This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
We Won! Bill to Retroactively Immunize Mortgage Fraud Defeated
A friend on the Hill just wrote me the following:
HR 3808 Veto Upheld
HR 3808 went down.
Congratulations to everyone who called their congress members to demand that this blatant attempt to legalize mortgage fraud be defeated.
Here's the roll call on the vote (and see this).
And thanks to ZeroHedge poster 4ClosureFraud for being on the forefront of this issue, and helping to keep us informed!
For those who don't know, 4ClosureFraud - and their friends Foreclosure Hamlet - have been the two main movers and shakers in exposing foreclosure fraud in the United States.
»
- advertisements -
Your Brain is Broken
Click on link for video
Posted: 13 Nov 2010 09:30 AM PST
Around these parts, we are so very keen to point out cognitive foibles.
Temporarily stuck in human form as we are, our instrument for perceiving the universe around us are inherently flawed, susceptible to all manner of errors.
Its a design error in the wetware.
In the ongoing battle to keep these flaws from impacting our investing process, we keep learning of new problems — with both the hardware and software. We can work to keep the firmware updated, but the errors are even worse than we previously imagined:
Facts, apparently, don’t matter much . . .
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
http://www.npr.org/v2/?i=128490874&m=128490868&t=audio" height="386" wmode="opaque" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" base="http://www.npr.org" type="application/x-shockwave-flash
The 112th. Congress starts Jan.3 2011.
There was no Tea Party in the 111th. Congress sport.
Maybe you should use the intervening time to brush up on civics courses...they apparently don't teach them in grade school anymore.
No Tea Party in the 111th Congress? Checkout Michelle Bachmann's "yea" vote. She's the one starting the Tea Party caucus in the House.
The only real Tea Partier is Ron Paul and he voted "nay" along with most of the Democrats. The rest of the Republicans are faking their allegiance to the Tea Party.
Ireland invented the boycott during the land wars, and perhaps it is time to take this effective weapon of resistance down from the thatch to deal with repossessions and resales Despite the spiralling economic crisis we are in, there was, last week, an epiphany at a small auction in Co Meath.
A 67-acre farm in Crossakiel, which had been repossessed by ACC bank, was up for sale. Despite a reasonable attendance by local farmers at the auction, there was only one derisory bid of €1.There was, according to some present, ‘‘an atmosphere’’ in the room, and the auctioneer later told the Irish Times that ‘‘there was no question but that people weren’t bidding because it was being sold by the bank’’.
At one stage, one person present questioned whether the land was being sold with the goodwill of the owner - and was told that the bank had the authority to sell the land.
The owner of the land had reached this financial crisis after using the land to raise funds for a property development which then crashed. The farm remains unsold.
It is not difficult to imagine the historical ghosts which haunted that Meath auction room, and I make no excuse for returning yet again to the personal debt crisis that I have been writing about for some weeks now.
One result of this issue has been the emergence of the New Beginning organisation, a group of some 50 barristers, businesspeople and citizens who are prepared to give free legal support to those facing repossession. And three cheers for them.
The failed land sale in Meath is yet another sign that, if the banks think they can regain the high financial ground over the thousands to whom they over-loaned in a reckless fashion by repossessing land, they may have to think again.
This applies equally to the government, which scooped up so many million euro in stamp duty.Given Ireland’s history, those silent farmers in the auction room in Co Meath last week would have had a far better sense of where all of this will lead than the men running our banks. If the banks and the political and financial establishment think that our current bank repossession methods and laws on debt and bankruptcy are adequate for the forthcoming crisis, they had better think again. Parallels with the land and eviction crisis of the 19th century are beginning to look pertinent, particularly when one considers that, by late next year, almost 20 per cent of Irish home ownership may be in negative equity.
At the outset of this crisis, most people didn’t really understand what had happened and were prepared to let the government get on with saving the banks since they were essential - so the government argued - to safeguarding our economic future. Well, we did that, but the economy is still in crisis. As the months have passed, the government’s financial targets have been missed, the debt crisis has grown and the public mood has changed. The realisation that thousands of families in this country are so in debt to the banks, that their children and unborn children will be paying it off, is slowly sinking in.
The auction in Meath last week may prove to have been be a significant turning point.
There have been two recent significant interventions in this debate. Professor Morgan Kelly of UCD warned in an Irish Times article that we were headed to what he depicted as a new type of land war between those who could pay their mortgages and those who could not.
He summed up the public mood as follows: ‘‘The perception growing among borrowers is that, while they played by the rules, the banks certainly did not, cynically persuading them into mortgages that they had no hope of affording.
‘‘Facing a choice between obligations to the banks and to their families’ mortgage or food, growing numbers are choosing the latter," he wrote.
