for religulous??

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 2, 2008 12:28 AM


Hey since we have been discussing Canada in this thread...... a comment about abortion in this country.

Ever since our Supreme Court struck down the abortion laws about 20 years ago we have had NO ABORTION LAWS in this country.

Not only that, but with a federal election going on, its not even an issue. The leaders of the three major parties are all pro death. (sorry I refuse to say "pro choice")

Needless to say I'm ashamed of this! It's appalling to think about. And most Canadians don't care.

I am lucky to have an alternative where I live. A local candidate is running for the Christian Heritage Party... the only pro life party in this country. He's got no chance of winning but I dont care. I'm voting my conscience.

Posted by: Joanne at October 2, 2008 12:34 AM


More power to 'em. Medicaid pays for birth, so it should pay for abortion.

Posted by: reality at October 1, 2008 6:18 PM
----------------------

Actually Reality a better analogy goes like this:

"Medicaid pays for birth, so it should pay for death."

Get it now?

Posted by: HisMan at October 2, 2008 12:56 AM


PiP:

I've got a better solution that you should try yourself. Take all your savings, risk it on a business so you have to hire employees, make enough to pay them all, pay taxes, the property, liability, and workmen's comp insurance, the rent, electric bills, water bills, heat and A/C bills, the equipment lease and maintenance costs, and then maybe you'll recoup your initial investment someday as long as some Liberal doesn't try to take that away from you as well.

Do that for 40 or 50 years and then maybe, just maybe you might have enough to retire on until you drop dead form exhaustion.

Nobody is entitled to anything. You want something, go work your tale off for it. Or, I guess you could vote for Obama and he'll just give it to ya, of course, after he stole it from someone who earned it.

Don't want that baby? No problem. Kill it, death is guarnateed and Obama will even pay for it with someone's money who's opposed to it. What a country.

Posted by: HisMan at October 2, 2008 1:06 AM


i feel you, HisMan. The idea of Obama running this country makes me ill.

When I was in 8th grade, I remember discussing politics in civics. Our teacher asked us about the minimum wagw going up, and what we thought about it. I was the only one in a class full of kids that thought it was a bad thing. The only thing the other kids could see was "oooooh! More money for me! MONEYMONEYMONEYMONEY!"

all I could think of was, that money has to come from somewhere, and you have to have a job to get money from a job in the first place. The other kids didn't get it. that job is going to be hard to come by if a business owner can't afford to pay you.

people tend to want whatever they think is going to give them more of whatever they want in the short-term. It's hard for them to step back and see the very delicate balance of the system, and how each teir of citizenry relies on the other to function, and that making sure that provisions are sufficient in one area can feed the whole lot.

I wasn't very popular. ;_;

Posted by: xalisae at October 2, 2008 1:35 AM


Why shouldn't the minimum wage go up? The cost of living goes up every day. It's not just high school kids safely under their parents' wings that work for minimum wage for drinking money or whatever. People can't support their families on 4 bucks an hour. Hell, they can't even support themselves for that.

Posted by: JKeller at October 2, 2008 6:42 AM


MA has seen minimum wage going up the past few years, and I THINK it's set to increase again from 8 to 8.50/hr. Personally I have yet to see much of an impact, but perhaps there hasn't been any stats released on the matter.

Posted by: Dan at October 2, 2008 7:15 AM


Joanne, what area of Canada do you live in - what province?
I'm in Ontariariario and we do have a prolife, profamily Conservative candidate. My riding one of 50 considered crucial to the election.
BTW, there are problems with both the American and Canadian medical system.
The problem with our system is that we can't stop the drain of doctors to the US (this is gonna be made worse by any attempt to force doctors to go against their conscience - which incidentally the province of Manitoba is considering) and the expensive cost of many types of medical care compared with care given 50 years ago when our socialist medicine came into effect.
BTW, Manitoba is a much more rural province than Ontario, so it would be difficult to retain doctors or draw doctors to this province. I wouldn't want to live there (sorry, Manitobans!).

Posted by: Patricia at October 2, 2008 7:32 AM


what is minimum wage in the US? Does it vary from state to state?

Posted by: Patricia at October 2, 2008 7:46 AM


Yes Patricia it does. In St. Louis it used to be 5.50 and hour but it was raised in 2006 to 6.25. I believe full time at minimum wage makes below the poverty line.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 2, 2008 7:56 AM


Patricia-

Also keep in mind there is a federal minimum wage with which all states must comply (though right now this is in the 5 or 6/an hour mark I believe). Certainly below the poverty line.

Posted by: Dan at October 2, 2008 8:01 AM


Well, guess what's gone up a couple times during this administration, specifically after a democrat-controlled congress took power? the minimum wage. wanna guess what else has been going up lately? unemployment. and bush will be blamed for this too, somehow.

Posted by: xalisae at October 2, 2008 8:05 AM


X- that's terrible reasoning. Unemployment is going up because the price of oil is so high. The price of oil makes transportation costs higher, it makes plastics higher. The cost of food has risen because of the cost of oil (again- transportation costs and because of artificial price floors on food items- especially corn, thank you Corn Lobby- may you go burn).

Posted by: Rae at October 2, 2008 8:57 AM


x- correlation is not causation.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 2, 2008 8:58 AM


Actually, I need to correct my statement at 8:57AM. I should have said, "It is more likely that unemployment is going up because of the high price of oil [insert rest of statement}."

I shouldn't have been so definitive in stating that unemployment is due to high oil prices because I *don't* know for certain- but to me that makes much more sense.

I also need to add, that the volatile stock market (and our idiot government bailing out fiscally irresponsible firms) is also VERY problematic and may be a contributing factor.

