Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

He just isn't a leader, he is a supporting character. Although there have been some very notable slip ups in regards to some civil issues, for the most part he just wants congress to do its job and not dictating the pulpit from the executive branch. He merely states the direction he would like things to go, defines his terms and gives some ideas and lets congress do its job from there. He seemingly has no intention of ever actually leading anything substantial unless a crisis happens where communications breaks down in congress to absolute grid lock. In this regard he is the exact opposite of Bush, which is precisely why he does it, unfortunately for him/us, what we need right now IS someone to lead the charge for better or worse, because political bickering between the parties is hurting this country more then anything else.

I've been saying this for some time. He doesn't seem capable or interested in leading anything, and would rather get two people to agree on some minor level of courtesy instead of working to change minds/opinions. Everyone who works with him says he listens well and doesn't speak much.

He seems far more interested in being some type of parent or professor-in-chief who appeals for decency in an indecent world. Many of his best speeches rely on an underlining argument for civility, such as his speech at the Giffords memorial or the latest SOTU. But when it comes to getting anything done...nope

 

[gcubed]

So Obama has left a massive opening for Republicans to attack him on the settlement. Strangely enough, I don't see any reports of that happening.

because it makes no sense. It'd be like the GOP attacking him because killed medicare

 

[mckmas8808]

FAQ: The foreclosure settlement
Posted by Sarah Halzack and Sarah Kliff at 11:15 AM ET, 02/09/2012

Why did foreclosure practices come under scrutiny in the first place? In September 2010, Ally Financial halted foreclosures in 23 states after discovering flaws in the way the eviction paperwork was processed. The company’s action came after a lawsuit was filed in which a single employee of Ally was accused of signing off on tens of thousands of foreclosures without properly reviewing the documentation. It soon became clear that this so-called robo-signing issueand other types of forgeries and shortcuts were widespread problems throughout the mortgage industry. Soon, other banks were joining Ally in freezing foreclosures. Less than two weeks later, J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America both announced that they would temporarily stop foreclosures in some states due to concerns over improperly prepared documents.

Meanwhile, attorneys general from Iowa, Maryland, North Carolina, Delaware, Texas, and other states were calling for broader foreclosure moratoriums in their states until the banks ironed out the mess. On Oct. 13, 2010, attorneys general from all 50 states announced that they were joining together to launch a probe into the fraudulent or mishandled documents.

How many homeowners will be helped by the settlement? About 1 million households will have the size of their home loan reduced. An additional 750,000 families or individuals who lost their homes to foreclosure will receive checks for about $2,000 each. Those who receive these restitution payouts do not give up their right to participate in future lawsuits.

What banks are involved in the probe? Wells Fargo, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, Ally Financial and Citigroup.

Could that change? Yes, and the Obama administration hopes it does. The settlement could grow if officials can sign on nine other mortgage servicing companies that they have been negotiating with in recent weeks. That could bring the total number of banks participating to 14, and raise the value of the settlement to about $30 billion.

The deal is currently worth $26 billion. Is that really a lot of money? Depends what you mean by “a lot of money.” The deal is the largest of its kind since a multi-state agreement with the tobacco industry in 1998. But that deal was worth around $350 billion in today’s dollars. It’s also not a lot of money compared to the $700 billion in underwater mortgage debt, or the bailout of the banks that issue and bought the debt in the first place.

The settlement increased in size thanks to the participation of California and New York’s attorneys general, who had been holdouts. However, some critics say the amount is relatively paltry, given the extent of the nation’s housing crisis.

What’s in it for the banks? The banks have been operating under a cloud of legal uncertainty over their exposure to bad mortgages that were not properly documented. That has hurt banks’ stock prices and tied up capital. As part of today’s deal, officials have promised not to pursue certain mortgage-related claims against the targeted banks.

So are they off the hook entirely? No. One reason the deal is relatively small is that it doesn’t fully end the banks’ legal liability. New York AG Eric Schneiderman, for instance, is able to move forward with his lawsuit.

Is this a gamechanger for the housing market? No. The effects of this deal will be modest. Arguably the most important thing it does for the housing market is take some pressure off the banks, which could give them more room to lend. But in terms of direct help for consumers, the aggregate impact will be quite minor.

For more: Here’s the official Web site of the settlement. Here’s the press release from the Justice Department. Here’s the Washington Post’s story on the settlement. Here are five things that Slate’s Matthew Yglesias thinks you should know. Here are 12 reasons Yves Smith thinks you should hate the deal.
​

###############

The settlement looks to be modest. Not something to be super happy over, but also not super pissed over. I hope that $26 Billion helps home owners overall to some extent that helps the housing market a little.

