Justice For Some, Again

The Fed takes care of banks:

[B]anks have never acted as if they bear responsibility for the mortgage mess. They have pursued foreclosures in violation of borrowers’ rights to due process, as revealed by the recent robo-signing scandal. And, despite having been bailed out for their mistakes, they have pursued their self-interest, not the public interest, when it comes to modifying bad loans. They have resisted reducing principal balances for troubled borrowers, for instance, because that could force them to take losses they would rather delay.

Now, despite mounting evidence of borrower mistreatment, the Federal Reserve has proposed a rule that would disable the most effective legal tool that borrowers have to fight foreclosures. [. . .] Citing concern over banks’ compliance costs, [the Fed] would require a borrower to pay off the remaining principal before the lender gives up its security interest. That would be clearly impossible for troubled borrowers. So the Fed’s proposal would benefit the creditor who violated the law rather than the borrower, paving the way for foreclosures that otherwise could be avoided.

The Fed failed to protect consumers before the financial crisis, and is failing again. [. . .]

The entire government has failed consumers and is still failing. This is not new.

Speaking for me only

< Cyber Monday Open Thread | The Era Of Big Government Is Over >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Not disrepect (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    anyone but we (myself included here) seem to constantly be talking about the sickness without offering any real solutions to the problem.

    Obama is not going to do anything but push conservative policy prescriptions no matter how much anyone yells or how much he gets "shellacked" in elections.

    The only solution I can see coming down the pike right now is the 2016 presidential election and perhaps some local elections in the near future.

    I think the party needs to forget about Washington and start "growing" candidates at the bottom.

    It is difficult to discuss solutions (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:36:19 PM EST
    when the general population, and even the not so general and actually researching it, aren't even allowed to understand the problem and the different facets from liar loans all the way through to the fraudulent securitizations encompasses.  But if everyone understood exactly what was failing, who did what, who broke what laws and who looked the other way, and exactly what all this tax payer money is going toward, they would all freak the hell out.  I have a lot of questions that would better allow me to fully understand what they system entails and who pays who when things fail but good luck trying to get answers.  It isn't an accident either that the public in general knows very few facts about the mortgage crisis.

    I think you're right (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:57:07 PM EST
    The true extent of the fraud is so massive that no one wants to look at it. The biggest real estate markets in the country over the last 10 years were build on fraud. You can see how freaked out people are over just the foreclosure fraud aspect of it. The mortgage origination fraud aspect of it is by definition much bigger.

    I know (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:16:07 PM EST
    That's where political leadership comes into play and someone explaining to us exactly what the situation is. I sometimes wonder if Obama even has the most basic of understanding of what the problems are.

    What about free market principles? (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:06:14 PM EST
    By allowing banks to make a reasonable decision to reduce principal on some loans, they could actually reduce their own mortgage losses.

    When banks foreclose, they inherit properties they often cannot sell for protracted periods of time.  And, when they do sell, they sell for far less than the principal.  

    Let banks reduce the principal to save their own arse from even greater losses....

    The big boys do workouts on big loans all the time.  But homeowners will be denied the chance for the same?????

    Who will pay for the mortgage backed (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:30:22 PM EST
    securities though?

    The shareholders (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:37:09 PM EST
    They can afford attorneys though (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:38:39 PM EST
    And they are digging up fraud and that is leading to lawsuits and the need for putbacks.  The people who can afford the attorneys and who can afford to fight the fraud are going to do just that.  It is already happening.

    I'm fine with the Shareholders (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:50:50 PM EST
    taking the hit....They invested in a scam....maybe unknowingly but still they took their chances....

    If you can get the promoters, great, go get 'em.....but they may be long gone or broke.

    If shareholders in real estate scams take the hit, then next time maybe they will be more careful....Just the wealthy being subject to the free market....it's time the wealthy lived by those rules too.

    And, I think many of these funds won't go broke....just have their profits cut.....


    I suppose at this point I'm about the Rule of Law (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 03:08:55 PM EST
    and equal representation.  The mortgage backed securities were sold into pensions and lots of other things that are horrible to behold.  This stuff was sold to our retiring parents via the pension managers, not just a bunch of hair on fire day traders.  On one hand we had predatory lending taking place at an insane rate, and on the other hand we had the selling of perfected mortgage backed securities that were not perfected.  The Fed seems intent to allow the banks to have rights that consumers will now be denied.  Whenever that happens in consumer situations....whenever you remove equal representation in a capitalistic society, it only encourages more raping and pillaging.

