General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBreathless prediction goes poof. * edited *
Last edited Sun Jan 29, 2012, 10:33 AM - Edit history (2)
** I edited this post to respond to those that still maintain the banks will be given blanket immunity. Other than a deal on robo-signing in exchange for a cash settlement, the vast majority of the banking industry's soft underbelly will remain exposed. Even Matt Taibbi is impressed (see his interview below).
Matt Taibbi: "The narrow focus of the deal covers only a small amount of liability and leaves the banks incredibly exposed to all kinds of criminal investigations."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Is on the Brink of a Settlement With the Big Banksand Progressives Are Furious
--> http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002207738
--> http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002210116
How that turned out:
Obama picks New York A.G. Schneiderman to lead national mortgage-abuse probe
11:20 PM, Jan. 25, 2012
link: http://www.lohud.com/article/20120126/NEWS05/301260028/Obama-picks-New-York-G-Schneiderman-lead-national-mortgage-abuse-probe?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|News|s
ALBANY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has fought with the Obama administration over a settlement with the nations largest banks that contributed to the mortgage meltdown. Now the president will turn to the first-term Democratic attorney general to lead a national investigation into the institutions responsible for the collapse of the housing market.
Schneiderman is being tapped as co-chairman of the Unit on Mortgage Origination and Securitization Abuses, the White House said.
-- snip
Schneiderman: These are abuses in the foreclosure process. Our working group is focusing on the conduct related to the pooling and the creation of mortgage-backed securities and issues relating to the conduct that created the crash, not the abuses that happened after the crash.
The role in Washington would provide a national stage for Schneiderman, a former state senator who has been lauded by liberal groups for his tough stance against the banks. President Barack Obama announced the new task force in his State of the Union address Tuesday night. He said he has asked federal prosecutors and attorneys general to work together to expand investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages .
This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans, the president said. The group is expected to determine which institutions broke the law, compensate victims and provide relief to homeowners.
edited to add AND ...
Mortgage Deal Is Close, and May Not Offer Much Immunity
George Zornick on January 27, 2012 - 1:19pm ET
link: http://www.thenation.com/blog/165917/mortgage-deal-close-and-may-not-offer-much-immunity
The federal government is closer than ever to a deal with five major banks over mortgage fraud practicesand, with some exceptions, the emerging details may hearten progressives who feared banks would get off the hook.
The White House provided an outline to the Huffington Post, and it appears that immunity has largely been removed from the dealexcept in the area of state prosecutions against robo-signing. (Robo-signing is when banks use fake signatures, or stipulate to documents they hadnt read or that didnt exist, in order to foreclose on a home).
According to the Huffington Post story, banks would not receive immunity in the following areas:
1. Criminal liability.
2. Tax liability
3. Fair lending, fair housing, or any other civil rights claim.
4. Federal Housing Finance Agency or the GSEs [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]
5. CFPB claims for the period after they came into existence in July 2011
6. SEC claims
7. National Credit Union Association Claims
8. FDIC claims
9. Federal Reserve Board claims
10. MERS claims
State-level robo-signing prosecutions are the simplest form of fraud to prove, however, and the banks wouldnt face any more investigations. But they would have to fork over $25 billion to help homeowners who were either wrongfully foreclosed on, or have homes that are underwater as part of the settlement.
With almost everything federal still on the table (though the White House says only that a vast majority of securitization and origination claims will be exempted), this is not a terrific deal for the banksespecially given that the administration is ramping up federal investigations with a new task force headed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. I think it is fair to give [New York Attorney General] Eric Schneiderman and the other progressive attorneys general a lot of credit for holding the line, a source intimate with the negotiations told the Huffington Post. This is a big victory for them.
-- snip
AND ...