Posted by: Rae at October 2, 2008 9:11 AM


http://tinyurl.com/49jfph

"Fake babies"

Posted by: Doug at October 2, 2008 9:24 AM


The federal minimum wage went to $6.55 on July 24

Posted by: Doug at October 2, 2008 9:27 AM


The price of oil impacts most everything, but unemployment is going up because the economy is slowing.

There are tremendous deflationary forces at work (the necessary liquidation of a whole lot of debt), and the gov't is definitely not going to let deflation win, without a fight.

It's not the best situation, but most companies use credit widely, and like it or not, the bailout is an attempt to keep the credit markets functioning.

If the big commercial banks are allowed to fail, you'll see unemployment really go up.

Posted by: Doug at October 2, 2008 9:31 AM


Posted by: Rae at October 1, 2008 9:31 PM

If you were in Illinois the $6000.00 would have been paid for you. It happened to me years ago.

Posted by: Kristen at October 2, 2008 10:45 AM


@MK: My two fairly liberal Chicago friends haaaaate your governor.

I hate him too- because apparently he really jacked up the price of tolls...*cough*. :)

Posted by: Rae at October 1, 2008 9:38 PM


That and don't forget the millions he's taken from the teacher's retirement - with no indication of ever paying it back.

Posted by: Kristen at October 2, 2008 10:47 AM


HisMan 1:06am

There's another point here. If the business person is hugely successful, hires more people, establishes more businesses, then the gov't will classify him/her as that ever evil entity and bottomless pit of money, big business. Big business must be taxed to the hilt, for reasons known only to liberals, so this evil entity may very well outsource. Why not? Do you pay more for the same product you can get at a cheaper price?
What is this fixation on taxing that liberals have? People who work hard and are successful must be punished, the very people who provide employment and in reality, make the country work.

BTW Hisman, have liberals expressed any outrage over the multi-millions raked in by Hollywood stars and sports "heroes"? Is there any "concern" over how they treat underlings? I've read some less than flattering accounts, so where's the liberal outrage? Why don't we hear calls for Oprah and Tom Cruise to be taxed even more or a restriction put on how much money they can rake in?

Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2008 11:00 AM


Rae, 9:11am

No Rae, is our idiotic gov't causing this mess by insisting loans be made to people who would not otherwise qualify. This goes back several years. Its called affirmative action in mortgage loans.
Democrat Barney Frank, who insisted Fannie and Freddie were sound despite warnings to the contrary. This is the same guy who didn't know his boyfriend was running a prostitution ring in his(Barney's) basement, so we can hardly be surprised he had not idea what was really going at Fannie and Freddie.
Democrats attacked regulators who warned of the impending crisis.
The two top recipients of "donations" from these two corrupt institutions were Sen. Chris Dodd and yes, Barack Obama.

Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2008 11:09 AM


Mary-

Those big stars fall under the same brackets as some of those execs that get taxed. They're taxes will go up a fair amount under Obama, yet they still fight for/support him.


Makes you think that perhaps there's more important things than money when you have that much.

And I think any mistreatment of "underlings" is absurd and should have some consequences, but mistreatment doesnt mean there's necessarily any legal route to be taken, and people need the money so they stay in jobs with bosses they hate. Sadly such is life.

Posted by: Dan at October 2, 2008 11:10 AM


Dan,

Don't bet on it. These people well know how to protect their millions.
Look, I have no issue with these people raking money in. They provide LOTS of employment. So why tax them? They generate all kinds of new taxes by employing people, as well as providing employment.

My favorite example was when Madonna bought yet another large house in I believe Florida. Great, I said, let her keep her millions and buy all the houses she wants. Let's see, she needed household staff, security people, groundkeepers, decorators, furnishings, remodelers, and then there's the property taxes she paid which paid police, fire fighters, city employees, etc.
She also has her backup dancers, singers, band, personal staff, etc.
See my point here Dan? Her millions generated employment and stimulated the local economy.
You want these people taxed to the hilt?

Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2008 11:20 AM


I see Mary is still trying to blame poor people and minorities for the housing/financial crisis. The only problem is that story is total bull.

First, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) did not govern the vast majority (80%) of subprime loans. And, the loans that originated from lenders who were governed by the CRA are, for the most part, being paid and being paid on time. As a matter of fact, CRA originating loans were much less likely to be defaulted on.

Second, the vast majority of the subprime loans that were defaulted on and caused the crisis? Those loans were issued to non-Hispanic whites and upper income borrowers. In other words, it wasn't those dirty poor people and minorities who were defaulting on their mandated loans. Nope, it was social climbing whites.

But, keep lying about it Mary, it just exposes you for the racist that you are. Deregulation is the problem, no matter how much you deny it.

Links here for anyone interested in actual facts:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809300012

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf

http://rismedia.com/wp/2008-07-23/report-shows-subprime-rate-lending-dominant-with-non-hispanic-whites-and-upper-income-borrowers/

Posted by: unbelievable at October 2, 2008 11:39 AM


"BTW Hisman, have liberals expressed any outrage over the multi-millions raked in by Hollywood stars and sports "heroes"?"

Well I know for sure all of us think that people like Paris Hilton are inept and the fact that she did little work to inherit her millions is outrageous. They get taxed though like other people in their bracket. What else can you do about it.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 2, 2008 11:50 AM


Unbelievable,

Can't you read?? I said our idiotic gov't pressured mortgage companies to give loans to people who would not have otherwise qualified!!
I wouldn't qualify for a million dollar loan, UB, I'm sure you would agree a bank is fully justified in not giving me one.
I don't give a damn if people are rich, poor, or middleclass. Spare me the racist claptrap. I don't care if they're black, white, or purple. If you do not qualify for a loan you shouldn't get one, period.
What I find racist is the argument that people of color need special concessions from their white father in Washington.
Apparently those whites were issued loans they did not qualify for and as far as I'm concerned, never should have gotten them.

