Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, November 12, 2007
Star Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
How to limit home ownership for the poor
by Star Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007 has passed out of Chairman Barney Frank's House Financial Services Committee. It's now headed to the full House for a vote. In the name of protecting the poor from market predators it will in actuality protect the poor from wealth.

This is yet a new chapter in the grand liberal tradition that advances the illusion that government micromanagement of private lives and markets will make us better off. We already have laws against fraud and theft. But for liberals, government isn't there to enforce the law. It's there to run our lives.

The legislation assumes that when private individuals make mistakes they can't figure out what they did wrong and make adjustments and that even if they could they wouldn't.

We're going to wind up with new and onerous regulations in the business of making loans to consumers for purchasing homes, and as a result, fewer loans will be made and we'll all be worse off. Those who will be penalized the most will be the low-income families who the new regulations will supposedly protect.

Should fraud be permitted in our society? No. Should government interfere with private individuals' latitude to determine on their own what risks they wish to take and the willingness of others to finance those risks? Absolutely not.

Frank's bill crosses far over the line into regulating private lives and behavior where he and government have no business.

Why will this hurt the very low-income families it purports to protect?

We already have plenty of experience with the costs of so-called consumer protection laws in general and those designed to regulate mortgage lending in particular.

In a recently published article in the Cato Supreme Court Review, Professor Marcus Cole of the Stanford University Law School discusses the fallout of lending laws in Illinois.

The Illinois Fairness in Lending Act passed in 2005 gives the state oversight authority on loans made in nine designated zip codes in the state. These zip codes are, of course, areas in which residents are mostly lower-income households.

The law places authority in a state bureaucracy to review all applications for mortgages in these designated zip codes. The bureaucrats who review these applications determine if the borrower needs credit counseling and requires the lender to pay for it if required.

The costs of the counseling are estimated to be as high as $700 and can delay the processing of the loan up to a month.

The borrower has no option to forego this counseling, whose objective is "to protect homebuyers from predatory lending in Cook County's at-risk communities and reduce the incidence of foreclosures."

What's the result?

Cole reports the following: "Instead of protecting hardworking would-be homeowners from predatory lending, the new law protected them from credit. Within just a few months more than 30 mortgage lenders refused to lend on homes purchased in the targeted zip codes. Those lenders determined to service these communities saw a rise in their costs, which translated into higher interest rates on their loans."

The purported cure was worse than the disease. Cole goes on to note that, "home sales in the designated zip codes dropped an average of 45 percent in just one month after the bill took effect. Home prices plummeted, draining relatively poor but hardworking people of what little equity they had in their homes."

The experience is similar in other states where governments have authorized bureaucrats to insert themselves between lenders and borrowers. Yes, the number of defaults have declined. They have declined because the number of loans have declined.

The Wall Street Journal reports that currently "80 percent of subprime loans are being repaid on time and another 10 percent are only 30 days behind."

These are overwhelmingly loans to low-income families. Probably, under Barney Frank's new regulatory regime, many of these loans would not have been made and the families in these homes would be renting and considerably less wealthy than they are today.

To quote former Texas Rep. Dick Armey, "freedom works." But it can only work if we let it.

Many have paid and are paying a great price for the errors and excesses of recent years. We now should allow private individuals and private markets the opportunity to self correct, which is what will happen.

If government steps in to pre-empt the market and Barney Frank is the one to decide who gets loans, the rich will stay rich, the poor will stay poor, and we'll have one more reason for already skeptical Americans to question the American dream.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE, the Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Same Crap, Different Day
It's always the bleeding heart desire to prevent those with less from getting stuck with the short end of the stick. The results are always, instead of getting the short end, they don't get ANY part of the stick.

Rent Control purports to protect the poor from rent gouging. Instead, it causes investors to not invest in rental buildings, causing a shortage, causing upward pressure on rent. Since rent control prevents rents from rising, instead you get long waiting lists. Generally there are fewer and fewer poor people in rent controlled communities.

Minimum wage purports to protect the poor from less than a "living wage". Instead, it causes employers to lay off the lowest paid, or not hire them, causing unemployment among the poor.

Gun control purports to protect victims from gun violence. Instead, only the law-abiding follow the law, and the criminals know they're unarmed, causing gun violence to increase.

There must be hundreds of examples. When will they ever learn?

