RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Housing and Responsibility

By Larry Doyle on February 19, 2009 at 11:48 AM in Abortion, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Housing & Housing Crisis, Mortgage Crisis

President Barack Obama presented an overview of his plans to support the housing market yesterday. Obama highlighted that the government would utilize the following methods to support those homeowners in default or close to foreclosure:

1. Support is only provided to those homeowners occupying the residence. No support for speculators or developers.

2. The government will increase the portfolios of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to purchase mortgages that are refinanced. These portfolios are currently sink holes swallowing billions in taxpayer funds given irresponsible management and pathetic risk management over the last 15 years.

3. The government will work with and incent mortgage servicers to rewrite mortgages to 31% of income for these homeowners.

4. For those mortgage servicers who do not cooperate, repercussions will be made in terms of not providing government assistance to these entities if necessary.

5. Treasury will provide up to $200 billion to support these initiatives. Additionally the governmetn will provide $75 billion to encourage lenders and servicers to modify loans.

6. If mortgage servicers do not cooperate, the government will support judges to “cram down” the principal of the mortgage during bankruptcy proceedings.

The Obama administration believes these steps will support upwards of 8 million homeowners in staying in their homes. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan, applauded the steps outlined as being comprehensive. With all due respect to Mr. Dimon, he is playing the political game and currying favor with the government given JPM’s position at the epicenter of this situation.

Make no mistake, the price for these programs is being borne by responsible taxpayers, investors, and future generations. To that end, Obama played the responsibility card at the end of his speech. He did not, however, provide any specifics on the responsibility front.

I would call on President Obama to be more specific by what it means to be responsible:

1. not fathering children out of wedlock…70% of African American newborns are borne to a single parent, 50% of Hispanics, 30+% of Caucasians. The two-parent family is the strongest and most effective social program ever designed!!

2. will abortion on demand promoted via the Freedom of Choice Act lead to greater responsibility? It is beyond naive to think that FOCA will lead to anything more than increased promiscuity and further destruction of the two parent family. How can Obama truly believe this Act will promote any degree of increased responsibility? This Act is pure politics placating the far left wing of the Democratic Party.

3. keeping your kids in school. Let me remind him again that 50% of inner city students are high school dropouts.

Homeownership is a privilege, not a right. Neither privileges nor rights come without responsibilities!! Responsibilities are not words or platitudes, they are actions and disciplines practiced everyday!! I am more than willing to help, but I have no interest in throwing good money after bad.

LD

  • Sassy

    Very good points LD!
    Having struggled to rear one child with our middle income status, I know that children born out of wedlock are likely to fail to reach their full potential.
    A caller to C-Span this morning said that he knew people who were deliberately falling behind in their mortgage payments, in order to get their balance kicked down.
    We are probably going to see all kinds of shenanigans in the coming years!

  • ImLiberal

    Yeah, regardless of the depth or merit of his plan, I definitely blame him for whatever it is that black people do. When will give a speech about parental responsibility or morality?? I think Fathers Day, for instance, would be a great time!

    It almost like he thinks talking about responsibility and taking responsible actions will win us over. NEVER! I can’t wait until America is smoldering in the ruins of this socialist, so we can say “we told you so!”

    • bart

      Straw man much? No one but you said Obama should be blamed for “whatever it is that black people do.” And the poster mentioned AA, Hispanic and white out-of-wedlock stats.

  • AlexisM

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

    From CNBC…The headline at Drudge…Calling for the Boston Tea Party. I’m in. Like this guy says…the economy is never going to recover because we are rewarding losers, deadbeats who don’t work or pay their bills in the first place. I’m disgusted.

    I’m not paying for this crap. And neither should anyone here.

    • beebop

      Unless the government owes me money, I am never filing for income taxes again. I am pulling a Geithner.

      • PamFlorida

        Didn’t Geithner take advantage of an IRS statute of limitations? If so, how long is this statute of limitation?

        • beebop

          I’ll do what he did … put the onous on Turbo Tax. If he didn’t get jail time, then I don’t expect any either. And I’ll claim classism and agism. What’s more, there won’t be any room left in prisons by time they find me. Too many people will be locked up after disagreeing with 0bomba …

  • AlexisM

    By the way, the guy on CNBS’s best comment…

    WHY DON’T WE REWARD THE PEOPLE WHO CAN CARRY THE WATER, RATHER THAN DRINK THE WATER?

    • wodiej

      I heard that, my comments aren’t all posting…that reporter was PISSED. Said we shouldn’t be bailing out the losers.

      • AlexisM

        Yup…by the way, note that he said “even if they lower the interest rates to 2%, 40% of these (deadbeats) still won’t pay their mortgages.”

  • IslandGirl66

    Somewhere the wheels came off and this post jumped the rails. Where was it, let me see, let me see – oh yes, when somehow a usually insightful commenter on markets starts hyperventilating about regulation? No. Deficits? No. How about “abortion on demand”, the economic scourge that’s sweeping the nation!

    Abortion, I am sure, like any life choice, has an economic component, but it is ridiculous to suggest that legal abortion inculcates “slut values” among women, destroying the sanctity of marriage. Where have I heard that one before – oh yeah, with gays and lesbians. Care to go 2 for 2 and jump into the fray with an astute commentary on how queers create a downward pressure on your laffer curve?

    Stick to finance. When I want to be lectured about promiscuity I’ll go to church.

    • Elsie

      Unfortunately, the bailout scheme although economic in nature was conceived by Obama’s thinkers as their moral obligation to address social justice issues. When he won the election, you would expect this to happen right? Redistribution of wealth, remember? So now those of us who are responsible and own and keep our homes (we are 2-parent household) because we are responsible citizens are being asked to pay more taxes to help those who are not very responsible and therefore lost everything. You can believe and adhere to your choice issues or life issues..but those who defaulted in this housing crisis are still irresponsible in every aspect of their lives and I am paying for those irresponsible choices that they made. Should I be concerned that my neigbor whose house is foreclosed be bailed out.. No I don’t. If my property value goes down as a result, so be it.. I will stay in my home and enjoy it until I die and leave it to my children or grandchildren.. But I should not be supporting those that were not responsible for their mistakes.

      • lark

        Realtors and their Association were the primary enablers of irresponsible behavior with all stakeholders in the matter. They knew the whole thing stunk but they had a commission to collect.

