this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
352 points (94.9% liked)

politics

19022 readers
4372 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Obama didn't get to determine the state of the economy when he took over, but he had the largest mandate of any modern president and his economic recovery plan failed to deliver for anyone except bank owners.

New Report Looks at How Obama’s Housing Policies Destroyed Black Wealth

“What it shows is we bailed out Wall Street — that wasn’t entirely Obama’s doing at all, that was Bush and the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, and so forth — but housing was almost entirely under his control. Homeowners were not bailed out,” Ryan Cooper, one of the report’s authors, told The Intercept about the findings of the report.

The authors singled out the Home Affordable Modification Program for censure for seeking to incentivize mortgage services to modify loans.

The failures of HAMP are well-documented — it ended up helping big banks and doing very little for homeowners.

The authors suggest that the New Deal’s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation is a model that may have yielded different outcomes. HOLC purchased mortgages directly and refinanced them, but such a model of direct government intervention and control of an economic problem has been anathema to modern government officials.

What's wild is that an HOLC-type solution as the auuthors suggest also would have bailed out the banks. It just would have done so in a way that saved homeowners too. Obama specifically pursued a policy that bailed out the banks without saving the homeowners.