Unca Alby
Now you've ruined it. First you make my day, then you bring up all these depressing truths. I think i'll go back and read the comments agin on McCaslin's dog column to get back in a decent mood.

Mommy Knows Best
We have a law in Toronto that you cannot pay more than 40% of your income in rent. I am not poor (although 45% of my income goes to taxes) but this law *for my own good* drove me out of my neighbourhood where I was happy and at home, and into a neighbourhood that is nice but sterile and boring, without a decent grocery store in walking distance among other things. Historically I have paid between 50 and 60% of my income for rent without suffering undue pain, since I have no car. But there is one rule for everybody and that is that.

Since rent control was abolished, more apartments are available than have ever been before, but we also have more homeless, because the law says they cannot pay more than 40% of their income for rent, and the average apartment in Toronto costs $900 plus utilities.

Better they should live on the street, I guess, than learn to budget. Mommy knows best.

The Part The Media Play
Unstated by Ms. Star is the part the media, mainly newspapers, have played in this mess. A few years ago, it was studied and found that in many poor areas, poor people were being denied home loans and of course, the mortgage bankers were blamed for mistreating the poor. The newspapers made such a big hullaballoo over it that of course, the fringe mortgage people began loaning to people who had no business getting home loans and the subprime mess began. Then, when the poor began defaulting on their loans and people started losing their homes, our esteemed media began once again hollaring about the evil mortgage bankers who failed to warn the poor home buyers that they might have been getting in over their heads. The Congress creates evil by overprotecting the poor, but the newspaper "do-gooders" aggitate where they have no business or knowledge and cause further problems. Newspaper and other media need to learn that their job is to REPORT NEWS, NOT MAKE IT, as in this example of do-goodism gone bad.

The myth of the Sub Prime Debacle
Sub Prime loans have ALWAYS had a comparatively high failure rate. That's why they're "sub-prime".

While the rate has gone up somewhat in the past few months, that isn't what is causing a crisis. In truth nobody cares about the failed borrower, except for some political grandstanding.

What is new, is for the first time (in this business cycle) the foreclosed homes are worth less than the mortgage balance. The LENDERS are actually losing money. Now that's a crisis. That can actually cut into campaign contributions.

Expect a complete wave of "reform" legislation which will be intended to mask a massive lender bailout.

What is Giver-ment’s Job?

Old law concept: the function of law is not to protect the individual from himself.

Subprime mortgages was the market’s response to giver-ment investigations and they claiming that mortgage companies where red lining poor people, (statistically untrue never the less). The subprime has been a boon to 75% of poor people. And the folks who are getting decimated are actually folks with a second, third and fourth home who are flippers. I took a look at a list of subprime mortgaged homes on the market in CA and almost all were owned by flippers. An acquaintance of mine in CA was fairly well off at age 63 and was flipping one at a time and a couple years ago went to two at a time and right now has two on the market well below his cost. Naturally he feels the mortgage lenders took advantage of him, (not seriously) but claiming so such that he can get the giver-ment to give him your money.

Who is at fault?
Let's see. Whose fault is it when a person or a family that should buy an 1,100 sq. ft. house for $150,000 decides to buy a 2,700 sq. ft. house for $379,000 -- and because they can get a sub-prime mortgage that will clearly turn disasterous before too many years have passed? Is it the government's fault? Is it MY fault? Uh uh. Sorry, Charlie.

Equalizing material things for "the poor" has always been a mission of government as long as I have been voting. I don't remember any section in the Constitution about the responsibility to "equalize" anything that has to do with income or revenues for "the poor." I am sick of legislation geared toward that. If legislators want to pass legislation that prevents a large segment of the population from getting hurt financially in ways that seem largely beyond their control -- they should pass legislation totally banning pork. That would do it for many of us!

Thoughtless Laws
As Dennis Prager likes to say (often): The left is obsessed with doing what "feels" good and never stops to think whether the new law will "do" good. The left is feelings-oriented, the right is results-oriented. This is yet another example of this truth. And when this program fails (as it must) then the left will ask for more money and more power to "fix" it.

I agree
For once I agree with Star. This is an area where I believe we should not interfere with the free market. Individuals should be responsible enough to determine what is a good or bad loan. There is entirely too much education available on this subject to need government intervention. One can just go to the local Barnes and Nobles and buy a book for 15 bucks on the subject of predatory lending. God, this doesn't sound like me, but this does seem like wasteful government spending.

