Another first-class week here at First Read! Thanks to the hard work & dedication of our generous hosts/moderators!

Question for you guys – I bet your jobs must be a whole lot easier in the sense that you can toss a thread out and now the computer does the majority of moderation.

So I’m wondering if any of you miss the ‘old days’ where everything and I mean everything lol had to be read prior to posting?

Let me be the first to say that as much as I LOVE the new format – I do miss you guys dropping in from time to time… just my 0.02! ;0)

Have a safe and happy weekend!

And Drive-By… sorry to see you didn’t get that funny bone massage you were so looking forward to this week! lol

We Democrats (liberals, progressive, independants) need to stick together now! The November electiond is near and we can not afford to have the Republicans wins sits. IF you think President Obama is being duked by the Republican Senate now...what to you think will happen if more sits are giving to them.

America? are we really that stupid, that dumn? Are our attention span that short where we have forgotten how George Bush and his Neo-Con friends...almost destroyed the United States of America and that it was President Obama and the Democratic Party that saved our asses.

Now- I know the media is 24/7 and they feel things should happen magically and over night...or obvious obstacles should be overlooked and blamed placed no matter what- that's make for good news - good drama for the ratings...and sadly it's providing an unfair perceptiion of the progress and the visibility for real optimistism and factual successes that have been made with our current administration.

America! wake up! stop being a bunch of idiots...the Republicans are counting on it. We all should know that President Obama is on our side ...the 98 percenters. But the Republican party are on their side -the top 2%...the 2 precenters think they are smarter than the average American and that they can do what they want to obstruct and stop the Obama adminstration from moving sensible legistation and we dumbies will blame President Obama for the lack of progress and simply overlook the filibuster tactics and the no vote action by the Repubicans - and guess what- it's freakin working.

We are smarter than they realize- we must show them come November that we are not stupid and we know the Republican Party is purposely stopping ...job creation; unemployement benefits; health care progress; court nominations; housing blockages and creating foreclosures, and all the other ill wills of our ecomony.

The Republican are creating a shut down of our government, to give the illusiion that President Obama and the Democratic Party are unable to govern or make a difference and are not creatings jobs or simulation did not work, when in fact it did.

And that the dumb Americans will never realized their butts were saved by President Obama as long as we can keep the unemployment rate high...

Think about it...progressives and independants we need you more than ever!!!...stop being harsh and start being supportive...stand beside our Democratic President and our Democratic Nominees and help them win and then we can argue about policy and why or how it should be made ...once we have the power to make them law.

Bottomline- the Republicans are creating an ecomonic enviroment for President Obama for which George Bush created for himself...they are using our own tactics against U.S.

Thank you and GOD BLESS AMERICA

Democratic Soldier-your team is losing. Done deal.

Houston-I saw you taking dangerfield apart on earlier posts as to what he meant by Obama not getting the electorate. Take a look at the polls-not the toplines, but the entire poll. On almost every issue, Obama is underwater. He cares not at all-he believes that he, and he alone, has all the answers. In other words, he believes that he is perfect.

Now, when Bush did this, (governed despite the polls), he was accused of forgetting that the president is not the king. (I'm putting it more nicely than many others put it, but you get the gist.) It is the risk you take as president-do you do what you believe is right, or do you do what the electorate wants you to do?

I believe that the answer is yes.

Sometimes you do what you believe is right, and sometimes you have to re-think what you want to do. It comes down to paying for it-if the electorate is told that something is a 'good', but they do not wish to shoulder the burden of paying for it, then maybe you'd better re-think that. If it is a case of saving the union, then forget what the masses believe. And, no, I'm not talking about Iraq.

I'm actually talking about Lincoln and the Civil War. Perhaps you did not know that there were riots in the streets of New York and Boston when conscription was enacted in order to have enough men-and I do mean men,(think of the times), to fill the army. The attitude of most was"just let them secede'. Lincoln understood why it was necessary-something about a house divided against itself being destined to fall.

Anyway, in my opinion, forcing your will as president over the electorate is worthy when it is the fate of the nation at stake. For HCR? You've got to be kidding.

Fiesty-no my cats do not like to ride in the car. However, they are not as bad as yours-they don't forget their toilet training. They just cry. And cry. And cry. And cry some more-until I begin to wonder who is crazier-them or me. Makes me wish I could drink.

Have a great weekend, all.

no joe, no bo, nj

Democratic Soldier-your team is losing. Done deal.

