What is The Community Reinvestment Act?
So… I’m gonna get political here. Sorry. This video got my attention in a big way today, and I think it’s worth talking about. I’d really like to hear from both conservatives and liberals on this, because I’m trying to sort it out.
I am an undecided voter. Honest. I like Barack Obama. I like how he speaks. I like that he acts presidential. I feel that one of the most important things right now is that the country needs a psychological lift. I was an early Bush apologist, but I have a hard time with him now. I think leadership needs to be able to explain itself eloquently. I get really testy when people attempt to dismiss the important of the perception of the masses, dismissing the masses as unwashed and uneducated. The masses may indeed be unwashed and uneducated, but they’re our masses nonetheless, and if you don’t want to lead them effectively, go get a real job. (This from the musician… yikes.)
In the past, I have liked John McCain. I’m struggling with him right now. It seems like he’s running a three ring circus. Lions, Tigers, Bears, Oh My! While Sarah Palin is certainly entertaining, I am really looking for people with conservative values that can raise the level of discourse in explaining and articulating the benefits of conservatism, because, frankly, conservatives pretty much suck at it, and then get all pissy when one points that out. With all due respect to the governor, she has (in my opinion) failed to do so, and she’s the big rock star right now.
So… here I am feeling like the conservatives have made a pretty huge mess of things in the past 8 years, and I’m getting ready to cast my first Democratic vote, ever, and then I run across this little video. Now, it becomes a McCain propaganda piece towards the end, but the first 6 minutes or so raised my eyebrows.
Discuss.
michael lee 2:55 pm on 26 September 2008 Permalink
Check the link I posted in the asides earlier today. G and I were just talking about this last night, so I went poking through the news archives to get some perspective.
It’s a tricky thing, to run social engineering experiments on the free market. Market principles are strong things, like physical laws. You can alter them, for a little while, with an expense of great energy, but there is always a backlash when markets correct for the social experiments.
Chad 3:10 pm on 26 September 2008 Permalink
I saw that link… perhaps the universe is speaking to us both!
Pain 3:40 pm on 26 September 2008 Permalink
Are not you the least bit concerned that the film moved so fast and had such distracting music?
We were.
So the head of research at out blog dug deeper and found that well the film is full of lies. The most serious of which is that 80% of the subprime loans were issued by lenders who were not affected by CRA. The Bush appointed head of the FDIC pushed that to nearly 90% by changing the asset standards of banks subject to CRA from 250 MM USD to 1 MMM USD.
Do not take Our word for it. Google “Don Powell Community Reinvestment Act 2004″ and read for yourself the articles of October 2004 throughout the MSM.
Chad 4:36 pm on 26 September 2008 Permalink
And just for the record, pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease hear me people:
I do not know the answers to this dilemma. I do not pretend to know the answers. If you’ll notice, all my political posts are talking about the way I feel about things. I’m not so good with the facts and whatnot. These threads are meant for me to learn as much as to make any political points.
I repeat… I AM AGNOSTIC! :)
I really want to hear from you guys!
Adam S 6:58 pm on 26 September 2008 Permalink
This is a prime example of propaganda. Two big issues. One, correlation does not mean causation. CRA involves a very small percentage of the neighborhoods in the US. The total value of all of the homes that are owned in poor, minority areas is a very small percentage of the total number of homes in the US. The CRA may have had a small influence on the increase price of housing but it very small. No interest loans and re-finances were more in the suburbs than the city. If you look at the articles in the video they were talking about a billion here and there. That is a lot of money, but not what we are talking about.
Two, this is a blame the poor argument. The CRA was created as a remedy for a real historical problem. Most government loans program did not allow African American to participate. There was clear redlining by insurance and banks that helped to draw down the ability of poor and minorities in buying and maintaining their homes.
Do some more research…The CRA may not have been the best piece of policy ever created, but it was not responsible for the current crisis.
