Democrat “Bain Capital” Smear Backfires

16 Responses to Democrat “Bain Capital” Smear Backfires

1. Question says:

   Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 8:30 am

   In what way has this backfired?
   It hasn’t had a chance to demonstrate efficacy.
   Please just answer the question. (This is a good time to start practicing what Jack was being critical of Libby about.)

   Reply
2. Princess says:

   Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 8:36 am

   Technically Romney was running the Olympics when the steel company failed but he was still the CEO of Bain. And why should I care what the mayor of some city in New Jersey thinks anyway? Is there no actual news anymore? All I ever see is opinions given by people who never know what they are talking about. Can’t we get some network to actually investigate stories and report to us what is going on instead of taking dictation from candidates?

   I have been trying to find information from the Romney campaign that includes actual plans for what Romney wants to accomplish and how he will do it. All I can find is stupid stuff like this where one person talks about Bain and another person says something else and the only thing the media can do is tell us what other people are saying about Bain. I want to know what the facts are, not what people’s opinions are. I want to read what Romney’s plans are from Romney.

   I am not a fan of Romney and his recent op-ed about NATO was idiotic. He is running a very simplistic campaign with little actual information for voters. He has known he would be our candidate for 4 years now. Why can’t I find some concrete plans to dig us out of this crap hole that Bush put us into and Obama dug deeper and deeper and deeper.

   Reply
3. Tina says:

   Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 10:30 am

   There was a time in this country when an ad like the one issued by the Obama team would have gone completely unchallenged.

   This ad not only sparked immediate and strong rebuttal but will continue to spark discussion and debate throughout the campaigne that will serve to educate and inform the public. It has backfired as a propaganda tool.

   Reply
4. Tina says:

   Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 10:52 am

   Princess I have posted links to webpages that explain Romneys proposals several times. Either you haven’t been reading my blog comments or you are willfully refusing to accept proposals, the ONLY thing any presidential candidate can do unless he’s willing to LIE about what is possible as Obama did when he said he would cause the seas to recede, or he would get the unemployment numbers down, or when he promised we could keep our health insurance and costs would go down.

   FIND ROMNEY’S PROPOSALS HERE (posted as a link at the bottom of this article):

   http://www.mittromney.com/issues

   Princess you don’t seem to be sincere in your requests for information.

   And your attitude that Bush put us into this mess after all of the information we have posted is also suspect. We have shown that there were many contributing factors and some warning including: Democrats in Congress over two or three decades; the legislation passed to create a poisoned pool and encourage risky investment; the friends of Democrats that made big money under the schemes at Fannie; and the many warnings issued by Bush to try and get Congress to address the problem.

   You don’t seem to acknowledge or find fault with the Democrat policies that got us into this mess or the idiotic fixes we have witnessed for three years under Obama. Why is that?

   If you actually want information you’re going to have to pay closer attention and you are going to have to be willing to breach the boundaries of your belief systems.

   Reply
5. Princess says:

   Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 1:58 pm

   I’ve been to those pages and checked out those issues. They are very general ideas. I acknowledge that government policies got us into this mess. I’m not willingn to say they were all Democrat because Republicans had a big hand in looting the country too. You might remember that the bank bailout passed with support from both sides of the corruption aisle. Why do you think the Tea Party was created? Not because Republican voters were thrilled with their party.

   Romney had an op ed about NATO that is ridiculous. I am not a fan of Romney wanting to increase our defense budget but cut back on programs in the U.S. If you read about NATO you will see that our allies are also broke but they expect the US to fund NATO’s defense budget. We are the largest contributor while everyone else is cutting back. WE CAN’T AFFORD THIS! I am fine with cuts to US programs. But I am not fine with cuts to our infrastructure improvement and our education and our health care and our social security when Romney wants to increase the defense budget so we can go out and police the world. We can sit here and blame this on Democrats all we want, but I think we are better off demanding specifics from our own side and demanding the improve their performance. I guess I just expect more from conservatives. But I readily admit that I am not in any way a Romney supporter. I think he was forced on us by the RNC who fails at listening to its supporters.