If you think that-- if "our team" loses then you have some serious issues...mentally. The welfare of our nation is not about a "team" losing. You speak as though we're playing some game of sport while millions of Americans are suffering due to the gross irresponsibility of idiots, thugs and hypocrites.

Why look around...every law changed by the Bush Administration and every politician in the Republican Party that's left in Washington is a joke. They are so hell bent on attempting to destroy President Obama in so much that they are saying "to hell with Americans". If Obama fails this nation fails and I have a feeling that you all are going to be in for a BIG surprise if America starts hurting any more than they already are come NOVEMBER. Politics are one thing. It's so easy to convience yourself that you're winning the war on words, but what about the war of reality?

Why your presious GRANDDAUGHTER will suffer No Joe...what about her future? Will it be clean, safe and secure? Or will it be further devastated and reduced to desolation due to her grandmothers inability to understand reality from pure hatered, stupidity and fear of accepting what is wirtten and what MUST come to past?

What will be recorded in YOUR "book of life"No Joe? Will the good out weigh the bad?

Adolf Hitler's major domestic problem was how to deal with illegal immigrants in Germany and his immediate solution to it was to put all of them in concentration camps with a goal of bringing them to extinction. He really hated immigrants.

Immigration as a global problem being experienced by all countries in the world need to be handled with a lot of care, civility and maturity. America as the leader of the civilized world must always be seen to be above all other countries in the world as to how they handle this global problem at the watch of the entire world or international community.

How a country handles immigration problem is what matters and not the problem itself because all countries in the world including Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, Burundi just to mention a few experience this same problem of illegal immigration and border control. In Somali, illegal immigrants are killed whenever they are caught or arrested by Somalians. In Uganda, the former dictator Idi Amin gave all of them 48 hours to leave the country and those who failed to beat that deadline were rounded up and killed. In South Africa, they are stoned by mob justice whenever members of public discover them. Saddam Hussein persecuted those he believed were illegal immigrants among other reasons why America went after him.

Illegal immigration was Adolf Hitler biggest problem and his solution to it was to enact very harsh and cruel immigration laws that warranted the Jews illegal immigrants to be put in concentration camps with the objective of bringing them to extinction. It took the wise leadership of America among other right thinking leaders of the world to stop Hitler from continuing to apply his inhuman and cruel anti immigration laws against the Jews immigrants. According to Hitler, he was just doing the right thing by securing his borders and protecting his people against illegal immigrants, majority of whom were the Jews. Thousands of American soldiers lost their lives fighting Hitler and his inhuman laws in Germany.

It is the Federal government's responsibility as the leader of the free and civilized world to ensure that no leader in any country or any part of the world persecutes the people living within his country whether they are citizens, legal or illegal immigrants. America has always exercised this responsibility by leading by example. It will be very difficult for the Federal government to exercise this noble responsibility if the Federal government would allow any of its states such as Arizona to embarrass America by enacting such laws that America has boldly fought against in other countries. United States must not allow itself to use the same methods that are being used in other third world countries including even those that are regarded as failed states to tackle its immigration problems and not even a single state such as Arizona should be allowed to embarrass this great country in the world by coming up with laws that will leave international community wondering whether Arizona is part of the great America they know of or part of Sudan or Somalia where such laws are arbitrarily applied.

cmon on itm.play nice for a while. BTW, we keep our double wide fairly clean, and Feisty and Anita how can I make these people understand that I'm thinking of their kids and grandkids concerning healthcare. This debate is all about how much you value human life. I happen to believe that no one from the Pres. on down to congressmen, are any better than me or deserve better healthcare than me(or your son or daughter) We are the only country left in the world that allows insurance and hospitals profit from misery. France evens pays cancer patients sick leave until they are strong enough to work again. One of the last of my group is still trying to work while dealing with systematic cancer(inoperable) and has been laid off. doesn't have any idea what the future will hold for treatments and thinking about going my route of just natural progression.

national healthcare would relieve the burden on empoyers

BIG stimulus check for the middle class would get people spending

lower retirement age to 60(not mandatory)and put young folks to work.

Did you see where contrary to MSM opinions, the mortgage meltdown was mainly due to the wealthy. they saw their homes as investments and when the prices went south, they walked away!

How do you keep the First Read Manor's lawn so green? The heat has burned mine up! LOL!

Well, it's time for the weekly wrap up. Let's get to the review.