        • Elsie

          Where are the realtors now? Because of their irresponsiblity, they are out of job or their business is really really really bad and they, too have to suffer..just like their irresponsible clients

          • http://firefox AnnieCollier

            You are right about that. One of my friend’s daughter made about $300k for a couple of years in a row…now hasn’t sold a house in over a year.

            She bought a house in a less expensive area than Monterey just before the boom started. She and a partner, during the boom, also bought houses in Arizona and Texas as rental properties. Last time I heard, the renters were not paying.

            She sucked in several of her friends to no down payment loans; tried to sell me on one too but I passed. So what if the house payment was less than the rental I had at the time? What about taxes, insurance, maintenance? So I said no.

            What do you want to bet that they are looking for a way to get money to keep their extra houses. On her own, she’s refinanced repeatedly and is still living on an equity line. I swear if I hear about anyone cheating on this bailout deal, I’m reporting them.

            • Pinay46

              A comment for AnnieCollier,

              A friend bought 8 houses during the boom era via the “liar loan, no docs” route. She couldn’t understand why we refused to refinance and use our equity to be an investor. Our goal then and now is to pay down our mortgage by living below our means. We are proud to say we are not looking for any govt handouts and chose to be responsible homeowners. This mortgage problem boils down to one word – CHOICE.

            • JustMe

              I added this to another post

              True AlexisM where is my bailout? We bought a house we could afford and the price has dropped like yours 5000,000 …..
              These people should never have qualified for a house in the first place.

              I have a friend who sold houses and made a fortune and I mean a fortune was laid off over 18months ago and is angry she cannot find a position offering the same money and incentives.

              Then I look around at other friends who struggle every month to pay their way and have nothing in return yet she lives off the money made from the houses around us that all stand empty. Makes me mad you betcha….
              This friend has had time to reevaluate her life and get retrained in a position to live just like we all do in what we have coming in. And when she says she is angry her 401K and savings have dropped I just look at her and say yes so as ours….
              Where in this mess due to people giving out stupid loans knowing full well these homeowners would never be able to pay once the interest rate changed yet they sold these homes, lined their pockets and never looked back until the sh** hit the fan….. I say get off your ass and go do something about it like we all have to do to keep our head above water….

              Please do not whine to me when your savings are dwindling and have no income.

              I do not want these realtors to suffer but at least use the money you made to reeducate and do something else.

              • RebelCarol

                401K and savings have dropped

                I think we all need to ask for a Bailout for our 401Ks and savings accounts that have dwindled down to nothing. Think Obama would grant us lowly people a bailout for losing our investments through no fault of our own?

                • beebop

                  hahahahahahahahaha

                  Oh.

                  Thanks.

                  Comic relief.

                  Needed that …. as I think about what I no longer have …. on paper.

      • PamFlorida

        Are our illustrious politicians and their cronies going to participate in this redistribution of wealth or will they create loopholes to preserve theirs?
        In Cuba, the ideal example of extreme left-wing socialists, the rich minority have it all while the majority share equally in poverty.

        • Elsie

          It is the same in any country, the rich whether left of right still get everything, but when government takes away what you work hard for, then, they should be stopped next election

      • cynic

        You’ve got an underlying assumption there that might not be true: You’ve assumed that most home buyers in danger of foreclosure are in that position because of their own irresponsible behavior.

        Consider how quickly the median price of homes was rising. A reasonable person might have easily concluded that if buying were deferred a home for the family would be forever out of reach. The financial industry was making loans available. Borrowers had long been conditioned to believe that the ability to qualify for a loan implied sound judgement about the reasonablenes of the transaction. The individual customer had no way of knowing that systemically irresponsible behavior had set in with the financial industry like dryrot.

        So, people borrowed after being led to believe the purchase was smart. They took out mortages with every intention of keeping up their end of the deal, not knowing the deal had been rigged, and that loan originators had already dumped a shaky proposition onto a conveyer leading eventually to unsuspecting investors at the other end. They made their payments regularly, and felt like they were finally on the road to owning something of real and lasting worth.

        Snap. Overnight home values plummet, the economy tanks, the husband or wife is laid off, and you owe 50 or 100 thousand more to the mortgage company than your home is worth.

        The people who profited outrageously from the whole scam slip quietly into the background with their loot, feeling no remorse whatsoever. Other Americans, justifiably resentful about what the robbery has done to their investments, their job security, the value of the home they’ve paid off or paid down, understandably believe someone should be held accountable for irresponsible behavior.

        Unfortunately some of the easiest targets are the original victims of the scam.

        We need to examine the righteousness and logic of that impulse.

      • RebelCarol

        Does anyone remember the woman interviewed the night of Obama’s win? She said Obama was going to pay her mortgage and buy her gas? Well, I guess she knew something that we all didn’t know. Except it’s not Obama who is going to pay her mortgage, it’s us!

        He sure is spreading the wealth around, not his though.

    • grayslady

      Totally agree, Island Girl. Those final comments were offensive pontificating, IMO. I just love it when a guy thinks he knows all the implications of women’s health issues on society–including the health issue of reproductive freedom.

      • rw

        Men are part of the equation and the have a RIGHT to opine. IMO his point is not about reproductive freedom, it was about being economic responsibility for ones actions.

    • Ellen D

      I agree. This usually concise economic diary went way astray when it started criticizing abortion as encouraging promiscuity.

      No one I knew ever said “Whoopee, let’s go, because I can always get an often traumatic, sometimes painful abortion. And I really want to make this hideous decision and experience its mental and physical consequences over and over again because I really like to have lots of sex without birth control.”

      Unless you’re changing from “Larry” to “Laura”, you don’t have the first requirement necessary to make this type of comment.

  • sleepy

    The good news is this blog’s traffic has fallen dramatically in Alexa rank down to the 100,000-something territory from its high in the 20,000 rank during the election.

    But still, not a bad gig.

    • beebop

      Thanks for your stupid comment. Traffic is always appreciated even from the likes of trolls.

      • Docelder

        Seriously, does anybody go to Alexa to search for anything? I never have. As far as I have heard, you can put their toolbar in your browser, view your own page all day and watch the ranking go up… to what end though?

        • The Real HC

          It really impresses bots.

          • beebop

            Yeah. There’s an achievement.

            Apparently you can utter “Yes we can” and they are impressed ….

