Obama Is on the Brink of a Settlement With the Big Banks—and Progressives Are Furious

[XemaSab]

For months, a massive federal settlement with big Wall Street banks over their role in the mortgage crisis has been in the offing. The rumored details have always given progressives heartburn: civil immunity, no investigations, inadequate help for homeowners and a small penalty for the banks. Now, on the eve President Obama’s State of the Union address—in which he plans to further advance a populist message against big money and income inequality—the deal may be here, and it’s every bit as ugly as progressives feared.

The Associated Press reports that a proposed deal could be announced within weeks. Five banks—Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank and Ally Financial (formerly GMAC)—would pay the federal government $25 billion. About $17 billion would be used to reduce the principal that some struggling homeowners owe, $5 billion more would be used for future federal and state programs and $3 billion would be used to help homeowners refinance at 5.25 percent. Civil immunity would be granted to the banks for any role in foreclosure fraud, and there would be no investigations.

There are several reasons why this is could be a terrible deal. For one, the dollar amount is inadequate in relation to both the tremendous loss of wealth via mortgage fraud and the hefty balance sheets of these massive companies. Furthermore, the banks might be allowed to use investor money instead of their own funds—this makes the penalty even lower. Beyond all that: it’s extremely hard to justify the absence of investigations and punishment for mortgage fraud that was so widespread and so damaging to people’s lives.

There are also many other, more serious problems besides a lack of punitive action. The small amount of money—and the federal government’s recent inability to truly help underwater mortgage holders, of which there are currently 11 million—means that the victims of mortgage fraud might not see enough relief. And perhaps most importantly, with no real punishment for widespread damaging fraud, what are the incentives on Wall Street not to engage in similarly destructive practices once again?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165806/obama-brink-settlement-big-banks-and-progressives-are-furious

[northoftheborder]

1. Color me FURIOUS

[trumad]

2. They knew all along that it would be a slap on the wrist...

Hence the reason they did it.

[grasswire]

3. this gives me chest pain

I can't even think about it without popping a cork.

[truedelphi]

88. Same here.

Though I know I shouldn't mention it. I mean, it's not his fault, he's only been in office so many months, and he did put all that energy into getting us our ponies.

[spanone]

4. so the 'deal' hasn't been announced yet and 'progressives are furious' how's that happen?

[villager]

12. so the "deal" is increasingly confirmed and apologists are spinning furiously

How's that happen?

Same way it has for the last three years?

[spanone]

15. apologists....is that what i am for asking a question....showing yer ass

[Dragonfli]

71. A Bidet is considered useful by some

Apologists tend to cause excrement to soil an area rather than clean it of such

[LiberalLovinLug]

126. So your next comment gets hidden just for simply quoting the poster above?

Wow.
Oh well , I still support the jury system. It gets it right most times.

[jaxx]

13. It's all about ramping up the rumors.

Same as ever, keep people stirred up about "what if".

[AtomicKitten]

18. It's a preemptive hissy not unlike FDL announcing that at the 2011 SOTU address

... the president was going to announce he would be gutting SS and Medicare.

Whatever the president does and in this case whether or not a deal is reached, there is gnashing of teeth and epithets hurled. No opportunity for a cheap shot at the president is overlooked.

[rhett o rick]

23. So are you saying that the centrists are ok with this deal?

I am curious, if you are not a progressive, what are you? And how do your stands on issues differ from progressives?

[spanone]

24. i'm saying i don't know what the hell the deal is. neither do YOU or anyone else.

do you know who the ap got this story from?

do you trust the media more than Obama?

go ahead, enjoy your fantasy

[PA Democrat]

27. Senator Sherrod Brown.

Read his press release from last week.

http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=d318a589-e27c-4b33-93c8-83d26e2b61ae

[girl gone mad]

28. Let's assume Sherrod Brown as well as the journalists reporting this story..

have their facts straight.

Do you support the deal?

[rhett o rick]

32. He will not respond whether or not he supports the deal until after the president makes a decision.

[tblue]

36. Was that supposed to be funny?

Because I laughed.

So true that is about some of us here. IOKIODI, ya know?

[rhett o rick]

56. It wasnt intended to be funny. I suspect your laughter is hysteria setting in.

Dont blame you. HaHaHa

[spanone]

46. i'm not in the assuming business. are you?

[rhett o rick]

76. Do you support giving the banksters immunity or not? nt

[rhett o rick]

31. I know what I want, and I am curious what you want. This has come up many times before.

Before the president killed the public option, before he passed the George Bush tax breaks, before he signed the law for indefinite detention. And every time someone bad mouthed the progressives for anticipating these horrible decisions.

I have asked many times over and not one of you, whoever you are, will respond. If you hate progressives so much, tell us why. Tell us on what issued you disagree.

[spanone]

47. hate progressives? are you drunk?

[i_sometimes]

50. The poster could not be drunk

he is using capital letters where warranted.
No drinking person who is drunk can do that.

