.jpg)
CNBC's populist protest of the people
Today's losers losing their homes are Republican districts. At least according to the Center for Responsible Lending, who has just issued a new report that shows nine of the top ten districts with the most foreclures are Republican and most likely to receive the bulk of any homeowner bailout, and thus, at least according to one On Air editor of a major cable network, fit the definition of "losers". Those districts are:
| Rank | Member | R/D | District | Foreclosures | PVI | Minority % | Median $ |
| 1 | John Sullivan | (R) | OK-01 | 17,016 | R+13 | 23.9 | $38,610 |
| 2 | Connie Mack | (R) | FL-14 | 14,211 | R+10 | 10.4 | $40,187 |
| 3 | Gary Peters | (D) | MI-09 | 13,455 | R+0 | 16.9 | $52,510 |
| 4 | Dan Burton | (R) | IN-05 | 13,149 | R+20 | 5.9 | $52,800 |
| 5 | Tom Cole | (R) | OK-04 | 13,057 | R+13 | 20.3 | $35,510 |
| 6 | Trent Franks | (R) | AZ-02 | 12,547 | R+9 | 14.5 | $42,432 |
| 7 | Steve Buyer | (R) | IN-04 | 12,478 | R+17 | 5.2 | $45,947 |
| 8 | Mike Castle | (R) | DE-AL | 12,457 | D+7 | 27.5 | $47,381 |
| 9 | Candice Miller | (R) | MI-10 | 11,863 | R+4 | 5.1 | $52,510 |
| 10 | John Linder | (R) | GA-07 | 11,119 | R+18 | 14.8 | $63,455 |
Things look a little better further down the list. However, only six of the 22 districts with more than 10,000 foreclosures projected are represented by Democrats, and only two of those have served a full term. So 20 of the 22 have been in Republican hands until very recently:
| Rank | Member | R/D | District | Foreclosures | PVI | Minority % | Median $ |
| 11 | Doug Lamborn | (R) | CO-05 | 11,042 | R+16 | 22.6 | $45,454 |
| 12 | Dale Kildee | (D) | MI-05 | 10,964 | D+12 | 23.3 | $39,675 |
| 13 | John Adler | (D) | NJ-03 | 10,797 | D+3 | 14.4 | $44,282 |
| 14 | Rob Andrews | (D) | NJ-01 | 10,658 | D+14 | 16.0 | $47,473 |
| 15 | Carol Shea-Porter | (D) | NH-01 | 10,570 | R+0 | 3.9 | $50,135 |
| 16 | Dan Lungren | (R) | CA-03 | 10,460 | R+7 | 20.9 | $51,313 |
| 17 | Tom Rooney | (R) | FL-16 | 10,327 | R+2 | 12.1 | $39,408 |
| 18 | Gabrielle Giffords | (D) | AZ-08 | 10,237 | R+1 | 26.1 | $40,656 |
| 19 | Bill Posey | (R) | FL-15 | 10,162 | R+4 | 15.2 | $39,397 |
| 20 | Mike Rogers | (R) | MI-08 | 10,151 | R+2 | 10.5 | $52,510 |
| 21 | Henry Brown | (R) | SC-01 | 10,140 | R+10 | 25.2 | $40,713 |
| 22 | Paul Broun | (R) | GA-10 | 10,063 | R+13 | 10.3 | $42,037 |
In other words, "Since the Rick Santelli's of the world have been complaining about how the people who would be helped by this bill are so 'irresponsible' and are really just a bunch of 'losers.' .... Rick Santelli's 'losers' may turn out to be the people who are supposedly his ideological fellow travelers."
Another media, multi-conglomerate inspired populist uprising to get the populace to rise up against their own interests.
Comments
first, im a conservative..... are you saying we and he should care about these 'losers' because they voted for a republican? leaches are leaches no matter what circle they fill in on the ballot. naturally, id be for lessoning aid to most of our countries leaches. i say let people that make bad choices suffer from them in hopes they learn and make better choices next time. whereas, you liberals would HAVE TO support people like this that are havin' a hard time. even the rich folks.
Jimmy just doesn't seem to get it. I've been a Republican all my life, just not of the NeoCon variety. The article points out that the losers Santelli spoke of are mostly Republican. Republicans also lost in the last election. Those Republicans, perhaps mostly NeoCons, who still have not woken up to the failings of themselves and thus our party as a result, might stop the denial, look in the mirror and see the real problem facing them. Meanwhile, those Republicans that have woken up and seen the problems facing them and their party will work toward correcting those problems. Unfortunately it may mean a cleansing of the party of those who appear to remain clueless and continue to live in denial of being their own worst enemies.