Unlike Universal health care, and government funds for education, this program has the potential to restrict access. We don't need that.

Reality
I came to townhall to try and learn what moves half of my fellow Americans. After several months of studying townhall articles and posts, my conclusion is that conservatives are chiefly motivated by greed---and that they vehemently object to any rules, regulations, or laws that might force them to moderate their greed.

People are easily fooled: that's what the advertising industry is all about, for starters. Are bacon double-cheeseburgers good for people? Are they advertised as a public service? No; picturing them in juicy close-ups is intended to make people's WANT for them overwhelm common sense, and selling them will enrich everyone involved in the scam: advertisers, cooks, and the folks who raise the beef and cheese and bacon. The game is "see how much of your money I can get".

Those poor people who overextended themselves with bad mortgage deals were exploited by a greedy real industry. (And I do remember President Bush's words about creating his "Ownership Society" and encouraging the industry to facilitate home ownership.)

Fifty percent of my newspapers is now advertising. Thirty percent of TV is now advertising. Billboards are everywhere. The pressure to buy is unremitting. "Buy my unregulated herbal medication; it will cure your cancer, impotence, hair loss, and female trouble." "Buy these glitzy made-in-China toys for your kiddies. Great prices!" "Sign up here for a McMansion. I'll show you just how you can afford it!" Then when everything falls apart, we hear "Well, you should have known better.".

Predation by the rich
This legislation is based on the presumption that the rich want to prey on the poor in hopes of keeping the poor down. It ignores the basic fact that such predation costs money and time that the rich can ill afford.

There is more money to be made in lifting the poor, if the government and the poor themselves would only allow it.

To lilly:
If "conservatives are chiefly motivated by greed" why do "conservatives" give more than liberals to charitable causes?

Don't call it sub-prime
The time has come to exopse the so called sub-prime market for what it really is. Unqualified borrowers receiving jumbo mortgages without regard for, even in negligent disregsard for their ability to repay can only be called affirmative action lending.

Intended, not unintended consequences
When liberal / progressive / socialist programmes consistently keep poor people poor, deny people opportunity to better themselves and make moderately well off people poorer time after time it is irrational to conclude that these consequences are not intended. The left want to keep people poor so they can sell them the snake oil of victim politics and what we in the UK call the politics of greed and envy, or lets punish the wealthmakers for making wealth and creating jobs. These outcomes are intended, just unstated.

Under the UK's socialist government the poor are being excluded from the housing market by uncontrolled legal and illegal immigration (2 million in the last five years, another 2 million in the next five years to a crowded country of 60 million) and the imposition of Home Information Packs which cost a vendor £700 for a freehold house and £1400 for a leasehold apartments. As apartments tend to be cheaper than houses (most of our flats are more like housing projects than 5th Avenue apartments) this adds £1400 to the sale price of homes for the poorer members of society.

Having grown up poor myself it amazes me that the poor cannot understand that the left hates them and wants to make their lives worse.

and to Lilly
Thank God conservatives only care about money. It is because I work for a conservative employer who only cares about money (and not gender, race or sexuality) that I work in a diverse workplace of talented individuals who hold their positions on merit alone. And it is a US firm to boot.

At a former liberal owned workplace racism and sexism was part of the corporate philosophy and extended to hiring practises which discriminated on race and gender and yet are shockingly not illegal under the UK's "equality" laws. Some people were good but there were plenty of also rans. The pay was poor too. Liberals don't only want to keep the poor poor, it makes you poor if you work for them too.

Liberal policies
usually wind up hurting the people they're supposed to help.
I still haven't figured out if that's on purpose (to keep a voting bloc), or whether it's just well-meaning ignorance.


BTW, Many (most?) of the people who went for these loans and are now upside down in their houses are people who were trying to make a buck by buying houses then flipping them for profit before they had to start paying the loan. When sales slowed down, they were stuck with loans they shouldn't have taken out in the first place (they were gambling).

LILLY: the idea of an ownership society is one where people who now live in gov housing would actually OWN their property and their home. I can't fathom how that's an undersirable thing if you really care about people.

