Romney Profited From Mortgage Lenders Foreclosing On Thousands Of Floridians page 1

ksen

25th January 2012, 04:14 PM

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/25/409804/romneys-profited-foreclosure-florida/

In October, Romney suggested that the solution to the foreclosure crisis (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/18/346975/romney-dont-stop-foreclosures/) was “don’t try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom.” While that process is bad for Florida homeowners, these investments show it may have been good for the Romneys.

Romney for Foreclosure-in-Chief

oblivion

25th January 2012, 07:54 PM

wow.


eta not so much that he profited...not surprised at that. AM surprised that he'd suggest letting FL hit bottom that way.

Supernaut

25th January 2012, 08:48 PM

When is the FL primary set for?

dug

25th January 2012, 08:55 PM

next tuesday

Jerome

26th January 2012, 02:46 PM

This shows how the two majority parties work together for their individual benefit. Remember that Obama made a profit suing banks to force loans to people with no credit history and no ability to pay back the loan.

dug

27th January 2012, 04:23 PM

you don't say

PermanentlyEphemeral

31st January 2012, 05:38 PM

This shows how the two majority parties work together for their individual benefit. Remember that Obama made a profit suing banks to force loans to people with no credit history and no ability to pay back the loan.

I've chatted with people who did believe nonsense like that, blaming Carter for starting it.

maiforpeace

31st January 2012, 05:41 PM

Republican voters must enjoy it up the ass - Romney is leading in FL with double digits.

Jerome

31st January 2012, 07:16 PM

This shows how the two majority parties work together for their individual benefit. Remember that Obama made a profit suing banks to force loans to people with no credit history and no ability to pay back the loan.

I've chatted with people who did believe nonsense like that, blaming Carter for starting it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_doc_loan

FedUpWithFaith

31st January 2012, 07:35 PM

Remember that Obama made a profit suing banks to force loans to people with no credit history and no ability to pay back the loan.

Evidence?

Jerome

31st January 2012, 07:46 PM

Remember that Obama made a profit suing banks to force loans to people with no credit history and no ability to pay back the loan.

Evidence?

http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.
U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000

Jerome

31st January 2012, 07:48 PM

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_cvq7rDCHftKwJyLaecfPQK;jsessionid=B5D8BAC612C 98899811AF388BA7661E6

THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Commu nity Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.
CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.
Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.
In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.
Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.
Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.
ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_cvq7rDCHftKwJyLaecfPQK;jsessionid=B5D8BAC612C 98899811AF388BA7661E6). She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.

nick

31st January 2012, 08:14 PM

This shows how the two majority parties work together for their individual benefit. Remember that Osama made a profit suing banks to force loans to people with no credit history and no ability to pay back the loan.

:nada:

FedUpWithFaith

31st January 2012, 08:21 PM

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_cvq7rDCHftKwJyLaecfPQK;jsessionid=B5D8BAC612C 98899811AF388BA7661E6

THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Commu nity Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.
CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.
Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.
In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.
Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.
Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.
ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_cvq7rDCHftKwJyLaecfPQK;jsessionid=B5D8BAC612C 98899811AF388BA7661E6). She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.



That's quite a stretch and very misleading. Better to quote actual factual sources rather than the opinion of clearly biased shills like this guy. Have you actually read the 1977 act? It was intended primarily to fight historical housing discrimination in lending and other community resource allocations that still persists to this day. Studies have shown that many blacks in the current crisis who qualified for regular mortagages were guided into subprime mortages instead.

And I still don't see how Obama "profited" from this to use your earlier accusation. To read your original post suggest one infer that Obama had responsibility for legislation that led to the housing collapse that he knowlingly anticipated would lead to profit for him. What profit? This is nonsense.

Both sides of the isle are responsibile for the housing mess and it's roots are far more diverse than this article indicates. Some was based on stupidilty, some was nefarious. Wherever the past blame lies, it is clearly today's Republicans, in the pockets of Wall Street even worse than Democrats, who are trying to block any meaningful reform and regulation to keep this mess from happening again.

Jerome

31st January 2012, 11:27 PM

Studies have shown that many blacks in the current crisis who qualified for regular mortagages were guided into subprime mortages instead.

Subprime is a reference to the borrower, not the loan. If you don't understand this simple fact I see why you believe what you do.

See, people that are 'subprime' are a big risk to not make the loan payments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_lending

Jerome

31st January 2012, 11:29 PM

Wherever the past blame lies, it is clearly today's Republicans, in the pockets of Wall Street even worse than Democrats, who are trying to block any meaningful reform and regulation to keep this mess from happening again.

lol dude

Both Bush and Obama took money from the worker to give to the elite.

