Matt Taibbi: From an Unlikely Source, a Serious Challenge to Wall Street

[marmar]

from Rolling Stone:


Something very interesting is happening.

There’s been so much corruption on Wall Street in recent years, and the federal government has appeared to be so deeply complicit in many of the problems, that many people have experienced something very like despair over the question of what to do about it all.

But there’s something brewing that looks like it might be a blueprint to effectively take on the financial services industry: a plan to allow local governments to take on the problem of neighborhoods blighted by toxic home loans and foreclosures through the use of eminent domain. I can't speak for how well the program will work, but it's certaily been effective in scaring the hell out of Wall Street.

Under the proposal, towns would essentially be seizing and condemning the man-made mess resulting from the housing bubble. Cooked up by a small group of businessmen and ex-venture capitalists, the audacious idea falls under the category of "That’s so crazy, it just might work!" One of the plan’s originators described it to me as a "four-bank pool shot." ..............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/from-an-unlikely-source-a-serious-challenge-to-wall-street-20120720#ixzz21IxBhKnt

[LiberalEsto]

1. K&R

[nashville_brook]

2. nice!

[Major Hogwash]

3. They were talking about doing this here last week.

Where some of the communities have entire subdivisions that were left empty after they were built because the banks wouldn't loan to anyone who wanted to buy them in 2008.
Some large subdivisions were built purely on speculation that someone would buy those houses and move into them.
"Spec homes" is what they are referred to, but the subdivisions weren't completed until just about the same time that Bush crawled out from under his rock and asked Congress to bail out the banks.

Brand new houses that have never been lived in.
The subdivisions have been fenced off from the public and the streets are empty.
Like something out of a Twilight Zone movie.
Brand new neighborhood, no people, no cats, no cars, no dogs, nothing.

[banned from Kos]

4. Ha Ha HA! Taibbi making shit up again. His "serious challenge" does not have

a formal name.

[sabrina 1]

9. Yes, it does. It's called 'taking action' on behalf of the PEOPLE this time, rather than the

useless Wall Street Banks who are responsible for the criminal collapse of the economy. And the fact that they hate the idea, means it's a pretty good one. I hope this spreads around the country and finally provides some help to those who have been victims of the corruption and who received no bailouts.

As always, Matt Taibbi is on top of this issue, always ahead of the mainstream, keeping the public informed of things the criminals on Wall Street would prefer to keep them ignorant about.

[truedelphi]

11. Although banks have already let it be known that

should elected officials let this come to pass in any locale, the Big Banks will pull out of that region.

Of course, I would say, "Good riddance to rubbish!" But many people do have a lot on the line in terms of Big Banks, from Student loans to home mortgages and small business loans.

[sabrina 1]

20. Yes, but as the article points out, if this works the Banks will be back

and they can't pull out of everywhere.

This is basically the plan:

Desperate for a way out of a housing collapse that has crippled the region, officials in San Bernardino County … are exploring a drastic option — using eminent domain to buy up mortgages for homes that are underwater.

Then, the idea goes, the county could cut the mortgages to the current value of the homes and resell the mortgages to a private investment firm, which would allow homeowners to lower their monthly payments and hang onto their property.

It sounds appealing and as the article points out, it's not just San Bernadino that is showing an interest. Suffolk Co. LI is also interested, and apparently other areas of the country.

So what objection can the Banks have to a plan to improve the economy when they have nothing to offer but years of economic stagnation?

Maybe it is Congress who should be threatening the Banks now, with prosecutions and investigations for what they did. If small municipalities start the turnaround, then maybe Congress will get the message, that if they are going to just sit there protecting Wall Street while Main Street continues to decline, then Main Street will take matters into their own hands, and maybe, finally decide whose side they are on.

If the Banks had been willing to do the same thing, which they could have and should have, someone else would not have had to come up with a solution.

And it may also be time to reevaluate the other issues, such as Student Loans and Pensions etc. If this can be done with the housing market, someone is likely to come up with a way to start taking away those powers from Banks that are not willing to be part of the solution.

[truedelphi]

37. Well thought out response.

Though I do want to emphasize, I am on "our" side, sabrina.

But since Big Financial People own just about everyone above the level of dog catcher in this third world, Banana Republic of ours, I am not holding my breath.