Response to Lilly
So what you are saying is that the poor are too ignorant to make good decisions? Since the left has maintained a firm monopoly over public education for the past 30 years, who do you blame for the poor's lack of understanding with respect to basic economics and personal responsibility? This is NOT a difficult concept: Do not spend more than you make!

Unfortunately, 99% of our politicians and at least 80% of regular Americans don't understand it.

Just wait ...
... until the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank, et al decide who gets health care and who doesn't.

Lilly
So what is the solution?

If the lender is guilty of greed when it loans the money, and is guilty of discrimination if it doesn't (both due to conservatism, of course), what is the answer?


Rebutting Lilly's silliness
The fact is, Lilly, that not much in this world has been more evil than do-gooder socialism/liberalism, which if left unchecked logically devolves to Communism and Fascism. Liberalism/socialism is about keeping a subset of people poor and ignorant and raping producers and achievers to keep these same underprivileged groups poor and ignorant, while at the same time feeding liberals'/socialists' limitless greed for power and influence. Furthermore, the same underprivileged groups get caught in a cycle of laziness, despair and non-achievement. The Democrat Plantation is real and has replaced the slave system of the mid-19th century.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5lh ZkEauCu8

RE: lillymoron
"After several months of studying townhall articles and posts, my conclusion is that conservatives are chiefly motivated by greed"

Indeed. As are liberals, and everyone in between. We, however, believe, unlike you, that everyone ought to be able to acheive their goals with the individual freedoms granted to us by our creator, and guaranteed by the Constitution, and that snobby commie-mommy fascists like yourself ought not be granted a legalized advantage to your success because you're too dumb to get it otherwise.

"People are easily fooled"

As you prove every time you press the "Post Your Comments" button.

"No; picturing them in juicy close-ups is intended to make people's WANT for them overwhelm common sense"

Because, after all, it's just silly to want food that looks and tastes good!

"Those poor people who overextended themselves with bad mortgage deals were exploited by a greedy real industry."

On the one hand, you have poor people living in cardboard boxes because banks won't take a change on them not paying their loans back. On the other you have banks charging higher them interest rates because their rate of default is so high. Which is better? Living in a cardboard box, or paying a higher interest rate? That, kiddo, is your choice.

"Fifty percent of my newspapers is now advertising. Thirty percent of TV is now advertising. Billboards are everywhere. The pressure to buy is unremitting."

And here I was thinking that the "women's liberation" movement was all about women being just as capable as men. Now you're telling me you really are nothing but a feeble little drone with no will of your own. I guess us men really were protecting you all these years by keeping you pregnant and barefoot! Who knows what trouble you could get into if we let you out of the kitchen!

Lily
Conservatives are motivated by the same basic drives that motivate all human beings - what you see as greed, I see as a desire to achieve security for oneself and one's family.

What I think sets (most) conservatives apart from (most) liberals is that conservatives believe that people have enough sense to make their own decisions, and should then have to live with the consequences of those decisions. We're adults. We don't need anyone, including government, to protect us from ourselves. For every one person who was genuinely defrauded by a sub-prime lender, there are hundreds who just made bad choices. Without the freedom to fail, we don't have freedom at all. I guess that's okay with you. It's not with me.

Judging by your comments on advertising, you believe that people are basically sheep. That's pathetic and condescending, and one of the main reasons that over the past years I've moved away from a liberal viewpoint to a primarily libertarian one.

Lilly
As a liberal you must not believe in being responsable for one self.As for conservative greed.Lets look at one of the richest man in the world Bill Gates who is a liberal.Why didn't he sell his windows for half price? That is corporate greed,right?

Like with Enron, right?
"To quote former Texas Rep. Dick Armey, "freedom works." But it can only work if we let it."

What the hell kind of country is it when corps get more freedom, privacy and protection than the citizens!

There's no such thing as home ownership!
In the United States today, NOBODY OWNS LAND ANYMORE!!! Sorry to shout, but your attention is greatly needed. As long as you have to pay taxes on your land, YOU DON'T OWN IT! It is tantamount to a lifetime lease from the government. Just try not paying your property taxes and see what happens. That deed that says the propert is yours will become worthless.

Write your Senators, Representatives, your governor, literally every elected official you can and push for the repeal of ALL property taxes. Our future freedoms demand that we act NOW!!

I see ...
sonofISLAM is back.