[rhett o rick]

53. Wait one minute. I might be drunk. I do some of my best....ah, best.... Anyway

I might just be drunk. I think I have a good excuse.

[i_sometimes]

62. Lol, its early...or late, depending....

[rhett o rick]

52. If I am wrong, I certainly appologize. Maybe I misunderstood your post.

It sounded to me like you were disparaging progressives. I certainly see that enough here in DU. And although I dont think it is constructive, I certainly understand that it's their right to do such. But what I dont understand is how these people differ from progressives. What issues do they disagree. I have asked that question to many of these people and never have gotten any kind of response. Not one response. This issue is a good example. The progressives are out in front saying they will not favor a decision by the president that lets the banks off the hook. I strongly agree. I have asked you how you feel. And I ask again w/o animosity, how do you feel?

[LiberalLovinLug]

127. Crickets.....

as usual

+1

[rhett o rick]

132. It is not my intention to fight with these "people".

Although it is sometimes. And I call them "these people" not out of disrespect but because they wont tell me what they call themselves and I dont want to call them what some people call them.

They always pop up before an important issue is decided and slam progressives/liberals for expressing opinions about the legislation before it's law. For example, before the Health Care bill was passed, liberals were upset at the possibility of no public option. "These people" came out in force and berated progressives for daring to doubt. And this has happened time and again. Related to this particular issue, this poster stated when asked how he stood, said he could not predict nor could we, as to what will happen. He never said how he stands on the issue. "These People" never do and I am curious why. My thinking is that they want to be sure to hold back their opinion until the pres gives his. That way they are always 100% supporting of him.

I have asked "these people" dozens of times to explain to me why they disparage progressives/liberals. How do they differ on the issues. Never once got a response.

[LiberalLovinLug]

133. Exactly

"My thinking is that they want to be sure to hold back their opinion until the pres gives his. That way they are always 100% supporting of him."

That's how it comes off alright. That's why its so hard to respect those who's best response to an intelligent query like this seems to be, more than naught, a laughing icon.

[rhett o rick]

137. Exactly

[progressoid]

84. +1

[sendero]

100. How many times.

... have we been in this situation and how many times has your side been right?

Give it a rest and accept what your beloved president is.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. Watch them structure this so that the banks get to claim loss deductions for tax purposes.

[LooseWilly]

95. Which would allow them to deduct a de facto criminal conduct fine against their taxes...

Which essentially makes it just another business expense, like wages payable and UNLIKE a parking ticket...

That, in and of itself, would be a criminal offense in the eyes of the IRS if you or I did it... but when you're trying to negotiate the appearance of an imposed penalty on an institution that you are dependent on, while making it as "for show" as a "Hollywood punch"... well, that's a buried-in-the-weeds enough way to do it that even most reporters wouldn't see it if they tripped over it.

You're probably on to something.

[truedelphi]

131. I am sure the papers are already written up.

When Wells Fargo purchased Wachovia, it didn't have to use one penny of its own money. Between tax write-offs on the loss it was getting on the purchased entity, and TARP payments, it was basically a freebie.

Nice way to make money, if you can do it. And you can do it if you are a Big Bank.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

135. If you do it the right way, you'll even have enough money left over for campaign contributions.

As they say in Chicago, "Is this a great system or what?"

[truedelphi]

139. Hey, I am a Chicago born and raised

Human Bean.

I actually cried when I left the voter's box in Madison Wisconsin back in mid-seventies. Friends asked why I was crying. I had to tell them: "This is the first election I have voted in where i didn't know the results of the elcetion the day before it!"

And in Madison, I got to vote for one really and truly progressive mayor: Paul Soglin.

Anti-war, anti-Big Money Interests, and a great sense of humor to boot.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

140. Paul Soglin is an amazing person. It's good to see that he is on the job and still appreciated.

I wish that the country could have more like him.

[handmade34]

6. from MoveOn

http://pol.moveon.org/bankfraud/?rc=homepage

[ProSense]

19. That's

Reports are out that within the next 24 hours, President Obama could make the call on whether to hold Wall Street accountable and open an investigation into the banks' role in the housing crisis, or agree to a sweetheart deal that lets them off the hook.

...a call to action. Wonder how many people are going to actually sign that?

Progressives To Obama: Launch Investigation Into Mortgage Securities Market Now
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002206295

[jsmirman]

39. I find links here a bit distracting

It does take us to a place that provides a bit more information on the topic, but it takes us away from the direct link in the post you responded to, which is a direct link to the petition. Which seems to be the urgent point of this.

[i_sometimes]

63. Yeah, he will surely see that petition...

Like he saw the last few that were quickly dismissed.
What a waste of time.

[jsmirman]

38. I signed and wrote the following

I put my entire life on hold to serve the Obama campaign. I went into living rooms promising transparency to people who were desperate to hear such things. Where is this transparency now? Why won't you stand behind so many of the things you promised to stand behind when you asked for our support? I know that you only promised us a rose garden, but did these last years need to be this dispiriting?

[mike_c]

7. banks get bailed out, we get sold out....

Same as it ever was.