    See Joseph Stiglitz (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:41:00 PM EST
    piece at guardian.co.uk website - nov. 5

    His discussion was so depressing I may give up reading about politics forever (don't mind me, I say this every few days, stay away for a day or 2, then come back to be informed & get depressed all over again).


    Difficult times (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:30:45 AM EST
    Not for nothing... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 03:25:31 PM EST
    people who had their 401k's and pensions tied up in MBS need to take their massive steaming pile of losses up with their fund managers...they're the ones that screwed them making crap investments...to the extent they didn't screw themselves by outsourcing their retirement responsibilities to Brooks Brothers clad thieves.

    You live, you learn...it sucks, I can sympathize...but to leave taxpayers with no retirement or pension to speak of holding the bag of poop ain't right.  It's a risk you run gambling, especially gambling in rigged games you don't understand.


    For those middle income folks (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 03:37:26 PM EST
    who lost money because of their investment in mortgaged back securities, some remedy is appropriate.

    Most big funds are diversified enough that no one should go broke or lose their retirement over this.  Pension funds generally don't get caught up in risky ventures....

    401k funds have largely bounced back--diversification helped.....


    MBS weren't supposed to be risky (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 04:46:07 PM EST
    They were supposed to be highly perfected securitized investments.......except they weren't because those creating the pools were lying and perfecting nothing.

    I fully agree with you that (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 04:43:45 PM EST
    people should never outsource their investment responsibility.  But if you were paying real attention there wasn't much left out there to fund or bet on.  The corruption and the lack of accountability to investors was enormous.  But the stock market numbers climbed, anybody could get a loan for anything, and the government kept giving you breaks for just handing your money to Wall Street and have other people "decide" for you.  It was always too good to be true, but the truth stopped mattering a long long time ago.

    They had turned investment into a social phenomenon though, I screamed and moaned a lot but I was a sane person in the insane world.....therefore I was pronounced insane.

    Another fact though too kdog is that a lot of these investments were graded AAA.  Someone lied, someone committed giant fraud.  AAA is supposed to be as rock solid as an investment can get, and the rating agencies labeled crap AAA.


    Tommy Boy Callahan... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 05:15:46 PM EST
    said something wise once about AAA ratings and guarantees and such.

    Tommy: Chicken wings! Let's think about this for a sec, Ted, why would somebody put a guarantee on a box? Hmmm, very interesting.

    Ted Nelson: Go on, I'm listening.

    Tommy: Here's the way I see it, Ted. Guy puts a fancy guarantee on a box 'cause he wants you to fell all warm and toasty inside.

    Ted Nelson: Yeah, makes a man feel good.

    Tommy: 'Course it does. Why shouldn't it? Ya figure you put that little box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right, Ted?

    Ted Nelson: What's your point?

    Tommy: The point is, how do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Buildin' model airplanes!" says the little fairy, well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. The next thing you know, there's money missing off your dresser and your daughter's knocked up, I've seen it a hundred times.

    Ted Nelson: But why do they put a guarantee on the box?

    Tommy: Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of sh*t. That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I've got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me.

    Ted Nelson: Okay, I'll buy from you.

    Tommy: Well, that's... What?

    Maybe our biggest problem is the Callahan Auto's of savings and loans got bought out or driven outta business by the "crazy glue sniffers" 20 or more years ago, with Uncle Sam's assistance and blessing.  

    Seems to me it's two choices...people either can roll with AAA thievery, or be a moron like me with a roll under the mattress whose best plan for early retirement is the Pick 6.  There is no sane option for those not looking to get in on the grift.


    MT... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 03:03:43 PM EST
    Regarding these questions you have, I'm sure you know the answers. The Banks and our elected officials entered into a conspiracy to defraud the public, and to indemnify the perpetrators for any potential losses.

    The public can't be expected to understand the intricacies of all those esoteric schemes and derivatives which, after all, were designed by quants & physicists. All they need to know is "who's on my side?" and/or " who's out to screw me?"

    I don't understand why you keep looking for empirical answers for a problem that was designed to be criminal. But, if you insist on knowing ALL the answers, that can be done easily. Prosecute the offenders, send them "upstate," then sit back and listen to them sing.


    I must understand from the ground up (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 03:11:39 PM EST
    It is how I am made :)  If I keep digging, eventually I will get to the bottom of it or be comatose from exhaustion.

    If you keep digging..... (none / 0) (#54)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 12:07:55 AM EST
    you're gonna be one tired young lady


    your arms will look you're Ms Popeye.


    Failure? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:08:17 PM EST
    You put it the wrong way.  You should say that the government is succeeding in its efforts to help the ruling corporate oligarchy loot the middle class.

