Quantcast
Feeds: Email, RSS & Twitter

Get Our Videos By Email

 

8,300 Unique Visitors In The Past Day

 

Powered by Squarespace

 

Search The Archive Of 15,000 Videos

SEARCH THE DAILY BAIL

 

 

Hank Paulson Is A Criminal - Pass It On

"The Federal Reserve Is A Ponzi Scheme"


Get Our Videos By Email

THE FED UNDER FIRE: Must See Clip

Bernanke's Replacement: Happy Hour In Santa Cruz

Must See: National Debt Road Trip

"Of Course We're Not Going To  Payback the Chinese."

Dave Chappelle On White Collar Crime

Carlin: Wall Street Owns Washington

SLIDESHOW - Genius Signs From Irish IMF Protest

SLIDESHOW - Airport Security Cartoons - TSA

Most Recent Comments
Cartoons & Photos
SEARCH
« Saturday Morning Videos And Links -- FDIC Lawsuit, Geithner's Tour Of Lies, Jack Welch On Obama, Letterman Destroys Bill O'Reilly, Bizarre Glenn Beck | Main | Dylan Ratigan Interviews Peter Schiff (VIDEO) »
Saturday
Oct092010

Student Who Heckled Obama Gets Roughed Up (VIDEO)

Video:  President Obama's speech at Bowie State University -- Oct. 7, 2010

The student screamed out “you’re a liar” causing the president to pause his speech.

 

Video:  UF student gets tasered at John Kerry rally

 

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (47)

Oct 9, 2010 at 2:57 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Reid: Greatest Living Americans Are Robert Byrd And Ted Kennedy

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/10/08/reid_greatest_living_americans_are_robert_byrd_and_ted_kennedy.html

What a joke...
Oct 9, 2010 at 2:58 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
This student was NOT roughed up. Are you simply trying to stir up the simple-minded. The student was shouted down just like he was trying to shout down the President. He was escorted away from the crowd. I get more "roughed up" than this at the annual Boston St. Patrick Day Parade.
Oct 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM | Unregistered Commenterpta
pta,

Take a deep breath. Maybe you don't read econ/business blogs very often, but cynicism is par for the course and exaggerated headlines are a part of that.

As to where that cynicism comes from? Well, just consider the fact that almost our entire political class, from Bush to Obama, has ultimately sided with the banks and the bankers against the American people. The need for the bailouts has been oversold from day one, with lies and misinformation far more dramatic and far more serious than any headline you might see here. Don't you remember that the entire economy was going to "collapse," the credit markets were completely "frozen," ATM's would stop working, businesses wouldn't be able to make payroll, we'd have "martial law" and tanks in the streets, etc., etc.?? Well, that's what people like Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Barack Obama, George Bush, John Boener, Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Paul Kanjorski, et al. were saying back then. Talk about wild exaggeration and fear mongering!

That's why people who have paid attention to the markets, finance and the economy are so freaking cynical. Clearly that kid was not "roughed up." And obviously you had no idea what world you were stepping into when you wrote your comment, but there you have it. Those of us who have paid attention are cynical for good reason and one manifestation of that is the kind of headline you got worked up about. Far better if you got worked up over the fact that our political class plays the "headline" game on a much larger scale and with deadly serious consequences.
Oct 9, 2010 at 4:29 PM | Registered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
Really good answer Pitchfork...i was simply going to say that I use hyperbolic headlines as a subconscious means of survival and perhaps even revenge...but yours was much better...hope you're having a good weekend...
Oct 9, 2010 at 5:36 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Please watch this video...this is what Obamacare will look like...it's heartbreaking...NHS is National Health Services in England...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZwM-ml8ieI
Oct 9, 2010 at 5:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterZ
This is what should have happened to that guy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPwnBifk1gQ
Oct 9, 2010 at 5:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterZ
Here is another great example...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAVvlyVbag
Oct 9, 2010 at 5:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterZ
Hey Dr. P.

I was wondering if you are gonna chime in on this foreclosure robo-signing scandal. My experience tells me that we are never told the true nature of the problem initially, it is always framed in the most palatable way.