   Reply
6. Chris says:

   Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 4:03 pm

   The actions of certain Democrats undoubtedly contributed to the corrupt actions of Freddie and Fannie, which had an effect on the housing crisis. However, this effect was negligible compared to the effects of private firms who did not have to meet the same regulations as Freddie and Fannie. Over 84% of subprime loans were issued by these private firms. The deregulation of these firms was mostly supported and enacted by Republicans.

   http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/

   http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-10/politics/politics_truth-squad-romney_1_fannie-mae-freddie-mac-fannie-and-freddie?_s=PM:POLITICS

   http://4closurefraud.org/2011/11/11/private-wall-street-companies-caused-the-financial-crisis-not-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-or-the-community-reinvestment-act/

   Princess is correct that this was a bipartisan problem.

   Reply
7. Tina says:

   Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 4:13 pm

   What specifics laws do you think our leaders should adopt?

   I’m not saying you should refrain from criticizing republicans. I am saying that to constantly criticize republicans as the creators of the mess is ridiculous. If not for many of the policies democrats proposed, all of the entitlement programs, forcing banks to make bad loans, creating/supporting public employee unions that demand ridiculous (greedy) compensation packages etc., there likely would not have been a financial melt down and we certainly wouldn’t be drowning in debt.

   The problem, however, is really with the people who have come to believe the big democrat lie, that big government is good.

   Mitt Romney proposes the following specifics on tax policy and spending policy!

   Personal tax proposals:

   Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates

   Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains

   Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains

   Eliminate the Death Tax

   Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

   Corp tax proposals:

   Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent

   Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit

   Switch to a territorial tax system

   Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

   On cutting Spending:

   Set Honest Goals: Cap Spending At 20 Percent Of GDP

   Any turnaround must begin with clear and realistic goals. Optimistic projections cannot wish a problem away, they can only make it worse. As president, Mitts goal will be to bring federal spending below 20 percent of GDP by the end of his first term:

   Reduced from 24.3 percent last year; in line with the historical trend between 18 and 20 percent

   Close to the tax revenue generated by the economy when healthy

   Requires spending cuts of approximately $500 billion per year in 2016 assuming robust economic recovery with 4% annual growth, and reversal of irresponsible Obama-era defense cuts

   Take Immediate Action: Return Non-Security Discretionary Spending To Below 2008 Levels

   Any turnaround must also stop the bleeding and reverse the most recent and dramatic damage:

   Send Congress a bill on Day One that cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board

   Pass the House Republican Budget proposal, rolling back President Obamas government expansion by capping non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels

   Follow A Clear Roadmap: Build A Simpler, Smaller, Smarter Government

   Most importantly, any turnaround must have a thoughtful, structured approach to achieving its goals. Mitt will attack the bloated budget from three angles:

   The Federal Government Should Stop Doing Things The American People Cant Afford, For Instance:

   Repeal Obamacare Savings: $95 Billion. President Obamas costly takeover of the health care system imposes an enormous and unaffordable obligation on the federal government while intervening in a matter that should be left to the states. Mitt will begin his efforts to repeal this legislation on Day One.

   Privatize Amtrak Savings: $1.6 Billion. Despite requirement that Amtrak operate on a for-profit basis, it continues to receive about $1.6 billion in taxpayer funds each year. Forty-one of Amtraks 44 routes lost money in 2008 with losses ranging from $5 to $462 per passenger.

   Reduce Subsidies For The National Endowments For The Arts And Humanities, The Corporation For Public Broadcasting, And The Legal Services Corporation Savings: $600 Million. NEA, NEH, and CPB provide grants to supplement other sources of funding. LSC funds services mostly duplicative of those already offered by states, localities, bar associations and private organizations.

   Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding Savings: $300 Million. Title X subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.

   Reduce Foreign Aid Savings: $100 Million. Stop borrowing money from countries that oppose Americas interests in order to give it back to them in the form of foreign aid.

   If pursued with focus and discipline, Mitts approach provides a roadmap to rescue the federal government from its present precipice. But that respite will be short-lived without a plan for the looming long-term threat posed by the unsustainable nature of existing entitlement obligations.