Looks like it's gaffe-a-palooza on the Republicans this time, starting off with Michael Steele's comment about the war in Afghanistan, and you have a "two-for-one" deal from Sharon Angle, one dealing with the $20 billion being called a "slush fund" and the other, which is more acidic, is her comparing a little girl being raped and impregnated by a family member to turning lemons into lemonade.
First, let me deal with you, Steele: You seem to forget that we are after a man who is responsible for causing so much death and destruction on our front door, and since President Obama took over and implemented a strategy change, we've had to play catch up because of the follies of the Bush Administration, and it looks like it's slowly paying off: Two major Al-Qeada players are out of the game, and we have taken back a province that we were chased out of, and you had the audacity to say that this is Obama's War and that we have no business fighting over there. Tell that to the servicemembers who are struggling everyday to get Bin Laden and who've watched their comerades get wounded or killed in the process; Explain that to the widows/widowers and the children of those slain, honored warriors. Perhaps in your mind, you would rather have our soldiers fight and die in Iraq for your party's greed.

From one black man, who comes from a military family, to another, you disgust me.

Now, for you compatriot, Sharon Angle: Lady, you are just as bad as Joe Barton of Texas. He apologizes the BP for ponying up $20 billion and the dress down that their CEO received from The President, and here you are, calling it a slush fund. I don't know how many brain cells you lost at the craps table, but this spill has affected everyone's life in the Gulf States, and as more and more businesses become affected, more and more of their employees feel the brunt of it, needing to get on the system, collecting unemployment, getting on Medicaid and collecting foodstamps.

Now let's talk about your second remark: As a parent, the worst thing that could happen, the worst nightmare for any parent, is that my children are victims of a sexual assault, but the nightmare doesn't end there, because now there's a prgnancy involved, and the worst manifestation is the fact that the attacker was someone who is close to the family, in this case, a family member. I thought that Sarah Palin's remark about making a rape victim paying for the rape kit was bad enough; I thought that Representatives of my State of Florida of almost signing into law that forces a woman to listen to the heartbeat of a fetus just because she wants an abortion was bad enough, your comment, by far, is the worst that I've had the displeasure of reading, because it tells me that you're not siding with the family during this difficult time and you're not siding with the woman whose self worth was stripped away in the most violent acts known to man, but you're siding the the ATTACKER, and instead of making it easier for me to protect my children, you're encouraging MORE HARM to befall my doorstep, and if this is the "Family Values" that your party wants to convey to families like me, then I want nothing to do with the Republican Party. Your comment is an insult to every woman, every parent, and every victim who had to suffer from an attack like this.

Nevermind the fact that you're interfering and infringing upon a woman's right to choose what she wants to do with her body.

The military has now started sending out surveys about re-pealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". It is a damn shame that we have a group of people who wants to put their lives on the line for freedom but in order to do do it, they have to cover up or hide their sexual preference. Although the GLBT's struggles are different than mine, I understand what they are going through, because African Americans had to prove themselves in battle going all the way back to the Revolutionary War; and now, they are faced with the same test; paying a price in order to serve by living a lie, and we can't do this anymore. DADT goes against the Oath Of Enlistment, and it goes against the Constitution, and it must be RE-PEALED.

We now know that a 3 panel judge has ruled against the moratorium on drilling. Ask youselves, why would President Obama want a moratorium inplace after what happened to Deep Horizon? Here are the EPA Acts this has Violated:
National Environmental Policy Act (1970).
Clean Water Act (1972).
Coastal Zone Management Act (1972).
Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972).
Endangered Species Act (1973).
Safe Drinking Water Act (1974).
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976):
Proposition 65 (1986).
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (1986).
AND THE GRAND DADDY OF ALL...
Oil Pollution Act (1990).

If I've said it once, I've said it multiple times over: This ruling is just as treasonous as the U.S. Supreme Court saying that corporations can now have a say in our elections by funding untold amounts of cash behind a candidate.

As of today, we have 19 days before Arizona's Anti-illegal Immigration Law takes place.

Well, that concludes my weekly wrap up. I hope everyone has a safe weekend.

Unitl then, Essayons (Let Us Try)!!!!!!!

Paul, the debate is mainly over semantics. the article(at least the headline I   read) said wealthy, not necessarily rich. also we have to remember that some folks were handling their payments but due to rising interest rates mortgages doubled or in some cases tripled. I went with a fixed on my "double wide". I could never see playing the how low will it go game. come to find out mortgage is the least of my problems, geometrically expanding medical bills were my downfall(along with debt consolidation,never ever do that).