That said, I feel like there's a dimension to this story that's not being told. Specifically, that the proceeds from foreclosure sales are not making it back to the parties entitled to the money. The discussion seems to be focused on the MBS holders, but I can't help but think that once again, it's the banks themselves that are crying foul.

Any thoughts?
Oct 9, 2010 at 8:32 PM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
I can't help but think that once again, it's the banks themselves that are crying foul.
---
Say that again. I'm not sure I follow.

As for my chiming in, people like Karl Denninger, Yves Smith and some others have done a great job covering it so far. The only thing I would add is that the IRS has some lee-way in interpreting the tax code pertaining to REMIC's. For example, in 2008 and 2009 they eased some restrictions on mortgage modifications. I wonder if they could do the same with replacing mortgages (or placing them for the first time, if they were improperly conveyed). What I'm saying is, it seems that the IRS could fix the REMIC issue pertaining to MBS just by issuing a directive. But the legal issue regarding conveyance could keep us from getting to that point in some cases.

Also, I'm not an expert on MBS. I just play one on the internets. So I don't know, for example, whether all MBS are structured under the REMIC provision (of the '86 tax code) or whether this affects only some of them.

Of course, arguing for any nefarious conspiracy on any of this would assume that the banks actually have a handle on all of this. As always, human stupidity could be the main culprit.
Oct 9, 2010 at 8:55 PM | Registered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
A couple anecdotes:

I have a friend who's mortgage was bought and sold three times before he came to settlement, I myself had a mortgage sold and I also found out about it at settlement.

I heard a story about a guy in Florida a couple years ago who refused to pay his mortgage - not because he couldn't but because he insisted on seeing proof that the bank seeking payment actually owned the mortgage. Last I heard, the bank in question was unable to produce documentation.

Now, say the guy in the second example gets foreclosed on. Who gets the money? The bank that was unable to prove it held the loan? For the sake of argument, let's say thats who got the proceeds. Well what if that bank didn't really have the right to that money because they never really owned the mortgage? Someone else comes along and claims to be the rightful owner of that mortgage and demands the proceeds from the sale plus damages, etc. Now what?

Is the bank who sold the property gonna cough up the cash and eat the costs associated with foreclosing and re-selling the property? What if there was a piggy-back loan that wound up somewhere else in the system? Given the insane state of affairs, is it inconcievable that the same mortgage could be sold to two different parties?

Another thing I can't understand is what happens when millions of people with mortgages that have been sold into securitization refinance? You have a structured product based on expected returns from loans, and half those loans get cashed out. Well, the cash flow's gone but shouldn't the return of principle flow back to the MBS holders? Am I wrong to suspect that it doesn't?

I, and I think a lot of other people assume that MBS money is dead money. Toxic assets. So it seems to me that if you sold a property that didn't actually belong to you, without the consent of the owner (who let's face it, was so leveraged himself, he'll never notice) you have now stolen the property, but are responsible for the costs associated with the next default. So you've stolen a white elephant. Smooth move, Elax.

With the horrendous condition and prospects of the US economy, the smartest thing you can do is find the nearest cop and say "Officer help me! I stole a house and if someone doesn't take it back, I'm gonna be broke!" and hope that somebody takes you off the hook.

I just don't buy that anybody (suddenly) gives a rat's ass about the MBS investors.
Oct 9, 2010 at 10:53 PM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
Let me put it another way:

If someone came up to me and said, "You know, your neighbor Joe isn't paying his mortgage. You could foreclose on him, get him evicted and take the house!"

Sweet.

So I borrow twenty grand, and start the process. In the meantime, Joe destroys the property and I can't sell it unless I dump another twenty into it. And guess what? I still can't sell it, I'm paying the property taxes....In short, it's killing me.

Sooner or later, I'm gonna turn myself in.....

This story just has that same funky taste I've gotten all to familiar with. Something's not right. Too much airplay. I wish half as many people knew that Geithner has rasied the loss limits of Fannie and Freddie to, wait for it, infinity.