   Reply
8. Tina says:

   Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 4:45 pm

   Chris: “However, this effect was negligible compared to the effects of private firms who did not have to meet the same regulations as Freddie and Fannie.”

   Well they wouldn’t be similarly regulated since they do not provide the same service, now would they!

   Fannie and Freddie don’t originate loans. they buy and bundle loans originated by private banks and lenders. The private banks were forced by law to make bad loans through legislation passed by Carter and Clinton. The smarter than a box of rocks democrats thought this was perfectly okay, sound banking practice, BECAUSE they could bundle bad loans in with the good and SELL THEM to Fannie and Freddie on the secondary market. Get enough bad loans bundled and the pool is poisoned. Nobody is keeping track of the number of bad loans…nobody can!!! meanwhile Jamie Gorelick is saying go ahead make as many loans as you can…we want to buy them at Fannie (because could then award herself about $9 billion in bonus and salary compensation).

   http://www.ehow.com/info_8210545_fannie-maes-role-mortgages.html

   Established in 1938 as a federal agency, the Federal National Mortgage Association became a private shareholder company in 1968. While its overall objective is as a secondary market investor, fulfilling this objective became specific to Federal Housing Administration loans in September 2008 when the federal government once again took over ownership. Since this time, it functions exclusively to purchase, bundle and sell FHA loans as mortgage backed securities on the open market. This works to replenish Fannie Mae’s cash supply and ensure a continuing supply of funds available to FHA lenders.

   Reply
9. Chris says:

   Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 5:30 pm

   Tina: “Fannie and Freddie don’t originate loans. they buy and bundle loans originated by private banks and lenders.”

   And wouldn’t you say the banks that originated the loans bear a larger responsibility?

   “The private banks were forced by law to make bad loans through legislation passed by Carter and Clinton.”

   As I’ve already pointed out, this is not true, and it won’t become true no matter how many times you repeat it. Please read the articles I linked to, or do some research of your own, preferably outside the confines of conservative think tanks. As McClatchy reported, “Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.”

   http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#storylink=cpy

   Blaming Carter and the CRA, which has existed for thirty years, is too dumb to believe. It also ignores the fact that the housing crisis was global. Did American Democrats also cause the housing crisis in Spain, or any of the other countries it occurred in?

   Reply
10. Tina says:

    Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    Chris: “As I’ve already pointed out, this is not true, and it won’t become true no matter how many times you repeat it. Please read the articles I linked to, or do some research of your own, preferably outside the confines of conservative think tanks.”

    I suggest youn take your own advice. McClatchy is using a ploy, picking a year when few loans were made to “prove” its story.

    The material I found comes from many different sources, some conservative, some liberal. The first was writen in 2000, long before the meltdown. It was published in City Journal. Its long but filled with a lot of background information and it explains (form my perspective) why Bush kept encouraging Congress to do something about what he saw as a looming problem.

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

    This article is from 2011 and is a lot shorter so I will post an excerpt:

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.details&ArticleId=50346&returnTo=john-r-smith-1

    In 1991, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act required lenders to report rejection rates by race. Lenders were informed that their loans would be examined for evidence of bias. Violators would face fines — get this — as high as $500,000. The Democratic Congress in 1992 passed the Federal Housing Enterprise Act, providing HUD the hammer to carry out Congressional intent to meet the mortgage credit needs of all potential home buyers, including those with low and moderate incomes.

    The 1992 act was the fuse that lit the largest housing blow-up the U.S. has ever seen, because one provision required that mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie should accept down payments of 5 percent or less, ignore impaired credit if the blot was over one year old, and otherwise loosen (their) lending guidelines.

    The Federal Reserve had a hand in creating the problem: An influential 1992 report from the Boston Fed recommended: Policies regarding applicants with no credit history or problem credit history should not be seen as a negative factor. Food stamps and welfare checks were allowed to be counted as income on loan applications. Racial quotas and penalties were imposed on lenders with unfavorable CRA ratings. Banks that failed to make enough of these loans were often held hostage by activists when they sought some regulatory approval.

