DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! Jack and Jill Politics is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

Jack and Jill Politics

A black bourgeois perspective on U.S. politics
Jump to original thread »
Author

Obama’s Black..erego, he’s got bad credit.

Started by baratunde aka jack turner · 1 year ago

And therefore couldn’t possibly have gotten the discount on his mortgage on his own merit, is the subtext of this article in the Washington Post.

To wit, Poblano from FiveThirtyEight.com takes them to task:

Irresponsible Journalism Alert

It took more than four months, but something finally beat out the Vicki Iseman story ... Continue reading »

52 comments

  • P-niiice

    1 year ago

    I wish my wife could stretch like that article.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    1 year ago

    Rikyrah! GREAT RETORT! How the MSM has time to go so far out into the stratosphere [and so off-subject, saaay the election issues] to create what they consider to be news is amazing! And their information was published between important polling statistics that favored Mr. Obama. Well, I guess that's the definition of DIVERSION!
    reply
  • D.

    1 year ago

    I took that article as raising the question of whether Obama got cut a deal on a mortgage similar to the ones that Countrywide was handing out (not to mention the Rezko angle).

    It's too much math for me....but I don't see how you jump to the "bad credit" assumption.
    reply
  • heartsandflowers

    1 year ago

    They're trying to imply - sorry - they ARE implying that they - because last time I checked it is Barack and Michelle who own their home got some type of affirmative action special treatment. They are discounting the fact that they probably have a near-perfect credit score. And Black people are supposed to be shiftless, lazy and have bad credit.
    reply
  • Continuum

    1 year ago

    The standards WaPo standards for "journalism" have sunk to verifiable lows. Although their headline says he got a discount, no where in the story is this shown. Instead, the body illustrates that he got a lower than average rate. Most financially prudent people strive to obtain lower than average rates. That's way the rates are called averages. That WaPo tried to imply something else represents yellow journalism.
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    1 year ago

    I got a lower than average rate on my loan back in 2002 and I had to cuss and holler to get it, but I got it. The bank even said that I probably couldn't re-finance because there's no way they would be able to craft anything like it in the future. Didn't matter. The rate was so good, I wouldn't ever want or need to re-finance.

    This really is a non-story and WaPo ought to be ashamed but it has no shame, so whatever.
    reply
  • grammar mama

    1 year ago

    t's ergo, not erego
    reply
  • Karmi

    1 year ago

    Net-Nanny!! ;-)
    reply
  • D.

    1 year ago

    Considering what's going on with Rikyrah, spelling errors are forgiven.
    reply
  • kenyaw

    1 year ago

    where do you see "erego"????
    reply
  • Karmi

    1 year ago

    With Hillary out of the way, Obama can now be properly vetted. I don’t know why the Dems didn’t vet him before their primaries, because it was clear that his friends, associates, and advisors are SERIOUS ‘Baggage’ for a potential President to have. “Obama has spent plenty of time castigating credit lenders in this campaign for their capricious practices and bad management.”
    reply
  • Scientific

    1 year ago

    "With Hillary out of the way, Obama can now be properly vetted."

    Have you been paying attention for the past six months?

    “Obama has spent plenty of time castigating credit lenders in this campaign for their capricious practices and bad management.”

    As well he should. Your point? (Oh, I know what it is - I'd just love to see you muster up that good ol' Komputer Kourage and tell us what you're really thinking...)
    reply
  • Karmi

    1 year ago

    Reference the "six months"...it was the Dem primaries, so only the 'Tip-of-Iceberg' was addressed.

    If you know my "point" - please say what it is, since you must be a 'Mind-Reader'.
    reply
  • Scientific

    1 year ago

    You think a SIX-MONTH primary's the "tip of the iceberg"?

    (And don't take things so seriously - I obviously can't read your mind, but I have a pretty good feeling of where your were going, guy. Why not just come out and say it, and leave the innuendo to gossip columnists?)
    reply
  • Karmi

    1 year ago

    Yes, only the 'Tip'. Obama was given a pass on the likes of Rezko, Wright, Dorn, Ayers, etc. Heading in to the General, that pass is now being revoked.

    You keep suggesting that my rather clear and simple words have a 'hidden' meaning behind them. Are you afraid to say what you mean? Why? Be brave, and tell me what it is.
    reply
  • Scientific

    1 year ago

    A pass? You have been hibernating since January. His connections with each of those individuals has been examined by the GOP, Dems and MSM alike ad nauseum.