    • Ferd Berfle

      Wake up, Sleepy and do some real homework. Alexa, bah.

      So little time, too many slack-jawed bots.

  • anon

    LD,

    I’m not sure I trust refinancing through FM/FM given their track record. If one has remained current on mort. payments and isn’t ‘under water’ on the value of the home should they take advantage of the gov’t. mandated refinancing (lowered rate from 7% on a 30 yr fixed) or just sit tight?

  • wodiej

    Some people in Mesa Arizona are outright PO’d about bailing out the mortgages. Some guy who is a reporter for MSNBC was GOING OFF-Limbaugh just played it.

    • RebelCarol

      It’s not just “some people in Mesa, Arizona” that are “PO’d” – there are a heck of a lot of people across America that are “PO’d” and I’m one of them right here in Oregon.

  • wodiej

    Some kid in Mesa Arizona who watched O speak through video camera, were not impressed. One had a t shirt on w Obama’s pic, above it said “Hitler gave good speeches too”….The students in an advanced government class said the pork plan is backwards.

    That MSNBC reporter is pissed, said he is starting a revolution for bailing out losers.

  • bart

    LD,

    Just saw a piece about CA and 9.3% unemployment. Do you think CA is a bellwether for how this is going? In other words, will they hit bottom before the rest of the US and will the entire nation follow a similar path?

    • LD

      California is the 9th largest economy in the world all by itself. While i tdoes not fully represent everything that is going on in oour country it certainly gives us a strong representation.

      Aside from the economy the state itself is on the verge of default. I did see that it passed a budget this morning that incorporates tax increases.

      Other parts of the country did not have a strong a runup in real estate valuations as California so some states will not suffer as much.

      In short we all have the flu…just different variations.

      • Mary

        California was also one of the mega-centers of the subprime mortgage hustle, due to lack of state regulations granting broker licenses. Same with Florida.

        With all due respect, we Texans (whose state DID have good regs re brokers) are not feeling a whole lotta sympathy for the flashy, hustler state of California.

        Like my Army captain Dad said: Sympathy. In the dictionary, between snot and syphillis.

      • Mary

        Your California “strong runup in real estate valuations” was because your state was one of the epicenters of the subprime fiasco, and because your state had very few regulations for licenses for mortgage brokers (ie, no background checks).

        California did this to themselves, and California can fix it with their own tax dollars.

        Due respect.

  • I’m a Linda too

    As I said on the last thread talking about this subject, this plan will not help folks having a hard time meeting their payments.

    This plan is being offered to individuals whose monthly debt (car house credit cards) are only between 31-55 percent. If your debt is much higher than 55 percent of your income, YOU DON’T QUALIFY.

    So being most of the homeowners having problems are because they are in houses they can’t afford or are just plane irresponsible and shouldn’t have been given loans to begin with-as studies have revealed that even if you cut delinquent mortgage holders monthly payments to be hundreds of dollars lower monthly, they will be delinquent again because they spend that new found money or other things. AND, a new study just came out that more than 50 percent of delinquent mortgages that received “modification” last year, are DELINQUENT AGAIN.

    And, one more thing. Did you know that the Democrats increased the loan amount for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not to just the higher amount of loans up to 300K as they did in early 2007 when they got back in power, but that Fannie and Freddie take loans up to $417K? YEP, Fannie and Freddie, for first time home buyers to aid in home buying offered loans up to the JUMBO Loan amount.

    And why are we in this mess indeed.

  • beebop

    Last time I checked the US Constitution, owning a house and horse (car) was not a guaranteed right … but hey, I may have missed something. Ya’ think? :)

    • wodiej

      no, THEY missed something, it’s the word PURSUIT of these things that they have themselves all mixed up about. And pursuing something requires some ambition so there’s your answer.

  • I’m a Linda too

    PLEASE CHECK SPAM FILTER, I have comments nailed in this and other thread.

  • http://deleted Aaron

    I love how the government now has the right to FORCE private companies to respond and comply with its legislative dictates to achieve its political goal. If the servicing companies don’t comply “We will deal with them appropriately.” This should scare any independent thinking American to the bone. WHAT IS HAPPEnING? This guy has only been in office for a month and he is trying to adjust the whole system as if he is emperor. WTF!

    • tek

      Aaron: your concern for private companies is touching, but it’s the private companies (banks, mortgage businesses, realtors) who created this mess. They totally control the process of buying a home. They make bad loans, which is actually illegal, and they should be required to adjust mortgages and principle to reasonable amounts. If you think private companies (and individuals) lost money this housing mess, think again. They never would have indulged in it if it weren’t profitable.

      If Dubya hadn’t acted like an emperor and removed all the economic safeguards, we would not have this meltdown. But maybe you think it’s okay for business to exploit average people in order to help themselves, but if the government–which is the people–helps people, that’s bad. Hillary would have had some similar plan had she been elected. Americans elected Obama because the Republicans always create recessions–back to Nixon–and the Democrats clean up the mess.

      • http://deleted Aaron

        the last time I checked no one forced any individual to take out a loan from a bank or mortgage company. Did I miss the news about lenders taking borrowers hostage and forcing them to sign on the bottom line? If Hillary would have done the same thing I would be saying the same about her. As far as blaming W for the problem maybe you should think through the problem associated with an over reliance on regulation. Individuals are convinced that the government, rather than themselves will lookout or safe guard their well being at every turn. If we believe that we are responsible to look out for ourselves than vast majority of people would.

        An example of this is found in the mortgage securitization process. If you get a mortgage and bundle it with other mortgages which you then sell you are require to get the new bundled security rated by a government licensed and regulated entity. These rating agencies are licensed monopolies, MOODYS AND S&P are examples, which are funded by those seeking the rating. (Sounds like a conflict or interest, huh)

        Additionally the government controls or I should say dictates what they are required to rate. Originally the firms rated municipal bonds, government bonds and corporate bonds but they were forced to rated these new bundled securities because Congress ordered them to. With a AAA rating the firms were able to sell these bundled assets to investors, such as pension funds and insurance companies, who are also required by law to only invest in high rated or investment. The investors relied on the ratings companies to do their due diligence for them, i.e. check whether the securities are actually investment grade, instead of doing the analysis themselves.