    Next, President Bill Clinton re-wrote the CRA Act in 1994, using his HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to put it on steroids, and juice it into overdrive. It required the banks to lend to people who were poor credit risks, in the name of housing rights. This precipitated a huge surge in mortgage lending to unqualified buyers because Fannie Mae was under unrelenting pressure from Clintons Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people. The CRA was a club used to force banks to subsidize poor communities with close to $1 trillion in high-risk loans

    If she didnt like the reports on who was getting loans and who wasnt, then Attorney General Janet Reno bullied the banks with quotas and faulty statistics to literally extort millions of dollars from banks by alleging racial discrimination if they didnt play along. This intimidated many banks to agree to pay cash settlements so they could avoid trials and negative publicity.
    It turned into a free-for-all of banks approving loans for people who clearly couldnt afford to repay them. By 1996, 42 percent of Fannie and Freddies mortgage financing went to borrowers with below-median income. This target increased in 2000 to 50 percent, and was 52 percent by 2005.
    This series of political events, this flood of risky loans that were distributed around the globe by Congressional creatures Fannie and Freddie, was the root cause that inflated the credit bubble to the bursting point and brought our financial system near the brink of destruction. (emphasis mine)

    The highlighted section above tells us why few loans were made in the years running up to the crash. Most of them were made before 2000 and were bundled and sold, re-bundled and resold, throughout the world. The entire secondary equity market was slowly poisoned.

    Americas responsibility in this worldwide debacle is probably what made Bush, as President of our country, go for the bailout.

    It is important for the American people to know about this because we should NEVER AGAIN allow ANY politician or group of politicians and private special interest groups to do this to us and to the world.

    Heres a 2008 article from the Spectator in the United Kingdom:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/2189196/clinton-democrats-are-to-blame-for-the-credit-crunch.thtml

    this hardly seems the most appropriate moment to mount a defence of capitalism in general, and American bankers in particular, against the threats posed by meddlesome politicians and excessive regulation. But, what the heck. Unless we take advantage of this hiatus between the crashing of financial institutions to take an honest look at the origins of our current predicament, then todays spin and myth-making will quickly harden into tomorrows firm conviction. Let us be clear: this crisis was not caused on Wall Street it was caused in the White House. The root problem was not financial it was political, and those truly responsible for this fiasco were not bankers, nor even Bush Republicans; they were Clinton Democrats.

    For generations, Americas bankers have been firmly refusing credit to those they judged unworthy of it. Yet the mountain of toxic subprime debt that has threatened to overwhelm the entire financial system, and the astonishing number of mortgage foreclosures across the United States, is proof that, at some point in the relatively recent past, bankers radically altered their behaviour and began to shower mortgages on borrowers who had no realistic prospect of keeping up their repayments.

    What could possibly have induced them to act so recklessly, and so out of character? The facile answer to that question is greed, the lure of a fast and easy buck. The correct answer is that banks were bullied, cajoled and coerced into lowering their lending standards by politicians in pursuit of an ideological agenda.

    Articles about lawsuits filed against banks:

    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-08-23/business/1994235130_1_chevy-chase-mortgage-offices-mortgage-loans

    August 23, 1994

    The U.S. Justice Department announced yesterday that Chevy Chase Federal Savings Bank and its mortgage subsidiary agreed to an $11 million settlement of the nation’s first discrimination suit brought against a lender for refusing to serve minority neighborhoods.
    Under the settlement, the privately owned Chevy Chase and its B. F. Saul Mortgage Co. subsidiary agreed to offer low-cost mortgages to residents of majority-black areas in the District of Columbia and Prince George’s County, expand its presence in those neighborhoods and try to hire more blacks for lending positions.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/30/us/regulators-join-banks-in-protesting-us-discrimination-suits.html

    Banks have been complaining for months about the Justice Department’s zeal in trying to stamp out racial discrimination in lending. Now bank regulators are making some of the same complaints, creating a rift in the Clinton Administration.

    Some bank officials say the Administration’s aggressive enforcement approach is an effort to pursue social goals at the banks’ expense, at a time the Government is strapped for money for Federal programs.