Watch out TH posters, Lilly will accuse
you of "piling on." Not to worry Lilly, Hillary will save you from the Big Bad Wolves out there and give you Universal Health Care to boot! Lilly, you are like talking to a child that is in dire need of guidance and dicipline. Don't worry, we will refrain from spanking you and just send you to your room for a "time out."

sonofsam
How did all of the liberal powerhouses make their fortunes? Through owning or investing in corporations, and using capitalism to their best advantage. It is so funny that guys like Geoge Soros become bleeding heart liberals AFTER they make millions/billions using competitive business practices and walking all over "little guys" like you and me.

And please, could you cite some legit examples of how the "corps" get more freedom, privacy and protection than ordinary citizens? That way we could at least discuss facts, rather than your feelings.

The Liberal Horror Story!
__They have monopolized Health and Human Services, combined with private businesses that only exist because of HHS. I, personally, lost a home, and property after my disabilities overcame my ability to live, and pay mt monthly bills. I could get food stamps, and heat assistance, but no assistance with paying mortgage. I made to much money at $836.00 a month. They frowned on the fact that I owned a vehicle, as if a disabled person should not be driving. My vehicle payments were not considered a necessity. I was told if I moved to an apartment I could get help with rent. I struggled trying to keep my home, but eventually ran out of money, and had to put my home up for sale. Moved into an apartment with monthly rent $255.00 more then I made for a mortgage payment on my home. Section 8 paid $445.00 monthly to the property owners, and I paid the rest. The monthly mortgage payment on my home was $365.00 monthly. WHO IN THE H+ll LOST and WHO WON! It's a SHAM and America allows these weasles to keep it up. THE LEFT SUCKS POND WATER!

Piling it on Lilly
Grow up, little girl -- and educate yourself before you write any more. Go read "Who Really Cares?" by Arthur C. Brooks and you will learn that the people who are the greediest -- that is, who give the absolute LEAST to others -- are liberals, and particularly liberal secularists. Religious conservatives give the most time and time again -- both in money and volunteer time, in addition to giving blood and supporting other family members with money. Religious conservatives give the most, both to religious organizations and secular organizations.

What conservatives ARE against are rules and regulations that limit their individual freedoms and reduce the imperative toward self-reliance and individualism in all citizens.

If you really want to talk about greed and being motivated by greed, sweetie, talk about the people who could realistically afford a $150,000 house and -- because they thought they could get a cheap loan -- went out and brought a house for twice that amount, knowing they would have no way to pay for it down the line. What I personally am against is having to, in any way, bail them out.

A Great Article Stating the Way It Is
More government; less freedom. We must let the market correct itself, not interfere with any person's right to obtain a part of the American Dream. Home ownership for a majority of the people who live in America is one of the great outcomes possible under the Constitution. Yet, Barney Frank and a majority of Democrats and many Republicans will use bad banking decisions as a twisted excuse to shut down the "dream" so many poorer Americans hold. Barney Frank should be voted out of office for this fiasco legislation---what a disgrace---a slap in the face to the freedoms fought and bled for by heroes from generations past. Veteran's Day---2007

The forgotten casualty
... in all this is the home equity of responsible buyers who are in no danger of defaulting on their mortgages, but have seen their home equity evaporate (and even go negative, in some places). Every percentage drop in home resales yields an additional loss of aggregate home equity.

After the 1929 crash, catastrophic loss of home equity, and people's inability to get loans due to extremely restrictive -- deliberately "deflationary" -- lending practices, were among the top 3-4 reasons America was unable to invest and produce its way out of the Great Depression.

About 85% of small business start-ups are capitalized either directly or indirectly through home equity. About 70% of new jobs created in any given quarter are created by small business. A catastrophic loss of home equity for millions of homeowners is not something to dismiss as unimportant. It's going to come home to roost.

Ideology Again Triumphs Reality at TH

The sub-prime mortgage lending crisis is a real crisis. Hopefully it wont pull down big chunks of the rest of the economy with it, but even if it does not, is is a real problem, and among it's causes are the saturation of the market for good-risk mortgages, and lenders therefore going after the sub-prime market with more and more agressive and seductive tactics in a short-sighted attempt to keep up sales quotas.

As you might guess from my on-screen name I'm a Liberal. But I've seen enough examples touted here at TH to agree that sometimes government regulation does more harm than good, and sometimes you can reduce tax rates and increase revenues.