Jasper posted some excellent videos explaining this mess and I hope he posts them again. Obviously you need a little educating.
About deregulating UB, it was the Democrats who fought regulation tooth and nail when they were warned of the need for regulation during the impending disaster that was Freddie and Fannie. Even Bill Clinton stated such.


Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2008 11:54 AM


PIP,

I think "inept" is being charitable. Useless is a better word. The point is no one hollers about the millions she and other celebrities and sports "heroes" receive. They certainly squawk about CEOs.
I say let them keep their millions. If nothing else, they provide people with work and keep the economy going.

Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2008 11:58 AM


"The point is no one hollers about the millions she and other celebrities and sports "heroes" receive."

For real? People are constantly hollering. Most people think it's ridiculous, and also ridiculous that they consider themselves to be influential enough that if they say "please vote!" people will do it. Paris Hilton, you being half-nude is not going to make me want to vote. Sorry.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 2, 2008 12:20 PM


Pip, I think Paris Hilton shouldn't be allowed to vote. You should be allowed to vote when you can prove you have brain cells...she would automatically be disqualified.

Posted by: Elizabeth(Gabriella's Momma) at October 2, 2008 12:44 PM


The Hilton's were McCain supporters until the Campaign trashed her.

Posted by: Hal at October 2, 2008 1:06 PM


haha elizabeth! I would totally take a commercial that featured a real person with a real, urgent problem, encouraging people to vote over some bimbo like Paris Hilton. What a joke.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 2, 2008 1:08 PM


PIP,

Yes, for real. Have you heard anyone suggest that the salaries of movie stars, heiresses, and sports "heroes" should be regulated as we have CEO's?
I agree, Paris is useless. She happens to have millions at her disposal to play with as she wants and and SHE is ridiculous. But its money she inherited from her family that made it so if they have no issue with it, I don't either.
Certainly the people who make money because of her have no problem.

Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2008 1:17 PM


Can't you read?? I said our idiotic gov't pressured mortgage companies to give loans to people who would not have otherwise qualified!!

I can read just fine, thanks. Project much?

The only people who the government "pressured" banks to extend credit/loans to were people who lived in minority and low-income neighborhood. This was via the CRA. NO OTHER BANKS OR OTHER LENDING INSTITUTIONS WERE PRESSURED TO EXTEND LOANS TO "UNQUALIFIED" BORROWERS.

The CRA encouraged bank branches in minority and low-income neighborhoods to extend credit and give loans to QUALIFIED borrowers who were being discriminated against because of their minority/low-income status.

All the other subprime mortgages were doled out by deregulated institutions who had NO OBLIGATION to do so, under CRA or any other government program.

So, when you blame government "pressure" on lending institutions for the financial crisis, you are essentially blaming the CRA, which was instituted to right discriminatory practices by banks against minority and low-income neighborhoods.

Get it now?

Posted by: unbelievable at October 2, 2008 4:17 PM


What I find racist is the argument that people of color need special concessions from their white father in Washington.

Amen.

Posted by: mk at October 2, 2008 4:27 PM


What I find racist is the argument that people of color need special concessions from their white father in Washington.

Amen.

Yeah, because as we all know, racism in this country in the form of discriminatory lending practices is just a myth perpetuated by bitter minorities.

And seriously? It's a "special concession" to make the discrimination stop? Holy cow, you all really need to get out of your cozy little worlds of privilege every once in a while and see how real people live.


Posted by: unbelievable at October 2, 2008 4:36 PM


The truth is here-

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/101127/?page=entire

Posted by: Hal at October 2, 2008 4:44 PM


Those big stars fall under the same brackets as some of those execs that get taxed. They're taxes will go up a fair amount under Obama, yet they still fight for/support him.


Makes you think that perhaps there's more important things than money when you have that much.

And I think any mistreatment of "underlings" is absurd and should have some consequences, but mistreatment doesnt mean there's necessarily any legal route to be taken, and people need the money so they stay in jobs with bosses they hate. Sadly such is life.

Posted by: Dan at October 2, 2008 11:10 AM


Gee, last time I checked Madonna's "official" residence was in London. So she pays property tax but not income tax. Gwen Paltrow is the same. Jolie-Pitt have houses everywhere, any of which they can claim as their main residence. Johnny Depp - lives in France. I'd like to see how much tax he paid to the good old US of A. I could go on but I think you get the drift.

Posted by: Kristen at October 2, 2008 4:45 PM


U.S. citizens living abroad still pay federal income tax you dolts.

Posted by: the stupid, it burns at October 2, 2008 4:50 PM


Kristen-

But their primary income is from a job based in the U.S., therfore the U.S. taxes that income.

Posted by: Dan at October 2, 2008 4:58 PM


It wouldn't matter if the job was based on the moon. If you're a U.S. citizen, you pay U.S. federal income tax, period.

High income earners pay income tax for up to 10 years even after renouncing citizenship.

Posted by: more burning at October 2, 2008 5:06 PM


About deregulating UB, it was the Democrats who fought regulation tooth and nail when they were warned of the need for regulation during the impending disaster that was Freddie and Fannie.

Mary, Unbelievable has good points about what banks were actually involved, but even without that, Fannie and Freddie aren't much in the grand scheme of things here.

The real problem is not that some private citizens weren't able to pay their mortgages, it's the default credit swaps and collateralized debt obligations that resulted from Phil Gramm's bill - he tacked it on to a federal funding bill in 2000.

We are talking ten or a hundred or even a thousand times more trouble there - and that's what threatens the commercial banks, not that some people defaulted on their mortgages.

Posted by: Doug at October 2, 2008 5:57 PM


Jasper: I don't hate America. I really don't. I certainly prefer Canada, but I don't hate anything or anyone at all. I do have respect for our soldiers--I don't agree with what they're doing but they're only following orders.