        WHen these investments blew up the investors should have known it was possible because they were supposed to do their due diligence by law. But they blamed the ratings companies for the faulty ratings but they never acknowledge that the ratings companies clearly state in every rating that their review and rating was not to used or assumed to a thorough analysis or vetting of the security. (Some might as what the point was but remember this is a government requirement, it must be worth something) In other words, the rating it was worthless, but many in the world of finance said the disclaimer was just legalease and that they should just rely on the ratings and ignore the disclaimer. How do I know this you may ask, because I brought this up in quite of few meetings before and during the crisis and people laughed at me. I told them I did my due diligence and that this security sucked and they laughed. Frequently they said “The government is watching them don’t worry.” I could go on and on but I know you probably don’t want to hear it. The truth is that we have plenty of laws and dictates on the books and most people are overly dependent on them. Kinda like a restraining order and patent enforcement etc. etc.

        One last thing don’t forget that those private companies you want to go after because they are all evil usually are comprised of individual Americans who draw a pay check and have lives just like you.

    • sandi78

      If the private companies don’t want to do what the government is demanding, they can also decline to accept the money the government is giving them so that they can stay in business.

      • http://deleted Aaron

        I understand that sandi but implicit in this situation is that the government will then steer business to companies that comply or are controlled by the government. The other path is that the government regulates those who don’t comply out of the business entirely either overtly or through capital constraints that can only be met by those under the wing of the government.

        Ultimately this leads to a further unravelling of free markets. Look at how the treasury forced banks to take money so that the market could not identify the weak from the strong. (Citi, B of A= weak, JP Wells Fargo =strong, these are relative terms)

        The government is picking out winners and losers en masse and most either don’t care or are blind. I think they might have a change of heart when they are forced to make a campaign donation to the Congressman in order to procure a mortgage. This is the future that we will face if things go unchecked.

        • Ellen D

          Okay, it’s not nice to threaten, but I have friends who need to refinance their home to avoid default and their mortgage lenders won’t even reply to their inquiries.

          I also know that the very banks who claim they are lending – aren’t. They are lying in their teeth to Congress.

          I’d like to see SOMEONE threaten them before they bring down the whole country.

          • http://deleted Aaron

            I not defending banks or servicers but remember that they make money when you repay the loan, they lose money when you don’t. It is in their interest to make loans that is how they make money.

          • heather

            If I were a bank officer deciding on what to do, I sure as heck wouldn’t be approving loans if I thought the government might change the principal and interest rate on me.

            People act like banks are in the business of being nice, or making families happy. Banks are not people. Banks are meant to make money. If they don’t think they can make money on something, they shouldn’t do it, because they are responsible to the business, or to their shareholders, not to that sweet family that’s undergoing some issues.

            When we start forcing businesses to act like charities, we will not longer have businesses. I, for one, rely on a business, for a paycheck, so I’d like to see them act in the best interest of continuing to have money to back up that paycheck.

  • lark

    Neither privileges nor rights come without responsibilities!!

    I have a different take about all this, LD. I think your approach is somewhat simplistic.

    I think you are witnessing something unusual and extraordinary in the history of humankind. What is extraordinary is that “reasoning” will finally trump “trust.”

    Now I know you know a lot about “trust” and “reasoning.” But what is more important, trust or reasoning?

    It seems to me Obama is institutionalizing “reasoning” over “trust,” and throwing “trust” out the door.

    It seems to me that from here on reasoning is sufficient to support action.

    Now look at all our institutions and how much they relied on trust over reasoning.

    Take for example, our mothers. Suddenly they became ugly because of the effect of aging. But that was no reason for anything to change in any way shape or form. But now, reasoning will trump that. Any good reason should be sufficient to cut mothers any slack. They should be relegated as historical events. That’s just one instance that portrays what loosing trust can cause.

    I think we are doomed if this philosophy of reasoning over trust goes forward. Society and culture as we know it will end. Something that I don’t want to look at will be replacing it.

    • PamFlorida

      Reason is subjective, anyway. Many people suffer from the inability to think for themselves. So, whose reasoning will we be forced to accept?
      For example-Called my senator’s office to object to the “stimulus” and the way it was passed without Congress or the public having a chance to read it. The gatekeeper’s response was-The Dems/Bo won because the “People” voted for them/him. Therefore, they are the “deciders”. What kind of logic is that? I’m an American, not an idealogue.

      • lark

        I frankly think that Obama is destroying or undermining trust to such an extent that virtually any reason would supersede and overtake or cancel trust.

        I will then repeat my doom scenario. Trust is gone, reasoning will control all common contracts. Trust will not be a factor in contracting or culture. You may see that with relation to ‘Representation,’ as in Congressional representation like you just pointed out. In other words, Congress will not represent us or the people in a trustworthy fashion anymore. That’s gone. Congress will be a moral rudder for society. It will have the ability to reason what we are suppose to do as a culture and society. You could call it ‘institutionalization of change.’

        Institutionalization of change under the death of trust means that we are amorphous as a society and culture with no guiding principles except those recently defined.

        As a postmodern person I understand that. But I was never ever conditioned to abandon trust. It breaks my heart. It is a mortal wound to ‘self.’ It brings Nietzschezian meaninglessness to life and to the forefront of existence.

        I am frightened.

      • lark

        I was instructed not to repost when my post is blocked by the filter. A little patience and it will be released.

  • outlawales

    i don’t know what to do, i hated the first stimulus, i hate the second stimulus, i think the housing bailout is bullshit,

    but , i am pretty sure i would be eligible for some help,

    i am a single mom with 7 year old twins, i’ve tried to be smart and invested wisely, i have rental property, but two of them are empty, and i am borrowing money every month from home equity line of credit to keep paying my bills, and mortgage, but everything does get paid each month,

    i hate that i could benefit from the 75 billion refinance, but feel like i would be stupid not to try and take advantage of it, what say some of you,

    if you were in my position would you try to refinance or what,

    i am so disgusted with all of government, i kinda can justify it, but then again i do feel morally wrong about it, ugh,

    what to do , what to do

    • LD

      You should most assuredly look into and utilize any and all programs that are available. No sesne to feel any moral anxiety. You are doing it for your kids.

    • RebelCarol

      am a single mom with 7 year old twins, i’ve tried to be smart and invested wisely, i have rental property, but two of them are empty, and i am borrowing money every month from home equity line of credit to keep paying my bills, and mortgage, but everything does get paid each month,

      I would try to refinance if I were in your position. You would be wise to do so.

