Responding to the collapse in home prices and the huge number of foreclosures, the Obama administration is pursuing an overhaul of government policy that could diverge from the emphasis on homeownership embraced by former administrations.

“In previous eras, we haven’t seen people question whether homeownership was the right decision. It was just [...]]]>

WaPo Reports:

Responding to the collapse in home prices and the huge number of foreclosures, the Obama administration is pursuing an overhaul of government policy that could diverge from the emphasis on homeownership embraced by former administrations.

“In previous eras, we haven’t seen people question whether homeownership was the right decision. It was just assumed that’s where you want to go,” said Raphael Bostic, a senior official in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. “You’re not going to hear us say that.”

Bostic, who has published leading scholarship on homeownership, added that owning a home has a lot of value, but “what we’ve seen in the last four years is that there really is an underside to homeownership.”

The administration’s narrower view of who should own a home and what the government should to do to support them could have major implications for the economy as well as borrowers. Broadly, the administration may wind down some government backing for home loans, but increase the focus on affordable rentals.

The shift in approach could mean higher down payments and interest rates on loans, more barriers to lower-income people buying houses, and fewer homeowners overall, government officials said. But it could also pave the way for a more stable housing market, one with fewer taxpayer dollars on the line and less of a risk that homeowners will not be able to pay their mortgages. And it could spell changes throughout the financial markets, as investors choose new places to put their money if the government withdraws some incentives for investing in the U.S. mortgage market.

I don’t buy it. But, it could happen.

Ed Morrissey, who is one of the more honest right-wing bloggers out there, says:

Will the White House go through with it?  It’s one thing to leak this to the Post.  It’s another thing entirely to follow through with the necessary rulemaking and legislative effort needed to succeed in it.  The Post notes that La Raza, one of the groups that gains material benefit from participating in government programs for these home-ownership efforts, is already unhappy with the idea.  At a time when Obama’s approval ratings are sinking towards Bush levels, this could alienate his ideological base and leave him utterly abandoned in 2012.

Let’s hope Obama commits to this reform.  If he does, it will easily be the most significant economic reform of his tenure, and would represent a significant retreat from the government interventions and social engineering that have ruined the American economy, and could set the stage for even further constraints on federal power.  That would show actual leadership and strength.

Pardon me if I sound about as jaded as an atheist on Easter Sunday; but it would make no sense for President Obama to do this. As it was the Democrats that created this whole mess in the first place. Social engineering is what they do; so, I will not break out the pom poms just yet. I will believe it, when the speculation of the real estate market ends. I will believe when they stop trading mortgages on the stock market. I will believe it when the sub-prime mortgages are gone. I will believe it, when Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are gone for good.

Until then, I remain unconvinced.

Normally, I would not even credit or link to anything on Infowars, because I happen to believe that Alex Jones is a  rube. But, this was quite good and I think it warranted [...]]]>

This comes from CNBC: (H/T to James Best on Facebook, who found it on InfoWars.com)

Normally, I would not even credit or link to anything on Infowars, because I happen to believe that Alex Jones is a  rube. But, this was quite good and I think it warranted credit.

It is a darned good question.....

Thanks to an advertiser who wishes to remain anonymous, cars and trucks on Arizona Highway 260 in East Central Arizona are driving by a billboard advertisement that recently went up, bearing President Obama’s face on what appears to be a mock U.S. $100,000,000,000,000 [...]]]>

It is really…:

It is a darned good question.....

Thanks to an advertiser who wishes to remain anonymous, cars and trucks on Arizona Highway 260 in East Central Arizona are driving by a billboard advertisement that recently went up, bearing President Obama’s face on what appears to be a mock U.S. $100,000,000,000,000 (One-Hundred Trillion Dollar) bill.

The billboard’s caption: “But Who Will Pay the Piper?”

Chuck Perrine of Jones Outdoor advertising in Tucson, Ariz., confirmed to CNSNews.com that his company created the 10 ft- by-40 ft. billboard, which he said “went up within the last month.”