X: Ad hominem. Fairly weak, at that. I'm sorry you have so much hate in you. I'm sure your husband did a wonderful job, and I'm sure there are many Iraqis who are grateful. You, however, are only perpetuating the negativity I see in America, so... well done, you. God love you.

Posted by: Leah at October 2, 2008 5:58 PM


Unbelievable,

I am all for fairness, and that's the word, fairness, in issuing mortgage loans. If you can pay, you can play. If you can't you should not receive a mortgage, and I don't give two hoots what color you are.
Against good business practice Clinton's federal reserve put massive pressure on mortgage lending companies into issuing mortgages to those who might not otherwise qualify. By the way, low income would most certainly include white people so this is not an issue of race, but economics.
Clinton's HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo invesitigated Fannie and Freddie for racial discrimination and proposed that 50% of loans be issued to low and middle income borrowers.
Credit history and the ability to make a down payment were viewed as "outdated" criteria.
Threatening lawsuits, Clinton's federal reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment checks as valid income sources to apply for a mortgage.
Economists warned that this would be castastrophic. For those losing their homes it certainly was. Even Bill Clinton admits Democrats refused regulation while Republicans clamored for it.

Now UB, you seem to regard this as a racial and fairness issue. As far as I'm concerned issuing a mortgage to someone because of race is just as despicable and racist as refusing to issue one because of race.
If people are qualified absolutely they deserve a mortgage. If they are discriminated against unfairly I hope the law nails those doing the discriminating to the wall.
If people do not qualify or have a bad credit history, then no, they should not receive a mortgage, and yes that goes for white people as well!
We've seen the result of the white father in Washington looking out for us and its been a disaster.

Thank you UB but I'm well aware of how "real" people live and my life has been anything but one of privilege. Also I have seen "real" people who I know are too irresponsible with their lives and money to ever manage a home or mortgage, however good someone's intention would have been in enabling them to have a mortgage they might otherwise have never been given.

Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2008 6:00 PM


Unbelievable,

I am all for fairness, and that's the word, fairness, in issuing mortgage loans. If you can pay, you can play. If you can't you should not receive a mortgage, and I don't give two hoots what color you are.
Against good business practice Clinton's federal reserve put massive pressure on mortgage lending companies into issuing mortgages to those who might not otherwise qualify. By the way, low income would most certainly include white people so this is not an issue of race, but economics.
Clinton's HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo invesitigated Fannie and Freddie for racial discrimination and proposed that 50% of loans be issued to low and middle income borrowers.
Credit history and the ability to make a down payment were viewed as "outdated" criteria.
Threatening lawsuits, Clinton's federal reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment checks as valid income sources to apply for a mortgage.
Economists warned that this would be castastrophic. For those losing their homes it certainly was. Even Bill Clinton admits Democrats refused regulation while Republicans clamored for it.

Now UB, you seem to regard this as a racial and fairness issue. As far as I'm concerned issuing a mortgage to someone because of race is just as despicable and racist as refusing to issue one because of race.
If people are qualified absolutely they deserve a mortgage. If they are discriminated against unfairly I hope the law nails those doing the discriminating to the wall.
If people do not qualify or have a bad credit history, then no, they should not receive a mortgage, and yes that goes for white people as well!
We've seen the result of the white father in Washington looking out for us and its been a disaster.

Thank you UB but I'm well aware of how "real" people live and my life has been anything but one of privilege. Also I have seen "real" people who I know are too irresponsible with their lives and money to ever manage a home or mortgage, however good someone's intention would have been in enabling them to have a mortgage they might otherwise have never been given.

Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2008 6:01 PM


Sorry for the double post!!

Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2008 6:02 PM


Doug,


I've already pointed out that economists were concerned about this pressure put on lending institutions and what would happen when people who could not pay mortgages couldn't sell their homes.
In 1999 the liberals were bragging of extending affirmative action to the finanicial sector. LA Times reporter Ron Brownstein hailed the Clinton's administration's affirmative action lending policy as one of the "hidden success stories" of the Clinton administration.
The Democrats fought regulation even though Republicans tried to pass legislation reinstating it.
The New York Times reported that Fannie and Freddie were "under heavy assault by the Republicans" but these entities still had "important political allies" in the Democrats.
White House chief economist N. Gregory Mankiw warned the govt's "implicit subsidy" of Fannie and Freddie, combined with loans to unqualified borrowers, was creating a huge risk to our entire financial system.
Democrat Barney Frank, the same Barney Frank who had no idea a prostitution ring was being run in his own basement, denounced Mankiw, saying he had no "concern for housing". Other Democrats attacked those who warned of impending disaster at Freddie and Fannie during congressional hearings.
This has been a long brewing financial disaster in which warnings were ignored or downplayed and all efforts to regulate resisted by the Democrats.

Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2008 6:25 PM


I've already pointed out that economists were concerned about this pressure put on lending institutions and what would happen when people who could not pay mortgages couldn't sell their homes.

Mary, then let the borrowers default, and let the lenders fail. (The vast majority of the subprime loans had nothing to do with the "pressured" lending institutions anyway.)

The unpaid mortgages are not the problem. What is the problem is the insolvency of the commercial banks due to credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations.

Posted by: Doug at October 2, 2008 7:01 PM


Mary, you really are a one-trick pony aren't you? First, as has been pointed out multiple times to you, Fannie and Freddie weren't the problem. They ended up in the middle of a domino chain that started with deregulated banking institutions.

Second, you keep saying "Clinton's federal reserve" which seriously cracks me up. You mean the Federal Reserve under the stewardship of Chairman Alan Greenspan?

Third, I've presented you with actual evidence, studies, etc. You have responded with cut-and-pastes (not properly cited either) from the likes of Ann Coulter. Clearly, there is no talking to you about this, since you're still suffering from lingering Clinton Derangement.

And so, good day, sir. I said, good day, sir!