I used to think, for instance, that the DOJ descended on state of California because of Obama protecting financial interests of Big Pharma, but it is equally as likely that the move to strip away our medical marijuana clinics was done to protect the profits the Big Financial firms make from laundering the drug money.

One positive thought I keep thinking - the "NOW" may indeed belong to these corrupt ass wipes currently in office, but the FUTURE belongs to the people who are waking up and realizing we must not vote for anyo9ne we view as corrupt, but instead realize that our votes must go to those who are honest.

I mean, maybe we will someday have a John Garamendi Presidency, with Jackie Spiers as VP (OR vice versa.)

[99th_Monkey]

24. GREAT!! Then depositers will use LOCAL CREDIT UNIONS

and/or community-owned banks. Problem solved.

[Zalatix]

33. How about we run them out of the country.

I'll see their little threat and raise it further.

Exile the bastards. Seize their assets and redistribute. Let it serve as a warning.

[truedelphi]

38. Zalatix, I have no problem with that notion.

But people a rung or two above ours on the economic ladder are scared of opposing the banks. For example, I have been trying for a year to find an attorney to represent me against a Major Bank, and none will do it.

The Big Banks own our political structure, including many politicians, the economic positions we have created (Fed Reserve positions, Secretary of the Treasury) and they own the judges too.

This is not going to be that easy to do.

[sabrina 1]

42. Interesting, my girl-friend is having a similar problem, getting an attorney to represent her

against Wells Fargo who illegally fore-closed on her home. Despite the fact that the law mill hired by Wells Fargo is now under investigation for its practices and out of business, also part of a huge RICO lawsuit against them and Wells Fargo in NYC related directly to the foreclosures, such as my friend's, they were involved in.

She has been contacted by the new Government agency set up to try to make a deal with homeowners like her who were illegally foreclosed on, but she does not want to go that route. Her personal situation has improved immensely since two years ago and she can afford a good attorney right now, but it seems to be a difficult thing to do, so far. She was too late to be a part of the Civil Rico Suit in NY.

[jtuck004]

43. "Debt makes all participants clinically insane".

I read that from a link in a posting the other day. That's the only explanation I have for masses of people not saying "Let. Them. Go".

Most of us are nothing but serfs to the financial sector, and the best thing that could happen is if they left, and the community had to retool and provide for itself. Open a community S&L, students quit going to college on student loans for which taxpayers will ultimately be responsible. Maybe the community builds something else, maybe a chain of public vo-tech schools that teach communications, culture, philosophy and farming.

Everyone is way too comfortable taking on debt for its own sake, when they should be evaluating it as an investment, looking for the return.

Harriet Tubman bemoaned the fact that she could have saved more people from slavery, "if only they knew they were slaves".

Deja vu...

[truedelphi]

63. Very interesting comments to ponder.

I too think to many people look on debt as "inevitable."

But the thinking on debt has undergone major changes in just sixty years. My dad never made more than 20K a year in his life.

Yet he paid cash for his cars. Always brand new. We took vacation, we had a doctor that made house calls (For $ 5)

But as time went on, life became inflated. When I bought a new car in 1992, I bought it on credit. (Although I put forty percent down.) I remember confessing to my accountant circa 1995 that I felt bad because I owed 15 % of my yearly salary to outside interests. He was amazed. "Most people in Marin County now owe 30 percent of their annual salary, and that is before you consider real estate or housing costs."

Suddenly I understood why so many others I knew could afford the fancy "casual" dresses and expensive shoes, and the yearly cruise trips, even though they didn't make more money than I did. Around that same time, there were ads on TV to the effect that it is normal to put the cost of your groceries on the credit card.

And as far as the Elite were concerned: by letting us all have the "privilege" of acting like we are rich, they must have figured out that our possessions offered us distractions, and we could be counted on to overlook such mundane matters as how the tax code is ripping us off.

[jtuck004]

66. Our dad's dads paid the car company, the builder (who got a loan, but his money was on the line),

the doctor. Far more direct, and much more local.

Today we pay the banks. If (and they try very hard) they can do nothing about any being left over, someone else may get some.
So we pay our debt, which is paying other debt...etc. At every step paying fees to the banks.

There is so much debt out there, with so little demand that would create the funds to pay it off with, WE could very easily stay in servitude to the banks in perpetuity. (Home loan, car loan, food stamps - banks make money on any of that). Slowly but surely the millions who are underwater or supported by the debt that is still out there will lose what they have, while we put up with little scraps of populist programs. People might get upset, but we have at least 2 or 3 generations who have been taught that someone else is always the best judge of what they should do. Kinda like slaves. And look how long it took to get enough black folk on board to just get them the civil rights act.