Chad 11:55 am on 27 September 2008 Permalink
So what was?
michael lee 12:45 pm on 27 September 2008 Permalink
1. Buyers who walked into a 2 bedroom, 1,200 square foot condo and said, “Yeah, this is totally worth $650,000″, and
2. Bankers who said, “The only way we can get you into that home is to roll the dice, hope that you gain 20% appreciation on the home in the next 5 years, sign an adjustable rate mortgage that we’ll refi if you do get that appreciation”, and
3. People who decided that instead of saving up the appreciated value until they had a high enough loan-to-value ratio to refinance, they would cash out the equity every 2 years, and
4. A housing market that started to come to its senses when buying the median-priced home in some markets required an income that was almost 2x the median income, and
5. Millions of people who got caught up in the end of their 5-year fixed rate, had no equity saved up, couldn’t refinance, and had to adjust to the new higher payments of their devil’s bargain ARM loans, and
6. Either couldn’t continue making payments, and walked away, or
7. Decided there was no good reason to keep making payments on a $650,000 loan for a property now worth $500,00, so they walked away.
Multiply that by 50 million people, and there you have it.
Not to get too smug here, but if more people in 2001-2006 had walked into that condo, looked at the $650,000 asking price and said, “This is absolute insanity. We’re not willing to put our entire financial future at risk just to get into this house. Let’s rent, save our money, and wait for the market to adjust,” then we wouldn’t have had the housing bubble, applying for and getting risking loans wouldn’t have become the expected standard for buying a first home, and we wouldn’t have the hard crash.
It’s very frustrating to be among those who waited, saved, and to be ready to get into the market when it comes back down, and to hear people who got caught up in the greed of an imbalanced market clamoring for government intervention. If the government intervenes to prop up the receding real-estate market, they will be spitting in the face of prudent buyers who waited out the bubble.
harmonicminer 1:13 pm on 27 September 2008 Permalink
A smell test: bankers and lenders are in it to make money. They only make money if people repay the loans, UNLESS they have a very good reason to believe the feds will back them up, or if they are certain they can get their money out of the property by foreclosing and reselling, only workable, really, in a constantly rising market, which no banker or lender assumes, again, absent government backup.
So, the question: what, or who, made them think they would make money lending with virtually no down to people whose payment was guaranteed to rise (when the ARM adjusted) and who could barely make the payment at the low intro rate? Bankers KNOW that lots of foreclosures depress prices, removing the resell option for them to get their money. So the constant rising market was not guaranteed, and they knew it. How did they get the idea that the government approved of making unwise loans, and would back them up?
This is the best explanation, as far as I can see. You’ll have some more links to travel down, and some video to watch, and it will take you about a half hour to read them (or more, if you think about what you read, and run down some of the links on THOSE sites) and watch the video.
Pain 2:02 pm on 27 September 2008 Permalink
Mortgage lenders being able to seel packaged mortgage backed securities in the Alt-A and subprime range and using the cash value of the property on the open market to set the value of the commercial paper.
That is what caused the housing bubble because the more homes that were mortgaged the more money Countrywide. Ameriquest and Lending Tree made. By that same token the more Bear Stearns, Lehman and AIG devoured these theings the more smaller banks and regional banks did the same because under the new banking rules they could play both sides of the street.
harmonicminer 2:19 pm on 27 September 2008 Permalink
Yes, all true… but impossible without the first, most basic error: making loans to people who could not possibly qualify for them under normal rules. Without the government pushing and enticing lenders into doing this (gov’t used carrot AND stick to get lenders to do this), no subprime securitized mortgage debt would exist to tempt investors into leveraging the next investment.
All kinds of hyper-technical crypto-speak jargon is used to describe exactly what all the various entities DID to make money… it boils down to government intervention to attempt a repeal of the laws of economics, for the sake of “social engineering”, one of which says that if you loan lots of money to people who can’t pay it back, you’re going to be in trouble, no matter how you slice it.
Chris H. 6:25 pm on 27 September 2008 Permalink
I am writing here to make a simple observation. I don’t understand complicated economics, but i think I have a common sense understanding of human nature and the basics of our capitalistic system. Yes, we are capitalists, contrary to some of what you hear from voices who attack people and business who want to make money. Some people say that wanting to make money is GREED. Some say that “our problems are caused by big oil, big drugs (legal), big tobacco, big (fill in the blank). I am not here to defend any of the big enemies. I am not here to defend the Bush Administration. I am not here to campaign for anybody.