    Justice officials contend that some banks and savings institutions continue to discriminate against blacks and members of other minority groups, either by denying them loans or by failing to encourage them to apply. They point to Government data released this week showing that blacks who apply for mortgages are turned down twice as often as whites. And they have begun filing lawsuits against financial institutions without waiting for bank regulators to ask them to do so.

    Bank regulators say they are no less committed to fighting discrimination and have stepped up their efforts in the last two years. But after years of handling the issue with quiet nudges to offending banks, or by occasionally blocking an acquisition by a bank with a poor record of serving minorities, regulators have responded with alarm to the Justice Department’s moves to file lawsuits.

    The table is set:

    http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/federal-home-loan-mortgage-corp/featured/5

    Race Discrimination in Home Loans Persists : Banking: Clinton Administration launches campaign to pump $34 billion worth of mortgages into the inner cities.

    October 13, 1993 | From Reuters

    Racial disparity in home mortgage lending has scarcely changed since 1990, despite a two-year campaign by bankers and the government to wipe out loan discrimination, a study released Tuesday shows. The Clinton Administration, meanwhile, announced a program designed to pump more than $34 billion worth of mortgages into inner cities and to low-income people through 1994.

    All across the country from DC to LA:

    June 21, 1994

    As many as 700 families will qualify for loans to purchase and renovate homes in low-and middle-income neighborhoods in Los Angeles under a program announced Monday by city and federal officials. The $100-million Home Works! mortgage program by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., or Freddie Mac, is designed to help first-time home buyers obtain and improve homes in depressed neighborhoods.

    Clinton is out Bush is in, time to alter the media message:

    August 11, 2000 | INDRANEEL SUR, TIMES STAFF WRITER

    Public service campaigns warning potential home buyers and other consumers about predatory lending traps will get underway in Los Angeles and 11 other cities over the next year with funding from Freddie Mac, the mortgage giant said Thursday. Freddie Mac, or Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., is chartered by the federal government but owned by shareholders. It has drawn fire from consumer advocates in recent months for its own investments in the lucrative sub-prime market.

    Chris these articles aren’t just from conservative blogs or think tanks.

    I have not said Carter caused the problem. I have said Carters well-meaning legislation opened the door and was expanded and used under the Clinton administration.

    Reply
11. Chris says:

    Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 9:06 am

    Tina: “I suggest youn take your own advice. McClatchy is using a ploy, picking a year when few loans were made to “prove” its story.”

    Do you have evidence for this claim? I didn’t see any referenced in the links you provided. Is there a different year we should be looking at in order to compare CRA banks with non-CRA banks? Which one?

    Your links do show that a broad application of the Community Reinvestment Act caused a lot of problems and allowed Fannie and Freddie to behave unethically. Many banks were pressured by these laws. This contributed to the crisis. I have never denied this.

    However, what all of those articles miss is the COMPARISON between banks which were subject to this and other laws, and banks which were not. In fact, none of the articles you cite seem to even acknowledge the existence of the non-CRA banks. They don’t take those into account in their analyses at all, even though those banks made more subprime loans than the banks which were subject to those regulations. Such a huge omission makes these analyses extremely flawed.

    According to McClatchy:

    –More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

    –Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

    –Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law [CRA] that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#storylink=cpy

    It has also been pointed out by McClatchy and others that CRA loans were much less likely to default than non-CRA loans.

    If these facts are true, don’t you think they are relevant in determining the key cause of the financial crisis? Why do analyses which attempt to blame the CRA, Fannie and Freddie, and Democrat-passed regulations gloss right over these facts?

    Reply
12. FIREDBYBAIN says:

    Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    We the victims of BAIN Capital can never agree it will backfire to tell our story and warn Americans of what they will get under a President Romney!

    We are just getting started and coming to a rally near you!

    http://WWW.FIREDBYBAIN.ORG

    Reply
13. Tina says:

    Thursday, June 14, 2012 at 10:58 am

    Chris: “I didn’t see any referenced in the links you provided. Is there a different year we should be looking at in order to compare CRA banks with non-CRA banks? Which one?”

