Northern Trust and Obama - Problems? Not So Much
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 16:38On Sunday, the Washington Post's ombudsman took on the "Obama mortgage deal" story:
Of the seven financial and mortgage experts I talked to, three were former reporters. The reporters thought the rate was low enough to merit a story. Financial experts who weren't journalists thought the rate was normal and something that any other wealthy, smart borrower might have gotten.
Of course the reporters (or former reporters) are going to think it merited a story, especially since one of them was affiliated with bankrate.com, which was cited in the original story. The ombudsman asked her own financial adviser, too:
I asked the advice of my longtime financial adviser and CPA, Stephen B. Smith of Williams-Keepers in Columbia, Mo., only because Smith is about the most Republican Republican I know when it comes to financial matters. And he's no Obama fan. After reading the article, he said: "No story. It's a very normal mortgage gotten by normal people, not even a sweetheart deal. The story quotes average rates. Averages have a range in this context. The rate charged is probably within the range of others in the sample who had no reason to get a favor. That is not a rate to shock the conscience."
Let's move on to a bank VP's comment:
O'Connell said that Northern Trust's rate on this type of mortgage at the time was 5.81 percent and that a discount of 0.125 percent was available to clients or prospective clients based on the potential for more personal business; 0.060 percent was subtracted from the rate because it was a competitive bid.
Oh, and the ombudsman's article was titled, "More Story Than a Loan Merited." 'Nuff said.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (22)
If the ethics committee won't investigate Dodd and Conrad for they're obvious quid pro quo dealings with Countrywide, there is no way a dem controlled Congress will even think about investigating Obama. Don't we all get rates less than published to the public? $71,000 savings to Obama over the course of the loan. It's good to be a Chicago politician.
Thomas, Obama got a rate .375% below the average. The term "average" means that there were loans both above and below that 6% figure. For Obama to be below the average, there had to be quite a few folks below the 6% level. It's a range. I'm surprised that you don't understand that concept.
I think Thomas gets the concept quite well. The concept being looked at is what Obama might have offered, or been expected to offer, in order to get a better than normal deal from Northern Trust.
Wes, if this were McCain, or Bush, or Cheney, or Rove getting a sweetheart deal from a political contributor, I somehow doubt that you would be so quick to dismiss the matter.
Gee wiz Wes ya think I don't understand that fancy math called a, a,a,a range?
This is my favorite subject. The extreme right, congenitally unable to distinguish financial shenanigans from ordinary business practices, are thrashing about seeking a Naughty, Naughty! on Obama.
McCain following Obama's lead on Afghanistan, economists labeling the McCain budget balancing "plan" a preposterous insulting fantasy, it's all made for a bad week requiring some distraction. As always, somehow the "quo" part of "quid pro quo" escapes them.
Obama got the best deal on a mortgage he could negotiate. Duh. If he hadn't, we'd be enduring solemn disquisitions on "What questions does this raise about Obama's ability to prudently manage the nation's finances?"
"The concept being looked at is what Obama might have offered"
Um, uh, well, yeah. Bingo. That is "the concept." The "quo." Keep "looking at" it, if you like. When you have something, get back to us.
.375% below the average rate is a "sweetheart deal?" I really don't think so. Nonetheless, I'll stick with what I said in your original post; there's no problem with the Senate Ethics folks looking into this, but I think the FEC complaint (not to mention the hype) is unwarranted.If it's something you and I can get, I don't see the corruption when a Congrescritter gets it. If it were to go beyond what you and I can get, that would be a different matter.
Funny how all those political donations to Obama from Northern Trust came rolling in.
As for "economists labeling the McCain budget balancing "plan" a preposterous insulting fantasy." Who might these fair minded economist be pray tell Rosie?
As Nancy and the dimwits continue to imitate Nero on energy, Americans are getting the sense and pissed that it's the dems who are dragging there feet due to the far-left enviromentalists who run the party.