  • The Real HC

    I just had the thought that if Ann Coulter made your final points 1, 2 and 3 she would be called a radical extremist.

    I find it an interesting trend that WHO says a thing these days often trumps WHAT is said.

  • Bazooka

    A very weird post LD.

    Why are you mixing the mortgage issue/plan with your views on social issues and even breaking it down by race?

    What are you trying to say?

    I am not seeing how these are related?

    Or maybe you are just ranting about your views on social issues?

    but, in case you are trying to some how related these issues, maybe you should read this.

    Study Says Income Not a Factor In Subprime Mortgage Defaults

    NEW YORK — Mortgage defaults stem from loan products not income level, according to a study released last week by the Local Initiatives Support Corp. The study also found that most subprime mortgages were made outside of poverty-stricken areas.
    Delinquency and foreclosure rates for subprime borrowers were comparable across all income levels, according to Michael Rubinger, LISC president/CEO.

    “This reinforces what years of experience have already told us: low-income residents are not, by definition, poor credit risks. Unsuitable mortgage products are,” he said.

    LISC studied delinquency and foreclosure rates from March 2007 through March 2008. It found that default rates for all loan types rose significantly over that 12-month period, with subprime foreclosures vastly outstripping prime defaults. But among subprime borrowers, LISC also found that income level had little correlation to foreclosure rates.

    LISC said in a written statement that the findings are particularly important as the country considers the value of the Community Reinvestment Act. CRA requires banks to lend and invest in the places where they take deposits. Some say through CRA banks were forced to make risky loans and threatened with fines if they didn’t reach government quotas. Republican lawmakers have urged the Justice Department to investigate the GSEs for mortgage fraud and overzealous lending under the act, claiming that such lending is at the center of troubles in the mortgage-related markets.

    http://www.cutimes.com/Issues/2008/November%2012,%202008/Pages/Study-Says-Income-Not-a-Factor-In-Subprime-Mortgage-Defaults.aspx

    I think Obama was talking about responsiblity, in terms of paying your mortgage. Just like Dimon was talking about this morning.

  • http://www.latinarepublican.com Latina Republican

    Rick Santelli said it best for us!

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

    :lol:

    Way to go, Rick!

    • wodiej

      he was on fire wasn’t he??!!

      • AlexisM

        Rick is right. And I am so thrilled it was on CNBC and not Rush lol. Finally some people with brains are getting exposure and telling the truth about that scumbag Fraud and his Commie Crap Bill. Barack Khmer Hussein Castro Chavez Hitler Obama is going to get a real big surprise when Americans don’t go quietly in the night and accept his abuse of our country.

        • wodiej

          Rush played it on his show today

    • Peggy Sue

      That was some piece of video, Latina. Thanks. I liked the one trader’s suggestion: how about if we all stop paying our mortgages–it’s a moral hazard.

      Wow. I think this is an indication of how frustrated a lot of people are with these economic experts, who are hellbent on throwing the country into gargantuan debt as a solution to the gargantuan debt we already have.

      Whatever happened to that common sense saying:

      When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

      And Larry, thanks for the piece. You’re making a whole lot of sense from where I sit.

  • LDW

    In response to : “2. will abortion on demand promoted via the Freedom of Choice Act lead to greater responsibility? It is beyond naive to think that FOCA will lead to anything more than increased promiscuity and further destruction of the two parent family”

    This is not accurate. In countries where there is sex education and easy access to birth control and abortion, women have the ‘lifetime’ number of children the intend to have. In other words, whether a woman has her first child at age 16 or at age 30, doesn’t mean that she will have more than two or three children in her lifetime, because she will end up having the total number of children she considers to be right for her.

    • LD

      I appreciate your response. As I wrote to another reader, I look at urban education, single parent families, and abortion rates and think there is a strong correlation. I don’t think that is a stretch by any means to see that correlation.

      Why is it that we need abortion on demand in every circumstance? Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t FOCA a total abrogation of almost every “right to life” initiative?

      • The Real HC

        Its not that we need abortion on demand in “every circumstance” or “sometimes” or “when the moon is right”. Its a matter of who should be at the table when the option of abortion is being discussed. Its also a matter of living with reality vs making laws to feel good.

        Who should decide? A pregnant person and a doctor? A pregnant person, a doctor and a team of lawyers? The US Congress? The Pope? Unrelated persons on the street? A pregnant person and an abortion practitioner in an alley?

        Just like drug use, making abortion illegal, or mostly illegal, or pretty hard to figure out if its legal or not wont stop it. Not even in North Dakota. It will just make it a crime.

        If America wants to see abortions reduced (I sure do), then we must win over the minds of women having them. Not make them criminals and not make the procedure so dangerous that both mother and baby die.

        • LD

          All good points. Thanks for sharing. Believe me I am also in the camp of wanting to make it as rare as possible.

        • sandi78

          No, you don’t have to “win over the minds of women having them”. Why don’t you “win over the minds of” the males that get them pregnant and then disappear? Octomom aside, most women don’t get pregnant all by themselves.

          What you do have to do is demand that men and boys take equal responsibility for birth control, then you have to make access to reliable birth control VERY easy.

          • LD

            Where do I give males a pass?

            If anything I take males on in point 1 about fathering children out of wedlock. I think I am categorically stating that fathers should take responsibility for their obligaitons.

          • The Real HC

            And what if after everyone is being responsible you still have a pregnancy that a woman doesnt want? Married women and women with partners have abortions too. Women on the pill occasionally get pregnant. It happens. Its not just “irresponsible men who disappear” that are involved in unwanted pregnancies.

            Demand that men take equal responsibility for birth control how? Ticket them if they dont? I cant make my husband mow the lawn responsibly in spite of years of training so good luck. Especially with the younger ones.

            You could make all abortions absolutely illegal under all circumstances and they would still happen.

            To reduce abortions you have to make women not want abortions or not need them. Birth control helps the latter, but the former DOES require women to be “won over” for lack of a better term.

    • http://ezinearticles.com/?Three-Basic-Parenting-Styles&id=744499 Northwest rain

      LD — I always read your articles.

      But your opinion about women’s issues — such as abortion and the HUMAN RIGHT to control our own bodies. There is no such thing as “abortion on demand” — this is a myth and I am saddened to see LD repeat this sexist garbage.

