The multi-talented Yeffet is the former security director of Israel’s airliner, El Al, “pioneer in counter-terrorism,” and entrepreneur.
Yeffet attempted to explain the concept of utilizing intelligence, as in brain power, to Huckabee. (Please someone locate and post that YouTube), but Heehaw Huck kept insisting on blaming the system.
Representative Michele Bachmann, Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota, inadvertently traces the “Minority Housing Meltdown”: The community reinvestment Act” (CRA), a creation of the federal Frankenstein, compelled private banks to make home loans to individuals with poor credit. Since no bank wants to make bad loans, this legislation in effect threatens banks to so do. Unless the bank lends to those unworthy of credit, it will not be allowed to do interstate business or expand its operations.
But, the benevolent government also offers the errant banks redemption. In order to get a positive Community Reinvestment Act rating, a bank may give over cash or in-kind donations to ACORN. A bank can also partner with ACORN to make loans to the pool of poor they represent.
By the way, where are the media stories about Super Mom Bachman who has raised five kids and 23 foster children? Maybe when the morons are through belaboring Michele Obama’s biceps, they can tell us more about Bachmann. (Here you are welcome to improvise with your own clichés of improbability.)
Fast forward toward the end of the YouTube clip for the Bachmann interview.
Update (Oct. 16): No ACORN essay is complete without mention of Bush’s crucial role in the mortgage meltdown. I have not studied the NRO Kurtz piece, but somehow I doubt it gives Bush the “credit” he is due in the diversity depression.
“Today the House passed, by voice vote, the American Dream Downpayment Act (HR 1276). This new welfare program forces taxpayers to subsidize the downpayments of ‘low income’ Americans. This new welfare program is a Bush Administration priority and was sponsored by Katherine Harris. The GOP is already touting how this will help with their outreach to minorities.”
Unless our token conservatives pay their “respects” to Bush, author of the “ownership society,” reborn conservatives—NRO, Weekly Standard—should not be lauded.
And by the by, the many poisonous pundits should atone again and again for being wrong at the time, and misleading the masses for Benito Bush. On second thought, why don’t they just go away?!
Take “snake-oil merchants like Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal,” who is Fox’s new Philosopher King. Moore obfuscated about the bailout (while making the obligatory noises about the merits of the free market he flouts). And Moore’s previous book was entitled Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer. If that’s not an indictment, nothing is. ‘Bush’s bailout society’ is an instantiation of the principles upon which ‘Bush’s ownership society’ was founded: credit for those who are not creditworthy.”
The only pundit who was vocal about the Bush economics was Michele Malkin. Not party hack Ann Coulter.
[Thanks, Stephen; I have been rather ill, but I hope to be back at my WND perch next week with renewed verve.]
WSJ: “The democratization of credit began decades ago. Federal legislation in the late 1970s required banks to avoid discriminatory lending and meet the needs of local communities, spawning a wave of home buying and entrepreneurship in lower-income neighborhoods. The rate of homeownership in families with incomes in the bottom two-fifths rose to nearly 49% by 2001 from below 44% in 1989, according to Fed data analyzed by Mr. Mann at Columbia.”
[This is not what that ignoramus Michael Moore claims. The sad thing about the man’s propaganda is that nobody among the so-called conservative MSM can refute it with reference to First Principles.]
“But the financial crisis and recession have reversed … the ‘democratization of credit,’ forcing a tough adjustment on both low-income families and the businesses that serve them.”
‘We saw an extension of credit to a much deeper socioeconomic level, and they got access to the same credit instruments as middle-class and mainstream Americans,’ says Ronald Mann, a Columbia University law professor. Now, ‘it will be harder for families at the bottom of the income ladder to get credit cards,’ he says.
The financial crisis has forced lenders to be especially cautious with the riskiest borrowers, a category that low-income families often fall into because their debt tends to be higher relative to income and assets. The ratio of credit-card debt to income is 50% higher for the lowest two-fifths of Americans by income than for the top two-fifths, Federal Reserve data show.”
[SNIP]
The following aside is beside the point, but my guess is that if a multiple regression analysis were conducted, IQ would be the underlying variable that would stubbornly crop up to account for this alarming, yet ostensibly unintuitive, ratio of debt to income in low-income individuals.
IN ANY CASE, do you agree that the democratization of credit is on the wane? I find that a dubious statement. The latest legislation described has not eliminated the imperative to lend to risky entities and individuals, so much as it has created, as ever, unintended consequences. These contingencies have, so far, caused banks to twist like pretzels in order to find legal ways around eliminating risky borrowers.
WSJ: “The democratization of credit began decades ago. Federal legislation in the late 1970s required banks to avoid discriminatory lending and meet the needs of local communities, spawning a wave of home buying and entrepreneurship in lower-income neighborhoods. The rate of homeownership in families with incomes in the bottom two-fifths rose to nearly 49% by 2001 from below 44% in 1989, according to Fed data analyzed by Mr. Mann at Columbia.”
[This is not what that ignoramus Michael Moore claims. The sad thing about the man’s propaganda is that nobody among the so-called conservative MSM can refute it with reference to First Principles.]
“But the financial crisis and recession have reversed … the ‘democratization of credit,’ forcing a tough adjustment on both low-income families and the businesses that serve them.”
‘We saw an extension of credit to a much deeper socioeconomic level, and they got access to the same credit instruments as middle-class and mainstream Americans,’ says Ronald Mann, a Columbia University law professor. Now, ‘it will be harder for families at the bottom of the income ladder to get credit cards,’ he says.
The financial crisis has forced lenders to be especially cautious with the riskiest borrowers, a category that low-income families often fall into because their debt tends to be higher relative to income and assets. The ratio of credit-card debt to income is 50% higher for the lowest two-fifths of Americans by income than for the top two-fifths, Federal Reserve data show.”
[SNIP]
The following aside is beside the point, but my guess is that if a multiple regression analysis were conducted, IQ would be the underlying variable that would stubbornly crop up to account for this alarming, yet ostensibly unintuitive, ratio of debt to income in low-income individuals.
IN ANY CASE, do you agree that the democratization of credit is on the wane? I find that a dubious statement. The latest legislation described has not eliminated the imperative to lend to risky entities and individuals, so much as it has created, as ever, unintended consequences. These contingencies have, so far, caused banks to twist like pretzels in order to find legal ways around eliminating risky borrowers.