[truebrit71]

10. No.Fucking.Shit.

If this goes down I just won't know what to think....good grief...does he WANT to be a one-termer??????

[jsmirman]

8. "Absence of Investigations" - and punishment - for such widespread fraud

This is what has me going ballistic.

We ran on TRANSPARENCY.

I stood in people's living rooms and promised them transparency.

They've made a fucking liar out of me, and that ticks me off.

[truebrit71]

9. "Civil immunity would be granted to the banks"....yeah, fuck that....

...The LAST fucking thing this President needs to be doing in an election year is to be seen to be giving the banks a sweetheart deal...I thought this guy was supposed to be a professor or something...he sure does some really stupid shit...

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. This is so in our faces! OWS is gonna love this.

BANKS GET BAILED OUT. WE GET SOLD OUT.


THANKS FOR LISTENING OBAMA!

[girl gone mad]

11. And he has the nerve to tout this deal in his SOTU speech.

[Missy Vixen]

14. K & R

Senator Murray's office had to get involved in order for us to get our final paperwork from Making Home Affordable. We were in the "lucky" 400,000. There were millions that either could not get final paperwork, or were booted from the program for banks "losing paperwork," bla bla bla.

If you or I did anything remotely approaching what banks, mortgage lenders and fraudulent practices have done to homeowners in this country, we would be in JAIL. The $25 billion banks and mortgage lenders are coughing up isn't even lunch money to them. They destroyed so many lives and families with their actions, and that's their punishment?

In the meantime, psst, Obama administration. The home mortgage interest rate is well below 5.25 percent right now. Just letting you know.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. The sellouts to, and protection of the banksters, have attained a certain *shrug* factor.

Kinda like the "transparency in government" slogan has attained a hilarity response.

[gratuitous]

17. What? Incentives for the big finance boyz not to do it again?

Why do you hate free enterprise? The banks stole that money fair and square. If you punish them, it's like you're punishing Capitalism and The Free Market System. There's really only one culprit here, and it's all those poor people who were forcing those poor banks to write all those mortgages, collect all those fees, and swap them like pogs while taking a cut of every transaction. That's who should be punished, dammit!

And this is the BIG DIFFERENCE between the parties: The Bush administration would have just laughed and told you to suck it, ya hippie. The Obama administration will shed a crocodile tear and tell you to suck it.

[DrDan]

20. I guess after-office employment is taken care of

[SammyWinstonJack]

41. heheheh

Life will continue too be Good!

[marsis]

21. Well, he has to free up

those DOJ people to bust those evil pot users and also to keep tabs on the Occupiers. You expected something different from this Chicago Democrat?

[MannyGoldstein]

22. "Make No Mistake: America's bankers have suffered enough"

"Americans understand that people make mistakes. We all do. Big mistakes, like smoking marijuana to relieve chronic pain, deserve grave consequences. But sometimes we make small mistakes. Like perjuring ourselves on sworn affidavits. It just makes sense to put these trifles behind us and move on.

It's time to return to doing the People's business: more "free" trade agreements, austerity measures, and scuttling Habeas Corpus when it's a pain in my ass."

[truedelphi]

89. Once again, you got me laughing and

Pushed me away from the anger for a few moments.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

106. x2. Thanks for saying it.

[PA Democrat]

25. Thanks for posting.

This story was posted from a different source earlier today, and the thread devolved into a bash-the-messenger character assassination.

I posted this in the other thread, but I'll add it here for people who may not have seen it. Senator Sherrod Brown issued a press release about the proposed settlement last week. Here is an excerpt with more at the link below.

A settlement must also impose adequate penalties on servicers who broke the law. There are reports that the settlement could permit servicers to receive credit for writing down the value of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) owned by investors, without requiring servicers to reduce principal on the mortgages and second liens that they own. Ohio’s public employee pension funds have significant investments in MBS, and therefore have significant interest in the terms of the settlement. The reported settlement terms would allow banks to write down the investments of many of my constituents, without sacrificing anything. And, depending upon the scope, any settlement could potentially preclude these funds from pursuing actions to recoup more than $457 million in losses, allegedly due to credit ratings agencies improperly rating MBS. Such terms are unacceptable.

Teachers, first responders, law enforcement, and other pensioners and retirees should not be penalized for wrongdoing by Wall Street. An adequate loss-sharing arrangement would acknowledge the reality that there is no penalty for servicers writing down the value of assets that belong to someone else. There is also no penalty associated with servicers writing down a portion of their assets – in this case, their second lien holdings – that actually have no value. It is often in investors’ best interest to reduce mortgage principal, but this settlement must penalize the servicers who broke the law.

http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=d318a589-e27c-4b33-93c8-83d26e2b61ae

[truedelphi]

91. Oh and don't forget, in a related matter, the fifty billion dollars of

Program to help those who might be foreclosed upon (HAMP) has not worked out very well. I haven't kept tabs on it for eighteen months, but when Kucinich did, it had only helped four homeowners in his district. (Though some lied to his Finance Oversight Committee claiming that tens of thousands of people had been helped.)

