MSNBC's Brewer on McCain's housing crisis speech: "Is this a real turning point for him, being this specific and detailed on what the economy needs?"
SUMMARY: After playing a video clip of Sen. John McCain's March 25 speech on the housing crisis, MSNBC's Contessa Brewer asked, "Is this a real turning point for him, being this specific and detailed on what the economy needs?" Brewer provided no examples from the speech to support her claim that McCain was being "specific and detailed on what the economy needs." In fact, in the speech, McCain's "specific" proposals consisted of changes to the tax code that he has previously endorsed, raising the down payment requirement for Federal Housing Authority loans and convening two meetings.
On the March 25 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Contessa Brewer played a clip of Sen. John McCain's March 25 speech on the housing crisis, in which McCain said, "Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent, or as second homes. Any assistance must be temporary and must not reward people who are irresponsible at the expense of those who weren't." Brewer then said to NBC News and National Journal reporter Adam Aigner-Treworgy: "So, Adam, a few months ago, McCain famously said he doesn't know much about the economy. Is this a real turning point for him, being this specific and detailed on what the economy needs?" Brewer provided no examples from the speech to support her claim that McCain was being "specific and detailed on what the economy needs." In fact, in the speech, McCain's "specific" proposals consisted of changes to the tax code that he has previously endorsed and, to address the home mortgage crisis, raising the down payment requirement for Federal Housing Authority loans and convening two meetings. Indeed, in his response, Aigner-Treworgy stated that "he didn't necessarily roll out any new economic policy today. Much of what he said, he has said before." Aigner-Treworgy added: "[I]t went to some extent, helped him in trying to prove that he knew what the problem was, he understood how to -- at least one way of how to solve it. But I don't know necessarily whether it showed that he had a really strong grasp on all the details of a possible solution."
In the same segment of MSNBC Live, noting Nancy Reagan's endorsement of McCain, Brewer uncritically reported that Reagan "says she typically waits until after the GOP convention to announce her support," even though Reagan had endorsed George W. Bush well before the convention in 2000.
Media Matters for America has previously noted that on February 14, Brewer defended McCain's reversals on tax cuts and immigration with falsehoods.
From McCain's March 25 speech:
McCAIN: In our effort to help deserving homeowners, no assistance should be given to speculators. Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes. Any assistance must be temporary and must not reward people who were irresponsible at the expense of those who weren't. I will consider any and all proposals based on their cost and benefits. In this crisis, as in all I may face in the future, I will not allow dogma to override common sense.
When we commit taxpayer dollars as assistance, it should be accompanied by reforms that ensure that we never face this problem again. Central to those reforms should be transparency and accountability.
Homeowners should be able to understand easily the terms and obligations of a mortgage. In return, they have an obligation to provide truthful financial information and should be subject to penalty if they do not. Lenders who initiate loans should be held accountable for the quality and performance of those loans and strict standards should be required in the lending process. We must have greater transparency in the lending process so that every borrower knows exactly what he is agreeing to and where every lender is required to meet the highest standards of ethical behavior.
Policies should move toward ensuring that homeowners provide a responsible down payment of equity at the initial purchase of a home. I therefore oppose reducing the down payment requirement for FHA mortgages and believe that, as conditions allow, the down payment requirement should be raised. So many homeowners have found themselves owing more than their home is worth, because many never had much equity in the house to begin with. When conditions return to normal, GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) should never insure loans when the homeowner clearly does not have skin in the game.
In financial institutions, there is no substitute for adequate capital to serve as a buffer against losses. Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.
I am prepared to examine new proposals and evaluate them based on these principals. But I think we need to do two things right away. First, it is time to convene a meeting of the nation's accounting professionals to discuss the current mark to market accounting systems. We are witnessing an unprecedented situation as banks and investors try to determine the appropriate value of the assets they are holding and there is widespread concern that this approach is exacerbating the credit crunch.
We should also convene a meeting of the nation's top mortgage lenders. Working together, they should pledge to provide maximum support and help to their cash-strapped, but credit worthy customers. They should pledge to do everything possible to keep families in their homes and businesses growing. Recall that immediately after September 11, 2001 General Motors stepped in to provide 0 percent financing as part of keeping the economy growing. We need a similar response by the mortgage lenders. They've been asking the government to help them out. I'm now calling upon them to help their customers, and their nation out. It's time to help American families.
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the March 25 edition of MSNBC Live:
BREWER: Mrs. Reagan says she typically waits until after the GOP convention to announce her support, but says it's clear the Republican Party has chosen its nominee. The highly coveted and symbolic endorsement is a significant boon for John McCain's campaign today.