I stumbled onto this blog (I guess its a blog) because I wanted to research a political issue now in the news. It seems that, according to the news channels, all of our economic problems have been caused by “failed economics policies of the Bush Administration”. So, I wanted to find the failed policies. Up to this minute I have found the failed policies of the Clinton Administration dating back to 1977, and reinforced by the failed policies of the Democratic Party dating to the present.
Now it seems that the Democratic Party is in the process of blaming Republicans for causing the mess we are now in. The Democrats want to elect their candidate for president. They are telling lies. That is not a surprise to me. Politics is not in the business of telling the truth, they are in the business of electing their Man, or Woman.
I am extremely troubled by how I see the American People reacting to all of this hoopla. They are buing it.
Okay, thats all I wanted to say. I didn’t want to bring up so much stuff that any reader would be confused. I don’t have spell check, and I don’t write for a living so there are most likely many grammatical defiencies in what I wrote.
dave 9:23 pm on 27 September 2008 Permalink
the question remains, who fought for it and who fought against it
shandog 9:37 pm on 27 September 2008 Permalink
Great video!! I could kiss the guy that made this. I’ve been hearing so much about Obama’s past and his affiliations with questionable characters and his link to the ACORN Group. (google that)! He was a lawyer for them. They pushed the Community Reinvestment Act which caused this mess, and some members were convicted of voter fraud. The members are going around in battle ground states and filling out invalid voter registration cards so Obama can steal the election. I can’t understand how anyone can trust this man. Especially when you have a man like John McCain who loves this country and has spent his life serving it.
Linda 4:22 am on 28 September 2008 Permalink
The video is biased. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. If you read the CRA you will see that the bush administration in 2003 overhauled it and guaranteed the subprime lending with fannnie and freddie causing risky lending. Even Ben Bernanke said that these changes will cause risky lending. Stop blaming the democrats. They made changes in the 90′s but it had nothing to do with the risky lending. Please note that the increase in loans and demand for housing started in 2003 and went on to 2006. This should be a no brainer!
michael lee 9:33 am on 28 September 2008 Permalink
Ah, Chad. Always bringing the controversial link-bait.
cowgirl 12:04 pm on 28 September 2008 Permalink
Hmmm CRA not a problem – read this 2000 article from the well-respected City Journal and see if the CRA was not a huge contributor to the mortgage meltdown… About a Trillion dollars worth of a meltdown:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html
Chad 2:22 pm on 28 September 2008 Permalink
Some people are just gifted, Mike.
softwareNerd 3:29 pm on 28 September 2008 Permalink
The primary blame lies with the governmentl but, most American voters must take primary responsibility for this: they elect the government, and both parties espouse schemes that attempt wealth-distribution (like the CRA).
First the government set up a scheme to force banks to give poor loans. That didn’t cause much trouble. Then, they added all sorts of incentives and they ought not be surprised that some pragmatic financiers took up those incentives (and are in trouble or bankrupt today).
Here’s a very well-written article from eight years ago, that gives some insight into the players in the CRA mess.
Personally, I blame the average American voter for voting with a mildly pro-redistribution political philosophy, and for being fairly disengaged from politics.
harmonicminer 12:21 am on 29 September 2008 Permalink
OK, that’s it for me: I’m writing in Thomas Jefferson. Or James Madison. Or John Adams. Heck, I’ll write in Alexander Hamilton AND Aaron Burr.
Hey, didn’t those guys fight all the time about the role of government, too? But none of them would ever have dreamed the federal government would get involved guaranteeing home loans….
Funny thing: the federalists of 220 years ago would look like anti-federalists today. We’ve come a long way, baby.
I’d have a tea party at Fannie and Freddie’s expense, if I could find a harbor into which to throw worthless securitzed sub-prime mortgage contracts.
michael lee 8:50 am on 29 September 2008 Permalink
I thought we were already doing that, in the Bo Hai Gulf?