    Think of a balloon slowly filling, Chris, over a period of years until it was filled beyond its fill capacity…BOOM…the balloon burst. This is how the housing “bubble” came about. To pick a single year in which fewer loans were made and claim that as proof that the CRA wasn’t the underpinning regulation that caused the problem is to cherry pick the evidence. The bad loans were bundled and sold and bundled and sold all over the world. Money could be made every time they were sold. That was the LEGAL (but stupid) incentive that spurred enthusiasm in the housing and securities markets. A similar situation is developing now in the student loan market:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/06/04/student-loan-bubble-sets-up-to-be-subprime-disaster-part-deux/

    Whats the next industry to bubble up, pop and collapse?

    Student loans, said our new friend, Barry Dyke. He has been following the money and he sees a lot of it going to education. Why?

    It worked just like subprime, he explained. The feds bankrolled it. Guaranteed it. Regulated it. And conveniently didnt notice as it got to monstrous proportions. Then, when it blows up, theyll be there again, pointing fingers and promising to regulate more heavily.

    When you pay for something, you get more of it, says presidential candidate Ron Paul.

    “They don’t take those into account in their analyses at all, even though those banks made more subprime loans than the banks which were subject to those regulations. Such a huge omission makes these analyses extremely flawed.”

    I haven’t found an article or opinion that addresses this in particular. I can surmise that the housing market, and the ability to bundle bad loans in the securities market, spurred these lenders to jump on the band wagon. There is no doubt that lowered lending standards permeated the lending market. The ease with which loans could be gotten made demand for housing to take off…a false demand since many of the loans would prove to be ill-advised down the road. People become euphoric when there is money to be made. In the high inflation seventies people were buying gold and making things out of gold to sell to beat the band because gold kept going up…because there was money in it. Other than this coming together of bad policy and enthusiasm I don’t have an answer to your question.

    I’d like to know how a regulation that covers lending practices doesn’t apply to any entity making loans. The words “private lenders not subject to CRA” seems suspect to me. Banks are privately held and are subject to CRA regulation.

    Reply
14. Tina says:

    Thursday, June 14, 2012 at 11:08 am

    FIREDBYBAIN you must be one of those people who expect that life should always come up roses. You think that companies exist just to guarantee you a job. You are one of the greedy (union?) types that thinks money grows on trees. Or part of a union that demands unsustainable compensation packages through intimidation and threats and drain capital out of a business until it can no longer survive. I have a feeling that YOU are part of the reason your company failed because of your own self-serving and selfish greed. Some companies cannot be saved because the people who work there, including management will not learn or don’t have a product worth what ti costs to produce it.

    The real world…a place where we tell the truth about what is possible.

    Why don’t you get your own butt out there, take a risk with your own money, create a business, hire people and be responsible for making payroll and see how fast your perspective about what is needed to hire and employ people and to continue to thrive so those jobs are sustained.

    Go for it with your Romney bashing BS…I will meet you head on with the truth I have gained from having taken that risk personally.

    Reply
15. Peggy says:

    Thursday, June 14, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    Tina: “Whats the next industry to bubble up, pop and collapse?
    Student loans, said our new friend, Barry Dyke. He has been following the money and he sees a lot of it going to education. Why?”

    The student loan bust was 100% guaranteed to happen when ObamaCare added the forgiveness clause and our idiot elected officials passed it.

    Who did they think was going to pick up the tab for the unpaid balance?!! The banks? The shareholders? The taxpayers? I know, they thought the fictitious money cloud was going to rain enough money drops to pay back everyone left holding a signed contract?

    I dont have a bachelor degree, but I had enough common sense to run a very successful small business for years and could see this train wreck coming when I first heard about it.

    Student forgiveness clause in ObamaCare:
    The bill provides that if a student loan borrower makes payments equal to 10% of their discretionary income for a period of 10 yrs, the balance of their federal student loan debt will be forgiven.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn0cPbDAF1w

    http://www.nationofchange.org/student-loan-forgiveness-act-introduced-congress-1331318490

    Reply
16. Tina says:

    Thursday, June 14, 2012 at 8:42 pm

    The challenge to put this country right is HUGE. We can’t get started unless we have someone at the helm with the experience, knowledge, and maturity to solve problems and make decisions. Romney is the man for this time…warts and all, as they say, cause there are no perfect candidates.

    Reply