Earlier in the day, he was all business, speaking at a small business roundtable, and he gave his assessment of the economy.
McCAIN [video clip]: Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent, or as second homes. Any assistance must be temporary and must not reward people who are irresponsible at the expense of those who weren't.
BREWER: Adam Aigner covers the McCain campaign for the NBC News and National Journal, on the phone with me now. So, Adam, a few months ago, McCain famously said he doesn't know much about the economy. Is this a real turning point for him, being this specific and detailed on what the economy needs?
AIGNER-TREWORGY: You know, it's interesting. He seemed to almost be trying to disprove the fact that he ever said that quote today by giving a sort of short primer on the economy, and how the housing bubble came to be and how its effect has spread beyond just subprime mortgages. And the whole beginning part of his speech today was really just an introduction to economics and sort of putting the problem that we're facing right now in layman's terms. I think -- he didn't necessarily roll out any new economic policy today. Much of what he said, he has said before. What was new was he was calling for meetings of the top accounting executives, and accounting firms, and top lenders in the country, and a very corporate-driven assistance plan for homeowners instead of a government-driven assistance plan. So I think it was -- it went to some extent, helped him in trying to prove that he knew what the problem was, he understood how to -- at least one way of how to solve it. But I don't know necessarily whether it showed that he had a really strong grasp on all the details --
BREWER: Yeah.
AIGNER-TREWORGY: -- of a possible solution.
BREWER: So here's McCain when he's out on the campaign trail, Adam. He has already been under fire from Barack Obama and today, the former president, Bill Clinton, was talking about John McCain.















I'll play the part of the apologist here...
It said he'd convene TWO meetings.
"So, Adam, a few months ago, McCain famously said he doesn't know much about the economy."
Nuff said.
You do have to appreciate the approach of raising down payment amounts to avoid people getting in over their heads. Hard to argue with, on a strictly logical and objective level, and from a protecting-you-from-yourself perspective.It does, however, ignore the larger problem of housing prices becoming out of reach for so many by simply telling them to forget about owning a home.
Similar to the "solution" to the credit card problem recently. As more people found themselves needing to borrow money to get by, the current administration helped out their banking friends by allowing the raising of interest rates to 30% for any default (late payment, etc.)
The good-for-nothing debtors started to whine "We'll never pay off our debt at this rate!"
The creditors helped out by raising the minimum payment due each month, thereby increasing the pace. Those who were borrowing tko get y just had to come up with a little extra money each month. Nice work.
tko get y = to get by
WTF is going on with my typist/proofreader?
Right, that was my point, August. The approach seems to be to keep people out of debt by making sure they don't own anything.Can't argue with that, but it doesn't address the real problem.
Believe me, I'm in SoCal, where the median home price hit 600k quite a while ago.I know young people just getting out of college who are a bit... overwhelmed?
So there will be less middle class income homeowners. So what. There is no guarantee to home ownership in this country. Moving to an area where they can afford a house is also an option. They are under no obligation to remain on the "expensive" east coast. Maybe the move will do them good. And IMHO, those folks who are now complaining that they can't afford the houses they purchased should have never bought them in the first place, approved or not, do the math yourself, instead of your real estate agent. Live within your means. And it is now a buyers market....hit it hard.
How on earth are these risky borrowers even going to get into financial dire straights without the lender enabling them in the first place?
Yeah, Dave's devotion to personal responsibility ends when the guys handing out risky loans are called upon to pay the piper.
Way to go, Dave. Thanks for the contribution. Another elitist heard.
An update on this line of thinking; I heard a caller to El Rushbo just now as I went to lunch- he was tired of people asking for handouts. Apparently somebody called Rush yesterday asking him to pay for the callers college tuition, and today's caller saw a crowded parking lot at the Social Security office, enraging him.
The caller offered his advice- If you can't afford medical insurance, get a better job that has insurance.
**Millions of Americans smacking their foreheads in unison** "...And turning down that great job so I could snatch up my lousy job seemed like such a great decision at the time! I forgot about health insurance!"
Get a better job, move somewhere cheaper, everybody... Now!
I agree with you also, to a point. But common sense should tell the home buyer that if he's making 50,000 a year, he has no business purchasing a 300,000 dollar home, whether approved or not. So no, I don't care if my neighbor is having hardships repaying his obligation. It's HIS problem, not mine. I do agree the lenders should have excluded him from the original loan, though. I hope I wasn't too cavalier that time. I'll tone it down.