FedUpWithFaith

1st February 2012, 12:29 AM

Wherever the past blame lies, it is clearly today's Republicans, in the pockets of Wall Street even worse than Democrats, who are trying to block any meaningful reform and regulation to keep this mess from happening again.

lol dude

Both Bush and Obama took money from the worker to give to the elite.

I already conceded that. It doesn't contradict the fact that the Republicans are the bigger problem right now. Show me the equivalent to an Elizabeth Warren on the Republican side. And look what the Republicans are trying to do to the reforms she started, albeit with insufficient support from Obama.

FedUpWithFaith

1st February 2012, 12:50 AM

Studies have shown that many blacks in the current crisis who qualified for regular mortagages were guided into subprime mortages instead.

Subprime is a reference to the borrower, not the loan. If you don't understand this simple fact I see why you believe what you do.

See, people that are 'subprime' are a big risk to not make the loan payments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_lending

It's become both and I don't give a shit what wikipedia says or why you can't follow a simple concept without needless semantic obfuscation. I did major modeling work for this fucked up industry. I worked with bank regulators back in 2000 just as all the BS was starting. One of my companies developed the first score to better segment subprime borrowers. "Subprime loans" are indeed intended, generally for "subprime borrowers" , generally those with FICO scores below a certain cutoff which itself has changed over the years - when I first worked in this are it was 650 but it later dropped to as low as 580. However, there is much a lender can do to manipulate a borrowers classification as prime, subprime, or various levels in-between (there are or at least were even tools that enabled them to play games with the FICO scores). Due to the perceived extra risk subprime loans carry a significantly higher interest rate (risk premium).

The whole point of the scores my company created was to discover borrowers which FICO rated as subprime risks which were actually prime risks. Using our scores, a lender could legally cherrypick the lower risk subprimes and therebuy pocket both the standard and subprime risk premium. Unfortunately, less scrupulous lenders used other means to entice or defraud prime or near prime borrowers to take subprime loans. This was usually biased against minorities and recent immigrants less familiar with the system. This is well known in the industry.

Your semantics notwithstanding, you don't know what you're talking about.

Jerome

1st February 2012, 01:09 AM

It doesn't contradict the fact that the Republicans are the bigger problem right now.

What you first need to understand is that the two parties are really a single party, it's kidda' like pro wrestling, the fights and positions are fake for the purpose of eliciting emotional attraction to a team.

Jerome

1st February 2012, 01:11 AM

It's become both and I don't give a shit what wikipedia says or why you can't follow a simple concept without needless semantic obfuscation. I did major modeling work for this fucked up industry. I worked with bank regulators back in 2000 just as all the BS was starting. One of my companies developed the first score to better segment subprime borrowers. "Subprime loans" are indeed intended, generally for "subprime borrowers" , generally those with FICO scores below a certain cutoff which itself has changed over the years - when I first worked in this are it was 650 but it later dropped to as low as 580. However, there is much a lender can do to manipulate a borrowers classification as prime, subprime, or various levels in-between (there are or at least were even tools that enabled them to play games with the FICO scores). Due to the perceived extra risk subprime loans carry a significantly higher interest rate (risk premium).

The whole point of the scores my company created was to discover borrowers which FICO rated as subprime risks which were actually prime risks. Using our scores, a lender could legally cherrypick the lower risk subprimes and therebuy pocket both the standard and subprime risk premium. Unfortunately, less scrupulous lenders used other means to entice or defraud prime or near prime borrowers to take subprime loans. This was usually biased against minorities and recent immigrants less familiar with the system. This is well known in the industry.

Your semantics notwithstanding, you don't know what you're talking about.


So your contention is that banks conspired to put people into loans that could not be afforded and were likely to default.

:facepalm:

FedUpWithFaith

1st February 2012, 02:02 AM

It's become both and I don't give a shit what wikipedia says or why you can't follow a simple concept without needless semantic obfuscation. I did major modeling work for this fucked up industry. I worked with bank regulators back in 2000 just as all the BS was starting. One of my companies developed the first score to better segment subprime borrowers. "Subprime loans" are indeed intended, generally for "subprime borrowers" , generally those with FICO scores below a certain cutoff which itself has changed over the years - when I first worked in this are it was 650 but it later dropped to as low as 580. However, there is much a lender can do to manipulate a borrowers classification as prime, subprime, or various levels in-between (there are or at least were even tools that enabled them to play games with the FICO scores). Due to the perceived extra risk subprime loans carry a significantly higher interest rate (risk premium).

The whole point of the scores my company created was to discover borrowers which FICO rated as subprime risks which were actually prime risks. Using our scores, a lender could legally cherrypick the lower risk subprimes and therebuy pocket both the standard and subprime risk premium. Unfortunately, less scrupulous lenders used other means to entice or defraud prime or near prime borrowers to take subprime loans. This was usually biased against minorities and recent immigrants less familiar with the system. This is well known in the industry.