      Women and girls need access to education and information about preventing pregnancies etc. Also women may need access and assistance with birth control — preventing pregnancies is cheap — and perhaps the goal of providing FREE birth control to ANYONE — would be way of saving money in the long run???

      Put condoms in ALL men’s public bathrooms. After all it takes TWO — and you SOB males are just as responsible as women.

      It ALWAYS pisses me off that a personal and private decision for women is tossed in with politics. Men — support women’s decisions about our bodies and then shut the hell up.

      And yes the two parent nuclear family unit is nice — but the original family cluster is the extended family — with the grandparents and older folk handling the child care responsibilities while the younger folk work the fields, gather the food and hunt the bigger animals. The small nuclear family (suburban idealized myth) is very modern.

      The white males of Prez Andrew Jackson’s era tried to forced the male centered nuke family on the Cherokee — who had a more traditional family structure.

      /rant

      • LD

        I agree with you and your points. Correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t FOCA allow for abortion without restriction? I appreciate your points and support them but doesn’t FOCA have the potential to negate the benefits and impact of these other initiatives?

        Obviously this is a hot button issue and the reason why I raised it was because I see a correlation between urban dropout rates, single parent families, and rates of abortion in the cities.

        I appreciate and respect your viewpoints and thank you for presenting them in a thoughtful fashion.

        • The Real HC

          Here is probably the relevant bit you are looking – fetal viability – its HR1964 if you want to read the entire thing:

          “It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or terminate a pregnancy after viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.”

          So no, iFOCA doesnt allow you to abort an healthy 8 month fetus just because you feel like it.

      • SN in MN

        Support men’s decisions and then shut the hell up yourself! You are a sexual bigot.

  • mountainaires

    If buyers purchase a home mortgage that equals more than 38% of their income, then they are irresponsible. Therefore, Obama is trying to save homebuyers who are irresponsible. And, he is expecting me–we, us, the taxpayers–to subsidize their irresponsibility.

    I reject everything about this mortgage rescue; it’s nothing but welfare. The risks of buying a home are always the same for everyone–smart home buyers research the location, their income levels, and their financial security for the foreseeable future in order to best determine their risks of default. Banks research the buyer’s credit, past history of income and payment, and job security to determine their risks. Both take a leap of good faith in the act of signing a contract for purchase. Everyone takes the risk that their purchase can be adversely affected by other things, like a road, a shopping center, a public housing unit, or rezoning disaster devalues the property!

    In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that eminent domain means people can be ‘rezoned’ right out of their homes, because a private entity can create a tax base out of it by building a shopping center right on the location where their home now stands.

    Imagine the rage those people who experienced THAT feel when they hear that reckless and irresponsible home buyers are getting their principle reduced by $1000 a year on a federal program paid for by US taxpayers.

    It’s just infuriating to me. And, it won’t help. And, it’s all about saving the freaking banks anyway, not the homebuyers. I bet they won’t save even a million of these reckless twits, and if they do save some of them, they will STILL DEFAULT LATER.

    Well, I’m in a very cranky mood today. I’m annoyed by Nouriel Roubini. I agree with his assessment of the situation; I just fundamentally disagree with his recommendations for resolving it.

    “Laissez Faire” capitalism would work just fine, thank you very much, if the government would just get out of the freaking way and allow natural market consequences to take effect. Debt can be cleaned out through bankruptcy proceedings; then the market can heal. As long as we continue to stick our fingers into the witches brew, we’re only contaminating the financial disaster.

    STOP HELPING. YOU’RE ONLY MAKING IT WORSE, BARACK/BEN/TIM/LARRY.

  • tek

    I think the plan has some merit. At least, speculators and McMansion buyers won’t be bailed out. People need to look at this crisis from another aspect. It’s true that responsible people shouldn’t have to pay for people who bought houses they can’t afford, but there’s no way out of this for any homeowner. If millions and millions of houses default, the market is flooded with inventory and everyone’s property loses it’s value. People just can’t afford that. Even if you don’t owe anything on your home, you might get transferred, or decide to retire to some other area, and you will not be able to sell your house. If you were planning to have a nest egg from selling your house after the kids leave–too bad, you’re stuck. Americans are necessarily mobile and it’s a disaster for people’s homes to be worthless. Whatever you paid for your house, if it’s impossible to sell it, then you’ve lost hundreds of thousands of dollars you invested in that home.

  • untilthelastdogdies

    Regarding #2, Nothing gets my hackles up more than when men start pontificating about that lovely phrase “abortion upon demand”.

    If you don’t want your taxes to pay for it, fine. However, I think projecting your own private morals onto the mortgage crisis and inferring that Roe v Wade encourages a lack of long-term responsibility is simply infuriating.

    Probably some of the most fiscally responsible women you know have exercised their right for a safe and legal abortion, the problem is you will never know it.

  • mountainaires

    If millions and millions of houses default, the market is flooded with inventory and everyone’s property loses it’s value.

    Houses are losing their value anyway, because they are extremely over-valued. Every homeowner is losing; but only the irresponsible ones are being rescued. You can put your home on the market today, and you won’t be able to sell it for it’s “value” 2 years ago. I built a new home in 2006 and paid cash for it–no mortgage. It’s in an upscale development; and I cannot sell that home today for what I paid to build it in 2006.

    I wasn’t irresponsible; I paid cash. Yet, I’m subsidizing people who bought homes costing more than 40-50% of their income. It’s infuriating.

    Stop interfering in the market. Those homes which go into foreclosure will be bought by the people who weren’t reckless–who saved money.

    This is all a scheme to save the banks–which should be closed down because they too were irresponsible. The money we’re wasting on the irresponsible should be put into bolstering FDIC, which is essentially broke too, and cannot possibly insure your bank account, no matter how many promises they make to do so.

    Bankrupting our government by saving recklessly irresponsible financial institutions and their pigeons. What a joke. And, I’m not laughing. Santelli is right to be outraged…At least he’s still got a brain! I can’t say the same for Obama.

    • tek

      Everything will not be devalued. Much depends on your neighborhood. In our community, the houses still list for upwards of 2 million down to the 100,000s. But it doesn’t matter what the list price is if you can’t sell the house.

  • Andy

    Indeed LD, you are sooo right !!

    Question: Could you explain a bit more what do the “cram down” provision mean (bankruptcy judges rewriting mortgages?), its leaglity, how it would work really?