Is your spider-sense tingling, Doc?
Oct 9, 2010 at 11:30 PM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
When you say the mortgage was sold before settlement, you mean it was sold before the guy actually closed the deal on the house?

Also, why wouldn't the principal of a refi go back to the securitization trust? Are you suggesting that in the cases where the SPV is still owned by the originator (the bank), the proceeds are being siphoned off from the MBS investors and sent back to the bank? I think the trustee has a fi-doosh-ee-airy duty to the investors, so that wouldn't happen, right? (In all seriousness, the refi is supposed to replace the original loan in the mortgage pool. I have no idea how the principal is distributed.)

These kinds of questions would be best answered by your good friend Janet Tavakoli. ;-) She's both a) experienced and expert in this stuff, and b) delighted to tell you exactly how crooked and f***ed up this whole thing might be shaping up.

Lastly, my spider-sense got all tingly when The One decided to a) acknowledge the potential consequences of the notarization bill, b) decided to "pocket veto" the bill AFTER people made a stink about it, and c) decided to make double extra sure of his veto AFTER people started pointing out, maybe directly to the WH, that congress was actually, technically in session and that he had either 1) goofed (which wouldn't happen because he doesn't make his own decisions about vetoes or anything else) or 2) figured out that he wouldn't be able to fool ye olde blogosphere and had no choice but to do the right thing.

But like you say, too much airplay. It's almost as if it's some kind of head fake.
Oct 10, 2010 at 12:23 AM | Registered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
Well in my case, I had gone through all the mortgage app bullshit with one company, been approved and all, and whe we sat down at settlement, we were told ABC mortgage had sold our loan to XYZ mortgage - just sign here. And like I said, my story is not unique.

I think it would be very easy to cheat MBS investors, because in many cases, it is the taxpayer who is actually holding the bag.

But here's what I think I'm getting at - this has nothing to do with right or wrong - the process of foreclosing on people is killing the banks. Home buying season is over; Once the bank takes posession of the property, it is on the hook for all the expenses and the chances of moving all these properties is getting slimmer by the second. They're looking to get out of taking any more properties,

How many properties can banks pay taxes on, pay to cut the grass etc.?

So what are they doing? Confessing to crimes (literally) so they don't have to take posession of any more properties.

And Joe Sixpack is all too willing to join the "stop the foreclosures" movement.

You don't see it that way, do you, Doc?
Oct 10, 2010 at 1:11 AM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
So what are they doing? Confessing to crimes (literally) so they don't have to take posession of any more properties.

---

I follow your line of thinking mark...but who is forcing them to take possession...no one that i'm aware...in many areas they are letting people stay for years (yes years) without paying a dime on their mortgage...i did a story on 1 guy who has not paid for 35 months now...and he's still there living...

Why would they confess to this unless they were under pressure to foreclose from some outside force and were resisiting it...there is no outside force that i see...they could just cut back or stop altogether...plus think of all the liability this has created for banks...big lawsuits coming...this was not a planned event...
Oct 11, 2010 at 10:24 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Now understand, I'm still grappling with this myself, but here's some of the elements I'm trying to put together:

1) I have always envisioned a housing correction to be a top-down event. In other words, the million-dollar properties get hurt first and hardest. The million dollar house drops to 700K, the 700K to 450, 450 to 275......That isn't happening. Reggie Middleton has theorized that banks are intentionally sitting on the highest priced properties, while clearing the lower priced ones. There are two reasons for this: Keeping those properties off the market helps to support the lower half of the market and those McMansions will surely produce the biggest losses, which the bank will have to recognize when they finally sell them.

2) The housing recovery isn't going as planned, the banks can't clear the low-end inventory, so they're going to be stuck with the high-end for much, much longer than expected. In my area, a $10,000 annual tax bill for a McMansion isn't unusual, so if you're going to sit on one for a couple years, you better have some deep pockets. Don't forget about all the other maintenance costs....

3) So foreclosing on houses actually owned by others, or stealing houses, isn't profitable - it's like stealing someone else's credit card bill. So banks are just beginning to realize that houses are more liability than asset these days.

