« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Our current financial mess, in handy video form.

Please take ten minutes out of your life to watch this.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  September 26th, 2008 at 07:58 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I am perfectly serious. The usual rules about how it has to be a minute or less, or it’s useless? They don’t apply here.

The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH–o, if you’re thinking of passing this along to people, and you damn well should be thinking of doing that. Like, before 9:30 AM.

Moe Lane

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • rbdwiggins

    Its video format makes the root-cause of this crisis more understandable for the average American who typically doesn’t follow the financial markets and government regulations, and the facts contained within are irrefutable.

  • BillBjar

    The CRA was modified by the Clinton administration in 1995, but wasn’t that the year Gingrich effectively took over the House? This mess sits in the laps of both parties IMHO, although I’d like to blame Clinton. :)

  • shooflyguy68

    CRA is not to blame

    …it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn’t even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan’s Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.

    I know this is from a Liberal rag, but the argument against this being a CRA issue is very strong.

  • bk

    Did you notice McCain was a cosponsor and the sponsor was … drum roll please … Chuck Hagel. (It’s at the 4:23 mark in the video.) No wonder we haven’t seen him on TV this week – how can he spin this in Obama’s favor?

  • Moriah

    … that spun-off from Creditboards.com — a board that helped me quite a bit in getting my credit situation together.

    It was focused on helping consumers deal with inefficient credit reporting agencies, debt collectors that broke the law, and how to pay off debt in a way that didn’t actually make your credit report worse.

    They have a specific forum on medical debt — the main focus there is people paying the debt to the medical provider, then using HIPAA guidelines to get the debt off of their credit reports. It’s sad that a recently paid debt collection entry on your credit report looks worse when factored into a credit score than an old debt that you never paid.

    They also have a money management forum that discusses how to get the most of out of a paycheck, frugal ideas, etc.

    I may be a liberal, and I may have thought that equal time could have been given to Republicans who contributed to the problem, but the actual video was so educational that I am passing it on even though it is against the candidate I support.

    Most of the people there who post in the politics forum are Republicans anyway, so I know they will appreciate it and pass it on. And … it is educational enough that this lib is willing to spread the meme.

    Good post, Moe.

  • shooflyguy68

    Perhaps Obama realized Hagel was up to his eyeballs in this mess and told him “thanks but no thanks.”

  • rbdwiggins

    Might want to examine the Clinton Justice Department’s role in expanding sub-prime mortgages and the ensuing predatory lending practices a little more closely.

  • GregInFla

    Passed it on to conservative usa googlegroup, and all loved ones. Thanks! Keep this on the front page.

  • Moe_Lane

    I put the primary blame on this mess on the Democrats, so I’m not unhappy at the thrust of this video.

    But what we’re seeing today here is brinkmanship on both sides, and both sides need to stop.

  • Harod

    “The new Community Reinvestment Act regulations enable lenders to develop customized strategic plans for meeting their obligations under the Act, and many have been developed in partnership with your local organizations. In this way you are not only helping to rebuild your communities, but you are showing bankers how to be responsible corporate citizens. In short, you can’t do it just with capital, you can’t do it just with people who care; we can do it together.” 

      Janet Reno

    http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/ag/speeches/1998/0320_agcom.htm

  • PaRep

    Than Republican, I don’t care what LETTER is in front of their Name if they’re Guilty Prosecute them to the fullest extent possible, That goes for liberals, Moderate & Conservative Dems, And Liberal,Moderate & Consevative Reps.

  • Harod

    that was the best video i ever seen, here is a link to McCains bill killed in 2006

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190

  • Harod

    Here is a time line of all the administrantion request for GSE reform..

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html

  • MrMosis

    Someone needs to fill in this blank. I don’t have time to research it- but if the CRA is not ultimately responsible for these lending institutions behaving this “aggressively”, then what is? How was it in their interest to take such risks? Somehow I think the parent comment is leaving out essential details, such as the fact that these institutions had to behave foolishly just to stay competitive in the short run…. that is, competitive with the entities at an advantage by way of being on the receiving end of government meddling.

  • shooflyguy68

    Try this simple and entirely accurate primer to understand what really happened.

    Subprime Primer

  • Maggie_in_Indiana

    The guy’s right it should be linked to any and all sites as soon as possible.