Somehow this nation's politicians are much better at helping the Corporations than the little people.

[rhett o rick]

29. Now dont be so hard on Obama. He got the banks to give in some.

What else could he do? The banks run the country, he sure as hell doesnt. The banks could have told us all to go to hell. But they thought they will be the nice guys and string us along for a while.

And just remember, you still have the power of the vote. Vote for the banksters or vote for the banksters. At least you get a vote.

Viva Occupy!

[just1voice]

80. What else could he do? Tell the banks it's our country not theirs

He should tell the banks they are going to be allowed to fail starting immediately and he will be ordering his administration to prosecute everyone involved in bank fraud, forgery, robo-signing, real estate fraud, derivatives fraud, insider trading, market manipulation and lying to Congress.

But I know what you're saying, Obama is part of a system that's corrupt and that's all he knows how to do.

[AverageJoe90]

110. *Sigh*.....amen to that. nt

[bvar22]

30. DURec

Transparency

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their Campaign Speeches.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[jsmirman]

35. Like I said - where the hell is our TRANSPARENCY???

where???!!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

42. It was all bullshit!

[KoKo]

51. bvar22....Thank you much for this "Fact Check!" n/t

[progressoid]

85. Fool me once...

[EFerrari]

33. K&R

[nanabugg]

34. It's not Obama. It;s the AGs who are running this show.

You fall for the GOP line and pretend-progressives who just want to be free to slam.

[tblue]

37. What's a "pretend-progressives"?

??? ???

[Dragonfli]

73. I've always found PPI to be an oxymoron considering their business first Republicanesque policies

that they promote: http://progressivepolicy.org/growth-and-equity

Maybe the poster is referring to them?

[SammyWinstonJack]

43. Yeah, okay.

[woo me with science]

44. Obama has been pressuring for bank settlements for months.

Look at the record. There is no basis whatsoever to support what you just wrote.

And, frankly, the "Obama is helpless" meme is preposterous.

Attorney General of N.Y. Is Said to Face Pressure on Bank Foreclosure Deal
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/business/schneiderman-is-said-to-face-pressure-to-back-bank-deal.html?pagewanted=all

[rhett o rick]

55. What GOP line? The GOP wants the banks punished? I do, do you? If you dont, maybe you

are falling for the GOP line.

Pick a side, progressive or GOP. There is no middle way.

[sabrina 1]

66. The AGs were being pressured NOT to prosecute the Banks. That failed when their

constituents went wild, and 13 of them now have chosen NOT to go along with the deal proposed by the administration. This is the latest attempt to let the Banks off the hooks, and where are you getting that it is the AGs who are doing this? Do you have something you can link us to to back that up?

[B Calm]

48. We should have nationalized the banks

[KoKo]

49. Yes! Those who've been reading the savvy Financial Blogs since the Implosion

have seen too much evidence that Nationalizing the Banks like we did when the "Savings & Loan's" imploded would have been the better way!

Instead it's been: "Extend and Pretend" because there are forces on Wall Street who want to gut out SS/Midicare and make our Wages and Salaries dependent or on parity with "Emerging Nations Labor Force."

We are not allowed to post website who speak about this here on DU3...but the Financial Forum Here and on DU2 did incredible work on these Financial Issues.

Maby some folks here should check out the current Economics Forum. (I don't know if it's the same when Ozy was doing it...but DU'er Demeter has done an incredible job on the "old site" posting articles and I suspect that Ozy's legacy are doing a credible job over here.

I am an "Occupy DU2" poster and I only came over here because if Obama does put this "Settlement" in his SOU Speech, I felt I had to come over to here to protest.

I'm out of here now. I don't exist....except to Occupy DU2.

Over and Out.......

[truedelphi]

93. Right you are. Too bad no one in

Office can get that type of thinking to get approved. But it wouldn't even require banks to be nationalized - just let the banks that were failing friggin' fail, and then give the money needed to keep the economy working to state-chartered banks in each region of the nation. With the requirements that the money HAS TO BE LOANED OUT to people on Main Street. In fact, the entire method of doing all that is still on the books, from the S & L crisis.

Instead we gave the banks trillions of dollars, that will ultimately be paid back with taxes from our children, grand children and great grand children. While the banks sit on those trillions. Of course, Goldman Sachs did buy that nice Nature Preserve down in Patagonia with some of the money.

[Cameron27]

54. k&r

[woo me with science]

57. I suspect it's more than progressives who will be enraged.

This abomination would affect all of us.

Certainly the enraged are more and more likely to realize that they are progressives.

Occupy.

[sendero]

101. Just when it was starting to look..

.. like Obama has a serious shot at a second term, if he does this he can forget it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

108. He's got it made. Who else will the majority vote for? Gingrich? Rmoney?

No matter what he does, there are always those who can point to the Republicans as being the worse alternative.