Last Thursday, a group of ten leading economists wrote to the Irish Times, arguing that some form of mortgage debt forgiveness was not only essential for our society, but also for the economy. The group argued that, were mortgage debt forgiveness not introduced - and radical reform not introduced to our debt and bankruptcy laws - then our financial crisis would only deepen. At the core of their argument was the following assertion: ‘‘As there are three parties to the problem - the banks, the regulator (ie the state) and the individual - these three must also be part of the solution."
http://www.sbpost.ie/commentandanalysis/time-to-reclaim-the-land-that-is...
american citizens grow some balls.....
He summed up the public mood as follows: ‘‘The perception growing among borrowers is that, while they played by the rules, the banks certainly did not, cynically persuading them into mortgages that they had no hope of affording.
Am I missing something here? How the fuck do you get the balls to lever your ass to the moon and then decide it's the other guys fault for making you do it when you lose your ability to repay? Patently ridiculous.
Until both sides admit fault, there will be no progress. (I'm not holding my breath for either side to capitulate).
There is (was) a thing called an income ratio. The standards for the allowable amount of monthly income alloted towards housing were the same for a very long time.
This did not suddenly change because a bunch of hairdressers decided that they should be able to afford a McMansion.
It changed because the lending standards changed. It started right at the level of wholesale MORTGAGE MARKETING -- where they create the products and the pricing. They moved the goalpost because they were out of qualified borrowers at the prices levels that had been reached.
Seriously, in the average transaction, who should one expect to have a better sense of the details: the borrower or the broker?
Better question: did the lenders intentionally make loans to people which clearly had no reasonable ability to pay them back? If yes, then what might motivate them to do such a thing (on a large scale)?
If you can answer these questions and see past whether it means some jackass is going to get a "free" house or not, then you might begin to grasp what it is "you're missing here."
good comment...the difference between a generation ago and this one that maxed on housing...loose lending standards and huge, quick appreciation in housing prices.
While a boom makes all people crazy, govt, lenders, borrowers, regulators and a bust makes all people strict, conservative and tight...I still think the thing the set off craziness in general population was the big housing price inflation due to the ever decreasing interest rates (remember interest rates in 2004 got down to what they were dumped to last year in a huge crisis...why did interest rates have to be that low in early 2000's a semi decent economic time???) and due to loosening lending standards. By de-regulating banks, telling the mortgage/financial police to stay in their sqaud cars and never go after anyone for fraud and by lower interest rates, the FED essentially printed "house-buying" dollars and everyone went house crazy.
People in 70s did not due this because monthly housing payment costs were high due to high interest, so principle available to buy house was low.
Most of all us caught the fever, but the question is, who caught off the supply of the vaccine and who spread the bug?
I said it was necessary for BOTH sides to admit fault. Hence, I've already acknowleged your thesis. When you can admit that these people knew or should have known they were at substantial risk of default on the loans, then we might be able to open up some remedial dialogue. Until then, each side is reduced to nothing but hypocritical barking.
The concept of might makes right is also patently ridiculous. We get to borrow money from banks knowing we are at substantial risk of default, then we default, then when it comes time to auction we strong arm a nominal bid to ensure we receive the property back and the bank gets harmed without recourse on the deficiency... OK, I hear a lot about the rule of law, but that sword is two sided.
americans in places like Iowa did this same type of thing when farms were taken by banks and auctioned...in the 1930s..sometime 1000 farmers would show up at an auction and intimidate others from bidding and then let the former owner buy everything back for a few dollars...these were obviously illegal auction that the locat courts could have voided but they did not....farmers would shun any landowner that threw off a tenant farmer, no one else would rent their land or help/work with someone that did rent the land...Americans, when they were impoverished, banded together in populist action...
"The owner of the land had reached this financial crisis after using the land to raise funds for a property development which then crashed. The farm remains unsold."
I'd like to know the details of this. If the guy levered the family farm for investing in McMansions either on the property or Miami condos, the local farmers in my area would have bought the property and kept it in till. If the owner was doing his best but hit hard times (failed crop, equipment failure, illness, etc), and the bank sells it, then yeah, the locals often boycott the sale.
"Maybe it's time to email the reps that voted "yea" with a little note telling them that they just lost a mess of votes unless they straighten out and actually pursue inditements on the fraud."
No. Not email. Hand delivered to their house in their district. Not the campaign office. Not via post office. By hand. No stamp. Keep it polite and professional.
Thanks to the democrats for putting this thing down. the Fing republicans voted heavily in majority for the passage of this bill. If anything that tells us what we have in store for us in the years to come. More of the same servitude to the banksters and serving the special interests. We're fucked no matter which way we turn.
Very interesting.
sweet !!
The speaker said just after announcing the vote result that it would be referred back to the judiciary committee... me thinks this ain't dead yet.
Mel Watt (the congressman from Bank of America) and Maxine Waters (wife of a banker) are on that committee.
no fat lady singing.... hmm i agree this isn't over yet. "they" allowed to masses a little mental comfort before Thanksgiving...