Posted by: Anonymous at October 2, 2008 7:12 PM


Hey Jasper,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

That was the link you posted about a video concerning the current financial trouble.

Now it takes me to a page with currently-being-viewed videos.

Do you remember the title or have another way so that I can see it now that I've got a fast internet connection?

Posted by: Doug at October 2, 2008 7:15 PM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MJCvHMtwE4

That's one of the videos on the page...funny.

Posted by: Doug at October 2, 2008 7:16 PM


Doug,

Allowing the borrowers to default means multi millions in unpaid loans that lending institutions are losing out on. That is why a lending institution will carefully scrutinize, gov't permitting, to begin with, so that it does not lose money. The banks will forclose but what if they can't sell the houses, which they couldn't. Someone gets lucky and gets a cheap foreclosed house. The lending institution gets screwed. In this case, so does the taxpayer.

I've pointed out Doug that I can't understand why cities don't allow people to buy boarded up or abandoned houses for a pittance and fix up the property. Many of these are perfectly good and solid homes. This was attempted in one city, people moved into abandoned homes and fixed them up, and the idiot mayor shut off their water and electricity, forcing them out and leaving the neighborhood to deteriorate.

Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2008 7:18 PM


Anonymous 7:12PM

In case you don't know, Mary is a female name so you shouldn't be addressing me as "sir".

In fact I cut and paste nothing. Ann is only one of my many sources.

Its possible I'm presenting you with facts you choose to ignore as you accuse me of doing.

Clinton derangement syndrome? What exactly is that anyway? Wasn't I also a racist?


Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2008 7:38 PM


Mary, there's no "allowing" the borrowers to default. They simply do.

Yes, multi-millions and even billions of Dollars are involved directly with the subprime loans, most of the bad debt not from any "pressured" banks, but some is, certainly.

Anyway, banks got greedy, thinking that real estate would just keep on going up....

If it's just a matter of letting the banks fail, than I say do so.

Yet the real problem is not the multi-millions and billions of Dollars from defaulted loans - it's the tens of trillions of debt from CDO's and credit default swaps - things allowed by Phil Gramm's legislation and things specifically set apart from gov't regulation by it.

Gramm's bills also allowed commercial banks to be investment banks, securities firms, even insurers, and therein is much of the problem too - with the line between them blurred, the lending institutions (commercial banks) that our credit markets and indeed our whole financial system depends on - could take on the risks of the other entities.

Posted by: Doug at October 2, 2008 7:38 PM


Mary, one can buy properties in many places just by paying the back taxes owed....?

Too bad that politics - as with the mayor you mentioned - gets in the way.

Posted by: Doug at October 2, 2008 7:40 PM


Doug,

Banks didn't get greedy, they were pressured and threatened with lawsuits. Are you going to be foolish enough to hand out money to people you know are unable to repay you? Why should banks want to? They were ordered not to consider "outdated" criteria such as good credit and a down payment.
The point is congress was warned time and again and Democrats resisted any effort at regulating Fannie and Freddie.

Doug 7:40PM

On this we wholeheartedly agree!!!!

Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2008 7:54 PM


Anonymous above was me. And I really was finished with this, but...holy cow.

In case you don't know, Mary is a female name so you shouldn't be addressing me as "sir".

Yeah...it was a quote from "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" (the one with Gene Wilder)...but never mind.

In fact I cut and paste nothing. Ann is only one of my many sources.

Actually, every one of your points is plagiarized from Ann Coulter's totally non-racist column "They Gave Your Mortgage to a Less Qualified Minority".

Its possible I'm presenting you with facts you choose to ignore as you accuse me of doing.

Yep, Ann Coulter, queen of factual statements.

Clinton derangement syndrome? What exactly is that anyway? Wasn't I also a racist?

As for the Clinton Derangement and the racism...well, see your own unsceptical and credulous worship of Ann Coulter. That pretty much says everything.

Now, for real, good day sir.

Posted by: Unbelievable at October 2, 2008 8:21 PM


Unbelievable,

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. How could I not know about a quote from that great classic?

I no more plagarize Ann than you plagarize from your sources. Can you point out specifically which of Ann's statements are wrong?

You still haven't told me what Clinton derangement syndrome is. I also challenge you to directly quote me saying something racist.

Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2008 9:46 PM


Everything that comes out of Ann Coulter's mouth is hateful blathering lies. Probably based on the fact that she was never hugged as a young boy.

Posted by: JKeller at October 2, 2008 10:34 PM


Doug,

Some liberal had one of them removed because of copyright laws...


Here's a good one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QBRIsCkGQ0

Posted by: Jasper at October 2, 2008 10:39 PM


JKeller,

Just disprove what the woman said.

Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2008 10:51 PM


Jasper,

Thanks so much for reposting.

Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2008 10:55 PM


Gramm's bills also allowed commercial banks to be investment banks, securities firms, even insurers, and therein is much of the problem too - with the line between them blurred, the lending institutions (commercial banks) that our credit markets and indeed our whole financial system depends on - could take on the risks of the other entities.

Yet the real problem is not the multi-millions and billions of Dollars from defaulted loans - it's the tens of trillions of debt from CDO's and credit default swaps - things allowed by Phil Gramm's legislation and things specifically set apart from gov't regulation by it.

Posted by: Doug at October 2, 2008 7:38 PM

Like any debt instrument, mortgages involve credit risk. Credit risk arises from uncertainty over whether the borrower will perform as required to fulfill interest and principal payments. In order to reduce that risk on mortgages, the conventional mortgage contract, which was developed by Fannie Mae in the 1930s, requires borrowers to put down 20% of the house price as downpayment. This is expressed as 80% loan-to-value ratio when value refers to the market price of the home. Thus the collateral for the mortgage, the value of home, amounts to 125% of the debt principal. Mortgage insurance is provided by several federal government programs as well as by private mortgage insurance companies.