    The Dems own this mess and the Congress turned their backs on the red flags for their own benefit.

    Proof McCain did try to blow the whistle. Geesh.

  • JGillman

    And shared it as well. Bottom line is the Bell has been ringing for some time, and in the last couple of years more covering up.. By.. Who?

  • itrytobenice

    thanks for the link.

  • MikeO

    CRA most certainly is the root of the sub-prime crisis. CRA defined-down the deviancy of providing mortgages to the non-credit-worthy by cloaking this structurally unsustainable idiocy with typical civil-rights-overreach false morality.

    The net effect of the CRA regulations and related HUD policies set bad loan quotas for lenders and the GSEs backing them. Making bad loans was a spigot dispensing free money to anyone in the market—covered by CRA language or not—willing to broker loans that no reasonable person would make.

    CRA made it a “moral duty” to take ridiculous risk. The Clinton DoJ threatened lawsuits for anyone not progressively enlightened enough to see things this way.

    The moral hazard of CRA is the cause of this crisis.

    My apologies to both Shakespeare and Father Flanagan, but the non-credit-worthy deadbeats and the scumbags who lined-up to exploit them under the cover of bad social engineering are both too dmned heavy and *not my brothers, and a pound of flesh from each of them is the least I can ask to lighten the burden.

  • Moriah

    That’s one reason I like this place. That, and you guys haven’t kicked me out. :)

    Regardless of blame, it shows exactly where we are, what (regardless of who, what) caused it, and it gives a very large hint of what we need to do about it.

    Hence, it needs to be watched.

  • MikeO

    Without Uncle Sugar’s pushing bad loans via the CRA, and then later, effectively mandating them under Clinton’s 1995 reg changes, there would never have been a sub-prime market.

  • shooflyguy68

    and go with your gut? That’s fine. The facts show this issue was NOT caused by the CRA. That doesn’t mean that CRA is a good idea but it’s sad to make an argument by claiming facts not in evidence.

  • MikeO

    Though we still may have gotten stuck with a sub-prime loan market had CRA never happened, it is clear to me that CRA guaranteed that there would be sub-prime loans that would never have been made in a world where sanity prevails.

  • shooflyguy68

    The vast majority of home mortgages that are in default were not made to fulfill CRA requirements. This mess was caused by bankers who assumed that home prices would rise in perpetuity and therefore there was no need to worry about down payments or sound credit or income to debt ratios. Since the home values would quickly rise, they assumed, homeowners would quickly gain equity stakes in their property even if they made interest only payments. They were wrong.

    This attempt to blame this on the CRA is not based on facts but rather is made in an attempt to score political points and deflect blame from where it really lies. The fact that mortgage brokers, banks and insurance agencies were able to bundle bad debt and sell it as AAA rated securities is the cause of the problems. They hid the risks so that investors couldn’t really see how risky their investments in these collateralized debt obligations were.

    If we truly want to fix this, we need to identify the true cause of the problem so we can identify the appropriate corrective measures. If we let politicians demagogue and blame it on CRA, then we will be trying to solve the credit crunch by applying solutions that help and that, just as importantly, will not prevent the next meltdown.

  • MikeO

    Since you think making arguments with facts not in evidence is so deserving of your righteous pity: The claim that sub-prime loans made by lenders not directly covered by CRA language are clear of CRA influence relies on an assumption that players in the market each operate in its own vacuum. I would love to see the “facts in evidence” supporting that assumption.

  • shooflyguy68

    Nice try. The facts are there. Read and learn if you wish. Remain ignorant if you like.

  • MikeO

    Bad Social Engineering begat unacceptable risk taking begat this crisis.

    You are assiduously ignoring Clinton’s 1995 regs shift that threatened to bring the full force of the executive branch in the courts against lenders unwilling to take unreasonable risks.

  • ILLINOIS_CONSERV

    that house repubs should list their concerns and then Tres Sec. Paulson should decide which (of those repub concerns) should be included in the resolution? OMG! This guy is unbelievaable!

  • MikeO

    Please explain why I am ignorant for not accepting the “proven” negative that sub-prime lending would have occurred without the CRA’s distortion of the market.

