Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumhow did Obama's plan re: bankers jibe with the agreement about to be signed?
Has anyone figured that out yet?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1156 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
how did Obama's plan re: bankers jibe with the agreement about to be signed? (Original Post)
grasswire
Jan 2012
OP
gateley
(62,683 posts)1. I was trying to remember what the agreement is -- do you have a link handy? Thanks.
Obama Is on the Brink of a Settlement With the Big Banksand Progressives Are Furious
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 Obamas State of the Union addressin which he plans to further advance a populist message against big money and income inequalitythe deal may be here, and its every bit as ugly as progressives feared.
The Associated Press reports that a proposed deal could be announced within weeks. Five banksBank 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 fundsthis makes the penalty even lower. Beyond all that: its extremely hard to justify the absence of investigations and punishment for mortgage fraud that was so widespread and so damaging to peoples lives.
There are also many other, more serious problems besides a lack of punitive action. The small amount of moneyand the federal governments recent inability to truly help underwater mortgage holders, of which there are currently 11 millionmeans 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
gateley
(62,683 posts)3. Thank you! I was trying to explain this to a friend, trying to jibe it with Obama'speech, wondering
what the difference was, but I didn't have a good grasp on this. This time I'll really read it and pay attention so I'll know.