To many NINJA(No Income,No Job,no Assets) loans are common today, and most likely tomorrow, if no one goes back to the "30's requirements".

The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was created under the National Housing Act of 1934. It insures mortgages of low- and moderate-income families to promote ownership for those people. The FHA insurance covers the whole amount of the loan, but there is a limit to what the size of the loan could be. If the borrower with FHA insurance defaults insurance, the FHA has two options. It can pay the lender the insured amount and let the lender take the title of the house. The FHA can also reimburse the lender for the entire loan amount and take the title of the house.

The last two sentences are where easy fraud is allowed.


Wanna make a real estate deal Doug, where you buy my property(housing/land) at a price upon which you agree to pay me)stupid you over payed for my property!!) above market value, and then settle for the lesser amount FHA will insure and guarantee's?

If the mortgage company doesn't catch that inflated price for my real estate the better. And they won't of course.

Now, how do we both come out a winner if you fail to pay me my loan to you on that real estate ?

What do we do?





Posted by: yllas at October 3, 2008 1:24 AM


Doug.

Sale Price: 150,000(In Dollars)
Percentage Down: 5%
Length of your loan: 30years
Annual Interest Rate: 5%


Total loan payout 30 years= $275389.5

And with $0 down? A yummy $289883.37


Ok, FHA, keep the lousy house Doug destroyed by never doing anything in repair and maintenance in the two year he lived there. Can you believe what a person can destroy in just two years, FHA dude?

The FHA can also reimburse the lender for the entire loan amount and take the title of the house.

There is your trillions in a simple case of two individuals getting a share of the American dream, and getting the government to pay me off for allowing that FHA insured loan to me. Of course I pay you off to the tune of say, $100k, minus the house payments I made for you, since your really a NINJA kinda dude that Jimmy Carter wanted to invest in the Community. That be the Community Reinvestment Act.

Wanna do it again Doug, Just drink beer, do drugs, park your car in front of the neighbors driveway, party all night, steal from the community, and say your working for a company that has flex time a plenty.

Everybody wins, your forcing people outta the community, and those real estate agents are happpy your ruining a 5 year old development in any major blue city in the USA.

Posted by: yllas at October 3, 2008 2:02 AM


yllas, granted that there is opportunity for fraud, but that's not where the trillions of Dollars are, that's not where the risk to our credit markets comes from.

Posted by: Doug at October 3, 2008 9:39 AM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QBRIsCkGQ0

Jasper, thanks.

Somebody's opinion was given - that had Fannie & Freddie been better regulated, it would have meant the financial mess would not have happened or would have been less severe.

I guess you could say "less severe," yeah, but we're talking about Freddie losing $3 billion in 2007 and Fannie having a loss of $2 billion, and in August 2008 Fannie's mortgage portfolio was a little over $700 billion, while for Freddie the assets in 2007 were listed as just under $800 billion.

There were big problems with both, but it's not like there "would have been no crisis" nor that they are a significant part of the problem that threatens the credit markets. We're talking tens of trillions of Dollars, there.
......


The need for a "strong regulatory agency" was noted, and I agree, yet again - the lack of such with respect to Fannie & Freddie doesn't mean diddly compared to what the lack of regulation of CDO's and credit default swaps means, and it was Phil Gramm's legislation that ensured there would be no regulation of the debt derivatives market.

Greenspan noted that in 2004 the worldwide over-the-counter derivatives market was roughly $220 trillion, and I've seen that the US has between a $62 trillion and $78 trillion problem there, now. Totally dwarfs anything to do with Fannie & Freddie.
.....

In the video, Greenspan says that the risks with Fannie & Freddie could place the total financial system of the future at risk. And that is true, since they were big enough to have some impact. Yet the risk from them is peanuts compared to credit default swaps, alone.

Likewise with the point about Fannie & Freddie getting into trouble could make for problems spreading beyond the housing sector. No doubt - our system is so hooked on credit that it could happen. But those two losing $5 billion last year, and holding $1.5 trillion in mortgages isn't much compared to the real risk to our system - the $60 trillion or $70 trillion in risk from the debt derivatives.

If the credit derivatives had been used to transfer risk outside the banking system, all fine and good IMO, but under Gramm's legislation the commercial banks themselves ended up with most of the risk, and that is the real problem facing us now.

Posted by: Doug at October 3, 2008 10:35 AM


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081001/ap_on_en_tv/people_winfrey_s_mom

Oprah's mom defaults on her loan. I think she could use a little help from her daughter. Instead she's suing because she doesn't thing she should have to pay her loan. It's the bank's fault for loaning her money. ;-)

----------------------------------
http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_adctlid=v|jq2q43wvsl855o|x4qkjhxlldwn8k&issueId=x48gnuowgqsg6o&xid=x4ptlrmv0w0r6x

California congresswoman moves to Washington DC and defaults on her home loan..

These rich people...........

You can see how we get such poor government oversight of anything, because those legislators can't regulate their own behavior. So who needs em??

Posted by: KB at October 3, 2008 11:55 PM


If the credit derivatives had been used to transfer risk outside the banking system, all fine and good IMO, but under Gramm's legislation the commercial banks themselves ended up with most of the risk, and that is the real problem facing us now.

Posted by: Doug at October 3, 2008 10:35 AM

And where should those derivatives been transfered to then Doug? Do you understand the cycle of MBSecurities? Where do they originate from dude?

One of the greatest innovations in US credit markets in the past 30 years was the creation of the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) market. The securitization of mortgages brought new capital and led to more liquid assets and more efficient market pricing of mortgages. It also led to specialized intermediation of the mortgage market. Together, these improvements lowered mortgage rates for borrowers, broadened homeownership and eliminated regional disparities in the deployment of capital for home mortgage lending.

