Not the type of bi-partisanship I'm looking for

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39546531

A bill that weakens consmuer protection by making it more difficult to challenge improper forclosures is passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, with no public debate. Who do you think the "constituents" are that pushed for this bill? The obvious answer is the bank and mortgage lobby. And all of the Senators, Dem and Rep alike, unanimously endorsed the bill. Do we need more reasons why every incumbent should be voted out of office?

Thanksfully, the Obama administration has indicated Obama won't sign the bill into law. He gets kudos from me for that.

[Harlowe]

I was pretty appalled by how quietly and quickly both sides of the aisle tried to get that one through. I'm a little more disgusted with Democrats signing off on that, because they were the ones crying about protecting consumers and the middle class etc etc, it's so contrary to what they claim they are fighting for. If Obama signed that, I seriously wouldn't have a lot of faith left in him.

[Kulaf]

It's only a bad bill because it doesn't force a notary standard. The standard in CA for instance is much higher than in WA where I live now. If you want to have states accept notorized papers from other states then there needs to be a federal notary standard.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I was pretty appalled by how quietly and quickly both sides of the aisle tried to get that one through. I'm a little more disgusted with Democrats signing off on that, because they were the ones crying about protecting consumers and the middle class etc etc, it's so contrary to what they claim they are fighting for. If Obama signed that, I seriously wouldn't have a lot of faith left in him.

Agreed Harlowe... done on the last day before they recessed. And it was done only after the Dems took active control of the bill.

The bill's approval involved invocation of a special procedure. Democratic Senator Robert Casey, shepherding last-minute legislation on behalf of the Senate leadership, had the bill taken away from the Senate Judiciary committee, which hadn't acted on it.

As to why it was whisked away from the Judiciary committee...

But shortly before the Senate's recess, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy pressed to have the bill rushed through the special procedure, after Leahy "constituents" called him and pressed for passage.

One wonders what "constuents" put the pressure on Leahy. Whoever those constituents were, seemed to alll of a sudden get fired up about a bill that had been languishing since 2006. Considering the news today that BoA is halting ALL foreclosures in all 50 states to investigate their own procedures of presenting signed (and notarized) affidavits to the court that were signed (and notarized) illegally... I just can't help but think the banking lobby and mortgage industry lobby are behind this.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I want to caveeat something....

Even though I laud Obama for using the pocket veto to squash an obvious play by the bank and mortgage sectors to make it difficult to challenge the legitimacy of a forclosure action, I have to temper that with the lack of judicial prosecution in the industry. Banks paid mortgage brokers to steer people into high-fee loans and risky loans. Then they packaged those loans as investment products (CDOs) whcih they sold to investors. The ratings agencies rated those products as AAA, because the banks paid them to rate them that way. Then the banks, knowing the CDOs were risky, made bets that they would fail (that's why we had to bail out AIG, which underwrote that risk). And when the bailout occurred, we sent much of the bailout money to foreign banks, and to banks that outsource a lot of labor over seas.

And the Obama administration can't find a criminal act in all that? Isn't there some bank execs that should be charged? If not a bank exec, a bank itself? Anyhting?

[Partha]

http://4closurefraud.org/2010/10/07/exc ... d-j-stern/

[Ddrak]

Then they packaged those loans as investment products (CDOs) whcih they sold to investors. The ratings agencies rated those products as AAA, because the banks paid them to rate them that way.

Nah, not quite as straightforward as that. If it was then the ratings agencies would have been guilty of fraud (which they aren't) and the whole thing would be simple to unravel. The real problem is the loads were packaged into tranches of which *some* were legitimately rated AAA because the entire risk was placed on the lowest tranches, which offered the highest gains as a result. Then the low tranches were packaged up again with other CDOs into a new set of tranches of which some again could be legitimately classed AAA because the (even higher) risk was still in the lower tranches again. Repeat a few more times and no one has any sound way to unravel the mess and tie a particular investment to a particular property.

I don't believe the fundamental issues has actually been cleaned up yet? All the TARP money has essentially propped up this web rather than unraveling it? My understanding was the only real solution was for the government to buy all the debt from the banks, unwind it back to the mortgages themselves and then negotiate with each individual mortgagee that was in trouble to get the best return for the loan money. Anything short of that really isn't fixing squat.

Dd