dagblog - Comments for "Obama's Veto and Mortgage Fraud"

“To survive it is often

chucktrotter — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 01:48:55 +0000

In reply to Obama's Veto and Mortgage Fraud

“To survive it is often necessary to fight and to fight you have to dirty yourself.”

George Orwell

single payer which Pelosi got

Contrarian — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 05:48:23 +0000

In reply to Don't tell me what the

single payer which Pelosi got through the House

My apologies in advance if I'm wrong -but- when did that happen?

Don't tell me what the

NCD — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:00:32 +0000

In reply to "I would hope for action by

Don't tell me what the President of the United States 'can do', I have seen what they can do. Obama could have ended DADT 6 weeks ago on his own and didn't, it was at that point that I realized that not upsetting anyone (in this case, Gates, some in the Pentagon, McCain, GOP) but his base was his major mode of operation.

I have totally lost faith in him or his ability to get anything more done that the GOP opposes (the health care was Ok but who knows if it will last?-same with banking-the law was not that strong, he appears to not want to appoint Bair, and the rules are not yet written and the GOP is intent on rolling them back). He has the same Congress in December and if it were Republicans in a lame duck session they would be cramming through Bills like crazy. We will see if Obama, as the President, and leader of his Party can get through one thing that the GOP opposes in the December session.

He could use the bully pulpit to put some heat on Republicans in the Senate on the Treaty and on taxes on the rich. Biden and Clinton have done some of that with START today. As I said on another blog some talk of mushroom clouds seemed to work wonders for Bush starting a war, START is just a treaty for heaven's sake, and it is about nuclear weapons containment!!!

In doing my recent blog on START II an article said that the Obama administration had 27 meetings, phone calls and letters exchanged with Senator Kyl, including sending administration people to Arizona to talk with Kyl, and 'they thought' Kyl was on-board with voting now on it. Biden also said they had 18 Senate Committee sessions on START II this summer. What kind of a President does all this and then gets stiffed by a two bit GOP jerk like Kyl and doesn't hit back hard, with a press conference on the issue or 'by other' LBJ like political methods to screw the guy or his Party in ways only a President can? I guess only a President who is more like Mr. Rodgers than an LBJ or even a Clinton.

I said I would love to see some fight, but even though I am a long term Obama supporter, his neglect to follow the written advice of 25 Democratic Senators to let the DADT court ruling stand and not appeal it, his failure to push for single payer which Pelosi got through the House, his failure to close Gitmo, and his imminent giving away the farm on the Bush tax cuts before Congress even reconvenes has me convinced the guy is a huge disappointment. This is not to mention his defense of torture, wiretapping, lack of criminal action on mortgage fraud, and doubling down on Afghanistan last year when Biden and our ambassador there said not to do so.

And watch, he will sign a mortgage Bill that allows foreclosures to continue within a couple of months.

"I would hope for action by

brewmn — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:37:18 +0000

In reply to Dream on. It seems a sure

"I would hope for action by Obama on ending the tax breaks for millionaires now, not in some distant imagined future, passing the Start II treaty in the Senate, ending DADT, reducing troops in Afghanistan and getting some funds for jobs, but I frankly doubt the guy will fight the GOP and produce on any of these issues, although I would love to see it."

You do realize that Obama can't do any of the things you list above (and in your earlier blog post), except for Afghanistan, without a majority of members of Congress voting to do so, don't you? Because these simple facts anbout our political system and structure don't seem very clear from anything you've written over the last few days.

Your take as to how Obama

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:00:14 +0000

In reply to My point was that you said

Your take as to how Obama came to his decision to veto seems completely reasonable and as likely to be correct as any. It also seems to me that you expressed yourself clearly the first time.

Now we must hope that the light will shine brightly on the issue when it comes up again.

Dream on. It seems a sure

NCD — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:51:18 +0000

In reply to Obama's Veto and Mortgage Fraud

Dream on. It seems a sure thing that another Bill will emerge and pass to legalize this mortgage fraud, and save the banks from their Brobdingnabian deceit, greed and malfeasance over the last decade. After spending trillions saving Wall Street neither the Dem's nor the GOP are going to let a little paper signing monkey business bring down the big banks or The Street.

As Matt T. says at Rolling Stone, the GOP gives Wall Street and big business/banks 100% of what they want, Obama - 90%. The reason they hate Obama is for that last 10%, which for Obama/Geithner doesn't include allowing millions of mortgage loans the chance of being declared fraudulent in courts across the nation.

I would hope for action by Obama on ending the tax breaks for millionaires now, not in some distant imagined future, passing the Start II treaty in the Senate, ending DADT, reducing troops in Afghanistan and getting some funds for jobs, but I frankly doubt the guy will fight the GOP and produce on any of these issues, although I would love to see it.

My point was that you said

we are stardust — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:51:00 +0000

In reply to I don't see your point here,

My point was that you said this: "Basically, it was the Administration that caught this one in time and killed the bill."

My point was that it wasn't so much that the Administration caught it, but the outside groups who were living through the mightmares caused by MERS and the fact that the notes on the homes had been rendered so unclear in the chains of conveyance, etc.

I didn't criticize Obama or the administration; I offered a counter explanation about why he refused to sign it. There have been many online and offline organizations investigating this subject and finding increasing evidence of foreclosure fraud. I gave a sigh of relief, as did many, when he announced his intended pocket veto.

I don't see your point here,

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:21:00 +0000

In reply to There were loads of petitions

I don't see your point here, W. Does the fact that Obama did what the left asked him to do diminsih the fact that he did it?

And I don't follow the "if not asked not to sign it, he might have signed it" argument. Blaming him for stuff that he might have done, if he hadn't done what he actually did, seems like a waste of energy. There are plenty of other things to be upset about.

My complaint is that the House and Senate Democrats passed it, without making any objection at all or even contesting the vote. That includes all of my favorite progressive Democrats: Barney Frank and Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders all let this one get by them. They did pass the law, and they didn't ask the President not to sign it. None of that is hypothetical. That's a record of their actions.

There were loads of petitions

we are stardust — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:14:12 +0000

In reply to Obama's Veto and Mortgage Fraud

There were loads of petitions and calls for people to call and email the White House exactly so Obama would veto the bill. Many consumer groups, attorneys general, county attorneys, et.al., have been at the forefront of this issue.

Who knows? Had there not been so much clamoring, he might have signed it. Since Kaufman's TARP report about what their investigations have found so far in terms of 'irregularities' (fraud) in the foreclosure debacle, it's clear there will be more fights. the biggest one I'd think will be the nifty 'fixes' the Administration and Congress might employ to put some legitimacy on the 'reconstructed' mortgages and titles after the fact. I think Ted said that the securitized mortgages add up to $4.3 trillion dollars.