From investors’ point of view, the MBS securitization process converted non-rated, illiquid loans into securities that are highly liquid, have low credit risk and offer competitive rates of return. With daily trading volume exceeding $200 billion and outstanding debt more than $5.3 trillion in 2003, the US mortgage-backed securities market today is one of the most liquid in the world.[1] MBSs offer higher yield than Treasury notes and corporate bonds.[2] This higher yield compensates partially for the higher credit risk, market risk and especially the embedded prepayment option.

The mortgage securitization process also helped to stabilize the US housing finance system by shifting the interest rate risk of mortgages from banks and thrifts to numerous investors. Furthermore, much of the credit risk is now held by enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These large corporations are highly capable of diversifying credit risk because they package mortgages from across the whole nation, compared to most local banks and thrifts who deal primarily with mortgages from their region.

This primer will provide an overview of the several different types of MBS, the MBS market and its unique and unprecedented development. Further on, it will discuss the structure of MBS and the three major types of residential MBS: mortgage pass-through securities, collateralized mortgage obligations and stripped mortgage-backed securities.

So Doug, tell me the originator to final destination of a MBS. As for all the hype of 73trillion and beyond is total crap, since no one knows the value of MBS's, much less the value of this silly sky is falling 73 trillion.

Again,

The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was created under the National Housing Act of 1934. It insures mortgages of low- and moderate-income families to promote ownership for those people. The FHA insurance covers the whole amount of the loan, but there is a limit to what the size of the loan could be. If the borrower with FHA insurance defaults insurance, the FHA has two options. It can pay the lender the insured amount and let the lender take the title of the house. The FHA can also reimburse the lender for the entire loan amount and take the title of the house.
Which agencies are under the FHA? Why the agency filled to the brim with fraud---HUD. Another source of "apartment rehab/construction" swindles, such as Rezko, the financial friend of Oboma. How many trillion do you think those non performing loans are worth considering some properties are run down on purpose by the Rezko's of the world.

The first MBS was brought to market by Ginnie Mae in 1970. Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s the major type of MBS security was the pass-through security (discussed in details below). A major innovation for the MBS market occurred in 1983 when Freddie Mac issued the first Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs). These new instruments appealed to investors with special maturity and cash-flow requirements. However, the first CMO issues faced complex tax, accounting and regulatory obstacles. Much of those legal issues were resolved with the passing of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which included the Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) tax vehicle. After 1986 the issuance of CMOs grew enormously. The new tax law also allowed for the creation of other mortgage instruments such as STRIPs, floaters and inverse floaters (discussed in

And CDO's and CDS's are not the same dude.

Behind all the debt is the government assurance of paying off the dead beats.

You see that date dude? 1986. Gramm has nothing to do with MBS's in reality, Doug. The deal was done, and without Gramm/Leach, there would be no housing being built for the poors and strivers.

Drink some more kool aid Doug, and defend a democrat talking point.

Now, if you want to declare every loan made in the last thirty years to be in doubt of value, and in default, as Greenspan was trying to do, then have another drink of kool aid, Doug.

What you are seeing is fascism at its finest. The Corporate and goverment working together at its highest level in protection for each other.

PS. Want to develop some multi family apartments with me Doug? How about a strip mall development backed by a finance insurance program of the government.

A subdivision might be in the works, as was done in the last financial crisis which wiped out Savings and Loans. And government corruption/complicity was covered up by Henry Gonzales(D), and his capitalist banker buddies, who got their capital back via the RTC.

You have institutionalized sugar daddy capitalism, where any capitalist has learned to leave the bag o crude in the hands of their buddies, the government.

But, who is really the cause of this crisis? Why all those dead beats who are now the institutional voting constituent of democrats(the young insecure striver) and so called capitalist of the Republican party.

Going one step deeper and one arrives at the selling of America by both parties since your area of the "industrial nation" was sold out(junk bonds) and turned into the rust belt. And interestingly enough has his fine Dodge Diesel made by eighth grade educated Mexicans. Ah, so goes steel, now goes Mcdonalds.

I have no money. No problem, Phil Gramm wants you to have a house, or is that Barney Frank dude? Remember, Gramm is a evil capitalist puppet, of Korean capitalist(think Pat Roberson and Rev Moon) returning their profits into the "financial system" of the USA. Why would he help the poor get a slice of da pie dude, when all his legislation did was to broaden the chance of getting a loan via more financial institutions/methods then were previously available. Get real Doug.

Posted by: yllas at October 4, 2008 2:12 AM


Yllas,

I found this a few weeks ago. Enjoy.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0513.html
A Meditation on Evil
JAMES V. SCHALL, S.J.

Posted by: Janet at October 4, 2008 1:58 PM


"If the credit derivatives had been used to transfer risk outside the banking system, all fine and good IMO, but under Gramm's legislation the commercial banks themselves ended up with most of the risk, and that is the real problem facing us now."

yllas: And where should those derivatives been transfered to then Doug?

First, I'm not saying they even should have been, necessarily.

But, if they're going to be used, then I say transfer the risk outside the commercial banking industry; don't impact the credit markets when we are so dependent upon it.
.....


Behind all the debt is the government assurance of paying off the dead beats.

No, not even close.
.....


this silly sky is falling 73 trillion.

The silly, sky-is-falling stuff is pretending that it's people defaulting on loans and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac that is the real problem here. As of now our credit market is pretty well "locked-up," and this is a big deal.

The 1986 act wasn't bad, per se. What was bad was Gramm's 2000 legislation that prevented any oversight or regulation, and that allowed commercial banks to blend into investment banks, insurers, and securities dealers - to take on the risk that now is crippling them.

People complain about the lack of regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Okay - they have a point. But the damage done by Gramm's legislation is orders of magnitude greater.
.....