    I recognize that the sub-prime mess may have happened without the CRA, but the CRA guaranteed the mainstreaming of the stupid practices that brought this mess. Whether it directly compelled lenders to make bad loans is not the issue. The issue is that it cloaked the immoral practice of writing non-viable mortgages in the false morality of kumbaya affirmative action.

    1. The CRA said, “reach out.”

    2. The enforcers coerced a market for loans that should never have been made.

    3. The market filled-in the middle by making iffy loans on the premise that there are even worse loans happening.

    Item three could have happened without items one and two, provided that some other premise made such iffy loans possible. CRA made items one and two happen, and that brought us number three.

    You are the one making the inflexible positive assertion that the CRA is blameless.

  • rbdwiggins

    The potential dangers were well-documented by the end of Clinton’s term.

  • MrMosis

    While quite entertaining, I am afraid it neglects to address the real root question: Why were the lending institutions originating risky loans?

    As illustrated quite cleverly in the slideshow you linked to, I’m sure there were a great many greedy, selfish, and short-sighted mortgage brokers. And there were those who came behind them and attempted to make the most of these risky loans.

    But why were the loans created and financed in the first place!?

  • shooflyguy68

    were not made directly or indirectly to meet CRA requirement. Banks need to and want to disclose all CRA activity. There is no way they would let themselves feel “pressured” to make loans that did not help them meet CRA requirements and there is no way they would trumpet each and every instance of meeting or exceeding CRA requirements.

    We can debate the CRA separately. I think it distorts the market and probably should be eliminated. There are better ways to help poor people and/or minorities buy homes – like helping them get better educations and better jobs.

    However, neither the original CRA nor the changes made in the 90s had anything to do with this credit crisis. The fault lies with investment bankers, mortgage brokers and bankers and securitity insurance underwriters who saw a way to make lots and lots of money based on the assumption that housing prices would rise forever. They gambled and lost and now we are left holding the bag. If you want to prevent a recurrance of this debacle, you need to correctly identify what caused the problem and make changes to prevent them from happening again. Eliminating the CRA requirements will not prevent a recurrance of this problem because it is not the cause of it. So if you think this is an issue that helps the party and therefore want to ignore reality, that’s fine. However, it is supremely irresponsible because it will not actually prevent a recurrence. Quite frankly I want a little more for my $750BB.

  • shooflyguy68

    were not made directly or indirectly to meet CRA requirement. Banks need to and want to disclose all CRA activity. There is no way they would let themselves feel “pressured” to make loans that did not help them meet CRA requirements and there is no way they would trumpet each and every instance of meeting or exceeding CRA requirements.

    We can debate the CRA separately. I think it distorts the market and probably should be eliminated. There are better ways to help poor people and/or minorities buy homes – like helping them get better educations and better jobs.

    However, neither the original CRA nor the changes made in the 90s had anything to do with this credit crisis. The fault lies with investment bankers, mortgage brokers and bankers and securitity insurance underwriters who saw a way to make lots and lots of money based on the assumption that housing prices would rise forever. They gambled and lost and now we are left holding the bag. If you want to prevent a recurrance of this debacle, you need to correctly identify what caused the problem and make changes to prevent them from happening again. Eliminating the CRA requirements will not prevent a recurrance of this problem because it is not the cause of it. So if you think this is an issue that helps the party and therefore want to ignore reality, that’s fine. However, it is supremely irresponsible because it will not actually prevent a recurrence. Quite frankly I want a little more for my $750BB.

  • MrMosis

    Even if the problem you are highlighting is legitimate, which for the sake of argument I will assume it is, that is still not the rootmost problem. That is a subsequent problem. Why deny the role of CRA? It seems as if you are attempting to overlook the CRA implications as pertains to the REAL, ROOT question. Why would one do that?

  • MikeO

    The lesson to take from this is that intentionally distorting markets sticks us with a hefty bill down the road.

    Scrupulous lenders unwilling to take advantage of market distortions can bet that they will be pushed aside by the lenders willing to do so. The incentives found in those distortions were created by bad government.

    This moral hazard was brought to us by the CRA and the totalitarian mindset behind it.

    Faulting the financial industry for the crisis resulting from their greed is as naive as the frog’s wondering why the scorpion stung when his dying thought should have been about the incredibly stupidity of letting the scorpion climb onto his back.