    I read Alan Reynolds piece at WSJ and he doesn’t seem to approve…

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123500284970517737.html

    Thanks!

  • Andy

    Indeed LD, you are sooo right !!

    Question: Could you explain a bit more what do the “cram down” provision mean (bankruptcy judges rewriting mortgages?), its leaglity, how it would work really?

    I read Alan Reynolds piece at WSJ and he doesn’t seem to approve…

    online.wsj.com/article/SB123500284970517737.html

    Thanks!

  • fiscalliberal

    In the Detroit School District, only 25% graduate high school. That is a 75% failure rate. Then the question has to be asked, what is the literacy rate of those that do graduate. They have their special schools which graduate college material.

    However the parents with out partners is a real problme. The other issue is that grandparents are raising the children. More over the Detroit School District finances are being watched how by a state auitor. Corruption is pervasve.

    The real problem still comes to poverty. I wonder what people would say about voluntary state paid sterilization if a single parent (all races) has more than two children. These single mothers have limited chances in being able to provide housing with more than two children

    • Northwest rain

      Education needs to start early– I’d say that few people are aware of how much children cost to raise.

      If it were up to me — I’d start the family fiance education in the first grade — plus the fact that competency in various subjects (like math & English) leads to higher paying jobs. A bit of reality based education would be a good idea.

      Note that Mrs. Obama uses the “grandma rising the little ones” meme that is found in many AA cultures (and other ethnic groups as well). However, this isn’t limited to AAs — it is common in many cultures. In Hawaii it is not uncommon for children to be raised by grandparents. 0bambam’s upbringing in Hawaii was the norm — rather than the exception.

      When kids learn how expensive babies can be — and how demanding babies can be — they are shocked. Then there are the young girls who get pregnant on purpose — I’m not even going to touch that topic.

      Free and easy access to BC is my suggestion.

    • wodiej

      I think people should have to take an IQ test before even becoming parents or voting. This would eliminate 98% of the stupidity in this country. Sterilization is an attractive option too.

  • Docelder

    real problem still comes to poverty.

    I hear that and think poverty is an obstacle no doubt, but one that can be easily overcome with hard work. Look at all the immigrants who come here with nothing, some without even basic language skills and with hard work and vision… they do very well. I think what we are lacking in urban communities is a work ethic and vision more than anything else. We have let the “poverty pimps” lead these urban communities with the mantra that they “can’t” succeed, “can’t” prevail. You name it, there is an urban “poverty pimp” telling these young people they “can’t” achieve it. That is a lie. Poverty pimps are liars. We need to clean house in these urban communities. People don’t need any more help being “rubbed raw” in their resentments. What they do need is a work ethic and some vision.

    • wodiej

      Well said. There is no reason in the world someone cannot succeed if they are willing to put hard work into it. That doesn’t mean if you work hard for one year, you get a big promotion. You have to stay at it. Success is measured in YEARS not in minutes. You have to be willing to get extra training and/or education. You have to have a good attitude, have integrity and have ambition. Playing victim is not the key to success.

  • Andy

    Indeed LD, you are sooo right !!

    Question: Could you explain a bit more what does the “cram down” provision mean (bankruptcy judges rewriting mortgages?), its legality, how it would work really?

    I read Alan Reynolds piece at WSJ and he doesn’t seem to approve…

    Thanks!

  • jeff

    I think there are valid arguments on both side about this government plan. Will it raise the budget deficit? Probably. Will it help? That’s a good question. I think economies go through cycles and this might be one of them. I read a good article on recessions and their history on

    http://www.recessioninfocenter.com

  • andrew191

    I know this is OT, but while I’m getting used to having my posts deleted or delayed so long that everyone has moved on to other threads, I’m surprised to have the whole thread that I was posting on completely disappear. It’s even more disturbing when I was touching on subjects involving potential conspiracies. What happened to the New Orleans thread?

    • Andy

      andrew191: it is the spam filters…I have been having my comments eaten up as well, a lot lately. Email susanunpc at gmail dot com when your comment doesn’t appear. Sometimes it’s b/c of links sometimes it’s a mystery…
      The New Orleans post was bumped up (it’s the second story now)

  • outlawales

    where is my post, should i refinance or not

    • cynic

      My own post seems to have flown south also. So it goes…

    • LD

      my personal opinion is that given the massive federal deficit is that rates are going to head higher…i would look to refinance sooner rather than later…

  • hadenough

    In one post LD shows his classism, racism, bigotry, misogyny and total cluelessness as to how serious a problem foreclosures are and what the main causes are. Incredibly.

    [Administrator: You indulge in character assassination without an iota of proof for your accusations. "Had Enough" is how I feel about you. Such remarks are not permissible here. If you disagree, there are many ways to convey your disagreement -- by making logical, proven points in a rational manner. But name-calling is very immature.]

    • beebop

      And in this one post you show your simple little mind. Go to huffingpoo. You’ll find your own kind there.

    • truthorconsequences

      hadenough you are the racist here.

  • LD

    With all due respect I will let my body of work speak for itself. You are certainly entitled to your opinions.

    Thanks.

    http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/author/ld/

    • Ellen D

      Your body of work is commendable and enjoyable, L.D. Perhaps you might want to stay out of the personal parts, though.

      • Tuppence411

        I can’t be one of the few who got the point of LD’s article. Every goverment action either promotes a value- or the opposite- creates a moral hazard. We are neck deep in goverment promoted and funded moral hazards.

        Personal responsibility while providing for the common good… I am just waiting patiently for my country to get back to that bedrock value.

        • Docelder

          Personal responsibility while providing for the common good

          That would apply to a “republic” very well… which we used to be. It doesn’t work so well for a socialistic “oligarchy” though. Hence, our current dilemma.

      • beebop

        Most people don’t need to swallow the opinions of just one individual whole and without analysis. Except of course 0bomba supporters.

    • truthorconsequences

      If the shoe fits—— you know. Some “folks” just can’t handle the truth. TOUGH. And the truth is, I sure as hell do not feel like paying for someone’s house mortgage who is a generational food stamp recipient with a half dozen illegit children from half a dozen over-the-hill fathers. Instead of getting a room they should have been out getting a job.