Matt Taibbi weighs in on the above. Interview by Bill Press on Countdown.
http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/matt-taibbi-ponders-whether-obamas-embrace-of-populist-rhetoric-is-already-impacting-wall-street
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is a perfect example of dysfunction here at DU. Predictions are considered good enough by some to launch a threadsworth of nasty epithets. Kneejerk arguments here at DU often are nothing more than a cheap shot by opportunists who double-down by mocking people that question the prediction de jour. Although the detractors are now silent about the prediction, I'd like to point out that yet again they have jumped the gun and yet again the president is afforded zero credit for doing the right thing.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)The ones which we've been told six or seven times are happening, but never ACTUALLY happen. But hey, that's good enough to go on a screaming tirade about how he's trying to murder senior citizens. And some people here are STILL so convinced it's true that when he talks in the State of the Union about guaranteeing the availability of Social Security, people hear "Cut Social Security!"
gateley
(62,683 posts)PDJane
(10,103 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 3, 2012, 07:38 PM - Edit history (2)
That has to cross land claimed by the First Nations. There are 130 First Nations tribes along the route, and many of them have signed up as speakers in the regulatory hearing; the Gitgaat, Nadleh Whuten, Gitxsan, Haida, Dene, Haisla, Heiltsuk....and too many more. In addition, there are the first nations south of the border, including the Navajo and Cree.
Keep in mind that while the First Nations in Alberta are under treaty, the First Nations in BC are not. Those hearings will have to hammer out things like resource sharing and environmental guarantees. That's not going to be easy, nor fast.
Harper is trying to bull it through, but he may not be able to; this isn't going to happen quickly, if at all.
gateley
(62,683 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)TheWraith
(24,331 posts)It's nothing more or less than "death panels": an utter lie designed to inflame and terrify people into thinking the person you're throwing it at is a total monster. We don't tolerate that shit from the right, but somehow it's okay when FireDogLake and company are doing it.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)repealed at all.
Then it was claimed he was stalling so he wouldn't have to sign it.
Then when he signed it, the claim was that he was conspiring with the Pentagon to keep it in place anyway.
And then when it actually came to an end ... DADT became a non-issue ... it never really mattered. Any congress forced him to do it anyway.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)days ago. California's A.G. has rejected it as inadequate and " Lawyers in the AG's office have reviewed the settlement offer during the past several days and found that the proposal prevents the state from pursuing substantial legal actions against lenders."
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/26/4216052/california-attorney-general-rejects.html#storylink=cpy
gateley
(62,683 posts)So was confused when Obama announced this at the SOTU.
Does it mean the entire previous report is null and void? Please tell me yes!
gkhouston
(21,642 posts)gateley
(62,683 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)California AG Rejects Mortgage Settlement.
Posted 1/26/2012 10:55 AM by Kirk Haverkamp
"We've reviewed the details of the latest settlement proposal from the banks, and we believe it is inadequate for California," said Shum Preston, a spokesman for Attorney General Kamala Harris.
Harris' office had withdrawn from negotiations over the settlement last fall, saying the proposed deal at that time did not go far enough in holding mortgage servicers accountable for past misdeeds or in providing mortgage relief to homeowners. Preston said yesterday that the newest version of the deal still did not measure up in those areas.
Read more: http://community.nasdaq.com/News/2012-01/calif-ag-rejects-mortgage-settlement.aspx?storyid=116859#ixzz1kb7B407j
gateley
(62,683 posts)that will affect/alter the original settlement offer?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)presented a few days ago. The CA AG still maintains that; "Lawyers in the AG's office have reviewed the settlement offer during the past several days and found that the proposal prevents the state from pursuing substantial legal actions against lenders."
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/26/4216052/california-attorney-general-rejects.html#storylink=cpy
I have no idea with CA's rejection of the banks deal are willing to continue negotiations or to seal the deal with the 40+ states that seem to be on board and deal separately with the holdout states.
gateley
(62,683 posts)newly appointed head of the task force -- I would assume so. I think I'll keep an eye on the CA AG because she seems to be on the right track/side.
WHO would be signing this agreement with the banks?
And if a non-acceptable deal is struck, can the individual States pursue their actions anyway?