4) As the bills of taking posession of houses start piling up, banks are suddenly "remembering" that they stole them, and therefore shouldn't be on the hook for the expenses associated with taking posession, and sitting on, an unsellable inventory of houses. This is what I think this is really all about. Which brings me to this final point.

5) Who is ultimately responsible for paying the Real Estate taxes and other expenses on houses whose mortgages were sold into securitzation when the buyer defaults and no one wants to buy the house? Is it the company that created the securities? The banks that created (and subsequently sold) the mortgages? The holders of the securities? I don't know, but I think that is the real hot potato issue.

I'm under the impression that there can be no recourse against the holders of mortgage-backed securities. The security becomes worthless and the investor gets wiped out and walks away. What happens next? Again, who is on the hook for the taxes?

It's my impression that that is the underlying battle here....
Oct 12, 2010 at 9:41 AM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
4) As the bills of taking posession of houses start piling up, banks are suddenly "remembering" that they stole them
---
What do you mean, "stole them"? If the bank hadn't been receiving mortgage payments from the home-renter, why would they try to foreclose on a property that wasn't connected to them?


5) Who is ultimately responsible for paying the Real Estate taxes and other expenses on houses whose mortgages were sold into securitzation when the buyer defaults and no one wants to buy the house? Is it the company that created the securities? The banks that created (and subsequently sold) the mortgages? The holders of the securities?
---
The responsible party would be the person holding the title to the house. In many cases, that would be the shell company known as MERS. See, (I just found this out), MERS was holding the title for the house, while the securitization trust held the "note." This is why the whole thing is a clusterfuck. The owners of the note (i.e. the one receiving mortgage payments for several years) can't foreclose without the title, but they don't have it. But they're supposed to have it. According to the documentation used to set up the MBS trusts, the trustee is supposed to ensure that the trust has the ORIGINAL title on file. And as we're finding out, they don't (or didn't before they paid someone to forge them).

Bottom line, this doesn't look planned to me, either. Call me an elitist, but Jamie Dimon and Brian "I played rugby at Brown" Moynihan just aren't that smart.
Oct 12, 2010 at 10:11 AM | Registered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
Dr. P,

If you abandon a car in Philly, the city will charge you for removal, storage and disposal. The easiest way around the charges is to tear off the license plate and scratch out the VINs. In other words, obscure your ownership.

Are these MERS clamoring to find out how many properties they need to keep the taxes current on? Or are they scratching out the VINs?

A few years ago, I had a house under contract where the adjacent empty lot was purchased at a sheriff sale. I let the deal fall through, because the realtor lied to me, but I have often regretted that decision. If the absentee owner ever resurfaced, he would have had to pay me all the costs others incurred during his absence, plus interest. Taxes, association fees etc. That was never ever going to happen, even in a rising market enviorment.

The notion that the title holders of these properties are someday going to make similiar offers to people who bought homes in foreclosure is laughable. This is not about what has already transpired, in my opinion. This is about what is going to happen to the title holders as more and more properties sit unsold, declining in value.

As this trainwreck unfolds, the title holders will be begging to have their houses stolen.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, Doc. But time and time again, the true nature of every "crisis" has been completely misrepresented to the public. I don't think this one's any different. I asked you because I respect your ability to muck through the convolution.
Oct 12, 2010 at 11:31 AM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
Valid points Mark, I see where you are going with this, and if you are right it could be very, very, bad. Maybe they will try fire insurance, it has been used in "urban renewal" before by the money grubbers...
Oct 12, 2010 at 11:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterS. Gompers
Thanks, Gomp. I'm not even sure where I'm going with this, but when sociopaths suddenly have "attacks of conscience," I get very nervous.
Oct 12, 2010 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
You are right, people with no conscience cannot have attacks of conscience. It would be like a oxymoron or something. They can only have panic attacks and try to pass the hot potato. Usually to us somehow.
Oct 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterS. Gompers
Maybe they will get another bailout to pay the taxes for a couple of years til they can sell them, or "otherwise dispose of them". The way our system works that reality would only be a few campaign contributions away, after the election of course to see which party will deserve them "to be their friends"..
Oct 12, 2010 at 12:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterS. Gompers
Mark, I think you're about two conspiracy steps ahead of Jamie and Brian. The official story is that banks want to foreclose post haste and paperwork be damned. The barely mentioned story is that this is NOT a paperwork problem, but a legal problem that could collapse or damage a whole bunch of MBS-related systems and institutions (and put people into jail). Now you're coming in about two steps ahead of this saying that the banks don't really want to foreclose on any of these properties at all, and that trying to foreclose and trying to sneak in a bill that greases the skids on the foreclosure process is just an elaborate smokescreen. It's pretty impressive -- awe-inspiring, in fact -- that you can come up with something so intricate and devious. But again, I don't think Jamie and Brian are quite that clever. I think Occam's Pitchfork ... er Razor, applies here.
Oct 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM | Registered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
Again, who is forcing the banks to foreclose? If they don't want the upkeep and tax bills, they just don't foreclose. What am I missing here?
Oct 12, 2010 at 12:06 PM | Registered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
Mark...