    Besides, you're assuming two things: that McCain is some kind of saint, and that these people have anything at all to do with the topic at hand - the WaPo article. Lastly, I'm not interested in games. It's your point, guy, and you've already said I'm not a mind-reader. You must think it's somehow "brave" to defer the explanation of your vitriolic vagaries to others who challenge you to explain them. It's not.
    reply
  • Karmi

    1 year ago

    The GOP was waiting for the Dem's to decide on their candidate, so they could focus on just one candidate. Take the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers for one example. The GOP can now bring out more facts...like the new ad - "Dig It!"

    BTW, facts are not "vitriolic vagaries"...
    reply
  • slag

    1 year ago

    Some of us care more about the economy, the war, and our educational system than we do about Republicans' half-baked "symbolic issues". Get over yourself and read a book for a change.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    1 year ago

    Let it go. Like I said before, someone should rummage through your trash, find out what you did in the past and judge all your future endeavours through that lens.

    The GOP have no "facts". They have come undone!
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    1 year ago

    Republicans have been reduced to acting like catty schoolgirls. They have NOTHING! On panels all they do is talk about how Obama
    seems...Are these the fearsome Republicans of legend??!! Are these the mighty warriors of elections past? They're a bunch of whiney girly-men.
    reply
  • kenyaw

    1 year ago

    Who is unrepentant, Mrs or Mr. Sean Hannity Jr.?
    Why would we need to know more about a former anti-Vietnam war protestor who is a respected member of the Chicago community and from a rich well-known American family? That is just dumb! If you know this country's RECENT history, then you are only pretending that Ayers is even worth talking about.
    reply
  • Karmi

    1 year ago

    Dorn and Ayers are OK with you?!? Look at this - "Dig It"

    Look for the recent info on Ayers, in the above video...
    reply
  • D.

    1 year ago

    If McCain had ties to a white supremacist who had gone on to become a well respected mayor, I guarantee you that liberals would be making the same statements that the right wing is making about Obama's connections.
    reply
  • heartsandflowers

    1 year ago

    And a protected white man at that. He like Patty Hearst had the connections to allow his actions to be dismissed as 'youthful' indiscretions. If it had a person of color there'd be no linking him to Obama at all because he would have still been in prison...or dead.
    reply
  • msmartin

    1 year ago

    I don't know which primaries you were watching. Camp Hillary and MSM vetted the hell out of Obama so McCain wouldn't have to. They vetted, slimed and spread doubt and vicious rumors and threw in a vat of racism for flavor.

    GTFOH!!!
    reply
  • Karmi

    1 year ago

    “Camp Hillary” and MSM barely even touched on the problems that Obama faces from now on. It may have seemed like a lot to his supporters, but there is much more, i.e. there is a whole ‘MOUNTAIN’ of facts left. Obama has failed to answer many questions, so citizens are forced to dig for the answers. Sorry, but spending 20-years as a member of a bigoted church, and maintaining a close 20-year friendship with the racist Rev. Wright begs the question – “Why?” Walking away from the church and Wright now, does not answer the question. Merely saying that Wright or the church have suddenly and ‘Mysteriously’ changed does not answer the question either. Similar questions about Rezko, many of Obama’s close advisors, Dorn and Ayers, etc. still go unanswered.
    reply
  • slag

    1 year ago

    Here are more pertinent questions: Why can't you just admit that you're speaking about something you don't understand? Why do you care so much about people's personal lives and ignore the reality staring you in the face every day? Why can't you put yourself into someone else's shoes for a change and admit that you don't have a clue about the complexities of their relationships? Why are you such a moron? (or moran, if you prefer the proper spelling)
    reply
  • heartsandflowers

    1 year ago

    Again, these are your opinions, not facts. If you have a problem with Obama don't vote for him plain and simple. Rev. Wright is a respected minister and war veteran. You just need to hold on reasons to not support his candidacy. Your issues may be a mountain in your head....but they amount to a hill of beans in the real world.
    reply
  • Taye Foster Bradshaw

    1 year ago

    Karmi
    I've read several of your comments and none of them pertain to the discussion of the WaPo article. Why are you on this site?
    Taye Foster Bradshaw
    reply
  • P-niiice

    1 year ago

    You have nothing. The people who are going to vote against Obama because of Wright have alrady heard about it and they aren't enough. You all need to find another stereotype to go with.
    reply
  • heartsandflowers

    1 year ago

    Vetting is one thing. Outright lying and smearing a person is something entirely different. What do you have to say about the McCains having AMEX accounts where the company doesn't charge them interest. That doesn't sound like any credit card I'm aware of. Then there's the non-payment of taxes. And the 8 houses they own through Cindy's money. And John paying less in alimony to his first wife than what he should. You got tit you will be shown tat!!
    reply
  • D.