Chris H. 1:55 pm on 29 September 2008 Permalink
I thought of something else I wanted to say. IQ is overrated. Forrest Gump for president!
Linda 7:58 pm on 30 September 2008 Permalink
I find it interesting that the price of oil declined when the “bail out” did not pass yesterday….
What would Warren Buffet do??? Oh that’s right…investing 5 bil. in Goldman Sachs, reaping a great 10% annual dividend, and the right to buy $5 bil more stoke at $115, (trading at 128 today)….
setting Goldman Sachs up financially to allow purchasing of other investment products (banks and loan companies) that are “on sale” due to bad loan practices.
Isn’t this how the market is supposed to correct itself?
Just make the FDIC secure so that the common bank account investment is guaranteed and let the market go through its process of big fish eating little fish. It may be faster and less painful in the long run.
(not the same Linda from comment 14…)
Daniel Semsen 10:26 pm on 30 September 2008 Permalink
I don’t know if you guys ever got this permalink…the video from youtube that you put in one of the posts a few months back has gone bad and I believe they recently have put ALL of the Colbert video archives up on http://www.colbertnation.com
this is my new favorite show
and this clip is awesome
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/149094/february-11-2008/philip-zimbardo
michael lee 7:41 am on 1 October 2008 Permalink
Daniel, you are the worst thread coherence guy ever. The Xanga-verse has corrupted your mind!
There’s a search function over in the right column – you can search for the post that you’re talking about, and put the comment there. That way, someone looking at THAT post doesn’t have to go wandering all over the blog to see if there are loose comments somewhere else.
Punk.
michael lee 7:50 am on 1 October 2008 Permalink
@Linda,
I think it’s telling that while Wall Street is clamoring for the bailout, many, many economists are opposed to the idea.
I also think it’s fascinating that the ideological members of both parties oppose the idea, while the populist center seems to be the only group willing to socialize such a huge chunk of the capital market.
Bobby 8:05 am on 1 October 2008 Permalink
I saw an interesting (and relatively much cheaper) solution posited here:
http://www.daveramsey.com/media/pdf/the_common_sense_fix.pdf
I like it because it shifts the burden from the taxpayer to the companies and individuals that got us in this mess in the first place.
michael lee 8:08 am on 1 October 2008 Permalink
Here’s a repost of Bobby’s link:
The Common Sense Fix
Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country,
but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. As a tax-paying American citizen, I will not support
any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. Instead, I submit the following three-
step Common Sense Plan.
I. INSURANCE
a. Insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying FHA-type insurance.
Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the
world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.
b. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two
things:
1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a
6% fixed-rate mortgage.
a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the
balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a
chance to keep their homes.
b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or
the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. In the event of
foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable
for any deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that
encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while
working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and
ruined lives.
2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING and FUTURE CEOs and
executive team members as long as the company holds these
government-insured bonds/mortgages. This keeps underperforming
executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs.
c. This backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal.
II. MARK TO MARKET
a. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime Tier III
bonds/mortgages. This keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down
bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate.
b. This move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on
failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing.
III. CAPITAL GAINS TAX
a. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock
market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in
the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.
b. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping
the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the
economy. This will enable all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement
investments that go up instead of down.
This is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. It’s time for all of us, as Americans, to
stand up, speak out, and fix this mess.
harmonicminer 8:51 am on 1 October 2008 Permalink
I’d add one more feature. I would insist that all employees of public/private corps, publicly owned utitilities and financial organizations, etc., be forced to follow the restrictions now placed on military personnel in terms of political activity. And the first few times this law was broken, I’d make serious public examples of the punishment of the perps, including both the public employee AND the polticians who benefited from the infraction.
There are three pages of restrictions at the link. If these were now the rules, every recent Fannie/Freddie CEO would now be in jail.
michael lee 9:11 am on 1 October 2008 Permalink
Phil, there is a legitimate reason for those restrictions as they pertain to military personnel – the political neutrality of the armed forces is a cherished an unique feature of modern democracy, and deserves to be protected with strong hedges. History is rife with examples of what happens when the military loses it’s neutrality, and assumes the role of king-maker. Their legitimate role of defending the United States is compromised if the military starts to become a politically aligned organization.