Going one step deeper and one arrives at the selling of America by both parties since your area of the "industrial nation" was sold out(junk bonds) and turned into the rust belt.

The main thing is that it's impossible to remain competitive at times, given certain conditions, and those were in effect in many areas of the US (and still are).

Can the US compete with a factory overseas where the workers make $1 per day? Of course not. Do Americans want to try to compete with that? Not there, they don't.

Yes, both parties have "sold America" or "sold out America." The debasement of the currency is a bad, bad thing, as is spending more money than an entity takes in.

Our trade deficit is massive - $60 billion, $70 billion, per month.

What is the US worth? How long until it would be entirely foreign-owned at that rate?

Posted by: Doug at October 4, 2008 2:11 PM


yllas: his fine Dodge Diesel made by eighth grade educated Mexicans. Ah, so goes steel, now goes Mcdonalds.

Poor thing - you're just tortured by the fact that diesels commonly get 40% to 60% better fuel mileage than do gas engines, ain't ya? ; )

This is not "the end of the world." Economic change is a constant, and we've been through it before. The decline of the railroads was a huge thing for the US, for example. There was plenty of gloom-and-doom sentiment, but the displaced workers went elsewhere.

Actually, I think McDonald's is doing mighty well.

But frozen capital markets are hammering many corporations.

General Electric, for example - one heck of a creditworthy company, and normally they can get money for a pittance in percentage points.

Now, however, they paid Warren Buffett 10% for $5 billion, plus a tidy sack of in-the-money warrants. "Unthinkable" heretofore that GE would do such a thing. Buffett got a great deal, however, and GE really had no choice.

Posted by: Doug at October 4, 2008 2:25 PM


"Tax payers should NOT have to pay for ANY abortions in ANY case EVER."

Even in cases where the mothers life is in danger? What if it were a lubal pregnancy and there was no chance for the baby to survive and there was a good chance without an abortion the mother would die or at least be seriously injured and possibly rendered sterile? Do you think taxpayers should pay for any medical procedure?

"Nobody is entitled to anything. You want something, go work your tale off for it. Or, I guess you could vote for Obama and he'll just give it to ya, of course, after he stole it from someone who earned it."

Hm I guess people could say that about abortion too, no one is entitled to life. You yourself said "anything." What about inheritance? Would the family of a deceased person be entitled to their money? How about the children of rich parents? Are they entitled to better things? Better education? Better healthcare? Could you extrapolate for me?

Posted by: Jess at October 4, 2008 4:02 PM


I view capitalism as best for me at least, who favors as much freedom as they can get. But I am willing to pay taxes for universal healthcare, education, and military because I feel those benifit the society as a whole.

I feel we've been letting our kids down in the educational department. Keep them in schools longer. Bring phys ed and art back. Then who cares about condoms? They won't be having sex they'll be in school too long. I saw a study once that claimed the majority of teenage pregnancies occured between when the kids would get out of school (two or three-ish) and when their parents came home from work (five or six-ish). Makes sense.

Posted by: Jess at October 4, 2008 4:07 PM


They won't be having sex they'll be in school too long.

:: laughing ::

You rock, Jess. (But don't count on that keeping kids from having sex.)

Posted by: Doug at October 4, 2008 5:34 PM


Jess, I think that you are on to something there! (post Oct. 4, 4:07)

Posted by: Eileen #2 at October 5, 2008 1:20 PM


Actually Jess is right on this one. The primetime for teens to be engaged in all risky behavior between 3-7pm afterschool, which is when parents are not at home. That is why with true abstinence education for parents and teens alike you teach strategies for teens and parents to help young people attain their goals by avoiding ALL risky behaviors.

The development of good afterschool programs for teens is something that I would be willing to spend my tax dollars for, private programs like kids clubs, faith-based organizations, community organizations, churches etc. given government subsidies or grants. There are some excellent programs in the inner cities for teens in Chicago and Washington DC that have high school graduation rates, low teen sexual activity rates, low rates of alcohol and drug use and high college attendance rates. The high level of parental involvement, the afterschool component, mentoring and spiritual component are proven to be deterrents for risky behavior. The emphasis on starting over for teens who have already been involved sexually is a welcome message to these teens. It is all about valuing teens, raising expectations for young people that they can practice self-control, self-discipline, enforce boundaries, and partnering with their parents.

The PP promoters are usually so busy promoting teen sexual freedom and promiscuous, sexual behavior like teenwire.com and the now defunct takecaredownthere.org which makes PP billions of dollars cashing in on young people's bad sexual decisions (selling them pills, shots, patches, dental dams, STD treatments, etc. and WHEN they fail, which the ex-abortionist even say they know will happen, they will gladly sell them abortions at $400-500 a pop) all of this is toxic to the lives of our young people not just physically but is emotionally devastating. Star Parker's books "Uncle Sam's Plantation" and "White Ghetto" are excellent expose's of the sex sellers agenda, (the liberals hate her because she was a former welfare queen who tells her story of irresponsible and immoral behavior in her autobiography "Pimps, Whores and Welfare Brats"). There will be a percentage of young people who will live this lifestyle and PP will make money off of them by selling them all their sexual wares, but the message of hope and their value given by abstinence should always be the one promoted by responsible adults. I do not believe in telling teens that "you are going to do it anyway" and contraception is the "best advise" we can give them. They can be educated about methods of contraception without promoting it. I was able to inform my kids without promoting it and after reviewing their schools sex education curriculum felt the information was covered in a balanced way, promoting abstinence not contraception. 87% of teens, in a national survey, said it would be easier to remain abstinent if they were able to have more open, honest conversations about these topics with their parents. Good websites are 4parents.gov.and projectsos.com

Posted by: Prolifer L at October 5, 2008 2:46 PM


Thank you Prolifer L. I agree.

Posted by: Carla at October 7, 2008 6:35 AM