It wasn't too careful. They just plain screwed it up.

right you didnt have any leanings in your intro to the link to the article. you didnt lay the blame squarely on one thing and conveniently left out all of the other things involved. You didnt spin like a dreidel...like you always do. your reflux is amazing and then when it hits the plate you paint it up. amazing.

Exactly. The only reason I went in and pulled out all the info MBBF was because in your link into the article and your lil sentence about it you left out all the other causes and tried to lay the blame squarely on one thing. And lord knows, the program has been such a fucking failure (and I do agree with you there, you're right), a colossal fucking failure, that there is plenty of blame to go around - plenty of blame for the lenders too.

I posted all the data in the form of a link. I'm not sure how much more forthright I can be. If I put all information in the post, there's no need to post the article. But whatever. As you have said, you agree that it's been a failure. Good to see we can agree on that.

Another indicator of how the job loss effects other parts of the economy. Social Security has entered its 6th month of defecits.

Social Security's Grim Milestone: Half a Year in the Red | e21 - An initiative for 21st Century Economic Policies

Would have been less biased if you'd posted the link and said something like "looks like a lot of different reasons why the HAMP program failed" or something, instead of trying to lay it all at the feet of government oversight.

its the leadin combined, stop parsing.

YES!

I don't consider the various rejections of overfinanced or irresponsible mortgages holders as reasons the program failed. They were properly rejected. I consider the fail to be on two levels.

1. Any average idiot could have told this administration that there would be a high level of mortgages that could not be salvaged and did so when this legislation was passed, yet they chose not to listen.

2. They rejected a LOT of people who could have been helped.

...and will ignore the commentary about my obvious spin in the originating post so I can continue to do the same bullshit over and over again thus minimizing the validity or seriousness in which the information or stance I take on topics is looked at.

does not equal

point of fact - it wasn't the government who rejected them, it was the lenders

We disagree 100%. The only part the government could control was the people who should have been taken care of under this bill. The main failure was the screw up of the administration to appropriately award help. As DT stated, the other problems fall on the mortgage holder and have nothing to do with what was done incorrectly. Those aren't a failure of the law. The failure was the parts that the government could have fixed, but failed to do so.

You mean like this?


:D

And the lenders were working within the rules created by the administration/Congress in the bill. They didn't make up their own rules.

Main.....primary.....whatever you want to call it. It's a nice spin to try to say it's the mortgage holders fault for failing to pay or qualify, but as the article and the committee correctly cited, the failure was in the adminstration. They could have helped a lot of people but failed to do so. They screwed up the process to award help.

i've agreed with you that they screwed up their "formula" or whatever that was on the website that they apparently had people checking, and screwed it up by failing to communicate with the banks what that formula was and figure out to whom (or at what risk level) the banks were willing to lend.

it's definately the fault of the mortgage holders though for failing to pay or failing to include all the required documents, or not signing all the right documents. And if that's 49/85 of the people who weren't approved there isn't any way that you can sit there and say that the primary/majority fault lies with the government. It's simply not statistically true. There's no way those people would have been successful no matter what the process was. You can't argue with the numbers. :banghead:

that being said, i'm certainly not letting the government off blame-free, and i don't want to come off like i am. they could have done a much better job in making sure the 36/85 that were rejected for other reasons were approved. but....just FYI...36 is less than 49. 36/85 is not MAJORITY. You'd need 43 to be majority. 49/85 on the other hand, is majority.

it's definately the government's fault for not sitting all the lenders down in one room and saying "okay what level of risk could you live with?" and getting some sort of pre-approval of that.

it's probably also the government's fault that it wasn't pushed out to enough people also, and didn't become more widespread.

I'm not arguing with the numbers. The '49' that you cite is NOT a failure. The policy worked in those cases. The failure is where the bill did not worked as advertised and the primary failure by a long shot was the screw-up that lead to many people being rejected when they should have been accepted.

the failure is your leadin.

well then take the 49 out of it and say.

"Out of every 51 cases, 15 were a success and 36 were a failure."

Problem is that even in those 36 cases it seems by the description that there are some where it was missing signatures or incomplete documentation, or whatever. We'd really have to see the raw data to judge with any effectiveness.

That being said, I would agree with you that in those 36 cases the government has a (varying) degree of culpability for the failures (depending on the individual reasons) - not necessarily based on OVERSIGHT, but based on the fact that they fucked up by not sitting all the lenders down beforehand and saying "okay what level of risk are you going to take on with these negotiations" and getting everyone to agree to that via some horse-trading.

Of course if they'd done that they'd probably be catching flack for whatever they traded away to get the program done I'm sure...right?

