Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

Obama Is Sub-Prime on Lending Crisis

By Max Fraser, The Nation. Posted January 31, 2008.


As with most domestic policy, Obama is to the right of Clinton.
Advertisement

Last year, forty-three states reported increased home foreclosure rates. Nevada led the way for eleven consecutive months; in Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, nearly one in twenty homes is in foreclosure. Whole blocks have been foreclosed in Chicago. Nationwide, rates are nearing Depression-era highs -- ravaging working- and middle-class neighborhoods that fell prey to the soft sell and outright chicanery of predatory lenders in the heyday of the housing boom. These lenders have targeted the most vulnerable -- black and Latino borrowers have been twice as likely to receive subprime loans as whites; female homeowners, 30 percent more likely than male; black women, five times more likely than white men.

As the subprime mortgage debacle drives a recession that threatens financial markets around the world, the Democratic presidential candidates are pushing plans to address the crisis. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are pledging substantial federal resources to stabilize the mortgage market and intervene on behalf of borrowers. Barack Obama's proposal is tepid by comparison, short on aggressive government involvement and infused with conservative rhetoric about fiscal responsibility. As he has done on domestic issues like healthcare, job creation and energy policy, Obama is staking out a position to the right of not only populist Edwards but Clinton as well.

Edwards's plan includes a mandatory moratorium on foreclosures, a freeze on rising interest rates for at least seven years, federal subsidies to help homeowners keep up with payments and restructure loans, and explicit measures to rein in predatory lenders and regulate the financial sector. Clinton's plan is weaker -- a voluntary moratorium, a shorter freeze, less commitment to new regulations -- but she has promised $30 billion in federal aid to help reeling homeowners and communities.

Only Obama has not called for a moratorium and interest-rate freeze. Though he has been a proponent of mortgage fraud legislation in the Senate, he has remained silent on further financial regulations. And much like his broader economic stimulus package, Obama's foreclosure plan mostly avoids direct government spending in favor of a tax credit for homeowners, which amounts to about $500 on average, beyond which only certain borrowers would be eligible for help from an additional fund.

"One advantage to the tax credit is that there's no moral hazard involved," one of Obama's economic advisers explains. "There's no sense in which you're rewarding someone for taking too big a risk. If you lied about your income in order to get a bigger mortgage, then you're not qualified. Do you really want to give a subsidy to the guy who wasn't prudent?" Obama has used similar language on the campaign trail. "Innocent homeowners," he has promised, those "responsible" borrowers "facing foreclosure through no fault of their own," would get help restructuring their loans. But no such luck for those "claiming income they didn't have" or "lying to get mortgages."

"There's been less emphasis from the Obama campaign on the really dysfunctional role of the financial industry in the subprime mess," says Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute. "Edwards and Clinton talk much more about regulation of the financial industry going forward, and to the extent that blame is placed, they tend to place it on the lenders for steering people into loans they couldn't afford."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: edwards, clinton, obama, election08, economy, debt, lending crisis

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Where Do You Stand, Where Does He Stand?
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 31, 2008 11:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two views about people's homes. One set views it as a place to live and the other as a financial investment. The average homeowner has been suckered into leveraging the very place they hang their hat to keep up with the Joneses and others have been forced to in a climate of rising prices and stagnating wages. The wealthy can play speculative games, but most live in the only real estate they own.

Enter the scoundrels, charlatans and con-artists; encouraging people to gamble their very homes chasing quick wealth or a climb up the social ladder in a very class-conscious America. With little regulation and minimal oversight, the money changers have created a huge mess. Sub-Prime is part of it- but not all. It's just the latest ponzi-like scheme from the financial carnivores that masquerade as our banks and financial institutions. Time and again, when these outfits are not monitored and regulated, the money changers overreach and create a huge mess in our economy, leaving personal and financial wreckage for fun and profit.

The NeoCon and DLC crowd have spent the last 20-30 years dismantling the regulatory and legal restrictions upon the banking and financial industry. Obama has aligned himself with this bunch as has Hillary Clinton and owe the voters some very detailed and non-evasive answers regarding their past actions and future plans. The positions Obama and Clinton have staked out are not in the Democratic tradition and are by no definition progressive.

Here we are at the precipice of regaining the White House and guess who are the only two candidates left in the race. Two DLC-type republican-lites mouthing just what the bankers, stock traders and loan sharks want to hear. The candidates espousing a more progressive viewpoint have been ignored not by the electorate at large, but by DEMOCRATIC voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Florida.

Thanks Guys, with Super Tuesday less than a week away I get to choose between two Republicans in the Democratic Primary. I wonder if Oprah is going to pay your bills as the economy tanks. Selecting a President isn't about haircuts, celebrity endorsements or people that look like me. It's not about making a societal statement about how inclusive we have become. It's about electing someone who is qualified and dedicated to advancing the values that align with what you wish our country's policies to be.

Economically, there isn't a thin Dime's difference between Obama, Clinton and McCain. They are all aligned with Wall Street and the rest of the Corporatocracy, regardless of rhetoric. Look at the votes, the track record and what they espouse.

Progressives have already lost the 2008 Presidential Election, thanks to clueless voters that have picked poorly and left us with 2 Junior Senators with lots of negatives come November and very Republican voting records. Until we get rid of the insane death grip these un-representative states have on our process we will continue to get more of the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Saving our damn selves Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Saving our damn selves Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE:Ask Senator Obama Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Ask Senator Obama Posted by: richholland
follow the $$
Posted by: crazy carlos on Jan 31, 2008 12:01 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look at where Obama gets his money and his breathless endorsement of Israel come hell or high water. AIPAC anyone? His achilles heel. The talk and the realities do not match up--and he is the best of what is now turning into a pretty sorry liter. Crazy Carlos

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So Obama isn't really all that progressive?
Posted by: arieden on Jan 31, 2008 12:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet looking at this site, so many people are enthralled by him and his "message." Have they really looked at his policy postions or do they just like the way he talks? I think he's OK, but I also think he's another Alpha male that talks big but may not really do that much in the end. (Talk is cheap)
Hillary is more of a doer - she may not be as glamorous or inspirational, but maybe we need things to get done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You could go on all day
Posted by: badkitty on Jan 31, 2008 1:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You could go on and on about Obama's policies which are closer to Republicans than to Edwards--I guess we can't hope for any real additional regulation of the financial industry that helped get us into this mess--I'm guessing it lied more than borrowers on their home loans, and it certainly was not prudent when it came to asking for documentation before approving loans. I agree with NoPCZone that we are left with two Republican-lite Democratic presidential candidates, but my last hurrah will be voting for Edwards in the California primary anyway. I am constantly amazed at the inability of people to analyze what Obama really stands for, but the change he could bring about would be a continued dismantling of the Constitution and widening gap between rich and middle class/poor and most people just cannot see it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You could go on all day Posted by: maggzilla
Obama misses the mark.
Posted by: J_Mo on Feb 5, 2008 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now, I'm really upset and really disgusted with the choices we have. Edwards, IMO, was the last good candidate (who was in the running--I supported Kucinich, ultimately.) Obama falls short here, when he does not consider regulating the industry.

Yes, homeowners need help, but the abusive banks need to be reined in.

Cripes. Now, I have NO CLUE who I'm going to vote for. Might as well put on a damned blindfold and just poke at the buttons...or let one of my cats vote for me.

B;ah!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]