  • cathnealon

    The stimulus bill passed and BO is taking our money that we need desperately to take care of our own families. It seems as with every socialist country the objective is to make everyone equally poor, except for the favored few at the top. No wonder they went after Joe the Plumber’s tax records and maligned him, they knew he was hitting on exactly what they were going to do once BO came to office. Steal our money. There must be a mass revolution aganist this. I just keep repeating to everyone at work and in the neighborhood that I’m not giving my money away, I need it and I don’t want my tax dollars going to abortion,(that’s FOCA let em have abortions but do we have to pay for it especially in the last trimester?) to people that play the system, or to ACORN, to Freddie and Fannie and to BO’s Hamas buddies. He’s going to keep taking and taking and blaming everything on the last 8 years when the Dems are as responsible as anybody for this mess. And I’ve been a Democrat my entire life until May 31st, 2008.

  • sunup

    Where is the difference.? Sign a mortgage without reading or understanding it. Sign the stimulus without reading or understanding it. Both are totally irresponsible.
    Both get what they want,neither can pay the bill.
    Taxpayer left holding the bag.

  • http://noquarter foxyladi14

    L,D, i always read and enjoy your posts.thank you,i have learned a lot from you,,

  • sunup

    Larry, Thankyou so much.I tuned in toward the end and heard your summary. All the credit goes to Kim. It is her own idea, but it takes time so I just help out.
    She also gives a short bio on the person’s life and profession.So the kids are exposed to lots of different ideas. I will pass along your words. Teachers don’t get much positive feed back or money..So again thanks.Erin go Bragh!

  • RebelCarol

    This should make a lot of you mad:

    As resistance to foreclosure evictions grows among homeowners, community leaders and some law enforcement officials, a broad civil disobedience campaign is starting in New York and other cities to support families who refuse orders to vacate their homes.

    The community organizing group Acorn unveiled the campaign with a spirited rally on Friday at a Brooklyn church and will roll it out in at least 22 other cities in the coming weeks. Through phone trees, Web pages and text-messaging networks, the effort will connect families facing eviction with volunteers who will stand at their side as officers arrive, even if it means risking arrest.

    Please read the rest at:

    http://timeswatch.org/articles/2009/20090218133655.aspx

    Representative Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, last month called for anarchy (my words) on the floor of the House by instructing people who are being foreclosed on to stay in their houses.

    Gosh ACORN is getting federal money from the bailout. Anyone else mad out there?

    • Ferd Berfle

      This was posted last night by another commenter. I think it amounts to insurrection.

      • RebelCarol

        I wasn’t able to get one last night. I’m glad that someone else caught this too.

    • AlexisM

      ACORN is nothing but criminals. We all knew that. Now they are going to make America keep people in the Freddie and Fannie houses that they didn’t deserve in the first place. Remember ACORN’S involvement in Fannie and Freddie. Well, not only did they force America to give away homes as welfare, but now they are going to resort to violence to keep them there. Is anyone REALLY surprised by this? Come on. As for am I “mad?” I am mad, sick, disgusted, repulsed, you name it. And no one, no one is defending our country against this scum.

  • cathnealon

    ACORN’S offices were raided in 13 locations last summer by the FBI and now they’re getting billions. We are funding thugs, plain and simple.

  • Linda C.

    We have bailed out the savings and loan. We have bailed out entire countries. We have bailed out banks and we have bailed out corporations starting with railroads.

    What is wrong with you people. What does the statistics on out of wedlock births have to do with foreclosure rates?
    Let me share with you a few things. My parents own their home. The house behind them was sold at a sheriff’s sale for 4 grand. That was half of what my parents paid for their own home almost 50 years ago. My parents are still married, white and obviously heterosexual raising two children and paid all of their bills. I suppose we could guess what the value of their home is now.
    Here is a fine responsible white married heterosexual couple. I suppose it is better to kill off your family then to think maybe you should be entitled to any “bailout”.
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1439745,w-sheriff-ohio-family-murder-suicide-021909.article
    BELLE VALLEY, Ohio—- A man who told a sheriff’s dispatcher he had money problems strangled his wife and 11-year-old son, then shot and killed himself, authorities said Wednesday.

    • AF catfish

      I’ll tell you about births/foreclosures: we’re messing with Darwin.

      Granted it’s not out-of-wedlock BIRTHS, but kids who are raised in out-of-wedlock homes. Why isn’t octomom pressured to give some of those kids up for adoption? I am running out of time to have my first kid b/c I’ve been completing college, paying off debt, trying to find the right guy.

      Octomom I guess, was smarter than me. This is MESSED UP! And there’s no cap to the benefits she could get – she could keep having more kids. If the older ones grow to be teenage mothers, octomom can get MORE BENEFITS rolling into her household.

      I’m a liberal, a Hillary voter, support a woman’s right to choose. But something’s gotta give here – anyone read Angela’s Ashes? Those kids were raised on bread and tea. At some point, we’re going to have to stop propping up the poor stupid people. The middle class people, like ME, are subsidizing octomom.

      Meanwhile, I’m getting close to saving enough for a down payment on a condo or house – if only the housing prices would stop doubling every five years. Oh but this grand mortgage plan ensures they will.

      This liberal Democrat is ready for MUTINY!

  • Pingback: egoldmine.info

  • The Real HC

    I am inclined to agree with you (and Ms. Coulter, surprise) on 1 and 3, 2 I would consider a civil rights issue and not related to the topic of personal responsibility per se.

    I still find it interesting (and bad) that if one person says a thing its crazy and extremist but if another does its just good common sense. This trend makes me uncomfortable no matter who is saying what.

    Personally I dont think that more government is the answer to these societal woes. Not even nice sounding educational programs. I think less government is more likely to be the fix, because less government will necessitate more personal responsibility. Big government undermines personal responsibility and also undermines person to person charity. If I am personally helping you with your fatherless children, it wont just be blind aid. I will want to see some results and want a say in how the kids are being raised. The government does not have this liberty, and probably shouldnt.

  • J.J. (The P.U.M.A.)

    A few thoughts about race. I agree with Mr. Holder that when it comes to race we are a nation of cowards. And, while his language was inflammatory, it was needed to strike up a conversation.

    There was another event yesterday that demonstrates why we are a nation of cowards. A New York newspaper ran a cartoon that featured a chimp. T.V. people were spending last night screaming racism, suggesting that there was a link to our president.

    What is the lesson from this. Interact in a multi-racial environment and run the risk of being labeled as a racist. Its much easier being a coward and withdrawing.