Avg. price of gas when the dems took over Congress in January 2007 $2.10/gal. Average price of gas today $4.09/gal. Nearly double in less than two years! In 2006, Nancy Pelosi said she had a plan to cut gas prices. Republicans have asked to see that plan since Janaury 2007. Nancy Pelosi ignores the calls. David Obey (D) adjourns committee's rather let Republicans and Democrats add language to bills to for opening up ANWAR/Outer-Shelf. Give them four more years and gas will be $8.00/gal and they will LOVE IT.
Actually...
I've seen projections of over $12 / gal t.m...
... but that's an entire topic all to itself.
As for Ms.Pelosi,this speech should just be given for everything she's questioned on.
"Why... of course I have a plan for cutting gas prices... and we'll dive into that plan after you give us complete control in 2008 like mind-numbed thoughtless zombies craving change... any idea that I don't have a plan is a hoax... a hoax by the Republicans and this Bush administration."
Bamboozlin' Obama...
and his trusty sidekick Nitpickin' Nancy!
Once again, you guys conveniently ignore the fact that the GOP-controlled Congress, with a GOP President, kept the moratorium in place for six years. NONE of those clowns, elephantine or donkeyish, really care about us; their sole concern is their own power and wealth.
"Who might these fair minded economist be"
They are legion. Are the radical leftists at the Concord Coalition OK with you?
Wanna hear the punch line? McCain plans to get the bucks to pour into deficit reduction from the savings generated by his victory in Iraq.
Seriously.
Rosie;
Are you shi**ing me! The source you site as claimimng McCain's plan would be "preposterous", merly says it would be "difficult." You know what, I and about 300 million Americans agree. Yes it will be difficult. No where does Mr. Bixby call the plan preposterous. If anything, The Concorde Coalition approves of the McCain's earmark moratorium and holding budgets to 2.4%. I know it's a bitch when someone actually checks your source but that one was the hell out in left-field.
Nice try, but go back to sleep, My Somnolent Friend.
The entire quote:
Most people take "even more difficult than very difficult" to mean "well-nigh impossible." Most people take Bixby's reference to it being even MORE difficult under McCain's proposals to plainly mean the policies McCain proposes would make things WORSE.
Not you. Go back to sleep with FauxNews blaring in your ear. If there's anything you need to know, we'll wake you up.
The fact is, McCain's budget-balancing "plan" is little more than the bald assertion that he'll do it. He simply flatly refuses to talk about specifics AT ALL. The press's absurd willingness to let him get away with such nonsense will be the subject of future posts.
Ever wonder how much offshore land we can and cannot drill for oil on?
Check out this slide at Powerline.
Rosie;
Nice try on your word bending gymnastics that meet your definition but thankfully not most Americans.
"Man on the moon" Preposterous.Very difficult. Done.
"Wireless electronic internet communication through computers for all Americans." Preposterous. Very difficult. Done.
Keep pimping those earmarks, tax increases and no offshore drilling dimwits.And maybe the best one, "the surge isn't working." Preposterous. Very difficult. Done.
LOL. Ich Bin Ein Beginner.
Ever wonder how much oil is in those controversial areas?
From a 2006 San Francisco Chronicle article:
So, if those Federal estimates are still accurate, the bulk of West Coast offshore drilling and ANWR will supply us with about three years' worth of oil. I have to ask again - why aren't we concentrating on the 10-times-greater reserves we hold in oil shale?
"Nice try on your word bending gymnastics"
Oh, "most Americans" get what "even more difficult than very difficult" means, Tuckered Out. It's the Concord Coalition's polite way of calling John McCain daft.
We find it very difficult to follow Rosie's logic. Now that makes sense.
not preposterous?
Wes,
If oil prices continue to go up, oil shale well may be looked at as an alternative. From what I've read it still isn't very cost-effective to do so.
Zoy, I answered this in the "Question about "Drill Now"" thread - this one's been threadjacked long enough...
Threadjacking is an art form.
Of course, some artists just produce crap. <g>
Sorry, I had Picasso visions there for a moment. [gag]