[sarcasmo]

58. Bankers are the overlords

[KoKo]

59. K&R....

[WillyT]

60. Color Me Furious... K & R !!!

[KoKo]

61. Most of the Progressives are gone..but another "K&R" in case more are lurking." n/t

[sabrina 1]

67. 'most of the progressives are gone'

Seems that way!

[sabrina 1]

74. Glad you did!

[Odin2005]

65. Goldman Sachs owns Obama.

[Xtraneous]

68. Hard on Obama? This place is the joke.

This was a story from November...

Since then, Harris has come under pressure from the Obama administration to get with the program and agree to a settlement. (Having declined to go after the bankers themselves, administration officials now want some agreement, however inadequate, that they can tout to voters.)

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/21/opinion/la-oe-meyerson-kamala-20111121

[alp227]

69. NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Oh well, at least I live in a solid blue state and know how to adjust my vote.

(on edit) The strongest message that the banks had to be prosecuted was when a federal judge rejected a deal between the SEC and Citigroup.

[PhoenixAbove]

72. K&R n/t

[Swede]

75. Again?

[Scurrilous]

77. Kick

[blkmusclmachine]

78. The Banks Own The Place:

Too Big To Fail vs. Too Small To Matter

[just1voice]

79. Bill Moyers just produced a great show on the topic

http://billmoyers.com/

"The revolving door between Washington and Wall Street"

[xiamiam]

116. thanks for posting. dont understand how anyone can watch this and still support anyone in office

including the white house

[boppers]

81. Obama is (fill in the blank), and progressives are furious.

Oh, and underwater does not equal fraud. They gambled, they lost. If they lost because somebody was cheating on the rules, fine, go after that, but being underwater is far, far, more likely to be somebody gambling on a bad investment.

[ms.smiler]

87. Boppers, you stated “Oh, and underwater does not equal fraud.”

Actually, millions of homeowners are underwater as a direct result of fraud. The Wall Street banks corrupted the appraisal industry. Appraisers who didn’t deliver the desired number soon found themselves without work.

By creating a bubble in real estate, the banksters could put homeowners on the hook for imaginary home values. Why sell someone a $250,000 home if you could create a false value of $300,000? That’s how banksters operate.

It is much more likely that homeowners are underwater due to appraisal fraud, and not some type of gambling with their hard earned money.

[boppers]

90. What on earth would make a person think a credit rating agency, appraisal agency...

or any other "valuation" kind of organization is in any way legitimate? It's fungible, and prone to massive corruption. "Oh, the car salesman said it was worth X, and Kelly blue book agreed"? Hilarious. Do people still really believe that game? Sad.

If you got an appraisal from the bank, and a bank recommended "independent" appraisal, you've just shot yourself in the foot twice.

"By creating a bubble in real estate" is an interesting idea... did the bank create it, by being willing to give out un-payable loans, or did consumers create it, by taking on said loans, based on a imaginary property value? Or is the bigger problem a bubble in banks trusting "ranking agencies", which totally obscured the per-property repayment, issues, keeping the game going?

The answer, I think, is all of the above, and the argument is now *who* gets to play for the con game they all played a hand in, hoping they weren't the ones who would be caught.

The absolute value of a house (like all other gambled investments) is $0. The *speculative* value of a house ranges wildly, but it's just a building on land. If the land loses speculative value, or the building loses speculative value, it's worth nothing, or becomes a liability. Anybody who tells you a house is actually worth more is lying, or telling you about speculative (i.e. gambling) values.

It's almost as if millions of people bought stock called "MYOWNHOME", watched the stock crash, and then demanded refunds, because, well.... I guess they feel defrauded, because they though a home has an intrinsic value that wouldn't decrease?

[truedelphi]

94. It is easy to be objective and make the comments you are making now that the

Bubble has burst. And I do agree with your comments.

But on the other hand, for at least ten years, people in California were told that the ONLY thing worth investing in was Real Estate. At first, a person resists the bubble notion. But all around them, people are flipping houses and making 15 to 30 percent in profits annually. And the way it is explained is: there will be massive implosion in the housing market from people in Hong Kong fleeing Hong Kong and China. The immigration from south of the border will continue unimpeded. So in a sense, logic is actually part of the equation, with a billion people living south of the border, and fifty percent of them or more wanting to be coming here, the whole notion of continued unending buildup in RE prices actually sounded logical.

Now that all that insanity has all melted away, it does seem as crazy and illogical as a scheme to sell ice to Eskimos.

[boppers]

99. My "ears" stopped at:

"making 15 to 30 percent in profits annually"

That's either a lie, or a gamble. It CAN come true, but it is a gamble.

[truedelphi]

129. It was h-a-p-p-e-n-i-n-g

It wasn't a lie or a scam. Property was going up beyond any reasonable application of what a place was worth.

There was a postcard here in rural Lake County that illustrated this housing boom. It showed a shack in the woods, like someone's granddad would have made one weekend for his hunting buddies, and the postcard said, "We found a real cheap place - only $ 975,000!" Now that was an exaggeration, but the reality was, anyone with money could buy a one quarter acre lot for 12 to 28 K, purchase a modular home for another 115 K, have it transported for 30K more, and then sell what might have totalled the deal maker some $ 167 K for $ 350,000. Which is almost 100% profits.