The fat lady is first clearing her throat.
wonder what is in her throat that needs to be cleared out... maybe the bankers gave her something...
They'll probably just tack it on to the:
Federal MERS Mortgage Accommodation, Reconciliation and Trust Bill
Judiciary committee...
Hawhawhawhawhawhaw
Shall we recognize those leaders that voted not to overturn the veto or enacted the veto in the first place? Maybe they deserve some of the mindshare spent devauluing our government on a daily basis?
naaaaa let's burn it all to the ground. I'm bored.
Vote Roll Call
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll573.xml
Thanks. Added to post.
People 1. Bankers 666666666666666
Maybe it's time to email the reps that voted "yea" with a little note telling them that they just lost a mess of votes unless they straighten out and actually pursue inditements on the fraud.
Politicians breaking ties with the banks... growing a conscience... Watch the left hand...
The Jilted Toady Strikes Back!
It is a Democrat shot across Wall Street's bow that they want more campaign bribes $$$$ in 2012 than they got in 2010...
Tah Dah!
Give the man a cee-gar.
S'all any of 'em want; 'sides bein' re-lected.
Boh!
For now. The banksters will be back.
I wrote to Permutter (D CO dist 7) a couple of days ago on this. I will have to check on how he voted.
Perlmutter voted No
So did the entire contingent of Massachusetts...surprise ;-)
For those keeping score at home: The Dems killed it. GOP voted to over ride the veto.
97% of Republicans voted for H.R. 3808 to pass and
6.3% of democrats voted for H.R. 3808 to pass.
Them the facts.
True, both parties are different heads on the same Hydra, but since HR 3808 is such a pivotal and important bill this result should be a wake up call to the Rethuglican's Oh, so self-important "free enterprise" gibberish.
Wake up pseudo conservatives!
Something weird about the vote in the House clerks record, it still shows HR3808 as unfinished business after the roll call #573 vote which may have actually been on a motion.
Ron Paul's vote helped to kill it.
Now he should have his way with the TSA. Here is the bill he introduced a little while ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKsBxh0xvMk
you might want to check that link...
Rep. from my State Dist., P. Hoekstra , republican , voted for passage . He voted for TARP bailout , while peeing his pants in fear . Republican coward and crook . Failed at Gunernatorial race here hands down . The sheeple can finally see the crum , I mean King without his clothes . A huge rebuke on all who voted for this bills passage . Good job ZH and 4closusefraud !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
he ain't scared, he is just doing what Wall Street paid him to do
As a conservative I don't quite understand why the republicans voted this way.
Is this saying they think the fraud is on main street?
I hope this is illustrative for Tea Party supporters out there. The Yeas include a lot of preferred incumbents. I would like to hear their excuses for their votes and ask them why they had a hard time coming down on the same side of the question as Ron Paul. I am extremely disappointed in one of my state's Congressmen. I had hoped for better from him. Given the vote distribution, one can only come to the conclusion that it was primarily a political split, the Ds presumably not wanting to punish the McMansion overbuyers/subprimes and the Republicans wanting to beat the same over the head and, for some, as camo for a vote to help the bankstas, and maybe some other motives that I'm insufficiently devious to appreciate. If there are other motives, please inform me so I might be more informed. Also, could some of you inform me regarding the likelihood that good titles were made defective during a refi process for a reduced interest rate.
this article, from last winter, ought to clear it up for you...Wall Street owns most of the Dems AND Repubs and previously Wall Street previously was very bi-partisan in its bribing of congress and presidential candidate...but because Dems bowed every so slightly to pressure from the people in the slight reforms and curbs they passed in the last two years.... currently, Wall Street feels like they get the most for their money from Repubs...
Cantor's statement in bold about sums it up:
"...In discussions with Wall Street executives, Republicans are striving to make the case that they are banks' best hope of preventing President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats from cracking down on Wall Street.
GOP strategists hope to benefit from the reaction to the White House's populist rhetoric and proposals, which range from sharp critiques of bonuses to a tax on big Wall Street banks, caps on executive pay and curbs on business practices deemed too risky...."
"I sense a lot of dissatisfaction and a lot of buyer's remorse on Wall Street," said Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.), the second-ranking House Republican and a top Wall Street fund-raiser for his party.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703575004575043612216461790.html?KEYWORDS=cantor+buyer%27s+remorse
cantor might say he was using "buyer's remorse" metaphorically. but he would be lying.
As a conservative methinks the Repubs have mistaken shit for shinola, Bitchez!
It's hard to believe how some Republican voters still think that their party isn't anything but bought and sold by Wall Street.
Well, I'm for culling members of my party that refuse to govern for the folks. But I'll try to find comfort in the fact your party midtowng, has our backs covered.
midtowng?
Most probably don't even know what this vote was about. They just saw Obama vetoed it so they wanted to vote for it.
You can't be serious.