The bankruptcy and depression you are speaking about is nothing more than mass hysteria orchestrated by the people who control the greatest amount of those inanimate objects.

Almost all of the cases in question were where banks failed to have their paperwork in order for otherwise entirely legitimate foreclosures, and were rightly challenged legally on it.

That said I think they could have handled 100 billion with ease. and better enforcement mechanisms would make everyone feel better. Perhaps a neutral administrator like the 911 settlement and the BP spill had, instead of self-enforcement.

I don't think those were pie in the sky goals.

And I see it only worked because the CA AG got a side deal for California. Good for them. All of the big state AGs should have fought as hard, including my worthless one, Pam Bondi. But she was fighting on the banks' side.  

Anyway I will say that I am glad that there were not as many blanket immunities as I was afraid there would be. There are still avenues for states,  other groups, and individuals to pursue some form of justice.  I am not a stickler for perp-walks - it could be that the crimes committed were so well covered that they would take more money to prosecute than it would be worth to see some guys in jail, as satisfying as that would be.

Just wait for the list where Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, etc. will be forced to return all their ill-gotten billions in bonuses they got for destroying the world economy.

Boy, oh boy, I can't wait for the moment Barack Obama goes on the TV, and announces: " My fellow Americans, tonight I have instructed the Attorney General to................."

Again, this settlement addressed a narrow issue.  When people assert that the banks are now off the hook for the real issues related to the mortgage industry failure, they are saying that they don't understand what this settlement does.

I know it's fashionable to blame all our problems on the Bankers. But, they're no different than you and me. They love their families, and they want what's best, at least for themselves. But, that's what makes America great. By wanting what's best for themselves they elected a Democratic President.

If it wasn't for the Rich, we'd have Republicans running the show. And, where would that leave us? By exercising their first amendment rights we now have a Progressive in charge.

Just imagine if the republicans were in charge. We'd have high unemployment, and a deterioration of benefits, at least like those enjoyed by most of the modern world. We'd have endless war, and an all out assault on our personal freedoms. With their bumper sticker form of communication, elections would be so expensive that some experts claim could run as high as a billion dollars. Ordinary Americans could never hope to take part in the election process like they could when elections only cost a few hundred million dollars.

So, c'mon Anne; you can do it. C'mon. let's hear you say it, I know you can. Go on, I can almost hear it....a little more, Chug, chug, chug, I think you've got it. Can I hear it?

The administration has been looking at several state laws that let religious employers opt out of covering birth control in their insurance packages, so long as they refer women to a provider that will offer the benefit at low cost.

I don't think it's fair or good that women employed by religious-affiliated institutions will have to take more steps and jump through more hoops than women employed in secular workplaces.

So, the provider will offer the coverage at low cost - wasn't the mandate supposed to require the employer to include the coverage at no additional cost?  How is this fair?  Isn't there already a federal EEOC mandate that requires all employers who offer preventative coverage to also offer contraceptive coverage?

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today--and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally--but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too [...]

Not even religious employers were exempt from the impact of the EEOC decision. Although Title VII allows religious institutions to discriminate on religious grounds, it doesn't allow them to discriminate on the basis of sex--the kind of discrimination at issue in the EEOC ruling. DePaul University, the largest Roman Catholic university in America, added birth control coverage to its plans after receiving an EEOC complaint several years ago. (DePaul officials did not respond to a request for comment.)

With an existing federal mandate in place, why the need to waffle and accommodate?

And if a woman wants the coverage, what other hoops is she going to have to jump through with another provider?  How will she be guaranteed the same no co-pay coverage that other women will have the advantage of?

The Catholic Bishops are, in my opinion, beginning to sense weakness; they have already stated that they are opposed to the so-called "Hawaii Compromise," which is what the administration was looking at as a solution.