Most people I talk to really, really don't understand they they are living a life that has been restructured by the banksters\wealthy for their own profit at the expense of others.

I was watching CNN while ago, the newscaster was going on about the huge increase and problem with student loan debt, but then said something stunning:

"Students are making the same mistakes homeowners did with housing"

WHOA, NELLIE!!!!

It's damn clear that the banks, with help from the people in power in our government, lobbied for laws that were passed to enable them to hide transactions, that they solicited very large sums of money to be offered as mortgages with no underwriting standards, used fraud to market those same assets in a variety of instruments in clearly illegal ways, etc, etc. They destroyed, and are destroying, this economy.

Blaming the borrower is like blaming rats for putting the stinky cheese in the trap that snapped their neck.

The students are just doing what they have been programmed to do since birth, and the banks know that barely half are getting jobs. They don't care, the government guarantees the loan, even if they have to tap your social security. Homeowners not only were encouraged to action, but told that it was safe for the future by the Federal Reserve Chairman in the year the first crash of the housing market hit.

If CNN can come on the air and blithely announce that the financial crisis was the fault of homeowners, (in essence what was said) I have to believe that tens of millions of soccer-moms and dads probably are right on that newscasters wavelength.

Great Scott!

We are in trouble if people don't know they are slaves.

[aquart]

47. Students can pay their extortionate loans by mail or online.

Big banks moving out won't exactly create a vacuum. More like incentive.

[truedelphi]

67. What you say is very true, but I think what the

bankers are indicating is that any locale that lets this hapen - all of the populace will be punished. Sort of like when the Nazis went and killed a whole village because some teenagers threw snow balls at them.

[banned from Kos]

13. No, "taking action" is not a defendant!

I want a NAME.

So Far Taibbi is 0-2 since he falsely accused Corzine and Blankfein. Taibbi's record sucks!

[sabrina 1]

22. Lol, you were expected.

'Falsely accused Corzine and Blankfein'. Falsely accused them of what?

Taibbi presented the plan, he didn't write it. He provided us with something to consider, and from what I've read, this is not the first time it's been proposed and it sounds like a good plan for the PEOPLE so far, although if it could be done by local governments it would be even better.

Someone has to do something, so what is your solution? You are good at standing up for the Banks, but I've never seen you provide anything that would help the American people recover from the massive corruption that created these problems in the first place.

[Zalatix]

34. +1 million!

[girl gone mad]

28. You're even less coherent than usual. n/t

[truebrit71]

61. Wait, you're defending Corzine and Blankfein?

[Hissyspit]

15. Assuming, rhetorically, that you are correct...

Why do you find such pleasure in it?

[banned from Kos]

18. I support Obama and Taibbi is lying about him

Fuck that asshole.

MT called Obama a "criminal co-inspirator".

Taibbi is not even a decent investigative journalist. Who has he muckraked?


NO ONE!

[DCKit]

29. I look to your posts for amusement. Too funny.

I don't have a crazy uncle of my own.

[Bonobo]

32. What was the lie, Sherlock? nt

[truedelphi]

39. I guess you view the criminal rat bastard Geithner

Through Obama-infused rosy glasses. That asswipe Timmy would be facing major charges under RICO for all that he did while heading the NY Fed Reserve, AUtumn 2008.

He helps his buddies on Wall Street by manipulating which of them succeed and which fail. And the majority of monies under TARP went over to his friends at AIG and Goldman Sachs.

And THEN, Obama decides to give him the major Plum - Secretary of Treasury.

Follow the money and it tells a really nasty tale. And it has to all be swept under the rug to keep the Obama Pres going along so smoothly.

[aquart]

48. Yah. Geithner not being hanged is a constant sorrow to me.

[idwiyo]

50. Can you please tell me what is the lie?

It shouldn't be that difficult to post at least one example?

[librechik]

57. you never did say what the lies was, despite many requests

on your other thread about this. What was the lie again?

[truebrit71]

60. You really are just a one-trick pony aren't you...?

I really hope that one-day soon you can add ' and DU' to your moniker...

[marmar]

40. Dios mio.

[Orrex]

5. I'd like to point out that an under-appreciated genius made a similar suggestion 2 1/2 years ago:

Read his undeniable brilliance here.