  • shooflyguy68

    were not made directly or indirectly to meet CRA requirement. Banks need to and want to disclose all CRA activity. There is no way they would let themselves feel “pressured” to make loans that did not help them meet CRA requirements and there is no way they would trumpet each and every instance of meeting or exceeding CRA requirements.

    We can debate the CRA separately. I think it distorts the market and probably should be eliminated. There are better ways to help poor people and/or minorities buy homes – like helping them get better educations and better jobs.

    However, neither the original CRA nor the changes made in the 90s had anything to do with this credit crisis. The fault lies with investment bankers, mortgage brokers and bankers and securitity insurance underwriters who saw a way to make lots and lots of money based on the assumption that housing prices would rise forever. They gambled and lost and now we are left holding the bag. If you want to prevent a recurrance of this debacle, you need to correctly identify what caused the problem and make changes to prevent them from happening again.

    Eliminating the CRA requirements will not prevent a recurrance of this problem because it is not the cause of it. So if you think this is an issue that helps the party and therefore want to ignore reality, that’s fine. However, it is supremely irresponsible because it will not actually prevent a recurrence. Quite frankly I want a little more for my $750BB.

  • MrMosis

    n/t

  • aaronbg

    CRA and the subsequent regulatory modification by the Clinton Administration caused an unbalance playing field in the market. By forcing certain loans to be available they created the market for them. The natural outcome is for lenders(not forced by CRA and regulatory mods) to expand into that market in order to capitalize on it. That is how markets work. Additionally, the status of Fannie and Freddie as GSE’s gave a false impression that what ever they bought was guaranteed by the govt. This enabled the expansion of the market because it mitigated the risk. Risk is the primary factor in keeping the market in check.

    So to put it bluntly, the govt created a specialized market by force, and the market expanded beyond their force, eventually creating this crisis.

  • shooflyguy68

    The CRA does distort the real estate market but that is not what caused the problem we are seeing today. The bad loans were not made to meet CRA requirements. The loans were made as a bet based on the assumption that the real estate market would drive up prices forever.

    Why waste all of our energy placing the blame on a law that had nothing to do with this problem? We can certainly argue separately that we should eliminate or weaken the CRA. However, that will not prevent a similar credit crunch in the future.

    The solution lies in transparency. Investors need to know what they are buying and the security needs to be priced based on the actual risk associated with it. The fact is that I-banks created shell corporations, bundled high risk loans into convoluted financial instruments and then got rating agencies to label them as low risk bets. I work for a very large, and relatively healthy, financial institution. We’ve been passing this slideshow around for the last week or so and all we get from our collegues is heads nodding.

    So, you can argue that the CRA is a bad idea. I would have to agree. But what you cannot honestly or factually do is blame the CRA for this subprime mess.

  • shooflyguy68

    The CRA does distort the real estate market but that is not what caused the problem we are seeing today. The bad loans were not made to meet CRA requirements. The loans were made as a bet based on the assumption that the real estate market would drive up prices forever.

    Why waste all of our energy placing the blame on a law that had nothing to do with this problem? We can certainly argue separately that we should eliminate or weaken the CRA. However, that will not prevent a similar credit crunch in the future.

    The solution lies in transparency. Investors need to know what they are buying and the security needs to be priced based on the actual risk associated with it. The fact is that I-banks created shell corporations, bundled high risk loans into convoluted financial instruments and then got rating agencies to label them as low risk bets. I work for a very large, and relatively healthy, financial institution. We’ve been passing this slideshow around for the last week or so and all we get from our collegues is heads nodding.

    So, you can argue that the CRA is a bad idea. I would have to agree. But what you cannot honestly or factually do is blame the CRA for this subprime mess.

  • MrMosis

    n/t

  • shooflyguy68

    The CRA does distort the real estate market but that is not what caused the problem we are seeing today. The bad loans were not made to meet CRA requirements. The loans were made as a bet based on the assumption that the real estate market would drive up prices forever.

    Why waste all of our energy placing the blame on a law that had nothing to do with this problem? We can certainly argue separately that we should eliminate or weaken the CRA. However, that will not prevent a similar credit crunch in the future.