It will be interesting to see if these guys get re-elected sense the republicans voted 100% against the banking bailout. I have to admit, at the time I was against it but after seeing that it is helping people stay in their homes, and preserve my propery values I am glad the dems did it.
How do you leap from being represented by a Republican to the foreclosures being held by mostly Republicans? That is what you are poorly trying to insinuate.
Funny I didn't notice anyone trying to make any sensationalizing correlation regarding the % of minorities in the districts. Oddly enough there were only 4 out of the 22 listed districts with less than double digits....
Mary, Mary... did you know that the minority percentage of the USA, including Latinos, is 34%? That means that every single one of these districts is "whiter" than the country as a whole. So take your racist b.s. elsewhere, please.
A more accurate title to this article would be:
"Republican districts hardest hit by GOP's intentional desctruction of US economy"
Or it could be that people that voted Democrat tried to buy homes in areas they couldn't afford in the first place (nicer neighborhoods) and now are facing reality.
The Examiner must be doing some good for humankind if they are attracting such ugly Republican Trolls of the Evil Christianist kind who never consider these "losers" have children. Quick, you "Conservatives", take Jesus' advice! Tie that millstone around your neck and throw yourself into the deepest part of the sea before something really bad happens to you.
It is probably the Democrats in these Republican counties that are losing their homes and making the Republicans Counties look bad.
By the way this article is very misleading. It is kind of saying that it was all the Republicans that lost their home in the Republican Counties. I live in a Republican County and in my neighborhood there were to many Democrats living here until they started to lose their homes. Now there are half as many Democrats and the same number of Republicans.
This seems completely irrelevant. Santelli didn't make a partisan complaint, it was fairly principled and had nothing to do with political party. Furthermore, the party representation of a district would have nothing whatsoever to do with foreclosure rates in those districts. To the extent their is a trend there (and you certainly appear to have found a trend), I would suggest that party preference in those districts is more likely a result of higher homeownership rates, etc., as a whole; people who save money, buy homes, have jobs, etc., are much more likely to vote republican. They are probably more likely to flip houses, too.
As for the people who are "supposedly his ideological fellow travelers", that's just a throwaway strawman.
This article says more about the author's inability to think logically.
What is the correlation between a congressman and the foreclosure rate?
So why would Republicans be against helping these people out if in fact they are also Republicans?
Either they are taking a philosophical stand regardless of which party the foreclosed belong to or this is just a bunch of crap?
Why doesn't the author make a list of the highest homicide rate cities and the party affiliation of their Mayors?
That would be a good list.
Ha! Republicans are retarded losers. Every one of 'em.
Kill 'em all.
You need to control for home ownership by party. You simply aren't going to have many foreclosures in democratic strongholds: urban areas filled with renters. You also need to control for price fluctuations. For example, many LA citizens bought second/third investment homes in the long distance suburbs - which just so happen to be in neighboring Republican counties (San Bernardino and Riverside). Those neighboring counties are now filled with brand new, vacant homes in foreclosure.
So yes, it is almost certainly true that foreclosures are more likely to be in Republican counties. But that means as much as trumpeting that robberies are more likely to occur in Democratic counties.
Check it out, kinda funny, not funny ha ha, funny ironic
Well, that figures.
I really like some of the responses.
Well, it can't be Republicans that are losing their homes, it has to be a sudden influx of Democrats who move into these congressional districts, buy up all the homes they can't afford, and then promptly get foreclosed on.
Or, the districts are actually made up of Democrats that vote Republican, because that really makes sense..
Or, as Mary so eloquently states, it's those dang minorities, who cannot be republicans, that move into all of these districts. They're the losers.
It could even be a conspiracy!
A bunch of democrats with bad credit hatch a plot to move into republican congressional districts. They all buy up homes they can't afford and lose them to the bank because some day Rick Santelli is going to have to be upset about something. These conspiratorial Democrats have a secret plot to force Republicans, who may someday read this study, to go out and spend their hard earned capitalist acquired money to purchase tea bags they will never use. You know, because they're upset about wasteful spending. The buying of useless teabags is SYMBOLIC of wasteful spending, done by angry Republicans, so it doesn't count.
Makes sense to me.
Yet another example of how powerful Republicans hate on poor Republican. Like Republican governors who are refusing federal money for the unemployed in their states. Worst of all is the opinions expressed here that politicians, once elected, are only responsible to those who voted for them and not for all the citizens in their district. Republican leadership will screw any one making less than $100K, whether Republican or Democrat or nonpartisan,in favor of those making $1 million a year.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!