I don't think they can punish the title holders for not anticipating that the bank was full of shit.
Oct 12, 2010 at 12:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterZ
I told you guys before, if I had been born into the bin Laden family, they'd be calling Osama "Fredo."

Reggie Middleton just published a piece on this, among other things he lists major MERS shareholders:

•Bank of America
•Chase Home Mortgage Corporation of the Southeast
•CitiMortgage, Inc.
•Fannie Mae
•Freddie Mac
•GMAC Residential Funding Corporation
•HSBC Finance Corporation
•Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation
•MGIC Investor Services Corporation
•Mortgage Bankers Association
•Nationwide Advantage Mortgage Company
•PMI Mortgage Insurance Company
•Stewart Title Guaranty Company
•SunTrust Morgage, Inc.
•United Guaranty Corporation
•Washington Mutual Bank
•Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Anyone else getting Deja-vu?

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/robo-signing-mess-just-tip-iceberg-mortgage-putbacks-will-be-harbinger-collapse-big-banks-wi
Oct 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
Yeah, the banks set up MERS as a shell corp to hold the titles, making it easier to securitize/skirt the law (and hide fraud at origination?). But who gets the bills is really up in the air. Just a glance at the wiki page for MERS shows that even judges don't know WTF to do, or what the rules are. It's a big ol' mess. MERS issued a statement the other day, by the way, disputing all the claims made by people like Denninger, et al. But those are just assertions. And if banks or .gov are asserting anything, you can just about rest assured that what they're saying is a lie.

And LOL, I was just tucking into the Reggie Middleton piece you linked to.
Oct 12, 2010 at 12:29 PM | Registered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
Hot potato anyone?
Oct 12, 2010 at 12:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterS. Gompers
Doc, my point is the tax bill doesn't go away just cause no one's paying it. Ideally, you kick out the deadbeats and find someone who will pay that bill, but what happens when you know you can't? Those bills just keep going up and up...

I believe that the banks have completely misestimated housing demand, so they're stuck with properties they thought they would have sold by now. More and more people are strategically defaulting and municipalities want there money (and don't really care WHO it comes from). So the game has shifted to "you know, we're not really sure who owes this money...."

It's a game. the banks don't want to cough up the taxes and the home-ower won't. If they foreclose, obviously it's them on the hook (there's no one else in the picture). These MERS shareholders (also banks) don't want to be identified as the responsible parties either. These municipalities have built new schools and parks based on expected revenues from property taxes and they're getting stiffed! What's the point in the bank taking posession?

My assertion is the banks want to stop taking foreclosures, but they need a better reason than going on TV and saying to everybody, "Houses are shitty investments and we can't afford to pay the taxes on anymore of them."

How does the NAR spin that?

There has to be a more convoluted story....followed by more pro-bankster legislation.
Oct 12, 2010 at 12:59 PM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
There has to be a more convoluted story....followed by more pro-bankster legislation.
---
This pretty much sums it up.

Still, if banks don't want to foreclose, there's no mechanism to make them. Nor is there anything that would force them to publicly address why they've let up on foreclosures.