Home ownership has nothing to do with having or not having. How many people are paying their mortgage on a credit card? They do not have a home, only an American Express Gold card. And no, I do not want to distribute wealth evenly, but I still want people to be fiscally responsible. I'm a Conservative afterall.
You mean like the bush administration has been so fiscally responsible? ;)
I'm always fascinated by the self-proclaimed "fiscal conservative" that doesn't seem to notice that this conservative party is anything BUT "fiscally responsible". Not to say that's you, just pontificating on the idea.
They have become the Borrow and Spend party, and somehow racking up massive debt is "fiscally responsible" and shows how "adult" they are. I just don't get that at all.
You wish Bush spending was an anomaly to coservatism.
Can't disagree with you there. Bush has definately spent us into oblivion, and increased the size of the Govt. I don't think you'll get much argument from any Conservatives on that. He has.
What I would really like to see this year is a candidate who is going to be fiscally responsible with my tax money. I don't care who he/she had sex with, what he/she smoked in college, or who his/her pastor is. Lower my taxes and you will get my vote. Its that simple.
So no, I don't care if my neighbor is having hardships repaying his obligation. It's HIS problem, not mine - Dimwit Dave
With a bunker mentality like that, my hope is that your castle of a home is suddenly surrounded by boarded-up foreclosed on properties, lowering the market value of your house. Why do you hate Americans so much?
You appear to be yet another right-wing "I've got mine, screw everyone else" type of person.
You appear to be yet another right-wing "I've got mine, screw everyone else" type of person.- foghornleghorn / Friday March 28, 2008 10:09:45 AM EDT
If you want to frame it that way, then I am. I prefer to to frame it as I think my neighbors have a better idea on how to spend their own earnings better than I do. They should know what their priorities are. If those choices turn out to be the wrong ones, then I'm not responsible for the consequences of them. If my neighbor loses his home, car, wife, etc due to his poor choices, he is on his own. If those choices benefit him, I would not expect him to send me a check, either. I trust people to do what they think is best for the good of their family with the resources they have. I'm big on personal responsibility.
If my neighbor loses his home, car, wife, etc due to his poor choices, he is on his own
You know why people lose their houses? Due to the "poor choices" of losing a job or a catastrophic illness. Other reasons are rising costs of basic human needs such as food and utilities. It must be depressing to have such hatred for your fellow man.
Nobody forced him to sign his name to 500,000 dollar mortgage that he had no chance of repaying while working at Walmart as a greeter.
Again, you lack the basic understanding of what is happening in the real world. You should get out more.
Most people took out second mortgages on their homes in order to SURVIVE. Not buy a house they can't afford, not to live a life of luxury. I'm sure that when you lose your job and insurance and then have a heart attack and are forced out of your house that you won't seek assitance. Yeah, right - you'll be first in line screaming the loudest.
You can spout off all that nonsense about blaming the other all day long, it's what youdo best. The truth is I blame myself and I blame many like me who have allowed conservative pinheads to so caallously jeopardize the longterm security and general welfare of this country for so long. It's my fault for not doing more that guys like you can glory in their ignorant lifestyle of conspicuos consumption and be considered enlightened by honest people.
Look, the conservative worldview is yesterday's bad news. Stalwart Progressive citizens are at the ready in small towns and cities everywhere, they will soon reclaim our public institutions and instill progressive values throughout our culture. It's coming and you can take it or leave it.
At the heart of my argument is fairness in the allocation of my tax dollars. I don't mind a bit making the personal sacrifice it will take to help out ordinary Americans who had a fraud perpetrated upon them by slimey salesmen.
I'm asking are American families not as valuable as some monstrous Wall St. entity? That's why the moral hazard argumet doesn't fly, sorry. Americans trying to do the right thing were taken advantage of by unethical salesmen and letting ordinary people sink while the Bear Stearns executive class, the guys who were deep into the deception, are getting a hand up is repugnant to me.
Bear Stearns executives may be putting their weekend home on the market, but several hundred of them are getting offers of cash and stock from JPMorgan to make up their for their losses. They'll probably keep their jobs too, or land in jobs that pay as well or even better.
It is my conviction that America stands for equality. In the spirit of the Bill of Rights the person who has prospered is fundamentally no better a human being than the person who struggles to survive. By that logic the guy living on Main St is the equal of any highly trained professional working on Wall St, why is ones livlihood valued more? It's ridiculous.
Those who are being hurt the most by this problem are the people who live in the inner cities. Cities like Camden, Philadelphia and Baltimore. I doubt there are many places in the entire country that are less expensive to buy a home than in some of these neighborhoods.