There is no similar compelling reason to restrict the free speech of public employees at large.
harmonicminer 9:32 am on 1 October 2008 Permalink
Would agree if history didn’t make it clear that public employees have overwhelmingly voted one way, and contributed far more one way, and when organized, always support only one side. They clearly see their own self-interest as aligned with a single party, on the whole. That’s fine… they can vote, and do all the other things military folk can do, as individuals.
Military people can participate politically in many ways as individuals. Their free speech rights are not restricted in significant ways. What they cannot do is use their very position itself to attempt to sway elections and issues. They are “public employees” in positions of particular trust.
It is when public employees organize, and when they wield enormous influence as a group, with agendas often directly opposite to the public interest, that the problem arises. And most seriously, we see it at the level of important public officials running public/private corporations, the “privatized profit, socialized loss” folks, although its also true that the NEA protects teachers to the detriment of students, etc.
We have an enormous problem in the USA. If you add up the people who work for the government, and the people who depend on entitlement programs, the “structural bias” towards one party is overwhelming.
I’m not talking about taking away anyone’s individual rights. I am talking about not allowing people to USE their government granted position to SWAY the government. Obviously, elected officials and their immediate staffs would be exempt from this, but anyone who is simply hired or appointed should not suddenly have a louder voice than the rest of us.
michael lee 12:56 pm on 1 October 2008 Permalink
The Hatch Act already prohibits federal employees from using the power of their office to engage in political activities. They are welcome to engage in political advocacy, even partisan political advocacy, in their off-duty, but they can’t use the power or resources of their office in a political capacity.
That’s sufficient, for me. The fact that government employees in the aggregate (as unions) have a specific political tendency isn’t enough of a reason to intrude on their ability to engage in political speech, political advocacy, when they are not acting in their capacity as federal employees.
The military is a special case, and deserves special restrictions.
Dennis 1:19 pm on 1 October 2008 Permalink
Fact #1- CRA was enacted to help poor people who QUALIFIED for loans in some pretty run down low home price areas. 31 years ago. I Think any major flaws would have shown up on CRA’s a long time ago. It is in all of our best interests to clean up blighted areas and in lieu of you and I moving there, they gave the loans to the working poor.
Fact #2- Clinton lobbied to change CRA to build further on its success (i.e. it was ranked “outstanding” by banking interests). After Clinton made changes it did alright, but fizzled around 2001.
FACT #3- One of the tenets of CRA was all loans were thru banks or thrifts. 80% of the bad loans out there were originated thru mortgage lenders not regulated by CRA. Less than 1 out of 4 loans had even a remote affiliation with CRA’s. That pretty much kills the entire argument, but I’ll keep going.
FACT #4- Open your eyes, the middle and upper class are responsible for 80% of the defaulted loans. As a matter of fact, drive thru a wealthy subdivision and count the empty or on the market houses and then cruise thru a poorer neighborhood. Hmmmm…. Without fail, there are more in the “nicer” areas than the poor. Don’t let someones un-researched talking points sway your enlightenment!!!
Now, what is to blame for this fiasco? CDR’s, otherwise known as credit default swaps. This allowed for unregulated bundling of all types (good and bad) of mortgages and, without any type of oversight or common sense application, banks then rated these loans as A+ and sold them on the open market as primo stuff. They started selling so well that financial companies threw money at mortgage cos, so much that a frenzy began for bundles of loans that had a potential fail rate that would eat up any chance of a long term profit. I’m getting over my head in explaining, but guess who allowed the laws keeping CDR’s in check?? None other than McCains right hand man Phil Gramm. The repeal of the Glass-Stiegal Act is at the heart of this entire issue. It was rammed thru a repub house and senate and signed by Clinton (who I absolutely hate).