But there are times when government regulation is necessary, and bad things happen when government regulation is missing. The debacle following the Reagan-Era deregulation of the S&L industry is a prime example. (Are we still paying for that?)

Maybe the current proposed legislation has flaws, but doing nothing is also flawed.

Lilly
Lilly, you are a fool and a stupid person. Yes, this is an ownership society and a marketing society, so advertisements are there to facilitate the buying public. However, anyone who is gullible enough to buy something you don't need, just because the advertising is "unremitting" just has to suffer the consequences. Your problem is you want government to save us from ourselves. That's why God gave us free will. Lilly, do you have free will? When you see an advertisement for a produce, are you "compelled" to buy it? Of course, not, but because you are a liberal, you believe people do not have free will. I repeat the diagnosis I've made of you from past posts of yours, you are the world's greatest fool because you want so badly to believe that the corporations are out there to "hurt" people. I've got a perfect solution for you, Lilly, go to Russia, because there, the government will decide everything for you. Lastly, I hope by now that you have discovered that there really isn't anything on Townhall that would interest you, except for you to continue to bash your head against the wall trying to put down your betters on the conservative side.

Flaming Liberal Multiculturalist
__You write, "But there are times when government regulation is necessary, and bad things happen when government regulation is missing." Bad things happen when government regulations are not enforced. There is a sh-+ load of government regulation, and presidential orders flying around with states independently defining, and implimenting those regulations according their ideology. Every one of those individual states receiving federal dollars, that pay for the bureaucratic body doling out those dollars to private businesses, receiving guaranteed clients. It's a monopoly of factions profiting without the threat of competition, and without the need to produce a quality service. America is getting scamed by speculators who use this gigantic paperwork highway that hides their greed from America.

ANTHONY THOMAS

.....Where's your anal bud Ralph Emerson? ...He must be in hidding with a paper bag over his head after his Foreskins got humiliated by over-the-hill Donovan McNabb and his broken-wing Eagles ...

.....Now they have to run the gauntlet on Nov 18 and get punked by the Dallas Cowboys on National TV ...Oh! the agony! ...Oh! the misery! .....COLOSSUS

BAREFOOT AND PREGNANT

.....Star ..."How are you gonna keep 'em down on the farm?" ...

.....I guess that the "poor" who vote for the Democrats must like it down there because they keep on voting for the same ole folks over and over again ....you know what they say about the definition of insanity? .....COLOSSUS

GREED IS GOOD

.....Lilly ...

.....I'll bet you watched that Oliver Stone hit piece on Wall Street where Gordon Gecko says that "Greed is Good" to the stockholders of the failing company he is about to buy out ...

.....I know that "greed" is a word used as a perjorative by Socialists like yourself to describe businessmen and conservatives who work hard to become rich ...but somehow Liberals and Democrats are exempt no matter how much money they make ...how come? ...

.....Did Oprah accumulate all her millions by selfless acts of altruism? ...

.....Let me explain to you how greed can be good ...When Rockefeller wanted to market oil he went to bankers and investors to invest in his risky new enterprise ...the bankers who loaned the money and the stockholders who bought stock in his company all did so with the expectation that they might make a profit (GREED) ...As the company thrived and grew into an industrial giant (STANDARD OIL) The bankers loans were repaid with interest which allowed the banks to pay interest on savings accounts and to make loans to working people in the form of home mortgages ...

.....As the Company grew the original investors who took the biggest risks grew wealthy and the company offered employment and paychecks to hundred of thousands of employees and millions more ancillary businesses and workers ...

.....This is called Capitalism in a free market and it is how our Country became wealthy and great ...but all you can see you little Socialist is GREED ...I call it class envy of someone through the dint of his own initiative and hard work could accumulate more than someone else ...

.....you say you came to TH to see what makes Conservatives tick ...If you want to learn something ...and remember you need an open mind to learn ...go to http://www.capitalism.net to learn how Capitalism works ...personally I think you came to TH with a closed mind and preconceived ideas that you now feel are validated .....COLOSSUS

Wrong in both cases.

We all know that the poor can not be trusted to understand the nonsense pitched by the loan company, but certainly anyone smart enough to own a million dollar property can be trusted.