Your semantics notwithstanding, you don't know what you're talking about.


So your contention is that banks conspired to put people into loans that could not be afforded and were likely to default.

:facepalm:

That is a bit of a misrepresentation of what I said and betrays your lack of understanding about how the system works and worked before the housing bubble collapsed. Nevetheless that is close to correct, but not quite. I'll explain the distinction.

Risk is not a static thing nor is it attached only to a borrower. Risk is a function of each individual and the system itself. Your FICO score was not assigned to you at birth. It depends on your credit behavior over some past period (generally 24 months + major derogatories like bankruptcy out to 7 years). If the economy was good over that period and you had a job it's more likely you had a higher FICO score then than after the economy tanked and you lost it - all else being equal.

Talking about individual likelihood of default is easier said then done and the underlying cost of default depends on the lenders assumptions about the economy as well as the borrower. Everything is done in the aggregate diced and chopped to make the underlying risk (and the correspondent risk premium) fit some securitization objective in the secondary market (more on this later).

I've actually been involved in valuing multi-billion dollar credit portfolios for various instruments including mortgages. I know what I'm talking about. Prior to the housing collapse, lender and securitizers worried far more
about prepayment risk than default risk. And unfortunately the measures you take to minimize the later often fight the former. Before the housing bubble collapsed lenders assumed real-estate would go up indefinitely despite the cries of cassandras like Robert Shiller.

And so what if your lender defaulted? Prices kept going up. So you'd likely end up with a house that was worth more in foreclosure than the loan value. What loss? The real risk was prepayment - or so they thought. On top of this you had politicians for good reasons and foul who wanted to expand home ownership, especially to the traditional have-nots. This policy made liberals look good and Wall Street republicans rich. What was not to love?

And then the corruption set in. Oh boy. Now to answer your question more specifically, yes some banks directly and knowlingly gave mortgages to borrowers they shouldn't have whose risk of default was higher (at what point is default "likely"? - bankers don't look at things quite like you do). This was not extremely pervasive but there is all sorts of documentation and lawsuits to back this up if you care to look. However, most mortgage loans are not originated directly by banks but by private mortgage brokers who got paid by commission and who never even knew what proportion of their portfolios defaulted or even cared. They were incentivized to make as many loans as possible. That's all.

The banks largely acted as fronts and reserves for these brokers and then acted through more middlemen to bundle these loans for securitization on Wall Street. They made money no matter what load of crap they sent off and Wall Street clamored for more. Mortgage securitization was the invention of Louis Raneiri of "Liar's Poker" fame when he was at Soloman Bros. I've had the distinct displeasure of having to deal directly with him and his cronies. It would take pages to explain to you how mortgages loans get sliced and diced into tranches that few understand, sold to gullible investors world-wide. In fact, they made a good return for many years until the impossible happened. Housing prices stopped going up and indicated imminent retrenchment as foreclosures rose. Read Hymen Minsky who foresaw the whole thing back in 1987.

The widespread prevalence of abuse in mortgage origination is well documented and I have to wonder how intentionally ignorant you have to be to have somehow missed reading about it all these years. At every stage of the mortgage orgination process there were incentives to give bad loans and insufficient control (which congress had largely rolled back on a bi-partisan basis) to prevent it. It worked from bottom to top as an informal silent conspiracy as well, in many cases, as outright fraud and real conspiracy that has been the subject of several high-profile prosecutions (e.g., WAMU). The the losers where the American taxpayers who bailed out the idiots who bought the securitized end-product, thus negating moral hazard so it can all happen again.

Jerome

1st February 2012, 03:38 AM

They had to find something to due with those shit loans government forced them to make, good thing Government would be there for the rescue.

Politician got to tell the proles that they were putting more people than ever in homes i.e. the American Dream.

Real estate prices skyrocketed because there were a ton more buyers for the available properties, everyone got to think they were rich!

Buyers and sellers made short money.

Home owners got to use their equity like a credit card.

Loans take a shit and government got to pick and choose which financial institutions would be removed from the playing field and which ones would get vast sums of money from the tax payer.

Dude, the entire thing was a scam to transfer wealth from the worker to the elite.

FedUpWithFaith

1st February 2012, 04:19 AM

They had to find something to due with those shit loans government forced them to make, good thing Government would be there for the rescue.

What you're spouting here only shows that you've been gullible enough to buy into the right-wing disinformation campaign formulated to prevent badly needed regulation. The problem you are referencing here is blown way out of proportion. It was neglible in the scheme of things compared to the forces I've already explained to you above, that can be explained by unrestrained capitalism further tainted by crony capitalism.

