LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Edwards Linked to Subprime Foreclosures

Presidential candidate's holdings in Fortress are invested in subprime lenders foreclosing on Katrina victims - report.
August 17 2007: 4:18 AM EDT

LONDON (CNNMoney.com) -- Democratic presidential contender John Edwards has investing ties to subprime lenders who are foreclosing on victims of Katrina, according to a report published Friday.

The Wall Street Journal said there are 34 homes in New Orleans that face foreclosure from the subprime unit of Fortress Investment Group. Edwards has about $16 million in Fortress (Charts), a hedge fund and private equity manager, the newspaper said.

Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, has been a vocal critic of subprime lenders and told the Journal that he would assist homeowners in New Orleans who face foreclosure from businesses linked to Fortress or who have already lost their homes.

"I intend to help these people," he told the newspaper. The report also said he would divest any Fortress funds in his portfolio that are invested in subprime lenders that filed the foreclosures. "I will not have my family's money invested in these firms," the Journal quoted him as saying.

Rising defaults among subprime mortgages - those home loans given to borrowers with the weakest credit records - has triggered a credit crunch and resulted in a wave of foreclosures.

The real shame in campaigns is not haircut prices, it's the billions spent on radio and TV advertising, which I seriously doubt change anybody's mind. The billing fees for all the political consultants, wardrobe specialists, bus drivers and "fixers" (like Karl Rove) far exceed $400.

Zeuslax wrote:

The real shame in campaigns is not haircut prices, it's the billions spent on radio and TV advertising, which I seriously doubt change anybody's mind. The billing fees for all the political consultants, wardrobe specialists, bus drivers and "fixers" (like Karl Rove) far exceed $400.

good post and good point!

Wealthy ex-presidents reach into your pockets:
Recently, the Congressional Research Service announced the federal subsidies requested for the coming fiscal year by ex-presidents Jimmy Carter, George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton. Globe-trotting Carter asked for only $2,000 for travel; Bush and Clinton, both millionaires, wanted $50,000 from taxpayers for travel. Bush said he needed $69,000 for "equipment" and $13,000 for postage. Is Bush planning to mail 32,000 thank-you notes next year?

What's really offensive is that all three filed for the maximum presidential retirement payment of $191,000 annually. All these guys are wealthy, the elder George Bush having significant inherited wealth, yet all want taxpayers to hand them pensions seven times higher than the typical Social Security sum. This is extra galling because Carter and Clinton aren't even retired! Carter continues to write books that sell well; Clinton is active on the corporate speaking circuit, having earned an estimated $10 million speechifying in 2006. Clinton prattles on and on about the horrors of inequality, yet demands $191,000 in bonuses from taxpayers whose median household income is about 1/20th of his estimated $10 million. Why didn't the three ex-presidents request no pension at all? That would have been the dignified thing to do.

To top it off, Clinton requested $79,000 for telephone service. It is impossible, physically impossible, to spend $79,000 on telephones! If Clinton had a 10-cents-a-minute long-distance plan, he could talk long-distance 24 hours a day, 365 days per year -- and you can imagine Clinton doing this -- yet fail to burn through $79,000. The most expensive package offered by Verizon Wireless is an international super-phone with unlimited texting and four hours of talk time daily; this sells for about $3,000 per year. Clinton could purchase two dozen of the most expensive cell accounts available in the United States for the tax-subsidized telephone budget he requested. Is Clinton's $79,000 phone request fraud, or is Clinton planning to use the money to buy phones for staffers working on his private speaking business? An ex-president who had financial problems might legitimately turn to the taxpayer. For all three living ex-presidents to be quite wealthy yet demanding public subsidies is shameful -- to say nothing of a failure of leadership.

3. "HMO? Can't say I ever tried one..."
If congressmen seem hesitant about enacting health care reform, you can partly blame the comfy health benefits they enjoy. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program covers approximately 9 million government workers and dependents, with generous provisions that typically can't be found in the private sector.

Under the Fair Share provision that took effect in 1999, for instance, taxpayers pay 75 percent of the total premium for whatever plan a politician selects. In addition, for an annual fee of as little as $350, lawmakers enjoy free lab tests and clinical work at the Attending Physician's Office — a collection of area clinics. They also get exclusive outpatient care at the Walter Reed Army and Bethesda Naval hospitals for what Hill watchdogs say is a fraction of the real cost.

"It's as if Congress has removed itself from the real-world consequences of what they're debating for the rest of us," says Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union. "The changes they make on HMOs or a prescription drug benefit won't [even] apply to them."