[sabrina 1]

8. Wow, that was brilliant, Orrex. You were ahead of the game. And it was a very good question at the

time.

I see that Wall Street doesn't like this idea and are making threats if communities decide to do it. That seems to make it all the more interesting imo.

Interesting comments too. The last one raised the issue of who would pay for the seized properties which was a good thing to mention as properties that are seized must be paid for. Looks like Taibbi is saying that the private company would do so.

There are a lot of legal questions involved. Reading Taibbi's article he mentions that it would be preferable if this was done by local governments rather than private companies but that is unlikely to happen.

Imo, just the threat of this happening around the country, and it looks like other areas of the country are interested, might push some action on the problem which has simply been allowed to fester destroying communities, home-owners and families and adversely affecting the economy.

I'm with Matt Taibbi in that it is going to be interesting to watch. The profit margin for those willing to pay for the seized properties would need to be worked out. But if it keeps people in their homes by refinancing them at a rate that is more in line with their current value, then I think it is worth a try.

[truth2power]

10. You are a person ahead of your time, orrex. Good job!

[Poll_Blind]

19. +1 to Orrex!

PB

[AnotherMcIntosh]

25. But the post didn't address the point made by TexasObserver. Is TexasObserver right?

15. Your logic is flawed. The city PAYS for the land that is taken by eminent domain.

You seem to think they just seize it. They don't. The right of eminent domain does not include the right to take without compensation. If the city and the land owner cannot agree on a price, the condemnation proceeds, but the price is resolved in a lawsuit.

If the city were to do as you suggest, and seize a home so that people can continue to live in it, there is a debt with a mortgage company that must be addressed. If the city wanted to pay off the mortgage, I'm certain the mortgage holder would be happy as a pig in the sunshine.

[Orrex]

27. The fair market value of a foreclosed home is often a tiny fraction of its full sale value

I've seen $50K homes sold for $1,000 at auction, and the banks have accepted these bids; ergo the banks have set fair value at $1,000.

For that matter, what the bank considers fair value isn't even necessarily a factor. Individuals whose homes have been seized have often tried to refuse the offered amount, regardless of how "fair" that amount might be, and cities have nonetheless successfully seized those properties.

The fair value of an abandoned property can be even less--I'd put it at about the cost of demolition, tops.


I don't see how the debt to the mortgage company is a factor either, to be honest. If my home were encumbered with a double mortgage and the city wanted to seize it, the city wouldn't pay off my double mortgage, nor would they simply turn away because a lender is standing there with its hand out. They'd offer fair value for the property itself, and the underlying debt is irrelevant to that valuation.

[stevenleser]

53. But that is not what happens in eminent domain. Properties are not auctioned. There is caselaw on

this. The owner/lienholder get fair market value at that time and the definition of fair market value in these cases is very favorable to the owner/lienholder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain#Compensation

CompensationAmerican courts have held that the preferred measure of "just compensation" is "fair market value", i.e., the price that a willing but unpressured buyer would pay a willing but unpressured seller for the subject property under ordinary circumstances, with both parties fully informed of the property's good and bad features.[15] Also, this approach takes into account the property's highest and best use (i.e., its most profitable use) which is not necessarily its current use or the use mandated by current zoning if there is a reasonable probability of zone change.

This approach has been severely criticized because it omits from consideration a variety of incidental economic losses that a taking of land inflicts on its owners. The most egregious example of such losses is provided by the American rule that denies any compensation to owners of businesses that are destroyed when land on which they are located is taken, and the business cannot relocate. A small minority of states have provided by statute that at least some business losses are compensable.

Also, attorneys' and appraisers' fees are not recoverable (except in Florida) so the owners of the taken property never recover the full value of the taken land, even if they prevail in the valuation trial, because a part of their recovery must be used to pay those lawyers and appraisers. Some states do provide for limited recovery of such litigation expenses, typically when the owners' recovery substantially exceeds the amount of the condemnor's pretrial offer or the evidence presented by the condemnor at trial by a specified percentage. Also, when a condemnation action is abandoned, the owners are typically entitled (by statute) to be paid reasonable attorneys' and appraisers' fee they had to incur in defending the condemnation action.

When payment of compensation is delayed, the owner of the taken land is entitled to receive interest on the award of compensation, that accrues from the time of taking to the time of payment. The interest must be reasonable, so that when prevailing market rates of interest exceed the statutory rate (as in inflationary times), the former has to be used.

