Barack Obama’s sweetheart loan
July 2nd, 2008 by Brendan SteinhauserIt seems as though Senators Dodd and Conrad aren’t the only politicians that take advantage of their status to secure sweetheart mortgages.
The Washington Post reports that Senator Barack Obama got a nice deal, likely unavailable to your average Joe, from Northern Trust.
Driving the recent debate is concern that public officials, knowingly or unknowingly, may receive special treatment from lenders and that the discounts could constitute gifts that are prohibited by law.
Indeed. Perhaps there is more to this story. Kudos to the Post reporter who penned the article.
Since 1990, Northern Trust employees have donated more than $739,000 to federal campaigns, including $71,000 to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:34 pm
yes, let’s get real, what is the big deal with someone that is qualified and gets a mortgage! I got three at one time and was not qualified but I am a white middle class junkie
July 8th, 2008 at 10:09 am
I believe it was the Democrats in Congress, when investigating then President GHW Bush, “The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.”
Our politicians should be held to a higher standard….or at the very least, a comparable standard.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Regarding your statement “This is the same controversial home Senator Obama bought with the help of a sweetheart land deal with convicted felon and political insider Tony Rezko.” Rezko was NOT involved with the initial purchase of Senator Obama’s home. Rezko owned the vacant lot next to Senator Obama’s home. If he desired to add that lot to his property, it’s not as if he has an option as to who to buy it from. Your insinuation as to Rezko’s involvement seems to indicate that you have an agenda, and does not speak well of your true interest in the truth.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Gee! Could it be the Congressmen, women, Senators (you name it) who got the sweatheart deals want the buy out to pass, so they don’t have to pay it back? Or was that the idea in the minds of the loanees when they gave the loans in the first place? How do we make them pay it back, so the $7B can at least be reduced? Call me naive, but I’m just learning and want some straight answers, not garblety gook. Or doesn’t politics come without the garblety gook?