700 Billion Dollar Question

She hit the nail on the head, going back 15 years.

Rezko already was a big story in Chicago, accused of influence-peddling in the Blagojevich administration and set to face trial Feb. 25.

But Monday, he became national news -- and an issue in the presidential race. That's when Hillary Clinton blasted Obama for having represented "your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago."
Having a hard time keeping track of the facts? Here are eight things to know:
1. They met in 1990. Obama was a student at Harvard Law School and got an unsolicited job offer from Rezko, then a low-income housing developer in Chicago. Obama turned it down.


2. Obama took a job in 1993 with a small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill, that represents developers -- primarily not-for-profit groups -- building low-income housing with government funds.


3. One of the firm's not-for-profit clients -- the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., co-founded by Obama's then-boss Allison Davis -- was partners with Rezko's company in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home at 61st and Drexel into low-income apartments. Altogether, Obama spent 32 hours on the project, according to the firm. Only five hours of that came after Rezko and WPIC became partners, the firm says. The rest of the future senator's time was helping WPIC strike the deal with Rezko. Rezko's company, Rezmar Corp., also partnered with the firm's clients in four later deals -- none of which involved Obama, according to the firm. In each deal, Rezmar "made the decisions for the joint venture," says William Miceli, an attorney with the firm.


4. In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000. Obama was elected in 1996 -- representing a district that included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects.


5. Rezko's low-income housing empire began crumbling in 2001, when his company stopped making mortgage payments on the old nursing home that had been converted into apartments. The state foreclosed on the building -- which was in Obama's Illinois Senate district.


6. In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of his campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Wilmette mansion.


7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.


8. Eight months later -- in October 2006 -- Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity. (and Obama throws another one under the bus)

And so, here comes the October 7th surprise when some one from the audience brings up the subject.

 

It's hard for McCain, he's biting his tongue.

Obama has set his own trap.

No wonder Hill and Bill disappeared. Makes the Pardongate look like child's play. Only something a Lawyer could pull off and not get caught at. We'll see.

 

I am not too wise when it comes to politics and their doings.

Why don't they use the same method that was used on Katrina?

It could be a $700B savings and a firing squad would be something they could then afford to get for getting those so-called leaders back into shape.

Treat them all like the Chinese did to their FDA agent who got caught taking a bribe.

An in the street firing squad would seem to help in scaring lobbyist and other crooks away.

And no thank you, I refuse to run for office at this time... lol

 

Evan, must be nice to help cover peoples tracks.

The Rezko thing is totally relevant to the 700 bill. He was part of the swindle and he was and is connected to Obama in the past. If Obama wants to link McCain to the past then Obama needs to be linked to his past.

The Dem Senator from Ohio was talking about going after those who perpritated the crime. Obama is one of those who should be brought to justice. She mentioned a time fram of 15 years.

8 things you need to know about Obama, Rezko :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: The Watchdogs

8 things you need to know about Obama and Rezko


2. Obama took a job in 1993 with a small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill, that represents developers -- primarily not-for-profit groups -- building low-income housing with government funds.


Hopefully you see the relavence here.


If not censor me, I don't care. I can see a theif a mile away.

 

Rep. Marcy Kaptur is right. Thanks, Klodhopper!

 

Obama inclined to support Wall Street bailout



WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Sunday his Republican rival deserves no credit for helping to forge a tentative agreement on the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.

[FONT=&quot]Instead, Obama said he deserves credit for making sure the proposal includes safeguards for taxpayers. Obama said he is inclined to support the bailout because it includes increased oversight, relief for homeowners facing foreclosure and limits on executive compensation for chief executives of firms that receive government help[/FONT]Obama inclined to support Wall Street bailout - Yahoo! News

Seen this coming. He needs to cover his tracks so he is trying to make it look like he's the one to clean up the mess. I really have to laugh at this one

See #2 up or back in the thread.

 

Well, it seems that our Congress has seen fit to come up with a "fix" of some sort...

Can it be reasonable to assume that all those "high dollar" lobbyists, and "larger than life" campaign donations have had their intended effect. Has the apparent appearance of trying to look out for the "average Joe" in this mess been a theatrical performance by some of those in Congress? I seem to think that all those monies were well spent by Wall Street and is used as "Insurance" in case the bubble would burst as it has.

We as people "en masse" will be more affected than a few greedy wall street firms seemed to have lost out on our insurance premiums...

The next "fire" will be run-away inflation...

 

It's difficult to wrap your head around such a HUGE number as $700 billion. Here's the example I like to use to better understand that number:

IT'S $70 MILLION EVERY YEAR FOR THE NEXT 10,000 YEARS!

Let's face it folks. It's a giant shit sandwich created by deregulation and incredible greed (aren't they the same thing?). Sadly, those of us NOT involved are going to have to take a very big bite of said sandwich.

And it wouldn't even bother me if weren't for the fact that the same crooks that created this incredible problem will also benefit the most from this "solution".

 

And people were worried about Peak Oil, lol. Should have been worried about Peak Greed.

I hope everyone is keeping a couple grand in cash under the mattress.

 

As vile as it is, it's business as usual in the capitalist paradise. A generation does not go by without a few of these. Robbing the poor to pay the rich is the reason the United States was founded.

 

No pressure to write minority loans???
I got the impression Obama and his fellow community organizers sued mortgage companies that didn't loan money to their constituents.

From what I've read Bush worked with builders to come up with affordable housing and liberals figured out how to get tax payers to make the mortgage payments. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_Oct_15/ai_92843805

Just another example of a finely tuned Robin Hood operation.