Definitely the banks have screwed themselves and selling foreclosed properties is a clear money loser (home prices always go UP!). But why assume that foreclosing is more expensive than not foreclosing? Again, if it really is more expensive to foreclose, why do it?
Oct 12, 2010 at 1:10 PM | Registered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
i'm just wading thru reggie middleton's piece on MERS now...i might have to email him and ask if i can publish his piece at the Bail...here's what i think will happen...

Within 30 days, most banks will lift their self-enforced moratoriums on foreclosure and announce that the problem is now solved...and things will go back to normal...foreclosures will start right back up again at the familiar pace...they will be hit with massive numbers of lawsuits but they will continue foreclosing...

I think the moratorium was mostly PR...if you read the quotes from the bank CEOs they all say the same thing :"taking a short break to examine our procedures..."

Mark...i get your line of thought...but i don't agree with the premise that they want to stop foreclosing...that doesn't make sense to me...i don't believe the costs of foreclosing are higher than NOT foreclosing...

For your theory to make sense, it must account for the huge increase in liability they have now created by taking the story public, calling a foul on themselves, opening their process up to the lawyers...they are in a huge mess now...all from one simple affadavit from the gmac signer-fraudster....

I think as I said above, they will announce "no harm, no foul" in a few weeks and return to the foreclosure game while they fight the wave of lawsuits...

I'll say this...if they did it on purpose, they are idiots...and greatly underestimated the will of American trial lawyers...i mean they are facing a world of litigious shit now that this thing is public...Reggie thinks it could destroy some of them...
Oct 12, 2010 at 1:29 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
What strikes me about this whole issue...and it still hasn't been answered by anyone at mers or in the media...is that we still don't know exactly what documents are missing, what documents are being forged...are we talking about TITLES here or less important stuff..?..and in how many cases is this occurring...?..

Did they lose EVERY title for all securitized mortgages...?...are they all gone...or just a few...or NONE...they won't tell us which documents are in question...

And i don't see anyone asking about it...has this been going on for years...i mean mers has the central hub for a long time now...did they suddenly start losing documents...i doubt it...makes more sense to me that if TITLES are missing now that these same titles have been missing for years...but that no one called them on it until these last few years...i mean the idea of forcing the foreclosing entitiy to show proof of ownership probably NEVER used to happen...it was taken for granted...i've been sending my paymetns to X bank, and X bank is here in court to foreclose on me...so X bank MUST own my mortgage...even though I originally got my mortgage from Q bank...

I honestly doubt anyone asked about title ownership-proof until the past couple of years...so IF documents such as titles have been lost recently then the same thing has probably been happening since MERS got started...but no one ever challenged them until now...BUT again, we have no idea because we still haven't been told which documents are even missing...?...

As Pitch said, it's a massive clusterfuck...and i want answers...

Am I missing something...
Oct 12, 2010 at 1:43 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
DB, you've got it exactly right. Some of your questions may have been answered , or at least addressed, by Denninger and Mike Konczal at Rortybomb. No official answers, though. But definitely, the "produce the note" moment didn't come until c 2008. (I had the same question myself.)

Also, seems i remember Marcy Kaptur telling people from the house floor not to go through foreclosure until the bank could produce the note. And that was a year or two ago. (Black swan tastes like chicken.)
Oct 12, 2010 at 2:09 PM | Registered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
Moe Tkacik has a kick-ass piece on this whole debacle.

5 Things David Axelrod Must Have Missed About The Foreclosure Thing
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/daskrapital/2010/10/11/5-things-david-axelrod-must-have-missed-about-the-foreclosure-thing/
Oct 12, 2010 at 2:16 PM | Registered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
I absolutely remember the marcy Kaptur clip....i'll have to find that one now...
Oct 12, 2010 at 2:38 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
DB,

As I said earlier in the thread, home buying season is over. Why would you want to take responsibility of any property now? You wouldn't, right? I your Aunt Matilda was going to give you a house you didn't want or need, you'd delay that process until spring, if you could.