Perrine said the sign is located “near Linden (Ariz.),” but said that the advertiser is “not interested” in disclosing any further information about his identity–or his reason for purchasing the ad.

via CNSNews.com – Mysterious Billboard Puts Obama’s Face on $100,000,000,000,000 Bill, Asks: ‘But Who Will Pay the Piper?’.

It is a very good question to ask and you want to know the answer? That would be us, the American Tax Payer, that is whom will pay the piper for many years to come. After all the stimulus that the Democrats rushed out the door? It failed. Don’t believe me? Here’s the video proof: (H/T HotAir)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As all of us, who are right of Obama, said over and over and over; you cannot prime the pump of the economy — it is either there or it is not. Further more, the huge housing bubble burst and subsequent collapse of the stock market; which wiped out many people’s 401K’s, not just the rich — is living proof that you cannot socially engineer the economy.  It works, but only for a season. Bubbles burst, and things come back to normal and people lose and sometimes lose big.

Hats off to the person who decided to put this up. Of course, in the lame stream media he will be denounced as some sort of evil racist or something….

Others: Another Black Conservative, Weasel Zippers and The Other McCain

Video:

Partial Transcript:

We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on [...]]]>

This is unbelievable.  (H/T HotAir)

Video:

Partial Transcript:

We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.

The problem is; that was not a part of his prepared remarks, here is what he was supposed to say:

Now, we’re not doing this to punish these firms or begrudge success that’s fairly earned. We don’t want to stop them from fulfilling their responsibility to help grow our economy.

By the way, the radio host is Mark Levin, whom I normally find to be highly annoying; mainly because his voice sounds like the equivalent of dragging a cat backwards through a fan. But, I have to say, that I agree with everything that is said here.

Ed Morrissey, whom I have much respect for, points out the glaringly obvious here:

He should have stuck with the TelePrompter. The President doesn’t get to decide when people have “made enough money.” In fact, as the radio host notes, that’s a statist point of view. Furthermore, the responsibility of an entrepreneur isn’t to “grow our economy,” core or otherwise. It’s to grow his own economy. In a properly regulated capitalist system, the natural tension of self-interests create economic growth through innovation and efficient use of capital and resources.

Put simply, a free people work for themselves, not for the government. Barack Obama seems to have a problem understanding that.

But then again; Marxists usually do. Yesterday, I posted a video by Chris Matthews over at MSNBC basically saying that we should cool it with the Nazi references, when it comes to politics and the Right…and Left. The reason why I say that I agreed with that; is because comparing this President to Adolf Hitler is giving Hitler and this President way too much credit.  Nazism was started because Hitler saw the failures of socialism and sought to improve upon it; a plan the ultimately failed thankfully. This President is just a flat out socialist; he is highly against any sort of unfettered Capitalism at all. I mean, do not misunderstand me here; I am all for seeing the people that capitalized on our economy going down the toilet, having to pay the piper.  But to get in front of people and make a statement like this, is just inexcusable. This might come as a shock to those on the left; I am for Capitalism, but I am not for the reckless greed, that leads to destruction. There is a big difference.

The Bottom Line: The President needs to stick to the teleprompter. Because every time that he goes off of that teleprompter, he exposes himself and that exposure is starting to look very, very ugly.

Update: Others: RedState, Left Coast Rebel, Whiskey Fire, The TrogloPundit, Beltway Confidential, Cassy Fiano, ProfessorBainbridge.com, Neptunus Lex, Confederate Yankee, YID With LID, Animal Farm, Villainous Company, protein wisdom and Pajamas Media

Sign the Pledge at We Will Remember.

Via the NYT:

Goldman Sachs, which emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis, was accused of securities fraud in a civil suit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly devised to fail.

The move [...]]]>

Finally, some justice to these bastards:

Via the NYT:

Goldman Sachs, which emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis, was accused of securities fraud in a civil suit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly devised to fail.

The move marks the first time that regulators have taken action against a Wall Street deal that helped investors capitalize on the collapse of the housing market. Goldman itself profited by betting against the very mortgage investments that it sold to its customers.

The suit also named Fabrice Tourre, a vice president at Goldman who helped create and sell the investment.

In a statement, Goldman called the S.E.C. accusations “completely unfounded in law and fact” and said the firm would “vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation.”