Sorry ITM, I have to bring up the name that shall not be mentioned.Lord, I apologize. piyush jindal just signed a bill into law allowing people to carry guns into church.

has anyone noticed colbert has about 5 times as many people as stossel has in the audience?    ciao

But, Paul, you are missing the point entirely. To get a mortgage, you must apply to a bank or other lending institution. They will decide on the amount that you qualify for based on the assets you hold, versus the debts. Now, you may be entirely correct that we are arguing over the semantic definition, but I am guessing that most objective observers would consider those people who can qualify for a loan of a million plus to be, well, rich. You may define them as being well to do, and since I come from San Diego, where many homes are in the million plus range, I might agree with that definition. I also understand what you are saying about the mortgage precluding the definition of home ownership, though I think you are drawing a tough line. Those who have paid for years on a mortgage, and have an equity base built up would consider themselves home owners. I would agree with them. But, to further confuse you, I also agree with you, which is why my home does not have a mortgage. Well, that and four kids that needed to be helped with college. One does make choices. But, I still believe, and think the article supports, that it may be easier for the McMansion owners to walk away. They will not have difficulty with getting another mortgage, and I am thinking that for many it may be a second home. Many where I live, especially the large farm operations, have two homes, one in a gentler climate. A middle, or blue collar worker would find it difficult indeed to get another mortgage, having abandoned the first, and would not have the funds for the attorneys and tax experts to help protect them from having to pay the remainder of a short sale. Leon also makes an extremely valid point about how illness and medical bills play into the loss of homes for the middle class. It could possibly be that more people being covered by insurance will help arrest the delinquency on home foreclosure. And leon, I do hope that you are feeling better. I enjoy reading what you have to say.

Good night! Enjoyed the chat.

They all embellish, exaggerate and, as they say in advertising, ‘puff their wares’. The strong competition really makes that necessary and it is just expected. Add to that how everything is then twisted, misquoted and purposely rearranged and there simply can be valid reason not to accept anything said. It doesn’t matter what emotional appeals are used, with or without statistics, as it can simply be seen as creative garbage aimed to deceive and manipulate, to distract and to control the public.

What does survive, that is both meaningful and important, is their completely recognizable actual character, their integrity and honesty. It would be foolish to expect any good where there is literally a lack of quality and that should be easily recognized by anyone who can be objective, rational and really honest with themselves. Today there is an actual drastic contrast that can easily be seen by anyone who wants to see it. While I don’t agree with every Obama decision, I do recognize a refreshing honesty and a conscientious effort to benefit the people and to really deal with the problems. The Republicans just don’t present that concentration and instead are obviously totally focused and organized only on their political ambitions, without conscience and at any cost, as is clearly evidenced in: the bazaar, obnoxious and irresponsible attacks by the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Steele and others; then in the aggressive and arrogant criticizing and obstructing, without ever offering anything constructive, by Boehner, McConnell, Kyl and most all Republican representatives; also in the overt and covert efforts provided by their powerful and influential supporters who they serve, including the use of outspoken 3^rd party groups, to deceptively sway and control public opinion; and in the ridiculous, invalid and unconscionable derogatory statements, mostly scripted as they appear on Republican websites, continually repeated by staff, volunteers and others; all of it just being a totally classless and despicable effort that offers nothing but a desire to return to ‘more of the same’, the ‘same’ that literally got us all of the problems we have.

All of those obvious negatives should make their irresponsible self-focused identity stand out, being possibly obscured only by a viewer’s drastically biased/prejudiced blindness. No other country in the civilized free world would tolerate the current Republican gross dishonesty but here, where the ‘more for me for nothing’ mentality strongly exists, their deceptive manipulation provides them actual opportunity. After eight years of Bush-Cheney, where you could tell when Bush was lying just by checking to see if he was moving his lips, this country really can’t withstand ‘more of the same’. The real drastic difference needs to be objectively recognized and when it is understood that they are peddling garbage, then that is what they should be known as and rejected for.

Hello everybody. Hope you're all having a great weekend. This article was written last November, but I thought it was v. interesting concerning Fannie & Freddie, so I'm sending it your way in case you wanted to read it. Funny how things are never quite what they appear to be after listening to right wing nonstop BS.

To David Brooks and the rest of the "having second thoughts" about the war in Afghanistan GOP crowd who are dismayed at President Obama's desire to have a date to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan. Rachel Maddow had to inform them this morning that in fact, President Bush had an end date for getting out of Iraq. Did Brooks or anyone else whine about that? Nothing I hate more than people gung ho for war, then scream get out when things don't go according to plan. These so-called "smart people" get us into more freakin' trouble than I care to remember. And it will take years to clean up. If we can.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: November 24, 2009 07:57:12 AM

WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

•More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

•Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

•Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages.

"I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.

Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.

This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.

But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.

Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.

Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."

Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."