Very simply, if GMAC announced, "We've got way too many unsold houses, so we're gonna stop foreclosing 'til Spring," how many more people would stop paying? Lots and lots and lots.

Despite what gets poured into our ears everyday, a housing bottom is nowhere in sight. There's no chance banks are going to admit this, ever. They need you to believe that your house is a valuable asset they would just love to get their hands on, so you better pay.....

The best possible outcome you can wish for right now is to have the government declare a foreclosure moratorium (a la Brer Rabbit). "We really really want more houses, but the government says we have to take a break....."

And in the meantime, let's put together another rescue package.....
Oct 12, 2010 at 8:04 PM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
mark...have you seen the banking lobby and the white house response to this...they are fighting tooth and nail to PREVENT a moratorium...they want this to end in 2 weeks so they can get back to foreclosing...

Foreclosure Moratorium Would Be 'Catastrophic,' SIFMA Says

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/11/foreclosure-moratorium_n_758478.html
Oct 12, 2010 at 8:39 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
And this...

Obama Backs Foreclosure Probe By States, But Is Against Moratorium, Gibbs Says

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/obama-backs-foreclosure-p_n_759590.html
Oct 12, 2010 at 8:40 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
It was jsut a PR move to avoid negative public reaction...they have no plans to stop foreclosing for more than a few weeks...it will hurt them greatly to do so...the wsj editorial baord (mouth for the banks) has been making light of this scandal from the beginning...the banks want to return to seizing and selling...there's no conspiracy here...
Oct 12, 2010 at 8:41 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
DB,

Please don't tell me you just linked to HuffPo.

Congress was dead-set against the bailouts too.....at first.

You of all people should be hip to all this Kabuki theatre by now. Anything to prevent people from thinking clearly.
Oct 12, 2010 at 8:56 PM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
Mark...Remember...if they wanted to stop foreclosures all they had to do was stop quietly...They didn't need the shitstorm of liability that now engulfs them....if you wish to believe it was a planned event to open them up to hundreds of billions in liability, when they could have accomplished EXACTLY the same without any liability being created...be my guest...
Oct 12, 2010 at 8:56 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
DB,

THEY'RE NOT SELLING!!!! Seizing stuff you can't sell is idiotic. Don't you see how they're telling different demographic groups different things? The WSJs only concern is that their idiot readers don't dump their Citigroup shares. Tell the liberals banks don't want a foreclosure moratorium. They want the public to demand a moratorium. Maybe we will oblige them, right/

The "conspiracy" is that some missing documentation is going to somehow hurt the banks. Hahaha! We wipe our asses with the Constitution these days in case you haven't noticed.

People not paying their mortgages? That hurts the banks. People who take physical posession of precious metals instead of playing at the Wall Street casino? That hurts the banks. Distorting markets and cultivating greater fools costs money, and it is the weight of those distortions that will surely lead to the collapse, and subsequent rebirth of America.

You don't have to believe me. The process is unfolding predictably all by itself, the more they try ro fix it, the more it will break.
Oct 12, 2010 at 9:43 PM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
Mark, let's move this to the Demand to See Your Mortgage Note post -- I hate when these things go past 50 comments (i AM slow, but am I the only one who has to scroll down to the bottom of the page and click next page or most recent comment?).
Oct 12, 2010 at 9:51 PM | Registered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
Hundreds of billions in liability? Whose kool-aid are you drinking? Seriously, what would make you pull a number like that out of the air?

That is EXACTLY the kind of hysteria they were hoping for.....
Oct 12, 2010 at 9:56 PM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
Okie Doke
Oct 12, 2010 at 10:11 PM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
"Within 30 days, most banks will lift their self-enforced moratoriums on foreclosure and announce that the problem is now solved..."

You mean after the elections when incumbents no longer need the people to think something will be done to help them.

"As I said earlier in the thread, home buying season is over. Why would you want to take responsibility of any property now?"

Perhaps it is a ploy to hold off till January before taking more properties, that way the tax bills will go to the current owners.
Oct 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterS. Gompers
Good point, Gomp!
Oct 12, 2010 at 10:52 PM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.