I would have certainly liked for the program to have helped more people though. It's pretty embarassing at this point how few people it has helped given how much fanfare it was launched with (again though I think they also didn't really market it correctly to the general public - definately not enough applications to it).

Massachusetts AG released their report on the ACORN video. On illegal activity:


And then this new piece of information,

Oooooh! See now that's really fucking interesting.

Course the damage is done - I'm sure they won't be getting their funding back.

You are starting to get more and more of the left wing mad at Obama for not being Che Guevara.

I agree with these Andrew Sullivan readers who think that those leftists are out of their minds: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...-left-ctd.html

We've hit the point with technology where photo and/or video evidence needs to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt, a point we hit with written evidence a long time ago. Whether it's cutting out large portions that show WHY someone (like a cop) reacted the way they did thanks to all the baiting before hand, or adding bits for effect like the photos from the Israeli strikes on Lebanon that added lots of smoke, to changing the content entirely like these voiceovers, digital editing allows for some pretty good forgeries that the public will willingly believe and the news media seems to have no problem plastering all over the place without verification.

Let's not get crazy here. While there might not be a pattern that the AG could establish, there have been incidents previous to these videos that called into question some of ACORN's tactics. If this was the first issue, their funding would have never been pulled by Congress. They were targeted because of previous incidents. This is not even close to the innocent lamb being led to the slaughter that you'd like to portray.

spin-spin-spin!!!

don't you ever fall over from spinning so fast?

Agreed 100%. After all, out of the hundreds of ACORN offices nationwide, these documentarians only managed to find three where the staff misbehaved in a manner they could use for their video, and it turns out they actually had to doctor said video to make it suitably controversial.

That's what you meant, right?

Who's spinning? ACORN has been in hot water several times before. Just because you agreed with what they were trying to do in previous incidents doesn't make it right.

I personally don't agree with the tactics used, but ACORN has a questionable history even before these videos. This is far from the first time they've been brought under scrutiny.

I know you're intelligent enough to know what I actually meant, so I won't take that any further.

BS

they lost the funding due to the public uproar and outcry drummed up by the video and its hitting on mainstream news repeatedly. Thus your congressman had to act to put out the fire and show that no matter the D or R they would act to reign in fraud. I hope that theyre just as fast in giving back the funding now that this has come out.

Youre a spin doctor of the highest account. These last few pages for you have been golden in your drive to keep your credibility as low as possible.

We disagree there. I hope they're smart enough to never give it back to ACORN or any other organization that abuses their position and funding.

um, they didnt abuse it....except you'll disagree, and never ever admit to ever being wrong about anything. Im not sure why you discuss or debate.

the only abuse that occurred was using an AVID machine by those with an agenda...apparently.

Sounds like the guy is a graduate of the "Michael Moore School of Documentary Film Production".

Except the damage done to the company was pretty devastating. Im not sure Moore has had such an effect but Im not sure and could be wrong...

Just a minor correction... this report was an internal report done by ACORN, headed up by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, not current Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Thanks for the correction.

I still don't feel too sorry for ACORN(although I have sympathy for those they were trying to help), but I'd sure like to see a public correction of what happened. I'd also love it if the douchebags who did this got hammered as hard as they were praised by some on the right.

that's extremely important....seriously. I dont think that that is a minor correction.

good point by Cam - i'd forgotten about that

Jesus H. Christ Senators are stupid.


Does that mean we can just forget about the entire deficit if we call war bonds?

i'm not buying any

ACORN deserved to lose it's funding. I'm sure the videos were doctored in some ways to spin the truth, but there are a lot of other incidents. I know it may be small in the grand scheme of things, but there should be a zero tolerance policy when it comes to our tax dollars funding organizations like this.

I still find the fervor over ACORN funny though. They are really a small piece of the pie. If you want to tackle contractor abuse, why not look into the military ones? They are paid much more and have commited murder as well as protected and allowed rapists to roam free. That tops some dopes telling a prostitute how to make hide money.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you're going to go after abuse of tax dollars by contracted groups/companies, there are much bigger fish to fry.

At least it's a chance to see if those who are adamantly supportive of the wars will put their money where their mouth is.

Has someone said that they shouldn't go after those contractors? I've posted multiple links to Blackwater investigations. You're acting like someone is opposed to exposing corruption? Which posters specifically have said that only the ACORN corruption should be outed rather than all corruption?

Nah, it's the same as the liberal agenda - everyone wants someone else to spend the money, anybody but them.

I'm opposed to spending all the focus on the guy stealing a pack of gum from the store while a group of guys rob the warehouse with a truck.