    All pretense of government for the people - gone! (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by pluege2 on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:00:48 PM EST
    whether its obama, blue dogs, the indecent republicans, or the mainstream media, pretty much all pretense of government being for the people is gone. The US is a plutocracy of, by, and for the rich - period. Nothing else is left - not even a discussion of any other possibilities.

    I suppose this is all about the MBS (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    Someone has to pay the investors.  This will not help though.  Most of the loans were not graded properly, people had their retirement funds buy crap.  If almost all of us qualify for some sort of modification that would actually adjust the principle owed on loans, the banks who made the initial loans would have to cover that gap.

    But it is well documented that foreclosure ends up costing in the end usually much more overall than modification.  The house sits vacant in this economy, squatters can become a problem, vandalism and lack of maintainence as well.....if things get real bad like it did in Michigan, some properties have to be condemned because of the degradation.  There is no easy fix, and simply hoping to take it all out of the hides of average Joe won't get them very far either.

    Does it bother anyone else other than me that we have more owed in MBS than we have actual mortgages and interest from them?  How did that happen?  I still don't understand that yet.

    foreclosures don't cost the foreclosing bank more (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 01:15:55 PM EST
    that's why their happening.  The costs you cite are mainly socialized to others, which is the anti-socialist American businessman's preferred  way of dealing with costs of any type.

    There's very little about this entire fiasco that does not bother me, including this Amdinistration's inept attempts to deal with it.  Iceland did it right, let the party best positioned to have avoided the costs take the losses, i.e., the bankers and other investors in MBS.  And let the chips fall where they will.  


    Another thing I don't understand yet (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 01:34:21 PM EST
    A house that is being foreclosed on must be removed from the Mortgage Backed Security Trust that it is in.  If the borrowers aren't making their payments someone still has to pay into the MBS what those investors have coming to them, I had read that somehow this fell upon the servicers and I'm not sure how that would work out or why a servicer would contractually agree to something like that.  Does the bank have to preform a putback when a mortgage is foreclosed on and taken out of the trust?

    It's all complicated by (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 03:47:46 PM EST
    credit default swaps, which shift the risk of any defaults to a third party.  CDS's aren't "insurance" per se, but in some ways, they work that way.  They're a bet on whether defaults will or will not occur.  They're also unregulated.  Many investment companies and hedge funds wrote CDS's without owning the actual underlying securities.  To me, this seems to be akin to buying, say, fire insurance on your neighbor's house.  Wouldn't it be to your advantage, if your neighbor's house was on fire, not to call the fire department?  (And if you're really unethical, it might well be to your advantage to set the fire yourself.  But that's just my opinion.)  

    Maybe I'm missing something (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:45:53 PM EST
    If borrowers aren't making their payments, doesn't the investor lose that money? Did the trust guarantee those investments themselves, or just theoretically hold the titles (as I thought)?  You're right - no one would agree to making good on those high risk investments, except the sucker american taxpayer.

    my mistake - I was thinking (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:47:49 PM EST
    MERS, not MBS. But still, why does anyone have to make good on the MBSs?

    I think the problem at hand is that (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:57:23 PM EST
    the perfecting of the securities never occurred.  The securities were full of crap loans that had not been perfected and the investors have the money to fight.  So they are getting their money back because of the fraud that the securities contained.  The banks don't have the money to pay them back though.  If they have to do all these putbacks they will face insolvency again.

    thanks, that makes sense (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 03:00:49 PM EST
    Unfortunately they will stop pulling the thread right there - at the point where the investors might get some satisfaction. If they keep pulling the thread they will unravel the fraud in the mortgage origination side, and no one in power wants to go that far.

    Home buyers need a good class action attorney or something, since the government is failing us.


    Ha! Here it is. (none / 0) (#35)
    by sj on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 03:27:36 PM EST
    Home buyers need a good class action attorney or something, since the government is failing us.

    A way for John Edwards to redeem himself.


    If law is changed (none / 0) (#48)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:44:17 PM EST
    per bills pending before Congress, there will be no basis on which to bring a class action or any other suit in favor of home owners.

    Live and learn (none / 0) (#2)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 01:05:38 PM EST
    I thought this was already the rule generally, if not the Fed's, and the argument was over whether it should be relaxed to provide underwater homeowners a way to reduce the principal owed.

    Is it not also the case that the fraud and slicing and dicing of mortgage-based securities have in many instances left matters unclear regarding who exactly holds the security interest?

    Its a mess (none / 0) (#5)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 01:30:33 PM EST

    But whatever the case it is hard to justify why someone that has not made a payment in 16 months on a no money down mortgage has any right to be squatting on that property.