But wait a minute, 15 to 20 years ago when I was loaning my own money as trust deeds, three of the properties that I reprocessed were in the million dollar and up price range, in Beverly Hills and Santa Monica.

I certainly would not loan money on property that expensive unless I was convinced the borrower had the brain power to understand, and the money power to pay.

Wrong in both cases.

And I guess that should have included me in the brain department.

MORE RICH DEM IN CONGRESS THAN GOP

.....Lilly ...how about your half? ..

.....Pelosi and Reid are rich as are Kennedy, Feingold, Schummer, Corzine, Gore, The Clintons ...

.....I could go on but suffice to say that if you added up the wealth in Congress of Dems and Repubs ...The Democrats win hands down ...

.....Now since ...in your tunnel vision only Conservatives are greedy ...and greed is inherently bad ...how did the Democrats come by all that wealth without ever once being corrupted by greed? ...I eagerly await your detailed explanation .....COLOSSUS

Lilly, I am missing something
With this sub-prime "failure" we get to see what happens to the poor by the greedy SOB's who made the loans. But last I saw, those greedy companies like Citigroup, Merril Lynch, Countrywide, and Smith-Barney are in a world of hurt for having made those loans. So somehow the "winners" of this game seemed to have forgotten that they were the winners and that the poor who took out the loans were the losers!

To my way of thinking, those who forgot to understand the risks (the lenders) have been hurt by doing so and a small percent (some 80% of sub-prime loans are paid on time with another 10% only 30 days delinquent--WSJ) of those receiving the loans in default. The problem is that no one feels sympathy for the lenders. However, Barney Frank, et al, can always find and parade before the cameras some poor folks who lost their homes (something they wouldn't have even had without the lender) to tug at our heartstrings. But guess who really benefits from any kind of bailout that might come along? The lenders, that is who.

As someone else said earlier, let the market take care of this problem. A little indigestion for a short while, smarter lending practices in the future, but without additional government regulation and restriction.

Lilly: greed/ownership question
Perhaps you could explain why wanting people to be able to own their own homes is greedy
(and wanting them to stay in public housing is not)
???????????????

COLOSSUS...
The answer to your question about rich Dems and greed is obvious--their hearts are all in the right place! The fact that Kennedy got his money from a bootleg running father or that Corzine earned his money on Wall Street (the source of all evil!) is immaterial. It is how they feel that is important.

And when these same rich Dems complain about taxes being too low (and cannot do away with the death tax), you know that they have ensured that none of their money goes back to the gov't! Ask "Swimmer" Kennedy where they have their money stashed? Or what is Warren Buffet doing with his vast Billions while he says that the death tax must not be repealed? Do as I say, not as I do!

I laugh in their face.
__This is one poor, disabled man, living an independent life without being strangled by the independent left. I once had to be under their thumb to live an independent life, according to their independent restrictions. I will never become one of their guaranteed votes, to pay their factitious cause. I refuse to be some liberals money bag. I would rather put all of them in the unemployment line.

COLOSTEVE

.....Thanks for clearing up that mystery for me ...I wonder where Ted Kennedy's heart was when Mary Jo was drowning in that canal? ...

.....I am curious to see what Lilly's answer would be but I know that she will never answer ...that's not how she plays the game ...

....However I intend to ask her the same question over and over every time I see one of her posts ...either she will answer or I will drive her from TH .....Cheers .....COLOSSUS

The libs. forced the current debacle in
lending on us by insisting on legislation that forced banks and financial institutions to make bad loans to poor risks to prove they weren't discriminating.

Suddenly, the very demands of the elite we-have-never-had-an-impure-thought police who are always trying to re-arrange people's feelings and lives have discovered that making loans to poor risks is risky and leads to defaults and bankruptcies.

Only liberals could be so disconnected by ideology to think people with bad credit histories and poor work histories could suddenly assume multi-millions in loans and treat them sacredly. Now, the very banks legislated into making those bad loans are being singled out as "predatory lenders" and may now be punished by the idiots in Congress.

If this legislation passes, the working poor with good, traditional citizen values can kiss ideas of owning their own homes good bye.

Anthony Thomas:
"This is an area where I believe we should not interfere with the free market."

Does this hold true with you if the mortgage companies need a government bail out? If there is ANY industry that requires heavy regulation it is the mortgage industry. Libertarianism here is deadly for the economy.