    The solution lies in transparency. Investors need to know what they are buying and the security needs to be priced based on the actual risk associated with it. The fact is that I-banks created shell corporations, bundled high risk loans into convoluted financial instruments and then got rating agencies to label them as low risk bets. I work for a very large, and relatively healthy, financial institution. We’ve been passing this slideshow around for the last week or so and all we get from our collegues is heads nodding.

    So, you can argue that the CRA is a bad idea. I would have to agree. But what you cannot honestly or factually do is blame the CRA for this subprime mess.

  • shooflyguy68

    The CRA does distort the real estate market but that is not what caused the problem we are seeing today. The bad loans were not made to meet CRA requirements. The loans were made as a bet based on the assumption that the real estate market would drive up prices forever.

    Why waste all of our energy placing the blame on a law that had nothing to do with this problem? We can certainly argue separately that we should eliminate or weaken the CRA. However, that will not prevent a similar credit crunch in the future.

    The solution lies in transparency. Investors need to know what they are buying and the security needs to be priced based on the actual risk associated with it. The fact is that I-banks created shell corporations, bundled high risk loans into convoluted financial instruments and then got rating agencies to label them as low risk bets. I work for a very large, and relatively healthy, financial institution. We’ve been passing this slideshow around for the last week or so and all we get from our collegues is heads nodding.

    So, you can argue that the CRA is a bad idea. I would have to agree. But what you cannot honestly or factually do is blame the CRA for this subprime mess.

  • shooflyguy68

    The CRA does distort the real estate market but that is not what caused the problem we are seeing today. The bad loans were not made to meet CRA requirements. The loans were made as a bet based on the assumption that the real estate market would drive up prices forever.

    Why waste all of our energy placing the blame on a law that had nothing to do with this problem? We can certainly argue separately that we should eliminate or weaken the CRA. However, that will not prevent a similar credit crunch in the future.

    The solution lies in transparency. Investors need to know what they are buying and the security needs to be priced based on the actual risk associated with it. The fact is that I-banks created shell corporations, bundled high risk loans into convoluted financial instruments and then got rating agencies to label them as low risk bets. I work for a very large, and relatively healthy, financial institution. We’ve been passing this slideshow around for the last week or so and all we get from our collegues is heads nodding.

    So, you can argue that the CRA is a bad idea. I would have to agree. But what you cannot honestly or factually do is blame the CRA for this subprime mess.

  • shooflyguy68

    The CRA does distort the real estate market but that is not what caused the problem we are seeing today. The bad loans were not made to meet CRA requirements. The loans were made as a bet based on the assumption that the real estate market would drive up prices forever.

    Why waste all of our energy placing the blame on a law that had nothing to do with this problem? We can certainly argue separately that we should eliminate or weaken the CRA. However, that will not prevent a similar credit crunch in the future.

    The solution lies in transparency. Investors need to know what they are buying and the security needs to be priced based on the actual risk associated with it. The fact is that I-banks created shell corporations, bundled high risk loans into convoluted financial instruments and then got rating agencies to label them as low risk bets. I work for a very large, and relatively healthy, financial institution. We’ve been passing this slideshow around for the last week or so and all we get from our collegues is heads nodding.

    So, you can argue that the CRA is a bad idea. I would have to agree. But what you cannot honestly or factually do is blame the CRA for this subprime mess.

  • JSobieski

    The snowball starts somewhere, and then builds.

    Only 9% of mortgages are in default, but the aggregate value of all mortgages has fallen far more than 9%.

  • shooflyguy68

    the 500 error made me think my response didn’t post. I’ll try the “one time and wait” approach. Again, my apologies.

  • aaronbg

    The govt creates the AIDS virus. The govt then puts the virus into blood transfusions in poorer urban hospitals. Another hospital that is of high standing gets a pint of blood from one of the urban hospitals because they ran out and the urban hospital is the closest provider for blood. Now everyone at both hospitals have aids. Whose is to blame? Well the people who created the virus of course.

  • MrMosis

    Aaron G. said it best, so I will just refer you to his comment. And, I will just await your response. He is right. You are missing the point. Or… overlooking it. I am not sure which to believe.

    Aaron’s Comment

  • MikeO

    Would there have been a market for bad loans without the CRA?

    By coercing a market for stinky, diseased poop sandwiches, the government implicitly created a market for merely stinky poop sandwiches and poop-that-doesn’t-smell-that-bad sandwiches.