    So what if some little guys get a windfall (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 01:59:05 PM EST
    they don't deserve.

    It happens to the banks and the rich all the time....


    Well, let's see (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:36:20 PM EST
    The borrower entered into the transaction in good faith; The Bank entered into the transaction knowing it was fraudulent, knowing it was designed to fail, knowing the appraisers were party to their crime, and knowing the Government would indemnify them for any losses their crime might produce.

    So, the answer is pretty simple, IMO. The Bank should have the option of being prosecuted under the RICO statutes, or, at the very least, reimburse the borrower for any costs incurred, including pain & suffering.


    Bingo (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:52:32 PM EST
    The borrower entered into the transaction in good faith; The Bank entered into the transaction knowing it was fraudulent, knowing it was designed to fail, knowing the appraisers were party to their crime, and knowing the Government would indemnify them for any losses their crime might produce.

    If I buy a house at an artificially inflated price, (which, hey, I did) thinking the market was just working legally, why am I the only one morally and legally obligated to pay the money?


    Yep yep y'all... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 03:05:50 PM EST
    think of it this way Abdul..our criminal justice system is designed to let murderers go free when the system cheats to get a conviction...why can't our financial system operate on the same principle?  When the system cheats to get a foreclosure/eviction, the system automatically loses and the "deadbeat" gets off with a free house.  Not fair, to be sure...but better than the alternative, which is even more unfair and unjust.

    Setting aside valid (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:49:25 PM EST
    points made by others, as Stiglitz has pointed out, the underlying issue is rule of law.  If Bank A cannot show it has a valid security interest in the underlying property, why should it be entitled to foreclose?  Spoz I'd like to foreclose on the Empire State building, or Yankee Stadium, or what-have-you, because I think the property is grand; if I can't prove I have a valid claim to the property, why should Congress be able to pass a law saying I can foreclose without establishing a valid, traceable legal interest in the property?  

    The underlying predatory lending practices are another story, and, I believe, those violate all sorts of laws.  One of the predatory practices, as I understand it, was offering borrowers -- especially lower income borrowers -- only the most 'expensive' mortgages available, rather than those plus less expensive mortgages for which they would have qualified.  


    Many (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 01:44:28 PM EST
    take the bull by the horns and just leave but there are those that use the situation to save money so that they can get an apartment.

    Question: (none / 0) (#12)
    by sj on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:27:55 PM EST
    As I recall from way back when, a borrower had to pay the ENTIRE mortgage payment.  So if the payment amount was $100, and the borrower only had $99, then so sorry, too bad.  Come back later.

    Then, if the borrower hit the mext regular due date for the loan with the payment still unmade, then $200 was required.  If the borrower now had $198 and enough to pay off last month's mortage payment, the lender would not accept it. unless the entire amount now due was presented.

    Is this still the case?


    I assume the bank or loan servicer (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:44:45 PM EST
    would gladly take all the money you are willing to pay.......It may not prevent late fees or foreclosures, however.....

    So, sure, the bank or its successor would take the $198--and then promptly foreclose.

    Most collection people follow this principle--they know the borrower will ultimately be unable to keep pace or ever get current under the terms of the loan--but they still try to wring as much cash out of the borrower as possible pre-foreclosure....

    Pick the carcass clean before you make the kill and pass it on to someone else.


    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:14:50 PM EST
    that's exactly right. My bank told me that they didn't want partial payments and not to make them at all which really sounds crazy on one level.

    So if you do send them some money they are still going to foreclose so you might as well keep the money and plan for the future.


    Even harder to justify (none / 0) (#56)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:18:37 AM EST
    nearly a $trillion in direct welfare and some $20 trillion in gauranties to banks, all of which was enacted by our COngress and signed by the President over the course of a couple of weeks.  

    I mean as long as we are giving things away to those who created the problems . . .  


    Doesn't this almost if not outright (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:29:35 PM EST
    encourage predatory lending?

    Is there any other kind anymore? (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 02:55:48 PM EST
    Seriously, I don't know how anyone trusts any financial institution or mortgage broker.

    And I will ask once again: where the hell is Elizabeth Warren on this issue?  Is she just being kept busy putting together a "Consumer Financial Protection Board" that will end up being headed by yet another banker-friendly insider who will regard the mission as being one that protects the financial industry from the consumer?  

    The whole thing is just disgusting.


    Anne... (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 03:09:50 PM EST
    Take it easy with E. Warren; she's doing great work "behind the scenes." She's in a very difficult, and politically complicated situation. I don't have the links this minute but I'm sure if you do a little Googling you'll come across the information I've been reading regarding her activities.