This doesn't mean Frank's answer is the best one. Star, being a committed anti-liberal, appears only interested in ripping into Frank. Conservatives need to step up (for a change) and come up with a workable solution. If doing nothing ends up meaning an accelerated foreclosure rate and a nosediving mortgage industry, those who proposed nothing will be burned badly.



Whatever happenedt to....
...I just can't afford it. Houses are expensive, not only to buy but to maintain. Ideally you shouldn't spend more than 25% of your gross pay on dwelling pmts. This whole idea of trying to twist and finagle in order to make someone afford a home when they can't is not fair to anyone. There is nothing worse than being under the weight of a house pmt and things breaking left and right. It becomes a curse. People need to stop pushing people into situations they just can't handle because it has some political benefit. Lenders and real estate people have been pressured to give loans that they should have never approved because of some political motive. People need credit counseling but NOT by the government and NOT forced!

There are also too many "flippers" in the market and they should lose their shirt.

Star
We're going to wind up with new and onerous regulations in the business of making loans to consumers for purchasing homes, and as a result, fewer loans will be made and we'll all be worse off. (Quote from the column)

Hmmm. I admit to getting no further in this
column and then deciding to write my thoughts on
it.

But do I have to spell out our very, very recent
past. The banks are taking a dive on the stock
market (and rightfully so, considering the
recent shenanigans in the housing market).
All these rules would not be necessary if those
who are making choices would think of something
other than making the quick, fast and enormous
buck without considering, or caring about, the consequences.

I cannot tell you how many times in my lifetime
that lesson has had to be relearned. But you
know what, as long as their are those who believe
that making money (and I am not talking about
making a living here, I am talking about obsession with making money), we will have to
continue to suffer the consequences of their (
and perhaps, our) greed.

MORTGAGE REFORM (LOL)

I got to read youR article on mortgage reform, I have to say you are right on with this on big brother dictating what they feel works best for others.
sure we have crooks in our industry. but, what industry is there none? heck we got crooked politicians trying to rid crooks in other industries. now thats comedy at its best!

We need some reform to weed out more trash in the mortgage lending but trying to rid the lending field of ALL brokers is wrong some of us believe this is a career and take it seriuosly how we help others. and it is not the brokers who caused this mess it is the lenders & investors who supplied the bad seeds with the tools to take advantage all for the mighty dollar in their pocket. these so called goodie goodies need to look at realtors (7% to write a contract) or car sales they get yield spread from the bank shouldn't this be wrong too. I make 1-2% on loans when "I " can.. do you think I will work for months with a consumer to help them get things right to buy a home or save a home if all I can get out of it is a few hundered dollars "NO" so those are the ones this all will hurt not the crooks, they will just move on to another tactic to pilfer money !!

Wake up folks work on the real concerns of this nation ridding ourselves of crooked political games for the gain of self wealth.

thanks for letting me vent
Lenny

There's Pain & There's PAIN

ColoSteve:
"With this sub-prime "failure" we get to see what happens to the poor by the greedy SOB's who made the loans. But last I saw, those greedy companies like Citigroup, Merril Lynch, Countrywide, and Smith-Barney are in a world of hurt for having made those loans."

Being kicked out of your house is alot more painful than having your stock price decline and your CEO having to live off a multi-million dollar severance package.

insighting truth
If "conservatives are chiefly motivated by greed" why do "conservatives" give more than liberals to charitable causes?

TO EASE THEIR CONSCIENCE

Greed on Townhall
Greed is relative to the individual doing the comparison. Here is a shocker: Communists and Socialists are greedy also. They control the resources in the market. Here is another shocker: Poor people are greedy also; that is why there are a record number of foreclosures in the sub-prime market.
Bottom line: the residential mortgage business is VERY REGULATED. More regulation will not stop stupid people from making bad choices. The solution: let the market(millions of people) provide the correction. Mortgage companies and Banks will survive and create better loans products.(they already have!)Star has provided the solution, it just does not include Government.
Socialism or Government does not work, it is not an effective tool to manage resources. This FACT has been proven over time with the following jewels of communisim/socialism:Communist Russia, China, Communist East Germany, the old communist Eastern European Countries, North Korea, Cuba, and etc. These countries have no poor or greedy people, right lilly and reason?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.