    The merely stinky poop sales and poop-that-doesn’t-smell-that-bad sales may represent the majority of the problem so far as raw volume numbers go, but would the market for such questionable products even existed had the government not required the purchase of the stinky, diseased poop sandwiches and effectively guaranteed their repackaging and permitted their resale alongside non-disgusting, normal fare?

  • JSobieski

    and the death spiral that resulted from the mark-to-market accounting rule, which is the primary cause of the spiral

    In October 2007, the foundations of the crisis were well underway even though 99% of all mortgages were being paid on time in accordance with the terms.

    Even now, 91% of the mortgages are in full compliance.

    Only 9% of mortgages are in some state of deliquency.

    Using your analysis, “bad loans” can’t possibly be the source of the problem since there are relatively few bad loans out there.

  • Jack_Savage

    Under cover of the CRA, it appears that the Clinton Justice Department was blackmailing banks to offer more “affordable loans” to minorities and lower income families.

    No one with a brain was unable to see this coming. Deep in my heart I believe that the private entities who made the loans knew damn well they were toxic, they wanted them off their books, they found a way to do it, and decided to let the government in the form of GSE’s like Fannie Mae guarantee them and take the hit.

  • c17wife

    Let’s pray it goes viral and people wake up to what scum Barney and friends truly are.

  • c17wife

    Let’s pray it goes viral and people wake up to what scum Barney and friends truly are.

  • DavidS1787

  • speciallist

    then watch it again…if you really want to…paste the Embed code into this box

    “Good luck, jim”

  • DavidS1787

  • SamR

    Here is a list of almost all of the links of the web page screenshots in the video, thanks to Google. I think I missed one. Just thought people would like to read some of the articles for themselves and make their own opinion. They are in order that the video shows them.

    sam

    Consumer affairs Subprime Lender Implosion

    Community Reinvestment Act

    Policy Link on the Community Reinvestment Act

    City Journal Trillion-dollar bank shakedown article

    Wachovia press release

    CSRWire article

    NHI article Going Subprime

    Washington Post article on Fannie’s Perilous Pursuit

    Wall Street Journal Market Watch Fannie, Freddie shares worthless

    Regulators Spin Public to Boost Fannie

    CNNMoney report 12th bank failure

    Guardian UK IMF says US crisis is largest financial shock

    New York Times, New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac

    John McCain warned about

    GovTrack, The Housing Regulatory Act of 2005

    Slate, Chris Dodd’s Loan Problem

    MinnPost.com article on Obama and Jim Johnon

    Los Angeles Times, Jim Johnson quits under fire

    Salon.com article James Johnson resigns from Obama Team

    Politico, Advice from Raines

    BBC News, Senior Fannie Mae bosses resign

    OpenSecrets.org Report

    Miner, Barnhill and Galland website

    Chicago Sun-times on Obama against Citibank

    New York Times, Chicago Schools are worst

    New Republic, Obama, Education and Accountability

    Christian Science Monitor, Kids protest schools gap in Illinois

    Knowledge Wharton, Immigration Debate

    Kansas City Star, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Blind to Bubble

    CNNMoney, 4 Fannie Mae senior execs resign

    The Hill, Dems Bear No Responsibility

    Washington Post’s, The TRAIL, Obama Ridicules McCain’s Economic Response

  • walter_hanson

    It’s amazing how in such a great 10 minute video that I noticed an important point left out.

    The sky rocketin housing prices had a side affect. With the value of housing sky rocketing real estate taxes sky rocketed. Cities and school boards got lots of extra tax revenues which in a lot of case were wasted and at the same time millions of americans had their property taxes easily double or more. That’s a major hurt.

    Especially with the explosion in gasoline prices.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • walter_hanson

    It’s amazing how in such a great 10 minute video that I noticed an important point left out.

    The sky rocketin housing prices had a side affect. With the value of housing sky rocketing real estate taxes sky rocketed. Cities and school boards got lots of extra tax revenues which in a lot of case were wasted and at the same time millions of americans had their property taxes easily double or more. That’s a major hurt.

    Especially with the explosion in gasoline prices.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • lazier51

    WMG had it removed, guess who else is in the tank for Obama. Can you find this anywhere else, Moe??