The instrument in the S.E.C. case, called Abacus 2007-AC1, was one of 25 deals that Goldman created so the bank and select clients could bet against the housing market. Those deals, which were the subject of an article in The New York Times in December, initially protected Goldman from losses when the mortgage market disintegrated and later yielded profits for the bank.

As the Abacus deal plunged in value, Goldman and a prominent hedge fund made money on their negative bets, while European investors like IKB and ABN Amro lost more than $1 billion, the S.E.C. said.

According to the complaint, Goldman created Abacus 2007-AC1 in February 2007, at the request of John A. Paulson, a prominent hedge fund manager who earned an estimated $3.7 billion in 2007 by correctly wagering that the housing bubble would burst.

Goldman let Mr. Paulson select mortgage bonds that he wanted to bet against — the ones he believed were most likely to lose value — and packaged those bonds into Abacus 2007-AC1, according to the S.E.C. complaint. Goldman then sold the Abacus deal to investors like foreign banks, pension funds, insurance companies and other hedge funds.

But the deck was stacked against the Abacus investors, the complaint contends, because the investment was filled with bonds chosen by Mr. Paulson, who is not named in the suit, as likely to default. Goldman told investors in Abacus marketing materials reviewed by The Times that the bonds would be chosen by an independent manager.

“The product was new and complex, but the deception and conflicts are old and simple,” Robert Khuzami, the director of the S.E.C.’s division of enforcement, said in a statement. “Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party.”

In response Goldman Sachs says:

The SEC’s charges are completely unfounded in law and fact and we will vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation.

Yeah, sure the accusations are unfounded. If I were a Goldman employee; I would be looking for a new job pronto.

From the SEC Press Release:

The SEC’s complaint alleges that after participating in the portfolio selection, Paulson & Co. effectively shorted the RMBS portfolio it helped select by entering into credit default swaps (CDS) with Goldman Sachs to buy protection on specific layers of the ABACUS capital structure. Given that financial short interest, Paulson & Co. had an economic incentive to select RMBS that it expected to experience credit events in the near future. Goldman Sachs did not disclose Paulson & Co.’s short position or its role in the collateral selection process in the term sheet, flip book, offering memorandum, or other marketing materials provided to investors.

The SEC alleges that Goldman Sachs Vice President Fabrice Tourre was principally responsible for ABACUS 2007-AC1. Tourre structured the transaction, prepared the marketing materials, and communicated directly with investors. Tourre allegedly knew of Paulson & Co.’s undisclosed short interest and role in the collateral selection process. In addition, he misled ACA into believing that Paulson & Co. invested approximately $200 million in the equity of ABACUS, indicating that Paulson & Co.’s interests in the collateral selection process were closely aligned with ACA’s interests. In reality, however, their interests were sharply conflicting.

According to the SEC’s complaint, the deal closed on April 26, 2007, and Paulson & Co. paid Goldman Sachs approximately $15 million for structuring and marketing ABACUS. By Oct. 24, 2007, 83 percent of the RMBS in the ABACUS portfolio had been downgraded and 17 percent were on negative watch. By Jan. 29, 2008, 99 percent of the portfolio had been downgraded.

Investors in the liabilities of ABACUS are alleged to have lost more than $1 billion.

The SEC’s complaint charges Goldman Sachs and Tourre with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. The Commission seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest, and financial penalties.

Allow me to humbly submit that I hope that these bastards get exactly what is coming to them. I mean, these guy literally gambled as the stock market and by proxy; our economy went straight into the toilet.   Many people that I know; like my parents, lost a good deal of money on this stuff. Not only that, after the credit crises hit; G.M. ended up having to shed a bunch of expenses; and as a result, my parents lost their optical and dental insurance. That came as a indirect result of this Wall Street mess. So, as far as I am concerned; throw the book at these bastards.

Capitalism is one thing, heartless greed is another; and these bastards crossed that line, big time.

Republican Governor’s Association HQ

The revolution starts today. What are you [...]]]>

This Comes via The Other McCain:

Republican Governor’s Association HQ

The revolution starts today. What are you doing?