.
.
.

[Orrex]

56. Okay, then require banks to maintain vacant properties in livable condition

Cities are free, I believe, to enact severe fines for allowing vacant properties to degrade and thereby devalue their neighborhoods. Charge the banks, say, $1000 per day for a poorly maintained property, increasing to $5000 after 14 days or so.

[stevenleser]

58. You cannot single out someone in a law like that, it would have to apply to all property owners.

In which case you would be taking a lot of people's property away after fines accumulate and are not paid.

[Orrex]

59. You'd only be applying it to people who vacate properties and don't maintain them.

I referred to banks specifically, but on second thought it needn't be that way. And if they've abandoned the property, then taking a lot of people's (abandoned) property away seems less egregious than kicking delinquent borrowers out of their homes.

Let the owners surrender abandoned properties to the city willingly and thereby avoid fines, less administrative costs, etc. At present, cities are blighted by deadbeat owners who don't do shit while the properties decay and degrade the landscape.


Look, I'm not suggesting that this is a 100% perfect solution in all cases everywhere, but between the option that I propose and the current policy of "banks can do pretty much whatever they want, and fuck everybody else," I'm willing to give my idea a try.

What alternative do you propose instead?

[stevenleser]

62. I proposed a Federal govt bailout offer of all

Consumer held debt. Google my last name ad "the real bailout needed is a consumer bailout"

[Orrex]

65. Now that's a proposal that I can get behind

I imagine that it wouldn't even need to be a full bailout.
Hell, even a modest amount like $30K or so would utterly transform the economy.

[Zalatix]

35. Damn. You called it. Well said!

[kemah]

6. Can not the city claim them as abandoned property

Just claim them as abandoned and nuisance properties.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

12. How would the current homeowner be protected

or received current value on their home if you did that?

What's so simple and beautiful about this idea is the owner has an option to
refinance at a much lower fixed rate, remain in the home and depending
how much they have invested, possible retain some equity. They are not
getting fu*cked by the local partnership.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. Then they might have to tear them down.

They'd be better off looking at a combination of eminent domain and homestead statutes.

Come to think of it, I haven't heard the word "Homested" in years. The government used to practically GIVE land away. All you had to do was live on it and it was yours. That's what drove the settlers to cross the plains by wagon train. Those folks weren't rich.

[Marr]

7. If it proves effective, prepare for a major push to make it illegal.

And our whole political establishment will their damndest to make that push seem like the "American" thing to do.

[klook]

16. Fight back and force them to prove ownership

In many cases these mortgages have been sold, re-sold, bundled into CDOs, sold a couple of more times, bundled into larger "debt instruments," etc., until the paper trail of ownership has been lost through sloppy record keeping.

If these parasites want to assert ownership, make them prove it in court -- in hundreds of jurisdictions at once.

[sabrina 1]

21. You are correct, using MERS, the Banks removed any records of ownership from municipal record

keeping making it impossible to know now who the legal owners of homes bought over the past ten years are. They ARE being challenged, successfully in courts across the country, to 'produce the notes' and when they cannot, homes are being awarded to the home-owners. The price of greed is finally having to be paid.

This point is also mentioned in the article. That is a way to take over the mortgages. The banks are not in a good position thanks to their own corrupt practices, to be whining about someone finally stepping up to do something to address this major problem that is stagnating the economy.

[drm604]

23. That could actually be a problem for this.

If ownership of a mortgage can't be proven, then who do the local governments pay fair value to in order to seize the loans?

[sabrina 1]

30. They could take the banks to court and do what many home-owners are doing now, demand to see

the note. If the banks cannot produce the notes (very likely if the homes were ever transferred by MERS which millions were) then there is no owner and I guess the local authorities could just confiscate them for free, which is even better. Any homes confiscated by the local authorities that way would not need private companies to get involved.

And what a great way to finally punish the perps who cheated so many people out of their homes purely for profit and greed.

[klook]

36. See Harpers magazine, Jan. 2012

The homeowner files a "quiet-title" claim and actually becomes the "home owner" in some cases, as described in this article.

But in some cases, judges have upheld MERS foreclosures even when the trail of ownership is clouded, so it's far from a slam dunk.