I know the ACORN is the conservative rallying cry these days. Just find it hypocritical they spend countless hours on a tiny organization while being too pussy to mention how many billions have been stolen or wasted by contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. That some people giving advice on tax evasion are worse than murderers and rapists.

They aren't willing to put their bodies on the frontlines so I doubt they'll put their money their either.

Remind me.......what was the vote total in Congress to remove funding for ACORN? I'm guessing it was along partisan lines judging from your comment, but wanted to make sure.

Go to any conservative site and run a search on ACORN and then one on Blackwater. Tell me what you find.

Go to any liberal site and run a search on Blackwater and then one on ACORN. Tell me what you find.

What's your point? Are we only considering corruption now based on who exposes it? Your dodge of my question is very telling.

No, corruption is judged on who commits it.

Exactly.

No, they are just as wrong. Partisians are the bane of our political system. I'm just pointing out that one is really bad while the other is rather minor. If your boat is taking on water, you don't plug the smallest holes first.

As I've written throughout the thread ACORN has no business getting funded not only for this but also because I don't think our tax dollars should be funding groups like that in the first place.

How about we deal with all of them that are known. If one is so minor while the other is outrageous, why haven't the majority Democrats called for a vote on pulling Blackwater funding? There's more than enough votes if it truly is a partisan situation. How did the Republicans so easily persuade everyone on the Democrat side to pull the ACORN funding? I'm tired of excuses. If the issues are so well known with Blackwater (which I believe they are), why the hell aren't they pulling funding? Time to stop whining and time to start putting the rubber to the road.

They aren't pulling funding because they are heavily tied into our government. Our politicians have been bought and paid for by them. Not to mention a lot of the stuff they've done looks poorly on our country and could impact our troops overseas.

Plus it involves military actions which all the couch potato warriors get up in arms about pulling any funding for.

bwahhahahahaha pot

But if it's an important issue it should be addressed. Are we going to worry about being reelected or doing the right thing?

Interesting conversation in Congress right now. Pelosi and Obama have both mentioned using leftover TARP money to fund other projects. Only one problem.......the TARP bill specifically states that any leftover money MUST go to pay down the national debt. From Congressman Pence's speech on the floor:


I think this would be a great disclaimer to put in spending measures moving forward. It allows the money to go towards what it was intended for, while returning any leftover money to pay down debt rather than just shovel it off to another project. If you want the new project, pass another bill stating the specific need and put similar wording in that bill. It's an easy way to add some level of responsibility to all these spending bills.

Pence has a history of being wrong on everything, so I'd want to see the language of the bill before I trust his interpretation.

Any link to the bill where it states what you put out there?

a quick look before work finds this but Ill look more at work:


interesting section here that is OT but still interesting that the Pres. has the authority to 'even up' TARP from the financial industry:

Interesting Conversation happening...out there. Seems the banks are shouldering the blame for the failure of the loan modification program. Calls are growing louder for the administration to take a tougher stand against them. Ahem cough

wow, that's easier to do than I thought. No wonder the spinmeister has such an easy time with lead ins like that.

Only 10,000 permanent loan modifications so far - Yahoo! Finance

Politicians on both sides don't care about doing the right thing. They would slit our throats for an extra vote.

Republicans are being way to nice these days...

oh, BTW, Im sure Fox News gets a pass for the Daily Show's exposure of their poll that added up to 120%. Like the misspliced rally footage.

linky? i wanna see and laugh

Look at the last video in the Daily Show thread

yeah i just noticed that.

Andrew Sorkin, author of "Too Big to Fail" on Daily Show tonight. I hope Stewart has a good interview with him...the book was great.

So I'm a little sketchy on my Schoolhouse Rock, but could we just be setting up for this with health care? (Tho there are murmors that this bill may go straight to the House for a vote)

-Compromise bill leaves Senate, fillibuster broken and passed in its current state with the Medicare/Medicaid expansion and the public option killed
-Conference Committee is stacked with Dems so it's pretty easy to get Sens Rockefeller and Sanders to agree with, say Russ Feingold to craft a bill a lot like the House's as a compromise but kicking the Stupak amendment, reinstating the public option from the House bill, keeping the Medicaid and Medicare additions (or maybe dropping them), and then sending it for a vote.
-The House should be able to easily get that passed while the Senate still can get 50 votes instead of 60 so Nelson, Lincoln, Lieberman, et al, can go sit on their thumbs and watch it pass them by.

And, more importantly, why doesn't this happen more often? I must be missing something procedural

SI

My understanding is that reconciliation still can be filibustered.

