There needs to be much more digging into his dealing while in Chicago. He's up to his eyebrows in the left-wing Chicago political machine.
Posted on 07/02/2008 11:50:03 AM PDT by seanmerc
Presidential nominee Barack Obama joins the list of several other high-profile Democratic Party members who received highly favorable home loans.
Obama, D-Ill., reportedly purchased a $1.65 million mansion in Chicago through a “super, super jumbo” loan he received from Northern Trust Bank in Illinois, the Washington Post reports.
The portion of the money financed through the lender ($1.32 million) was offered to the Obamas at an unusually low discount interest rate locked in at 5.625 percent over the life of the 30-year fixed-rate loan, which was below the average of what a typical Chicagoan pursuing a similar low loan rate received at the time.
For his part, Obama and his camp are defending the lower rate as lender competition for business. A spokesman for the camp says, “The Obamas have since had as much as $3 million invested through Northern Trust."
Obama joins Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., on the list of high-profile public figures who received “VIP” loans that some now are scrutinizing as alleged trade-offs for political favors.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
There needs to be much more digging into his dealing while in Chicago. He's up to his eyebrows in the left-wing Chicago political machine.
I’ll be honest, I have no problem with people getting discount and such. What I have a problem with is the people getting the discounts and special treatment turning around and trying to deny it to others.
That is exactly what Obama, and his ilk do.
2006 Interest and Dividend income listed doesn't show much from Northern Trust. I'm certainly no CPA and don't know where all to look on the return but if he had $3 million there wouldn't there be more listed?
“That’s not the super super jumbo gumbo I knew.”
At the end of 2006, Obama’s holdings were worth $455,000 to $1.125 million. When he entered the U.S. Senate in 2005, he reported assets worth between $200,000 and $400,000.
That is from his Seante filings. So we know when he took out the loan in 2005 he did NOT have 3 million $ to put into NOrthern Trust, so that is an outright lie by the Bank.
Example: Senator Dodd's mortgage bailout bill, written by the Bank of America. This is Dodd's pay back to his home mortgage lender.
I am sure it is nothing.... he will say this is not the mortgage broker he has known for years.
The story says the 3 million was “put through”, whatever that means, the bank at some unspecified later date. It is not uncommon for banks to give favorable loan rates if individuals or companies keep large (very large) compensating balances in their bank. There is no evidence that at the time of this loan there was any substantial monies in the bank belonging to Hussein.
Someone needs to look and see if any legislation was pending around that time that the bank had an interest in seeing passed or defeated. Perhaps HUSSEIN and his other lib friends who took the cheap money helped them with their votes.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2039827/posts
The Obama campaign explained to The Crypt this morning that the Obamas did not get a special deal because of his position in the Senate. Rather, he got the deal because he borrowed $1.3 million but agreed to bring nearly $3 million in assets to the bank, which was more than happy to knock off a few points from his interest rate in order to manage his cash. Such a lower rate is often offered to wealthy individuals if there is competition for the loan, which there was in Obama's case.
Won’t see that headline on MSM.
Yessiree, a true Tribune of the People.
“but agreed to bring nearly $3 million in assets to the bank”
Oh yeah, a Obama/Democrat PROMISE, that’s one you can bank on? Ha!
Gee is this part of the”new kind of politics”? Sure looks like the same old same old from the Dims!
HIGH CORRUPTION!!
“Community Organizer” is a very lucrative career path.
It would be interesting to trace back to the source of the supposed down payment. It seems to be a six figure sum of money.
Not the sort of sum one usually thinks of for community organizers, or young state legislators.
So what did Hillary overlook? Or was there an agreement to not go into personal finances in the primary?
“I’ll be honest, I have no problem with people getting discount and such.”
Even if the “people” are politicians?
Sorry, but “the people” should give no quarter to politicians getting greased by private businesses.
I saw what it said but my point is that the discounted mortgage loan was signed BEFORE the money was deposited in the bank. Further what the story said was that the money was “invested through” the bank. I have banking experience and have no idea what that means. I do understand the meaning of compensating balances to gain favorable rates but this is not that. The compensating funds are deposited BEFORE the mortgage doc’s are signed since they cannot be altered should the money not show up as promised.
This, I’ve a suspicion, is tied up with Rezko and that sleazy land deal for the adjoining lot next to the home.
Rezko's prints are all over it, including this little tidbit:
"The house purchased by the Obamas had been gutted and renovated 6 years earlier by a former employee of Tony Rezko. At the time the Obamas became interested in the house, someone else had already obtained an option on the side yard lot. By sheer coincidence, Tony Rezko knew that person, and arranged for the option to remain unexercised when the Obamas purchased the home, leaving the side yard in the friendly hands of the crooked Chicago real estate wheeler-dealer's wife."
With regard to Northern Trust, one of Michelle's old friends is now "in charge of framing the answers" to questions about the loan. My, my, they do think of everything, the Chicago combine.
Sorry, but “the people” should give no quarter to politicians getting greased by private businesses.
Yep, even if the "people" are pols. Now, if said pol then turns around and does the person giving them a perk a favor that the pol wouldn't normally do for another person then I agree 100% with you. That is an abuse of power and shouldn't be tolerated. I firmly believe that tarring and feathering should be made legal in such cases.
Now if the pol gets a freebie and does business in an ethical and moral manner (yeah I know it's pols we are taking about :-) then once again, I have no problem with perks being associated with a person's position.
The whole thing smells.
I have a problem with people such as Congressman Jim Moran D- Alexandria VA that worked on the new bankruptcy law and accepted a below market mortgage (without adequate equity) as he worked on the legislation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.