dagblog - Comments for "The U.S. Government Does Not Believe That Homeowners Deserve Help"

Eliot Spitzer was a bit of a

Donal — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:51:16 +0000

In reply to I know Donal. But who is in

Eliot Spitzer was a bit of a rooster, too.

I know Donal. But who is in

Richard Day — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:28:34 +0000

In reply to Hey, what do I know? But in a

I know Donal.

But who is in charge now?

Eric Schneiderman!

And rather than put the foxes in charge of the henhouse we now have one hell of a rooster lookin over all of this! ha

And Beau Biden aint an idiot.

And if Beau says there are going to be consequences; I believe him!

Hey, what do I know? But in a

Donal — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:07:04 +0000

In reply to I watched Joe Biden's son

Hey, what do I know? But in a Sunday OpEd, Too Many Unanswered Questions, and Too Little Relief, the NY Times is also underwhelmed:

What do banks get in exchange for the relief? The answer, in short, is a sweet deal.

The banks did not get the blanket release they originally sought from legal liability for all manner of mortgage misconduct. But the settlement still shields them from state and federal civil lawsuits for most foreclosure abuses, including the wrongful denial of loan modifications, excessive late fees that enriched the banks but could make it impossible for borrowers to catch up on late payments, and conflicts of interest that led banks to favor foreclosures over modifications. Going forward, the banks will have to adhere to tougher standards for servicing loans and executing foreclosures. But past sins in servicing and foreclosure are largely absolved.

The banks are not off the hook for criminal prosecutions related to the mortgage mess or for private lawsuits. They are also not off the hook for wrongdoing in their aggressive pooling of mortgages into securities and other practices that inflated the bubble. Thanks for the settlement’s narrower legal releases goes to New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, and a handful of other state attorneys general, who refused to accept a deal that would have blocked further legal action.

Which brings us back to the question of whether a new investigation will indeed get off the ground. We are skeptical. The Obama administration squandered several months resisting Mr. Schneiderman’s insistence on a broader investigation, raising questions about its willingness to now get tough with the banks and bankers. As a practical matter, that delay has allowed some potential violations to draw closer to expiration under statutes of limitation.

I watched Joe Biden's son

Richard Day — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:38:48 +0000

In reply to I don't know who wrote this

I watched Joe Biden's son this morning and he made the same points. And attorney Biden has been working on this for a couple of years.

He is pleased at this 'scriveners settlement'; it mostly has to do with the processing fees and the false affidavits filed through these 'processing scams'.

To add insult to the penury,

Michael Maiello — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:57:48 +0000

In reply to Wow, $2000 bucks. Now I can

To add insult to the penury, it's only $2,000 if the low estimate of claimants materializes. If more claims are made, the payout drops to 1,500. It's basically a fund for settling he issue, when the fund is exhausted, that's it.

Wow, $2000 bucks. Now I can

erica — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:12:29 +0000

In reply to The U.S. Government Does Not Believe That Homeowners Deserve Help

Wow, $2000 bucks. Now I can retire in comfort.

I don't know who wrote this

Ramona — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:25:59 +0000

In reply to Naked Capitalism: The Top

I don't know who wrote this but I watched Schneiderman on Rachel Maddow and that's not at all what he said. I'm not even going to pretend I understand it all, but it sounds like it's an open-ended deal with no homeowner rights taken away (they can still sue; the difference is that the AGs will help and there will be money for attorneys) and it didn't exempt the banks from any future actions against them.

When Rachel asked him why this didn't happen sooner he said the success of the progressive grass roots movements had a lot to do with getting it done and shifting the focus on keeping it open-ended, with no guarantees for the banks.

The clip is here.

Only "job creators" can be

Elusive Trope — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:57:56 +0000

In reply to I think by implying their are

Only "job creators" can be "victims."

I think by implying their are

Michael Maiello — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:13:33 +0000

In reply to I think the word

I think by implying their are no victims they are taking the bank line that, whatever happened to all of the legal documents regarding ownership and obligations that these people had it coming for getting behind on their mortgages. This absolves the banks of the responsibility to abide by the terms of agreements that the banks wrote.

The idea here is damned simple. If somebody says that you owe them money, you have the right to demand proof of the obligation. If I called up GE and told them that I want the promised interest and principal payments on their bonds due 2015 their reps would rightly ask me to either show them my coupon or direct them to a custodial account where the bonds are being held in my name. If I could not do either, they would not pay me, even if I did legitimately purchase the bonds years ago.

Why should a homeowner, which is as much a borrower as GE is, not be able to ask for proof while GE can? Would it be considered a "victimless crime" if GE were forced to pay out any claim laid against it, by any one, at any time, with or without documentation?

I think the word

Elusive Trope — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:41:14 +0000

In reply to And the wizards who write

I think the word "essentially" is the give away. They are acknowledging there victims, that its wasn't a true victimless crime. But they all want to just put this behind them and so are looking for a way to justify it.

And in the end, saying why it is bad needs to be summed up in three words that will counter the other three words - "will create jobs"