Rich Walking Away From Mortgages; Right-Wingers React With Disbelief
A post from John Cole at Balloon Juice: I can’t wait to hear how Republicans try to pin this shit on black people and Fannie Mae and Barney Frank. I’m sure there’s a Reason magazine post blaming this on Pelosi or Carter or Kennedy somewhere. Also, Robert Byrd was in the KKK! That's a reference to this New York Times story: ...Whether it is their residence, a second home or a house bought as an investment, the rich have stopped paying the mortgage at a rate that greatly exceeds the rest of the population. More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars are seriously delinquent, according to data compiled for The New York Times by the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic.... The CoreLogic data suggest that the rich do not seem to have concerns about the civic good uppermost in their mind, especially when it comes to investment and second homes. Nor do they appear to be particularly worried about being sued by their lender or frozen out of future loans by Fannie Mae, possible consequences of default.... But is there even any need for Reason or some other rightist/libertarian media organ to try to explain this away? Maybe not, because a trip to the usual message boards suggests that rank-and-file 'wingers have already considered and rejected this article, and are offering their own rebuttals. That's not to say that they're offering coherent rebuttals -- mostly the comments are just word salad cut-and-pasted from the talking points their media favorites have drummed into their heads for years. But that's why the right succeeds more often than the left in American politics: righties are always absolutely certain that they're right, because their talking points tell them so, even if those talking points become totally incoherent. And I'm not exaggerating when I said "word salad" and "totally incoherent." Here's a sample of reactions to the story at Free Republic. Feel free to try to construct a coherent argument out of them. Probably 'Rat donors. *** (((snore))) The last time I checked, all those foreclosures were due to middle to low income homeowners. Just another "Evil rich people" article. **** It’s misguided to stereotype a particular group -- whether "rich" or "poor." A lot of people did really dumb things in the years and decades leading up to the financial crisis, and practically every American benefited in some manner from the credit orgy, whether directly or indirectly. **** The origin of this crisis started when the government forced banks to rewrite standard mortgage credit practices. People who weren't credit worthy were put into homes they couldn't afford. It all went down hill from there.... **** Bwhahaha.... Perhaps if they didn’t live beyond there means they wouldn't "barely be getting by". Great testament to personal responsibility **** UH...ever heard of the "Millionaire next door"...you know...the one who does NOT live in a million dollar home? Drives a used car? Lives modestly? I'll bet that a lot of those in million dollar homes that are foreclosed on....were NOT really "rich." They just leveraged themselves to look like they were. **** ... not too many people have been hired by the poor, after all. **** Please explain to me what you consider to be "Rich?" **** Since there are more rich Democrats than there are rich Republicans, this could be true. However, it is in the NY Times, so it's probably a fictional piece written by a soon to be unemployed socialist. **** sadly there are idiots that will allow the nyt to lead them to a preditermined conclusion. The New York Times ceased to be a credible source for factual information starting in 1896 when Adolph Ochs bought it from Henry Raymond. The Ochs family and in-laws (Orvil [sic] Dryfoos and the Sulzberger) have controlled it ever since. A case can be made that Timesman Herbert Matthews was instrumental in the rise of Castro. Later Times reporters, such as David Halberstam and Harrison Salisbury, were part of the disinformation campaign that turned America against our troops in Vietnam. The New York Times is a leftist organ and virtually anything appearing within its pages should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism, IMHO. **** ... even IF this lousey report is even remotely true, it states that ONLY ONE IN TWELEVE are deliberately defaulting!!!! ... **** Well, isn’t socialism about equally spreading the misery? Sounds like Obummer is succeeding at something. If you can take all that and make sense out of it, you're a better man than I am. But the point is, Democrats, liberals, and the media are evil a thousand different ways, so this must be their fault somehow. More from Lucianne.com: What were those greedy capitalists thinking? Guess we need to start listening to the Marxists at the NY Times, in the Govt. or eslewhere who insist on redistributing all that nasty wealth out there! (s) **** This is what happens when you try to be all things to all people. The rich invested their money that supplied jobs for the tax payers. No more stupid rich people mean no more stupid jobs for the taxpayers. The welfare folks better not laugh, their checks are going to stop too after the wealth is gone......So much for this nice Hope and change! **** Maybe the rich got a heads up that zippy is going to take their property away and give it to someone who has never owned a house. You know, like Castro did in Cuba. Why pay for a dead horse. **** Must have missed it. When did the suburban middle class become "the rich"? **** Stoking Class Warfare is all that this is about.... No mention of Bill Ayers, or the fact that Michael Moore is fat, but it's early yet.