With people being able to buy homes, neighborhoods were saved, crime went down and hope was restored where there wasn't much before.
I don't care where you live, if we allow our cities to fall, everything else will follow.
and the problem is in your solution.
If no one can afford the payments, then no one can live in those cities, yes?
Since banks are hoarding their money, and not even loaning to each other, it's getting harder and harder to obtain a loan in order to put a down payment on a house, much less keep up with the payments.
No responsible lender would give money to someone who can't pay it back. More importantly a responsible lender would not stick said borrower with a loan in which the interest rate balloons a third larger 3-5 years into the deal. It's reprehensible, it's unacceptable to blame borrowers in this case. Just because someone can fill out a loan application doesn't mean they should be approved.
Jesus Christ. Conservative views of personal responsibility are truly sick.
while that is true, the fact remains that noone should be buying a house they can ill afford.
I'll try and explain this again to you - people are NOT buying homes they can't afford, they are buying homes to live in, raise a family, and hopefully build some equity.
A responsible person would not go in to incredible debt for a home when their credit is already bad.
So what's the alternative - rent an apartment? What if there are several children involved. Just because a person has bad credit they shouldn't be able to live in a house?
Living within your means is a hard thing to do, but it pays off in the end.
What if a job loss is involved? Or a catastrophic illness?
You just seem to be incredibly out of touch with the real world.
How do you expect the average middle income person making anywhere from 35k-60k to afford a townhouse upward of 350k? With 20 percent down that comes to about 70k. I don't know too many single men or women who can come up with that down payment given today's job market.
Personally, I don't. My wife and I have no children (I have two grown kids from a previous marriage) and we live modestly. Where many people I work with have those "mini-mansions" with a great room and granite countertops, a few acres, and the huge mortgage, we bought a 2-bedroom/1-bath/1,000 sq ft rancher on a 75 x 150 lot. There's plenty of room for us and our pets, and at a sale price of $54,900 (Summer of 2006 - North Texas, east of Dallas), our monthly mortgage payment (including property taxes) is around $550.00.
And we qualified for a zero-down FHA loan with a fixed interest rate.
McCain: "Homeowners should be able to understand easily the terms and obligations of a mortgage. In return, they have an obligation to provide truthful financial information and should be subject to penalty if they do not."
And what if the loan officer does not use that truthful information and instead makes it up in order to get the loan approved?
Whatever, John. It sounds good if you don't think too hard about it. Because,
"In financial institutions, there is no substitute for adequate capital to serve as a buffer against losses. Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital."
Is nothing more than the worn out conservative dogma of deregulated markets. He really thinks we're that stupid.
Does Brewer have some sort of Political agenda?
I don't know if everyone will see this, but if you look on the right of that video, it says "Reuters: Somebody forgot to tell Hillary Clinton The Democratic Presidential Race is over and Barack Obama won."
When a news-wire is lampooning you, you have passed bowing out gracefully.
That was a very funny video.
Anyone who hasn't seen it should take a look. It's not very long.
Even Carlile might get a chuckle.
So Sen. McCain wants to further deregulate a sector of the economy? His plan includes deregultaing financial institutions to get them to hold more capital? What? These institutions are having problems because they are too leveraged...they've been extended too much credit. So the plan here is to make it easier for institutions to raise more capital using more leverage to make deeper holes for themselves?
There are regulations and standards in place to make sure that banks hold enough ready capital to cover the needs of their customers. They can only extend so much credit, and the limits are based on the risk involved in the credit they've already extended. So Sen. McCain wants to loosen those regulations so banks don't have to hold enough ready capital and can extend credit without regard to the risk of the credit they've already extended?
Seems kinda silly to me..."there is no substitute for adequate capital to serve as a buffer against losses"...how about there is no substitute for a complete understanding if the risks of current investements to serve as prevention for extensive unplanned losses?
"there is no substitute for adequate capital to serve as a buffer against losses"
Except for maybe the insurance structures liberals put into place for financial institutions after the Depression.
In other news...we're 22nd in both prosperity and stability. Thank you President Bush!
Maddow's show yesterday, after much backing and filling, said Johns plans would lessen gov coffers from 200 to 400 Billion dollars/yr.
Our military industrial complex who's payroll equals the rest of the worlds military spending, would of course get more. How much of our goverment's spending money would it take for the neocons to feel safe, 50% or better I'm thinking would be called rational.
Testify!
That's what I was getting at. There are real world examples of stricter regulations actually protecting the population. What the sub-prime debacle shows to me is that unfettered capitalism will always run rampant to make that extra buck.