This is confusing me more than ever. I always assumed there would be no action taken, I'm cautiously hopeful now.
Thanks for your help on this!!
PS -- I just called her office and said that people across the country are with her on this! I called Beau Biden's office yesterday with the same message.
I'm going to go look and see if WA state's AG is on board.
unblock
(52,331 posts)he gets to lead a new task force in exchange for signing on to the settlement.
gateley
(62,683 posts)Like every thing else, we'll just have to wait and see, I guess. Drives me crazy.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,241 posts)unblock
(52,331 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,241 posts)unblock
(52,331 posts)would you feel more convinced if i were to put it on wikipedia?
Response to unblock (Reply #3)
AtomicKitten This message was self-deleted by its author.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)...the expected reaction from the left to news reports about events. That the reports turned out to be inaccurate isn't the fault of those who reacted to them.
gateley
(62,683 posts)we get into arguments and divide ourselves over something that ultimately may not even transpire. Religion, politics. Yet we continue to jump right in. (I can't stop myself!)
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)It's a rinse and repeat cycle.
1. Go nuts over false or grotesquely inaccurate reports, usually slanted specifically to piss off the left.
2. Ignore the fact that the reports never actually come true.
3. Return to step 1.
It's like the warnings of "imminent" war with Iran. We've been getting those every 4-6 months for more than SEVEN YEARS. And yet people still believe it when it comes around yet again. The problem isn't people reacting--the problem is that they never learn to take things with a grain of salt. For a group that prides itself on total cynicism about the media, DU and the left in general are just as prone as anyone to blindly believing the things that confirm their existing biases.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)there was this rumour that Obama was gonna cave on the Bush tax cuts. Other people insisted, no that isn't what he said. And back and forth it went, in November. Then, whoops, in December, Obama caved on the Bush tax cuts. And once the surrender was announced, it was a done deal in about four days.
Some people also swore that Obama had sold out the public option. They also turned out to be correct.
It's not like Obama has exactly proven we can trust him.
There is also the fact that the popular backlash from these trial balloons had a positive effect.
The Obama White House keeps weather men on staff who are very good at determining which way the wind is blowing.
Evidence the almost total OWS rhetoric of THIS SOTU,
compared to the Cut Spending & Eat Peas Austerity tone of the year before.
Popular Hell Raising Backlash is what postponed the decision on Keystone until after the election,
not some sudden environmental epiphany from the White House.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Lets just admit that it was a well executed (although slimy and disgusting) tactic that worked in their favor. Obama had a choice: ALL or NOTHING. He chose to continue to help the middle class.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)an armed robber took a hostage. Harry pulled his gun out quickly walked the 15 feet separating them, stuck his gun in the robber's face and said "go ahead punk, make my day".
Obama had a third choice. He could have called their bluff. He could have fought like the words "yes we can" meant something.
I don't think that giving the rich another truckload of money really counts as "helping the middle class".
The middle class, like the rest of the country, would benefit from having less inequality.
Whatever the House GOP did or didn't do, it was Captain Caveman himself who CHOSE not to fight.
Now the Unions endorsed him as somebody who will fight for the working class. Yeah, sure, except when he decides not to.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)It wasn't.
It's still on the table, and Obama is still pushing for this POS giveaway to the banks.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I rather believe however that ideas are floated in public in order to gauge public reaction and for policy to be tweaked.
If we don't react, that tells them something as well.
I think we're fools to take a "wait and see" approach to any idea that gets floated.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)gateley
(62,683 posts)though I KNOW they do that. Doesn't it drive you nuts? It does me.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)being passed along as fact.
gateley
(62,683 posts)TheWraith
(24,331 posts)No matter how completely debunked it's been, or how inaccurate the source?
But then, of course, one has to believe that it was REALLY GOING TO HAPPEN!!1 unless a few thousand people on the internet freaked out about it. The Democrats were ABSOLUTELY going to end Social Security, but then DU had a thread with over a hundred recs calling them out, and that stopped that!