I suggest you read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/opinion/nocera-an-inconvenient-truth.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&gwh=C6154E7635E5E70CF8FF0CEED41C95DA (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/opinion/nocera-an-inconvenient-truth.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&gwh=C6154E7635E5E70CF8FF0CEED41C95DA)

Politician got to tell the proles that they were putting more people than ever in homes i.e. the American Dream.

Real estate prices skyrocketed because there were a ton more buyers for the available properties, everyone got to think they were rich!

Buyers and sellers made short money.

Home owners got to use their equity like a credit card..

Agreed, though incomplete.

Loans take a shit and government got to pick and choose which financial institutions would be removed from the playing field and which ones would get vast sums of money from the tax payer.

Dude, the entire thing was a scam to transfer wealth from the worker to the elite.

You're getting closer. I'd suggest your later statement, if true, suggests the former in distorted. Was it the government who picked the winners or the people behind those financial institutions like Goldman Sachs? We may never know.

This is crony capitalism. This is a plutocracy, not a real democracy. It's not a vast conspiracy though, coordinated by evil men but a subtle form ofcorrupting gravity, aided by complacency, and propelled by greedy people and their institutions who supposedly compete but also share the same objectives where they seek favor via govt.

The reason this can't be a vast coordinated conspiracy is that the end game would destroy the conspirators, and most of the would-be conspirators, some of whom I know and are actually nice people, are smart enough to know better. Yet they do very foolish things that undermine themselves and this country. They would have been better off too if they hadn't tanked the economy. Only a relatively few short sellers really ended up ahead and except for those that did it for their investment houses that traded against their own clients (which should be made illegal), I can't really fault them for their vision.

Smarter regulation is needed to save capitalism from itself. It was the dismantling of regs like Glass-Steagal, new more lax regs that increased bank leverage, and the absense of political will to even consider new regs on exotic deriviatives (that almost brought down the economy in the LTCM debacle before the housing bubble) to at least make them as transparent as stocks that are far far more responsible for the crisis than stuff like your CRA. Put all the laws and regs together designed to encourage subprime lending and it isn't even responsible for 5% of the problem. The private sector is mostly to blame.

We need to properly regulate and break up these large financial institutions. Will we do it? I doubt it - unfortunately. They own both parties.

Jerome

1st February 2012, 12:09 PM

lol @ "unrestrained capitalism" , banking is one of if, not the most regulated industry in the nation!

FedUpWithFaith

1st February 2012, 03:31 PM

lol @ "unrestrained capitalism" , banking is one of if, not the most regulated industry in the nation!

yes, and much of that is needless and hindering and simply makes work for govt bureaucrats. We are lacking the right kinds of regs though, especially at investment banks and other financial institutions like hedge funds and insurance companies like AIG. Credit Default Swaps, which essentially turned out to be a useless form of default insurance due to WAY too much leverage, were the reason we had to bail out AIG and some other institutions. They are virtually unregulated AND aren't even reported to the govt. in most cases. It has been estimated that there are $60 - $110 TRILLION in highly leveraged deriviatives instruments out there. Major tribulation in any one of their markets could set off another landslide.

ksen

1st February 2012, 03:51 PM

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_cvq7rDCHftKwJyLaecfPQK;jsessionid=B5D8BAC612C 98899811AF388BA7661E6

THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Commu nity Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.
CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.
Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.
In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.
Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.
Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.
ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_cvq7rDCHftKwJyLaecfPQK;jsessionid=B5D8BAC612C 98899811AF388BA7661E6). She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.



That's quite a stretch and very misleading. Better to quote actual factual sources rather than the opinion of clearly biased shills like this guy. Have you actually read the 1977 act? It was intended primarily to fight historical housing discrimination in lending and other community resource allocations that still persists to this day. Studies have shown that many blacks in the current crisis who qualified for regular mortagages were guided into subprime mortages instead.

And I still don't see how Obama "profited" from this to use your earlier accusation. To read your original post suggest one infer that Obama had responsibility for legislation that led to the housing collapse that he knowlingly anticipated would lead to profit for him. What profit? This is nonsense.

Both sides of the isle are responsibile for the housing mess and it's roots are far more diverse than this article indicates. Some was based on stupidilty, some was nefarious. Wherever the past blame lies, it is clearly today's Republicans, in the pockets of Wall Street even worse than Democrats, who are trying to block any meaningful reform and regulation to keep this mess from happening again.

"blacks"

Sugreeva

1st February 2012, 05:02 PM

The proper term is those "cursed by Ham".

FedUpWithFaith

2nd February 2012, 06:58 PM

This is a little off-topic but i love this Romney cartoon. Anybody here not familiar with Tom Tommorow's comics should check his website out too. Funny!

http://thismodernworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/TMW2011-11-16colorlowres.jpg