Now that same modular home can be yours for $ 92,000.

[boppers]

141. I'm not arguing that it wasn't happening.

Anything returning that kind of money, however, is an extremely high-risk gamble. It doesn't matter if its real estate, tulips, whatever. The only way to make that kind of money is through gambling, though people call it by many other names.

[ronnie624]

142. The real estate market can be risky,

therefore mortgage fraud shouldn't be prosecuted, nor should the victims be paid reparations?

It seems like that's what you're saying, anyway.

There is definitely no doubt fraud was rampant. In 2004, the FBI caseload for mortgage fraud had grown so dramatically, they began warning of the potential for a huge financial crisis. Clearly, no one paid them any attention. Between then and 2008, just prior to the housing collapse, fraud cases in every area of the mortgage industry had more than doubled.

Most of the home buyers during that time were ordinary working class people, buying a home as a residence, not real estate flippers. Not that it would matter in the eyes of the law. Mortgage fraud is highly illegal (for some, anyway).

[boppers]

143. Engaging in gambling is not a crime.

Neither is stupidity committed by those who gamble. (Sadly).

If you gamble, and lose, I have no sympathy for you, if you're a bank, or a homeowner.

If the "fraud" is that a computer passed on the records, rather than a human, that's not fraud. (The "robo-signing" joke outrage.)

Fraud requires intent to deceive.

If a typo means you get foreclosed on a home you bought with cash, that's still not fraud.

Fraud requires intent to deceive.

If you moved into a house, without the means to pay for it, but claimed you could anyways, that's fraud.

Fraud requires intent to deceive.

See the commonality?

Fraud should be prosecuted, but "I can't pay my bills" doesn't indicate a loan crime. It indicates a possible crime committed by the person who took the loan.

[ms.smiler]

97. Boppers, what party or organization should a homeowner trust for an appraisal or determination of

the value of a home?

Homeowners only hoped and expected to purchase a home and mortgage. They trusted their realtors, their appraisers and their loan originators. Many of the people in the housing and lending industries are licensed and are supposed to be regulated.

No homeowner wrote their own mortgage agreement or approved themselves for a loan. The responsibility for lending is with the lender.

Homeowners had no idea that Wall Street banks were running a scam, nor did MBS investors. The Wall Street banks weren’t lending their own money; they used investor money to fund loans so they didn’t care about the mortgages that were sold. The banks were making their money from large fees and commissions on the garbage mortgage backed securities they constructed that were improperly rated AAA by compromised, well compensated and complicit rating agencies.

The Wall Street banks also made money from Credit Default Swaps. They purchased that insurance at sometimes twice the value of the loans. They intentionally constructed securities that were certain to fail so they could collect those Swaps.

The Wall Street banks set up both investors and home buyers to fail so they could profit from the chaos they created. Not only did they collect those Swaps on loans they never funded but the banks collected again when they sold the failed MBS to the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve.

The banks don’t own mortgage loans. The banks aren't owed any money.

Why do you think that document mills and robo-signers exist? The banks left the original mortgage lien sitting in our public land records. The Notes were never properly or legally pledged to the investment Trusts. After the Notes served their purpose - to defraud MBS investors, collect Swaps and collect again from Uncles Sam or Ben, the lien can be used to reconstruct the loans and steal real property from homeowners.

All it takes is a robo-signed Assignment of Mortgage filed in our public land records and the banks or one of the mortgage servicing companies they own can claim to own the loan. All that really happened with the loan is tracked in the banks private land records system, MERS. If the banks had legitimate documents they would have offered and filed them.

The banks scammed trillions of dollars out of investors, homeowners and taxpayers. Strangely, you appear to only have noticed disappointed underwater homeowners.

Traditionally, over decades and generations, homes have risen in value. It was not unreasonable for home buyers to expect their homes to at least hold their supposed value.

[boppers]

102. What an odd set of questions.

Let us simplify:

"what party or organization should a homeowner trust for an appraisal or determination of the value of a home? "

None.

"Traditionally, over decades and generations, homes have risen in value. It was not unreasonable for home buyers to expect their homes to at least hold their supposed value. "

That's total, utter, contemptible, bullshit. People were sold on a lie, that lasted for decades. Homes can lose value. Santa Claus does not magically make them worth more every year.

I grew up at the knee of hard-scrabble, depression-era, grandparents, and their privileged boomers, who never suffered, or sacrificed.

I listen to the people who got fucked by "the system" enough to believe that the problem is not parties, but the systems.

[ms.smiler]

103. Yes, homes can lose value. Many factors actually play a role in the value of a home.

But I can look to my grandparents’ homes purchased in the early 1900’s, my parent’s home purchased in the 1950’s and my own home purchased in 1980 and see that in my own family, all homes increased in value across a century. My own son purchased a home in 2004 and even in this economy; the home has risen slightly in value which baffles me.