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)magazine and others.
Brown is on the banking committee.
Laugh all you want at those who take that kind of leak pretty seriously. I think they're trial balloons and while I agree DU isn't the final arbiter for the WH on what they believe or don't believe about public opinion, I'd guess that sites like DU and Kos, as well as talk radio and news media etc. etc. are all watched with varying degrees of attentiveness.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Can you show me a link that says the settlement is no longer in negotiations? I looked and could not find one. The source in this case was a Democratic Senator. And thus far, no one has 'debunked' it. Feel free if you can, I'd like if it if were the case. I do not think that this appointment ends the deal, in fact it could help make the deal.
So we can come to this thread when the story is really told and see what happened. Thus far, the deal is in play. It just is.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 29, 2012, 09:59 PM - Edit history (1)
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)and decided against it.
gateley
(62,683 posts)sources to get a feel of how the wind is blowing, and DU could easily be one of them.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)stir shit either.
gateley
(62,683 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)gateley
(62,683 posts)"assume the worst". Obama has given us valid cause for those assumptions. I just keep believing in him despite my disappointments, kind of like a parent who's child has gone off the tracks and keeping the faith s/he will get back on. I never consider you guys haters, by the way. I do understand where you're coming from. I know we all want what's best for this country.
PA Democrat
(13,225 posts)state AGs to sign off on it. It has not been taken off the table.
Over the past 2 weeks or so, there have been a number of progressive groups urging members to sign petitions, make phone calls and write letters opposing a broad settlement that grants banks immunity and urging a full investigation into wrongdoing. Move On alone collected almost 400,000 signatures. Memebers were also asked to contact their state's AG and ask them not to sign onto the proposed settelement. I'm either a member of or on the mailing list of the following organizations and got an email urging people to get involved on this issue:
Move On
Progressives United (Russ Feingold's organization)
Progressive Change Campaign Committee
Working America
Kudos to the people who put forth the effort to make our opinions known.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)they are still seeking the settlement.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)They were so close to an agreement that the AP, WSJ and at least one nightly news report ran with the story that it was already a done deal. Obama had planned to tout the deal in his SOTU speech.
Miller and others backed down in the face of pressure from consumer groups and constituents.
Maybe the White House thought they could fly it under the radar this time, but we're watching.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)on to the next outrage.
TahitiNut
(71,611 posts)Too many (even on DU) have lost sight of how the rational, sane, calm, and reasonable pursuit of justice appears. We've been "tabloidized" and it ain't pretty. I trust Obama to "keep it real." I'm about as far left as anyone hereabouts ... but I respect this man more than I could have hoped.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)and looks great in a bathing suit and is the best looking president ever and the most liberal President ever blah blah blah
I read all that here too.
Crap is crap no matter what side it comes from.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 26, 2012, 07:18 PM - Edit history (1)
and the fans of breathless predictions do their little dance. Again and again. It would be funny actually, if it weren't so boringly predictable at this point.
Julie
On edit: Better now? Point remains, distraction removed, comments welcome.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)the jury decided not to hide it, but the "trained monkeys" crap pisses me off.
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)Why didn't you just ask her to change it if it bothered you?
I bet she would have changed it.
You will not find a nicer person here than her.
Try it and see what happens once.
Don
Enrique
(27,461 posts)NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)yes, it does help to hear that.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)unless you're saying you're one of those knee jerk haters... why be offended?
Prism
(5,815 posts)In fact, appointing the NY AG is a politically deft touch. The prosecutions will sate the base to a degree while removing one of the most vocal obstacles to the settlement.
In other words, "Look at my left hand waving over here! Ignore what the right hand is doing."
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I think they are still seeking the same deal. What you posted does not counter that at all.
And it is not DU, politics is made of rumor, leaks, and lots of talk ahead of any actual news. That is how it is, how it always was, and it is in fact part of how the process works. Expectation of calm and rational discourse are for fields outside politics.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)But curiously, in the list of three things the group is expected to do, hold wrong-doers accountable and propose new regulations to keep it from happening again isn't there. But there's no denying it looks good, sort of how Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's version of what a smart person looks like.