[Fire Walk With Me]

26. Kick, sweet kick.

[99th_Monkey]

31. Go Matt!!!

This has the feel of something that could easily (relatively speaking) and quickly become a run-away train,
in the direction of much-needed and long-over due change, using local municipalities powers to focus public
attention, energy and resources to reclaim our nation anew, one state, one county, one city at a time
.

[Ruby the Liberal]

41. I missed this yesterday.

Kicking for an excellent read.

[ProSense]

44. Still trying

to understand how this is a good idea?

Editor's note: Readers interested in learning more about this would do well to read North Carolina congressman Brad Miller's piece on this in American Banker. Miller is not necessarily a proponent of the exact mechanism proposed by MRP, but he is intrigued by the general idea of using eminent domain to address the blighted-loan problem, and seems particularly interested in the strategic possibilities of addressing the problem at the local level. He writes:

<...>

Editors' Note II: There've been some readers who are concerned with the question of MRP's profit margin, and who will end up having to pay for it. I've heard these complaints from different voices, including some belonging to government officials who support the eminent domain idea generally, but would prefer to see it done by a government-run program a la FDR's HOLC.

<...>

The use of eminent domain is obviously an extreme reaction. But the moral argument for its use is clear here. Virtually every community in America was the victim of a broad fraud scheme perpetrated by banks, lenders, ratings agencies (and, yes, even the GSEs like Fannie and Freddie) to artificially inflate the real estate market. The people who bought houses at the peak of the market and are now underwater, they are victims of a crime, the crime being a conspiracy by banks, lenders and ratings agencies to misrepresent the value of home loans (particularly subprime loans) to the bondholders who bought them. The damage from that criminal scheme is not just ruining and bankrupting the homeowners who bought these artificially-inflated properties, it's also destroying neighborhoods and paralyzing the whole economy.

That's concerning, especially given the firm's CEO.

Graham Williams Chief Executive Officer

Williams has provided executive level leadership, direction and insight to four large consumer finance companies. His vast experience in startups spans three companies where he was President or CEO and also the first employee hired.

During his time as Senior Vice President and Director of Residential Lending at Bank of America in the 1990's, Williams recruited and led a team that improved the bank's national mortgage origination ranking to 5th from 100th in four years. He also created the bank's award-winning low-income housing initiative, "Neighborhood Advantage", and developed credit policy, pricing models, capital markets and portfolio management tools. As CEO of a $4 billion federal savings bank during his tenure with ITT Financial Services, Williams has also managed regulated entities.

While serving as Sr. Vice President of Risk Management at GE Capital, Williams provided leadership, direction and insight necessary to anticipate and monitor the risks associated with an evolving global customer base in a $250 billion portfolio of mortgage assets and insurance products. He also led GECC's prudent growth in mortgage originations, driving annual mortgage production from $5 billion to over $20 billion in just 18 months.

Williams earned an MBA in Finance while attending the University of Southern California on a fellowship. At California Polytechnic University, he graduated cum laude in Finance, Insurance and Real Estate.

http://mortgageresolutionpartners.com/the-team

Q&A: Defending an ‘Extreme’ Idea to Fix Housing
http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2012/07/19/qa-defending-an-%E2%80%98extreme%E2%80%99-idea-to-fix-housing/

[EvolveOrConvolve]

45. Bravo, Mr. Taibbi, Bravo!

[NJCher]

46. White House Skeptical of Plan

snip

White House Skeptical of Plan to Seize Mortgages by Eminent Domain

The Obama administration has concerns with a proposal—backed by a one-time major fundraiser to President Barack Obama—that would use eminent domain to seize and restructure mortgages, according to a White House official.
While the administration believes the issue is a local one, it nonetheless has concerns with this approach, said the White House official. (Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had dismissed calls from congressional Democrats for such an initiative two years ago)

snip

See article at WSJ.



Cher

[sabrina 1]

55. It looks like it's Geithner who, no surprise, has a problem with the plan.

This, if it works, will adversely affect the Big Banks. I'd like to see what someone like Elizabeth Warren has to say about it eg.

[truedelphi]

64. It might be worth our while to try and change Mr Obama's mind

On this, if it weren't for the now quite obvious fact that he works for Mr. Geithner, rather than the other way around.

[WillyT]

49. K & R !!!

[idwiyo]

51. K&R

[xchrom]

52. du rec. nt

[Zorra]

54. Awesome! The people taking matters into their own hands.

This is what democracy looks like.

?