This wasn’t a lie to me until mortgage securitization drove the market. That’s where the lie kicked in. I knew there was a bubble. I knew there were forces at work in the market and at least now I better understand those forces.

No one was looking out for homeowners. They were too trusting and the government failed them. What distresses me is that government is likely to continue to support the banksters at the expense of homeowners and taxpayers.

[xiamiam]

119. you make several points which i've also questioned

every lender chooses their own appraiser..the appraiser sets value..the borrower pays for the appraisal which is approved by the bank..the borrower trusted the banks' appraiser which they were forced to use and pay for in order to get the loan..the banks were betting against their own loans..tangled web

[truedelphi]

130. Heart felt appreciation for your turning the tables on that poster.

You would think from the way the media and some here on DU recount the tale that hundreds of thousands of low inccmed people swarmed their local realtors office, with banners waving and with chanting for hours going on: "We want homes. Give us low income mortgages or die!"

In reality, the big firms created the financial means for the poor to get housing, so they could "amp up" the housing bubble and continue to make oodles of dough.

And even middle class people were thrown into ARM's created for the poor. When we looked for housing in spring of 2002, my spouse forgot to come to the appointment. I thought the RE agent would show me out of his office. Instead, with a big smile, he said, "Go ahead and fill out the paper work. I can see to it that you guys get this lovely house on your salary alone." (I was making less than twenty thousand, and the place was 175 K - on a flood plain and perhaps not even still in existence, as it was too close to the Russian River.)

I knew very well that this was fishy. And we decided to not buy while the bubble was going on. Though we never expected the bubble to last all the way through till 2006.

[JackRiddler]

82. The headline's use of "progressives" minimizes what would be an outrage to everyone.

But thanks for the story.

[Rex]

83. So

like that matters.

[Ichingcarpenter]

86. Kick,, nom ...Obama needs to read Jefferson again

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."


http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/private-banks-quotation

[boppers]

92. Which is why the Fed replaced *pure* private banking....

You think it's bad now, the 1790's were a complete mess.

I'm a bit more in favor of nationalizing any bank who can't stand a run as the metric of a "bad bank".

[lonestarnot]

96. And what do the attornies general say?

[quakerboy]

98. Something we might all be able to agree on...

A Whitehouse.gov petition to the president to use whatever influence he does have in the system to see justice done.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/investigate-and-prosecute-any-mortgage-companies-involved-misdeeds-no-sweetheart-deals-mortgage/0ryFDtlB

Whether you think the president is about to sell us down the river, or you are waiting to see what the president says about it all, surely we can all agree that making our desires known to him in the forum that he has provided for that purpose is a good idea.

[avebury]

104. I am so sick and tired of criminals (individual and corporate)

getting away with their crimes. It seems like US Laws are only applied to the 99% and not the 1%. There is absolutely no hope left for a country that does not hold individuals and corporations accountable for their crimes. All it does is encourage more crime.

[kemah]

105. More crime little fines and bigger bonuses

That's how the game is played. Make political contributions, commit fraud, pay small fines, but get big bonuses.
If you kill Michael Jackson you get 4 years
but if you download Michael Jackson you can get 5 years. Now that is the golden rule. The people with the gold make the rules.

[ProSense]

107. Political Push Moves a Deal on Mortgages Inches Closer

Political Push Moves a Deal on Mortgages Inches Closer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002211735

[AtomicKitten]

113. There are at least 4-5 duplicates of this exact same OP already posted.

[slay]

118. Looks like you found one (not me)

but the poster right above me.

hard to argue against reality - but i am surprised more of them aren't at least trying in this thread. one of their - let's bury our heads in the sand on this one - moments i suppose.

[AtomicKitten]

120. here you go

already posted upthread ---> http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=207877

You're welcome.

[proverbialwisdom]

122. Alternatively, top-down change is not feasible and instead WE ARE THE ONES WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR.

I trust President Obama not to squash bottom-up (think Howard Zinn inspired) movements. Until such time as that effort has been tried and failed, I can't agree with your conclusions at all.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=pfwl&cp=27&gs_id=2g&xhr=t&q=obama+put+on+your+marching+shoes&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=obama+put+on+your+marching+&aq=0&aqi=g2&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=f6432244acf377fc&biw=1311&bih=553

"Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes," Obama practically yelled at the crowd. "Shake it off. Stop complainin', stop grumblin', stop cryin'," he said...

[Better Believe It]

111. Just noticed your posting after I posted this and a few other articles on the subject.

[Better Believe It]

112. I Just noticed your posting after I posted this and a few other articles on the subject.

Sorry for any duplicate.

[X_Digger]

114. Which is more important..

Punishing the asshats to perpetrated this, or keeping the maximum number of folks in their homes?

I don't know enough about this purported deal to know whether or not it will help, but it seems the vitriol is more focused on the 'punishment' side of that equation rather than the 'saving homes' side.

