« Hillary's Unworkable Plan to Freeze Interest Rates | Main | More Madness in our 51st State »

Obama Supporters Spin Harder as Nevada Caucus Begins

The big money banking interests on Wall Street that are backing Barack Obama's candidacy are getting some support from the financial press -- in this case Fortune Magazine -- which has come out with some serious spin against Hillary Clinton's economic plan.

I guess that surprises no one - that Fortune Magazine (and the Wall Street Journal, et. al) will attack any plan that favors hard-working Americans over the huge banking firms like Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and JPMorgan Chase -- but seeing Obama supporters like by blog-mates Larkin and Steve Crickmore, as well as other progressives across the blogosphere, using this big money spin against Clinton's candidacy is surprising... to me at least.

Wild claims are being made by the one guy at Fortune Magazine -- six full weeks after the Clinton plan was unveiled -- and the Obamatrons are picking it up and running with it like there is no tomorrow, attempting to spin the Clinton economic proposal with this new and startling analysis (feh), that is just plain nothing more than bullshit bought and paid for by Wall Street. The same Wall Street big money interests that are backing Barack Obama.

Ain't that a kick.

What the Clinton plan (released December 5) called for is a freeze interest rates on existing sub-prime Adjustable-Rate Mortgages (ARMs) for a period of five years. These are the loans which are going to adjust to a much higher interest rate, causing monthly payments to make a big jump up, and foreclosures will follow with hard-working Americans losing their homes in the process.

This has one guy at Fortune Magazine all in a lather, claiming that Clinton is going to wreck the world with this proposal, but take note, dear readers, with what the attackers aren't telling you -- that President Bush went ahead and put the freeze in effect already.

The freeze is already in effect.

Let me repeat that... the freeze was put into effect already, by President Bush, six weeks ago. By the way, John Edwards proposed a seven-year freeze instead of five.

Bush, Clinton, and Edwards -- all in agreement that the freeze will help Americans hold onto their homes.

And here we are, on the the morning of the Nevada primary, with Obamatronic spin attacking HIllary Clinton over her rate freeze proposal which was already put into effect by President Bush.

Wow. I'm not surprised that Wall Street Banks are interested in stopping Clinton and Edwards, but to see this kind of spin aimed at Nevada voters -- Nevada is one of the states hardest hit by the sub-prime mortgage crisis -- on the very day of the Nevada primary, is shocking to me.

I'd expect that from Republicans, but not from the camp behind the "Champion of Change" Barack Obama -- who is looking more and more like a big money Chump for Change every day.

Related: White House press release December 6, 2007 announcing Bush's plan, including rate freeze for five years.

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.6/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.6/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (3)


Hillary's camp with kindergate, the "muslim" tactic, Bill running around like a drunken fratboy distorting Obama's record - yeah, your argument is razor thin..


When we bought our house 4 years ago, we looked at the various mortgages. Adjustables, interest-only, and the like we tossed out immediately. If we were looking to flip the house in a couple of years, maybe we'd have gone with one of those. But we're looking at being here for at least 12, possibly a lot more (we moved into this area because the school we WERE zoned for was ranked in the bottom third for the state, and with our state ranked at 49... well, anyway...) we figured we might as well use a 30-year loan instead of playing with various rates.

Yeah, we MIGHT have gotten more house for the money with an interest-only loan, but we picked what we could afford with our income NOW AND would build equity. A lot of folks, I think, figured they'd be getting a lot more money in the future and bought that way.

Overestimate your income, and you end up in trouble. Plus, I think a lot of the sub-prime loans were pushed by both bankers and real estate agents to get folks into bigger places. The more expensive the house, the larger the commission after all.

Freezing the loan rates - WHOEVER it came from - was the right thing to do. The banks won't be hurt, and the people who were stupid and greedy enough to bet on a sub-prime loan will get a breather... and maybe smarten up enough to get themselves into a 30-year loan in a house they can really afford.

Lee Ward:

You're obviously a bright person, JLawson, and it's easy to say that people who did buy with subprime mortgages deserve what they get (you didn't say that and neither am I, but others have)...

and I agree with Obama that more disclosure is and was needed, but Obama's proposal for more explicit disclosure rules is fine going forward, but does nothing to help the people losing their homes today who bought two years ago, and those that will bought one year ago and might face foreclosure in the coming months.


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.