    1 year ago

    You got tit you will be shown tat!!

    And how does playing "tit for tat" lower the price of gas?
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    1 year ago

    I'm waiting for this vetting of Obama....and it's just not coming! You just can't accept that Obama will be President can you? Kinda pathetic..
    reply
  • Karmi

    1 year ago

    Angry bunch of Obama's supporter. Why?
    reply
  • kenyaw

    1 year ago

    Umm. Please don't call us angry. Thank you.
    reply
  • Karmi

    1 year ago

    OK…not angry, so what do you call it? Worried about the facts? Judging by the activity in this thread, something is troubling more than a few here.
    reply
  • P-niiice

    1 year ago

    It's not the facts (he's got a financial footing and sound management skills) that worry me. It's the incredible lengths these people are going through to cook up something, ANYTHING on him...and they can't. nothing sticks, and the attempts are getting more and more ridiculous.

    Stereotypes and lies. The only ammo these people can conceive of using, and it's not working.

    It's more amusing and sad than anything. It's going to boil down to simple lies just like what we see from the crazier Clinton supporters and what we'll see from Republicans.
    reply
  • Karmi

    1 year ago

    P-niiice wrote: "nothing sticks."

    I like that! Reminds me of John Gotti being called the "Teflon Don". I'll see if i can come up with a similar nickname for Obama, and do a post at my new blog on it - something about Obama and "Teflon".

    (BTW, I moved and updated my blog. Should show up here, since doing an update on my Disqus profile.)
    reply
  • Karmi

    1 year ago

    Barack “Teflon Con” Obama. Thanks for the 'Tip', P-niiice!
    reply
  • Jonzee

    1 year ago

    I am all for proper vetting. But what I am not for is superscilious conjecture attempting to pass itself off as well researched journalism.

    *taking off my Obamaholic hat and putting on my housing finance expert hat*

    The WaPo articles author's analysis was pedestrian and shows a complete lack of understanding of what goes on in obtaining a mortgage.

    Your FICO score, payment history, debt to income ratio, earnings and assets, and the worthiness of the property in question largely determine your rate. It is not uncommon for a mortgage broker to offer lower than average rates in order to get the deal.

    Senator Obama, as it is widely reported, has significantly low debt (and did back then), had recently made a sale on a condo, and had serious earning potential. The spread on a mortgage is always negotiable, and the commission for the broker was more than enough reason to offer a lower rate.

    Plus, the key is the word "average" generally means middle...so unless we are going to investigate all borrowers who recieved that rate at that point in time, compare FICO scores, credit histories, income and earnings, and comparables in terms of property, the writer's conclusions mean diddly.

    *taking the housing finance pro hat off*
    reply
  • Scientific

    1 year ago

    The 'bad credit" assumption is anything but - it's a stereotype. Frankly, considering the dearth of coverage about McCain's tax issues, it's a fair point to question why all of a sudden, we're hearing about a mortgage that the WaPo didn't even seem to consider Barack Obama obtaining simply because he's credit-worthy. The very fact that they were in such a rush to even imply impropriety certainly made me wonder whether they assumed he wasn't credit-worthy when I read the piece this morning.
    reply
  • CPL

    1 year ago

    Even I think going after Obama's credit record is beyond the pale, considering that half of the CBC members who slung him under the bus, are on record with bouncing checks, bad credit and the whole nine yards.

    Black = bad credit; but the McCains can skip out on paying property taxes for decades until a journalist outed them. GTHOH.
    reply
  • Honey01

    1 year ago

    Yeah, saw the story linked this morning on the Chicago Tribune's website along with probably two other negative stories regarding Obama. Coverage of McCain nowhere to be found unless it is a rebuke of some sort. Oh and of course, The Trib makes sure they keep a Rezko story on the same page any Obama articles appear. They think they are nickle slick.
    Why is the Rezko's divorce a front page story?