[Initech]

115. When are we gonna let these corrupt criminal banks die already?

[slay]

117. But.. but.. there are many - even here on DU - who claim Obama is perfect and can do no wrong

so this must be a good thing. i'm done questioning our dear leader - DONE i tell you! if the man does it - it is right. Period. Don't yall remember when some previously perfect leader said it's not a crime when the president does it?!?! Questioning anything Obama does is wrong - we need to just shut up and accept the scraps we are given!

sigh... this sucks

[AtomicKitten]

121. No deal reached.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-24/foreclosure-deal-won-t-be-reached-this-week-miller-says.html

[treestar]

123. If there were no settlements, the legal system would crash

Any cases can be settled. It is more difficult to prove a case than people think. Second guessing lawyers on complicated cases does not really work - you have no idea what they are dealing with. Further, you should at least give them a chance to explain their side and why.

It is too easier to internet keyboarders to declare a legal matter simple. In reality, they never are. Pre-judging anything is unwise, and the rush to pre-judge legal actions the administration takes borders on the silly here at times.

[ms.smiler]

124. Treestar, which approach seems prudent to you?

The Attorneys General should combine their resources and fully investigate mortgages, mortgage backed securities and foreclosures.

or

Forgo investigation and simply settle with the banks.

I certainly know which is easier, but which approach is better for the country?

Mortgage backed securities are complicated and if the federal government were to prosecute crimes involving those securities, it would have to prove intent to defraud.

State law though only requires proof of fraud, not intent, so securities fraud is easier for states to prove than the federal government.

Thankfully, the securities were created in two states, New York and Delaware and both of those AG’s are interested in investigating. If those AG’s are willing and able to do their jobs along with a number of other AG’s, why should others simply settle without knowing the extent of criminal activity?

All crime, even complicated financial crime should be investigated and prosecuted, otherwise sophisticated criminals would always remain free to defraud consumers and investors.

[treestar]

138. Every case is going to be different

Each state or federal circuit has to decide how much energy they want to put into this, while handling other types of cases also.

I only object to the knee jerk all settlements must be wrong posture.

And not every accused is guilty either, necessarily - though around here it appears "the banksters" are always wrong - but there could be cases where they didn't do anything fraudulent.

[truedelphi]

145. Totally agree with you. Especilly given that there are several

Whistleblowers who had the gumption and forethought to bring proof of what was going on in termsof the illegalities out of the office and into a nice place for safe keeping.

Though the currect head of the SEC keeps repeating, manta-like, "How would we ever have proof?"

[sabrina 1]

128. But there have been successful civil cases. In fact if it were not for those cases

much of the fraud, such as robo-signing eg, would not have been uncovered. At least in two states, a couple of those 'law mills' engaged in such fraud, have been put out of business as a result of the people taking matters into their own hands with civil action.

In NY eg, there is a huge civil Rico case now under way involving tens of thousands of plaintiffs. This is likely to uncover even more crime. Should this all be shut down to protect the Banks? Also, airc, there is another huge suit underway in Kentucky and there have been multiple suits around the country, many of them successful and most uncovering egregious criminal practices.

Once the civil suits uncover fraud, then the DAs can get involved and start criminal investigations. Do you really want this to be stopped? Millions of families have been affected by all of this. How many do you think this settlement will compensate for their losses?

My friend is beginning a lawsuit right now for the wrongful foreclosure that took away her home. If this passes, her right to sue will be affected and she will most likely never receive compensation for what happened to her.

I think that is the reason they are trying to stop civil suits. Cutting off the main area where the criminal practices have been uncovered. The President should refuse to sign any bill that will end the uncovering of criminal activity that brought this country to its knees. These people need to be stopped.

[T S Justly]

125. K&R (nt)

[stevenleser]

134. I'm trying to decide how I feel about this in the reverse, i.e., what do I want the outcome to be.

The most important thing to me is that the banks and broker-dealer/financial industry not have the ability to destroy the economy again. We have gone through no less than three iterations of that in the last 30 years. The savings and loan crisis, the dotcom bubble, and the mortgage etc. bubble. Is there adequate legislation and regulation in place to prevent that from happening again? My understanding is that the answer to that question is 'No'. Nor is it likely to happen with the GOP controlling one of the branches of the congress. We are stuck there.

The second thing that is important to me is that the people that were hurt get help. I've seen the assertion that those folks will get $17 billion spread out among 11 million people. Unless my math is wrong, that makes the average payout $1545. That is not a meaningful number. That is a problem. Then again, to make it a meaningful number, you need to add two zeroes to the end of $17 billion. That makes it $1.7 trillion. I am not sure what the unintended effects would be of making the banks pay a fine of that amount but I am guessing that would cause another catastrophic economic event. We're stuck here too.

The third thing that is important to me is that those who committed crimes in the process of all of this get punished. Punished can mean a plea arrangement of some sort. The problem is that a lot of what I see that happened isnt criminal. A lot of it is just bad judgement. But yes, if someone or some entity broke the law, make them plead guilty and make them accept some sort of punishment. There little point in this third item, however, if items one and two are not satisfactorally handled.