 

How come in TWO Republican administrations, we have had TWO financial Scandals, costing taxpayers 100's of BILLIONS? Are they not watching the financial markets like they should? Are they part of the problem? Do they make sure that all their wealthy financial friends get cleared of their bad investments during their reign, and that taxpayers cover it for them?

Why is it that during Republican administrations, capitalists, who demand freedom from government regulations, demand socialism spare them from their bad investments and financial dealings?

 

It takes years for legislation to have profound effects on the system.

Can only imagine the effects of the current fiasco and the future.

Wonder how the deaths of key personnel from 911 are effecting the current situation.

 

Current financial system is and exponentially increaseable system where each time you need more money to run with, since that money started to be doubled into different banking accounts, investment banks were spending money the did not actually have, heading right just to where we are now...

This financial system has no future as it has been proven, and measures against this kind of abuse has to be taken.

I cannot know right now whether giving money to those companies or not is a good Idea. But this kind of communism when things go wrong is not fair. If I would start a business putting all my resources on it and all my illusion and it did not work, nobody would put money over the table for me... Why should goverment do so with companies that have been filling their pockets with no solidarity at all now?

By the way, I am spaniard, and here the crisis has hitted us much lesser than the US. COuld you imagine why?

 

Have to agree.

Strange isn't it, Subprime World Wide. If this would have been just a US problem people would have just wrote it off, but with our systems interlinking now it has created and laid bare a global cycle of fraud and corruption.

 

You are confusing two entirely separate issues!

One issue is redlining: Refusing mortgages to people who have the financial ability to pay them back, based on their skin color, for the purpose of keeping select neighborhoods racially segregated. This is illegal.

Another issue entirely is making loans to people who cannot afford to pay them back, and then concealing that fact in order to sell securities backed by those mortgages to investors made careless by their own greed.

Laws against redlining do not require banks to make loans to people who do not meet the basic financial tests. People who argue that anti-redlining laws are responsible for this crisis are just trying to blame minorities for bank failures they had nothing to do with. This is very thinly-disguised racism.

 

Hey, the politics belongs in the political forum--administrator. All this anti-Obama stuff belongs elsewhere. Trying to blame Obama for this meltdown is ridiculous. It certainly isn't reflected in the polls right now. Quite the contrary.

Neither Obama nor McCain is personally responsible for this mess. Bush and Greenspan and the Republican party are responsible--for their era of low interest rates and unregulated mortgage lending. It was also an era when oil futures became unregulated, which tripled the price of oil and gasoline for consumers. It signifies the end of supply side economics--which failed with both Reagan and Bush, Jr., resulting in huge deficits. Hardly fiscal conservatism.

And it's ironic that Bush's own Party--the most "conservative" element in the House--has tried very hard to derail the bailout. Fortunately, the Democrats have been far more cooperative, and a bipartisan package stronger than Bush's initial proposal will undoubtedly pass through the Congress. Voting against it will be an act of political hari-kari after the public sees the consequences of no action. Both Republicans and Democrats in the Congess should be applauded for putting the package together.And Bush as well.

 

Minorities aren't to blame for this crisis, it's people driven by greed.That's why I don't buy the, "The line of thinly-disguised racism".

In this day and age If you have the money for the down payment, the means to make the payment and qualify for the loan you get the loan, you buy the house, no matter where the neighborhood is.

Your using that line as a ruse to cover part of the underlining problem and that is instances where companies inflated income figures under the guise of discrimination to push through bad loans.

Or!

Of particular interest should be Rezko's low income housing empire funded by the government and aided by Obama in securing government funding of 100 million in grants, loans and tax breaks to upgrade 30 buildings, 11 of which were foreclosed in Obama's district..

[Updates] Irrefutable Proof That Obama’s Own District Was Home to 11 Rezko Foreclosed Properties : NO QUARTER
And now he wants to take credit for measures in the bailout.

Totally relevant to the Subprime meltdown.

 

I can't make sense out of the arguments made by some that mortgage companies made predatory loans and congress had to legislate against redlining.
Sounds like a catch 22. If it took an act of congress to make mortgages available to minorities then why are they now calling those loans predatory? Seems predators wouldn't have let redlining interfere with their despicable practices..

Interesting that with change of law Fannie Mae anticipated a 66% increase in loans to minorities.
I find it hard to believe the increase was due exclusively to elimination of redlining by greedy predatory mortgage companies. I'm inclined to believe there was some indirect arm twisting from special interest to grow minority home ownership.

How am I confusing the two? As I recall Paulson said the $700 billion was to help cover the current estimated 5% foreclosure rate.


The other problem I see with this mess is the Tax payer taking ownership of $2 trillion worth of gated ghettos. The communities in my area are made up of predominately $250k-350k mini MacMansions built in the past 7 years. Yards haven't ever been landscaped and sheets still cover the windows. Cars are parked in yard and mud holes exist where kids play.
Its hard to maintain home values when you've got degenerates not able to maintain their home to minimum acceptable standards. Plus who wants to live next door to these people. It certainly can't be economically good for those living nearby wanting to sell there homes to re locate.

The other problem is getting them out of the house before they've had a chance do serious damage and pawn all the appliances.


Nobody said Obama is to blame.. the article said that Clinton's changes encouraged community groups to complain if they didn't think they were getting a fair amount of mortgage money. Wasn't Obama involved in his community group as an organizer? So doesn't it make sense he would be involved with fighting for his community to receive their fair share of mortgage money? The point being Obama and others like him were pushing mortgage companies to loan money. This wasn't simply a case of the greedy predators taking advantage of the ignorant poor.

Racial?? Usually those that bring up race are the most racist as it always in their thoughts.

One other point before I'm done.. Clinton's changes allowed slim-ball Mortgage brokers to get involved, which made matters worse.