    Honey01

    Update:
    Suprise, suprise. Coverage of McCain.
    McCain's nasty temper:
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns...
    reply
  • afroacademic

    1 year ago

    When I read this I honestly thought about giving up on the Washington Post. What is this? How can they even suggest that obama got a sweet-heart deal when the facts are so clear. From every measure but their credit score the obama's seem to have excellent financial savy and probably had excellent credit. What bank would try and out bid another with a lower than average rate? Please, this article is innuendo based on nothing close to reality.

    As a son of an accountant I would never take an average rate (I've spent too much time crafting great credit) and it seems like the Obama's did the same. End of story. Now WaPo go find a real story.
    reply
  • icebergslim

    1 year ago

    I love nate's site, he is pretty spot on.

    Get your real guns ready. RNC putting out 4 ads in battleground states, this weekend. (OH, PA, WI, MI)

    Can we get a plate of patriotism, anyone?

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/RNC...
    reply
  • icebergslim

    1 year ago

    Also, want some talking points on the GOP?

    Here.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    1 year ago

    What concerns me most is our cruelty to each other.
    reply
  • dcfan

    1 year ago

    Mortgage terms are on of the areas of financial disclosure that has holes you could drive a truck through. It's impossible to say from the WaPo article whether he got a sweet deal or not - but given that the Obamas were putting 20% down, had easy-to -document income (W2s and contracted book deals) that were high in relation to the property value and apparently don't have CC debt, being 30 basis points below the average rate isn't shocking on the face of it. The only way to know if this was a sweet heart deal would be for someone to subpoena the lenders records and compare the Obamas' loan terms to other, similar applicants.

    It's interesting to note that on a loan of this size, 30 basis points difference has a present value of over $40k. With more and more America's having mortgage difficulties, I suspect that politicians are going to continue to get scrutiny in this area.
    reply
  • icebergslim

    1 year ago

    Mandela OFF the terrorist list!!! Hurray, now back to those mortgages....

    http://culturekitchen.com/liza/blog/bush_doesnt...
    reply
  • Nquest

    1 year ago

    Karmi, the comedian, at it again. It was really funny how Karmi started on his Rev. Wright and James Cone are "racists" bit and then, when asked to do more than spout nonsense from non-sources and really explain what made Rev. Wright/Cone racist....

    Well, Karmi was the butt of his own joke.
    reply
  • Brown Man

    1 year ago

    I'm a loan officer. Unless you have the HUD-1 from the closing and the mortgage note, there is no way to know whether there are discount points involved (high income clients don't care about points - they need every deduction they can get) or any kind of prepayment penalty associated with early payoff of the balance. The real deal, though, for a financial services firm is money under management. If they thought he had some extra cheese he needed to park somewhere, they would give away the mortgage to get the cash in-house.

    All that being said, Obama got the same treatment any other celebrity did. In exchange for being able to link his name with their products, a company like this will often provide the celeb with a better than market deal. The O-Man is my horse in this race, win lose or draw, but he's got to do a better job of scrutinizing these kinds of transactions before signing the paperwork and think about how they will play in the press.

    A quarter point higher rate wouldn't have killed him. Worrying about $300/mo when your P & I alone (no taxes or insurance) is $7485 is bullshit - at roughly $8800/mo WITH taxes and insurance (estimated - $12,000 taxes - $4000 insurance) the effective savings is 3% over a rate at market.

    For high income earners, the interest deduction is a beautiful thing - but our "get the best deal at all costs" mentality sometimes backfires on us.

    At least he didn't go off the deep end like my girl Hillary did back in the 90's. That was when I was a stockbroker. That futures trading bonanza, where she raked in a hundred thousand dollar profit off of a THOUSAND DOLLAR investment that she watched part-time was the biggest crock of shit. The whole Street laid down for them on that one, partly because they don't want you to know about block trades, where we take down a block of stock or option contracts at varying prices and then divvy them up to our clients any way we saw fit.

    "The rich are not like you and I" is one of the truest statements ever written

    Giving the profitable trades to the guy you wanted to juice, or the guy you needed to stop crying about his loses - that was everyday business.



    It doesn't mean he
    reply
  • kenyaw

    1 year ago

    to brown man,
    What? (scratching my head) - lol
    reply
Please login to comment.
Returning? Login