BOOOOOOOO

state-based exchanges are a fucking joke. a national-exchange would be the only type of exchange with enough fucking bargining power

Wow...nice to see some things never change around here.

While reading the standard wire service version of the "Obama defends US wars as he accepts peace prize" I noticed something odd at the end. Or at least it struck me a little odd.

In the evening, Obama is expected to wave to a torchlight procession from his hotel balcony and stroll with Norwegian royalty to a dinner banquet. He will offer comments a second time there and cap his brisk jaunt to Europe.

It's the part about waving from the balcony that caught my eye. That just seemed like an odd note to include, from a safety/security standpoint.
I mean it just sounded like a "okay protestors, we'll give you a target in the open for a few minutes tonight, just thought you'd like a heads up".
Yeah, I know, there's security everywhere etc etc etc. It just struck me as an odd thing to have out there.

FWIW on the mortgage mod front, my parents have had to do it and have had to resend documentation to their lender, Wells Fargo, multiple times because they would lose it or miscategorize it. sometimes upon further review they'd already have it.

Its a tradition the peace prize winners have all done he last several years.

Ah, didn't know that, makes more sense to me now. Thanks.

It's all fun and games until a few torches get tossed through the hotel windows.

Apparently some Norwegians are pissed off that Obama isn't going to stick around for all 15 million tradtional nobel prize winner activites.

I mean, the guy kind of has a busy job....

We all can't live like lazy, drunken Norwegians.

Interesting conversation happening out there the vast majority bof americans want to raise taxes on the rich....

this is fun mbbf

Americans Want Government to Spend for Jobs, Send Bill to Rich - Yahoo! News

inaccurate, but fun.

Hasn't that been Democratic election strategy for like 20 years now?

:D

"We want businesses to provide more jobs!"
"Let's tax the rich people!"
"That will enable businesses to provide more jobs!"
"Oh wait, the rich people own the businesses, never thought of that!"
"Well at least Obama and the Democratic congressmen are in our corner. None of them are rich!"

Senator 1: "AIG is thinking about giving bonuses out and increasing their pay! That's an outrage!"
Senator 2: "How about you do something positive first and then we will talk about paying you more? What kind of a system rewards complete failure?"
Senator 3: "We need you guys on the Senate floor, we are voting on increasing our pay."

I enjoyed the following commentary on Obama's Nobel speech from NPR's All Things Considered last night:


I've bolded the part that made me want to post it here when I heard it last night, as a somewhat-good explanation of why I (and people like me) voted for Obama and still support him: a combination of idealism & realism, tempered by a lot of pragmatism.

My only confusion was why Obama let Dubya write his Nobel Prize acceptance speech. When the same words and ideals come off Obama's lips, it suddenly becomes a rainbow of fruit flavors instead of a briar patch.

You get an A+ for oversimplification!

I think I earned the A+ just for working in a Lucky Charms reference into a political thread.

The difference is, Obama can read the teleprompter.

Words generally weren't Bush's problem. He gave a few good speeches, but when it came time for action he tended to fuck things up.

To not just let me snarky comment lie, I found Obama's speech to be very realpolitik while Bush's foreign policy speeches were filled with blustery idealism.

I found that the speeches of both Obama and Bush generally sucked pretty bad. "Blustery idealism" is a pretty generous description of Bush's babbles, and Obama has that fake tone that makes him sound like he's always acting in an action movie or something.

+1

I'm speaking of substance over style.

[whisper] We've secretly replaced the American President with actor Dwayne Johnson ... let's see if they notice [/whisper]

I thought Kennedy tried to end the Vietnam war? I am of course referring to the direction of his administration before his assassination.

DO YOU SMELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLALALALALALALA-OWWWWWWW!!........what the 'bama.........is........cookin'?!?!?!?!

(arena roars with approval)

I thought Bush's democracy speech was pretty good.

From what I've read, I think this is the best speech Obama's delivered as president.

...and Ill try to be a better MBBF

Interesting report coming out of the hill today that shows that the Health Care bill is bad.

US health care tab to keep growing under overhaul - Yahoo! News

in this case, if the govt arm is truly bipartisan and not spun, than this is sobering and hopefully can spur some improvements to the bill.

I am not a big fan of Obama but I have to admit he has really bad luck. This is an actual magaizine that just hit the newsstands. (Saw it on Bill Simmons site)

Oh Bama!

..."Actor"... Dwayne Johnson? ;)

SI

So the GOP created their own version of tinyurl, except with a GOP frame around the page. Unfortunately they didn't think that people would do things like this:

http://gop.am/0B9y

or this

http://gop.am/9h14

and that doesn't even count all the porn sites.

Today they shut their service down.