High fives all around!
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)will come true, despite it not happening so many times. However, I believe there may be others who post such predictions to stir up doubt and fear. It's called FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) and it's one of the most commonly-used propaganda techniques. That so many such dire predictions pop up at the least hint of something indicates to me that we're being systematically fed with FUD by some people.
It often begins in columns and blogs, and is copied and pasted here by all sorts of DUers, who don't bother to dig into the column or blog to see whether a situation has been written about truthfully.
I'm skeptical of all such predictions, because so many of them have simply ended up not being true. I find skepticism to be the most useful tool of all when looking for truth, on DU and everywhere else.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)because:
Lawyers in the AG's office have reviewed the settlement offer during the past several days and found that the proposal prevents the state from pursuing substantial legal actions against lenders.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/26/4216052/california-attorney-general-rejects.html#storylink=cpy
bongbong
(5,436 posts)... Obama finally got rid of enough Cheney hold-overs in the CIA to ensure he won't have "problems".
Robb
(39,665 posts)It felt too "meta" to me, frankly.
But now that details of the proposed deal are coming out, I'll say what I said in another thread: the tiny amount of immunity being offered the banks involved -- "foreclosure procedure" issues? Really? -- perfectly matches the relatively tiny amount of money being offered to settle.
Loan origination. Loan servicing. Securitization of the loans. That is where the criminal behavior lies, that is where prosecutions must be, and that is precisely where this task force is aiming.
And I'm glad to hear it. Recommended.
jpak
(41,760 posts)yup
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)i wonder what the next "last straw" shall be.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Call out FAIL
Robb
(39,665 posts)The terms of the settlement as so far described deliver certain immunities to the five banks involved in exchange for money. None of those immunities extend to any of the topics this task force intends to explore.
Put another way, you're right, the settlement isn't affected by the task force. More importantly, the task force isn't restricted by the settlement; they're after different fish.
The foreclosure process is small potatoes compared to everything that led up to that foreclosure, in terms of where the fraud probably occurred. Robosigning is the tip of the iceberg -- and the rest of the iceberg is still in-bounds for prosecution.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Seriously.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)If the robosigning is the easiest to prosecute why do they get immunity there? I read yesterday on DU about how widespread the fraud was witht the robosigning and how some people who had paid off mortgages had the banks coming back and saying they were not paid off after all and the hell they were in trying to fix the problem and robosigning was a part of that also.
It was illegal. They broke the law. Why should they get off? If it was you or I we would be in prison. Who hired these people to robosign. Why are they not in prison?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Matt Taibbi: "The narrow focus of the deal covers only a small amount of liability and leaves the banks incredibly exposed to all kinds of criminal investigations."
see interview here: http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/matt-taibbi-ponders-whether-obamas-embrace-of-populist-rhetoric-is-already-impacting-wall-street
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)There was always going to remain criminal liability. The only thing being discussed had to do with certain civil liabilities.
But everyone ignored it.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)but I'll be glad to kick!
bhikkhu
(10,724 posts)I followed the thing since July, and basically the administration did what they said they would do and negotiated a fair deal, while all the angst and bluster was fear that they would do otherwise and give away all sorts of immunities...
In spite of all the people who were happy to post about "what Obama is really thinking" or "here's what he means if you read between the lines" - pretty much it turned out well, as it seemed to be in the beginning if instead of trying to read between the lines you just listened to what he was saying.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)apologies are in order, not for disagreeing about anything, not for predicting something that didn't happen. Those things don't call for apologies.
What calls for apologies is this type of taunting each other over people's serious concerns.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)We're only supposed to remember some things, and this was a perfect thing to remember until it wasn't something to remember anymore. I'm a little fuzzy on the details myself of just what qualifes in each category and how something can shift between categories, but I'm relentlessly assured that this is not something we're not supposed to remember anymore.