    She truly is one of the good guys, and this is just one of those situations where one has to have a little faith.....and patience.


    I'll have to check out the Google, (none / 0) (#41)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 03:58:54 PM EST
    but thanks for easing my concerns somewhat; I can imagine that it's no small task to build this Board from the ground up, but I was not pleased to learn who seems to be in the lead for the eventual head - someone who is very bank-friendly.

    And that's not her fault, either.

    I just have not seen much - of anything - in the media about her, no one seems to be going to her for comment, or expert opinions, which makes me feel like she doesn't fit the message the media wants out there.

    Again, not her fault.

    I think I am sorry she's been sort of shunted to the dark corners of the administration instead of being out in front on the many consumer issues that are really hurting people; I was afraid that would happen, but I don't think it means she's gone over to the "other side," as it were - I think she's passionate about these issues on behalf of ordinary people, but I do feel like her voice has been deliberately quieted.


    Not her fault but (none / 0) (#50)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:52:00 PM EST
    she's been effectively marginalized  -- IMO -- given a big title and a lot of responsibility, but no authority to put any rules, procedures or policies into effect that would benefit the little guy.  

    "she's been effectively marginalized" (none / 0) (#52)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:52:11 PM EST
    We don't know that. First, a caveat: Everything said here is our personal opinion. And mine is that E. Warren wasn't a brilliant champion for the middle class one day, and suddenly, for some sort of political expediency, became a villainous turncoat the next. I just believe that she has the sort of commitment, and integrity, that, if she believed she was being marginalized and/or being used for interests antithetical to her long held beliefs, she would resign first.

    I don't know any more than anyone here so I'll go with what I do know. Both in the military, and in business, if you want to achieve the goal you've set out for yourself you must do two things:
    1. Pick the right Leader,


    2. Leave him/her alone to do the job.  


    I don't question E Warren's (none / 0) (#58)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:16:13 AM EST
    bona fides one bit.  But without being given the appointment as head of the consumer watchdog agency, her power to influence official actions on consumer protections is limited.

    Does she have jurisdiction (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 03:12:26 PM EST
    over real estate loans?   She may only have the ability to regulate credit cards, etc....I really don't know.

    Typically, real esate loans are handled differently....Here in California, the usury laws do not apply to loans secured by real estate.  So, APRs of 60% on seconds is just super, duper...fine and dandy....and a wonderful way to gouge profits out of the minority home-owning community.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#37)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 03:37:55 PM EST
     where her "jurisdiction" starts, and ends at this moment in time. What I do know is that, for the time being, she's on the "inside" and, I`m sure, her ears are perked up, listening to all the chatter taking place. As I told Anne, I recently read a piece where Elizabeth caught wind of a bill that the President was about to sign, in the interest of bi-partisanship, but due to the tricky wording, would have been damaging to the general public. Whether it fell under her "jurisdiction," I don't know, but because of her presence there, she was able to explain it to Mr. Obama, and he subsequently changed his mind, and vetoed it.

    I trust she knows what she's doing, and if "laying low," out of the headlines is the correct way to proceed I will continue to give her the benefit of any doubts I might have.


    sounds good to me (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 03:39:23 PM EST
    Good a rover in the defense (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 03:45:20 PM EST
    Could we be that lucky?

    I sure hope (none / 0) (#51)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:53:15 PM EST
    she can catch every lethal piece of legislation

    banks do all these things (none / 0) (#55)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 12:54:46 AM EST
    because, like the scorpion stinging the frog, it's their nature. contrary to popular belief, banks have zero responsibility to the public at large, and only what minimal level of regulatory responsibility to the federal/state governments. their primary (and some would argue their only) responsibility is to their shareholders.

    it is the bank management's job to maximize return on investment to the shareholders, period. everything they do must be considered in this context. the management and board of director's sole concern is earnings per share, anything else is, at best, secondary. this is why adam smith recognized the need for government regulation of business which, left a completely unfettered hand would, by its very nature, destroy both the economy and society.

    the classic capitalist model recognizes the necessary tension between business, striving for profit, and government, attempting to control the worst aspects of the profit-driven economic system. that, of course, is where the bush administration failed the "adam smith test", allowing the financial institutions to run wild, and basically regulate themselves. the fox was appointed to guard the hen house, with predictable results. the taxpayer is left to clean up the bloody mess.

    rights? (none / 0) (#59)
    by diogenes on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 10:28:14 AM EST
    Is anyone saying that someone who paid his or her mortgage regularly as was required had his or her house foreclosed on by these evil people?