BTW- ACORN had its problems, but it had more plus’ once they ironed out the cheats and tightened the standards.
harmonicminer 1:32 pm on 1 October 2008 Permalink
Here are the top recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 1989-2008:
OpenSecrets | Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats – Capital Eye
This isn’t the same thing as when a defense contractor donates to candidates who might support a particular project, because even then, the contractor is a private company that will suffer its losses without government help. Historically, several of these companies have gone broke, pretty much proving that they were truly not backstopped by the government, with or without campaign donations. More than one defense contractor has simply failed to win the bid, and folded up. Not so with these public/private monstrosities.
In my ideal world, there wouldn’t even BE such critters… but since there are, forbidding corporate (sham individual) donations from these public/private corps, and enforcing it, would certainly help. And of course there are the less regulated donations to PACs that are shells (not to mention shills) for a particular candidate.
I understand the history of why the military has been a special case. I’m not convinced that current realities are a good fit for current policy. There was a time when the military was the most powerful arm of government, and so it had to be carefully watched and controlled. Now the most powerful arm of government is social spending and these public/private connections, in terms of sheer ability to sway public policy, and in absolute dollar amounts. In other words, it isn’t the guns that matter so much anymore, it’s the power. No general can destabilize American society, on his worst day, like a Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac exec can (as recent events have proven). They should not be allowed to engage in any more political activity than that general. The clowns in the state utiltity agencies did more damage to California than if the state National Guard general had invaded San Francisco.
I think as a society we’re approaching a critical mass, where the real special interests, namely gov’t employees and their unions, public/private corps and people beholden to them, and entitlement recipients, are simply going to outvote any conceivable combination of people who actually produce something, or people who actually think about the greater good of the society at large, in the longer term.
Maybe I’m just feeling bitchy today. My daughter’s 5th grade class has 35 students in it. She sits in the back of the room and works alone, because she is so far ahead of the class. (We’re going to home school her next year.) The “special ed” kids have, in some cases, a full-time aide assigned to one student, and a ridiculously low teacher/student ratio the rest of the time. There are bunches of mid-level supervisors and administrators all through the state educational system who are useless (or worse), and should be replaced with people in the classroom actually teaching. The problem, bluntly, is the lobbying success of the NEA (which includes all those adminstrators, not just the classroom teachers), and the CTA (in California). The NEA (and CTA) conspires with its legislative cronies to craft ridiculous policies, which benefit existing teachers (sometimes) but not students.
Chris H. 11:09 pm on 3 October 2008 Permalink
I really hate to challenge somebody else’s post, because it is not in my nature to belittle anybody. I have to ask. I am doing research, and I am having major trouble sifting through the propaganda on the internet on the subject of this discussion. So, here goes.
Dennis, you point to several facts. Would you please give me the sources of the facts so I can look them up to confirm? To wit:
Fact #1:
No problem with the first and second sentence, I agree. I have serious trouble understanding the statement that this law is thirty years old and any trouble would have shown up by now. How about this. For the last thirty years, gas prices have been reasonably steady, and the real estate market has been mostly up. What happens when gas prices double, then goes up some more? What happens when the real estate bubble pops? I can tell you what happens, but I shouldn’t have to.
Fact #2:
I can’t follow you here. Huh?
Fact #3:
OK, I agree that the CRA is not solely responsible for the economic meltdown. It is in the running, though. The current crisis is the result of efforts by congressmen and laws to promote loans to people who have limited means to repay the loans. Tell me, what is your source to confirm that 80% of the bad loans are to middle class and upper class? How about HUD? What did they do?
Fact #4:
So you want me to confirm this fact by driving through nice neighborhoods? Please enlighten me. What is your source that banks repackaged good loans with bad loans and then sold them? I thought that is what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did. My eyes are open. Tell me.
Footnote: I am new to this site, and I ask anybody who thinks I am on the wrong track, or that I am out of line. I welcome the hosts to advise me if I am in the wrong.
michael lee 11:31 pm on 3 October 2008 Permalink
The hosts welcome all people of all perspectives, especially if those perspectives involve thoughtful critical examination of important topics.
Chris H. 5:47 pm on 4 October 2008 Permalink
I suggest that you watch a news program on Fox News, titled “Saving Our Economy: What’s Next?” now showing on the channel. Next time from the beginning at 2:00 am.