Conservatives Push Absurd Lie that Wall Street Hustlers Were Innocent Victims ... of Poor People

[unhappycamper]

A street sign marks Wall Street, New York's financial hub. US President Barack Obama on Saturday urged senators to pass a comprehensive overhaul of the US financial system that would include a new agency to protect consumers from Wall Street's excesses.

AlterNet is proud to present this excerpt from senior writer Joshua Holland's new book, The Fifteen Biggest Lies about the Economy (And Everything Else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know about Taxes, Jobs, and Corporate America).


Conservatives Push Absurd Lie that Wall Street Hustlers Were Innocent Victims ... of Poor People
AlterNet / By Joshua Holland

October 10, 2010 | Perhaps the most pernicious right-wing lie of late is that the Wall Street hustlers who came close to bringing the global economy to its knees in 2008 were just innocent victims of government-sponsored programs that forced them to lower lending standards in a misguided effort to increase home ownership among the poor (read: dark-skinned).

It’s an alluring story line for those who are ideologically predisposed to blame “inner city” people instead of MBAs in suits roaming the executive suite. It’s also patent nonsense—a Big Lie that has nonetheless become an object of almost religious belief for some on the Right.

~snip~

This tale has everything a conservative could want—Big Government overreach, well-intentioned but out-of-touch liberals causing devastating unanticipated consequences with their social tinkering, and even their favorite bogeyman, ACORN, and other low-income housing advocates that have pushed for increased home-ownership among the poor.

~snip~

The obvious sin of this claim is that it shifts responsibility for the mess away from those who created it, but what makes it even more disgraceful is that conservatives have long argued that efforts to increase home ownership among low-income families and communities of color was the “free market” thing to do (and have, to some degree, negated the need for a decent social safety net). It was George W. Bush, not Vladimir Lenin, who said in a 2002 speech, “We have a problem here in America . . . a homeownership gap,” and said, “we’ve got to work together to close (the gap) for the good of our country.” This was standard American Enterprise Institute–quality conservative fare.

Blaming individuals is easy—it’s not hard to understand how people could borrow a bunch of cash they were later unable to pay back. The real cause of the housing crash is, of course, a far more complicated tale. And it’s a story that ultimately represents the abject failure of conservative economic mythology.

[DailyGrind51]

1. Yet, they still felt like they deserved $$million in bonuses?

[closeupready]

17. Actually, they demanded bonuses out of concern for others, as well.

It was the principle of the sanctity of the contract. So by demanding their bonuses, they actually strengthened contract law. And by spending on BMW's and Louis Vitton luggage, hungry people ate one more meal. So we really should be worshiping the ground they walk on. :sarcasm:

[Crystal Clarity]

2. "The real cause of the housing crash is a far more complicated tale"

Which is how they are able to 'sell' only one version of how it came about to their base. These people crave simple black and white explanations. They're too intellectually lazy to embrace the nuances of reality and when angered look for a scapegoat that fits into their one-sided approach to complex issues.

How convenient to use poor people (aka people of color) as their target of blame. :sarcasm:

[dkf]

3. In fairness, a person has to find a house they like and request a mortgage before the process can

Begin. It can't possibly start with a wall street type forcing someone to want a house.

[w4rma]

4. Fairness to whom? (nt)

[Ikonoklast]

6. Bullshit. In Cleveland, predatory lenders canvassed neighborhoods and renters

looking for people to sucker.

They are being criminally and civilly prosecuted for what they did to those people now.


You are so transparent. Enjoy that flying under the radar thing.

[dkf]

7. Oh so they bought houses unseen?

Just signed their name and never even wanted it right? I'm sure they never moved in either because they didn't even realize they had made a huge obligation for 30 years and bought a place.

[Ikonoklast]

11. Yes, in some instances, they certainly did.

Sight unseen, and never intended to move into rental units they were sold at three times market value by lenders only interested in mmassive commisions.

Theses were unsophisticated buyers that never owned real estate before in their lives.

And some people's signatures were forged...they ended up owning property they had no clue they owned...until they got foreclosure notices.

Criminal fraud.

Try harder.

[Joe Bacon]

8. Wells Fargo stole my Dad's house.

Wells kept letting him apply for mortgages that gave him more cash. He was soon sinking in debt, but Wells kept giving him more cash. When he died, Wells had 3 mortgages on the house for over a quarter million dollars. The house value was less than $50,000.

The only pleasure I got from that was seeing the house go to a sheriff's sale for $60,000. Wells lost $190,000 on the deal. Good for them. As far as I'm concerned Wells Fargo should go to hell and those racketeers should wind up broke as that bank from hell collapses.

[dkf]

10. If your dad got $250,000 for a $50,000 house was it really stolen from him?

And what in the world did he do with $250,000?

[Joe Bacon]

18. they kept lending him money

He wound up with 3 mortgages from Wells. I didn't know about any of these mortgages until after he died and he never said anything about them!

[Joe Bacon]

9. Wrong!

See my comments above on how Wells Fargo stole my Dad's home.

[Starry Messenger]

5. The rich are so oppressed.

:cry:

gmafb

[maryf]

12. Stop!!! you're destroying my day!

those poor, poor rich people!

[Starry Messenger]

14. They might have to switch to a lower grade of caviar.

People say you can't really taste the difference, but what do *they* know. Oh the humanity!

[maryf]

16. No sensitivity

to the needs of those who truly appreciate the best life has to offer...and are so deserved of that best...born to it! So few understand...

[Brewman_Jax]

13. Those damned lucky duckies!

The RW has never been much for "being responsible". Responsibility was always someone else's problem.

[maryf]

15. +1