 

[Chichikov]

Settlements happen all the time with companies that do dumb/terrible crap. This one is not much different. I doubt the lawsuits would have ever gotten to a point where the banks would have had to pay 100s of billions of dollars and people would go to jail.

But if what they did was criminal then they can still go to jail for the other things that they did to help ruin the economy. Not sure how this settlement should be a sign of terrible things.

They could've gone to jail for other things before that settlement.
Am I suppose to feel better that they didn't manage to get absolute immunity for everything?

It's quite simple, banks have acted irresponsibly and almost destroyed the world economy, all while making dynastical amounts of money; the punishment need to be one that will deter them to do that in the future.
This isn't that punishment, at all.

 

[empty vessel]

Well, those two thoughts were not linked together. The USPS does not need reform because it lost 3.3 billion in one quarter, but because it's own Postmaster General has called for it. So, it's on Congress to actually do something about it.

The Postmaster General appears to be an idiot who should be ignored:

Donahoe says the USPS, which lost $5.1 billion in its last fiscal year, needs to cut some 120,000 workers, break labor agreements, close thousands of post offices, privatize its healthcare program and end Saturday delivery.

Sounds like he is just making an ideological call for austerity, not genuinely attempting to reform the post office to improve the services it provides to citizens (including the service of employment to those who work for it). He talks about needing a "rational business model," despite the fact that the USPS is not a business, but a government program. He talks about USPS "profitability," as if it is in the public interest for the USPS to run a profit. A USPS profit is merely a tax imposed on mail users that goes beyond the resources needed to run the program. It is money destruction without purpose.

Reform of government programs must focus exclusively on what we want the government to do and the most efficient means of achieving that objective. Costs (i.e., resources removed from the private sector) are always relevant, but "profitability" never is. Our postmaster general appears better suited to the private sector than the public one.

 

[mckmas8808]

Um, no. Anything related to robo-signing of mortgage defaults is now settled with the government. That is why they call it a settlement. The government can't just decide they will make you pay now, then put you in jail later. They made the banks pay now to stop investigating the fraud. And there is no doubt what they did was illegal. They had proof and witness testimony to that fact. I know you like to defend the administration more adamantly than most, but don't put any blinders on here. More could have been done if the government wanted to. They chose not to in order to protect the banking sector. And if that is a good thing or bad thing depends on your political leanings.

It's not about defend the administration. The AGs in all 50 states were properly going after the banks on this. I agree on the federal level A LOT more could have and should have been done about this. But one of many reasons that it wasn't pushed as hard on the federal level is because they know that they need the banks in the short term to improve the economy. And it doesn't hurt that the banks have millions of dollars in politics to begin with.

To me this is more about getting something for sure now to help improve the economy at large, while also not allowing the banks to tie this up in the courts for 5-10 years and waste alot of state tax payer dollars and having years of uncertainty. Again when I talk about this issue it's not about demanding the white house and for you to say that means that you don't really want to discuss this issue.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Obama to me has always been a pragmatist. He knows what goals he wants to achieve. And he knows what he is willing to give up to achieve them. He is not very ideological. He also knows that anything he lends his support to will automatically become polarized. That is why he chooses to support things publicly as little as possible. He wants to cut deals, not draw lines in the sand. He also doesn't want to be consider the leader of a Congress with a 90% disapproval rating. No benefit in leading a pride of cats. Ezra had a nice right up on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-the-most-polarizing-moderate-ever/2012/02/06/gIQAXsV0uQ_story.html

One, says Poole, is that Obama is very careful about taking positions on congressional legislation. In the 111th Congress, he only took 78 such positions. Compare that with George W. Bush, who took 291 positions during the 110th Congress, or Bill Clinton, who took 314 positions during the 103rd Congress. So part of the answer might be that, with the exception of high-profile bills such as health-care reform, Obama is hanging back from most of the congressional squabbling.

 

[mckmas8808]

He just isn't a leader, he is a supporting character. Although there have been some very notable slip ups in regards to some civil issues, for the most part he just wants congress to do its job and not dictating the pulpit from the executive branch. He merely states the direction he would like things to go, defines his terms and gives some ideas and lets congress do its job from there. He seemingly has no intention of ever actually leading anything substantial unless a crisis happens where communications breaks down in congress to absolute grid lock. In this regard he is the exact opposite of Bush, which is precisely why he does it, unfortunately for him/us, what we need right now IS someone to lead the charge for better or worse, because political bickering between the parties is hurting this country more then anything else.

So you're saying that he didn't lead the DoD to end DADT? He didn't lead on Bin Laden's death? Do you think that maybe you are putting too much stock in what a President does on a day to day basis?

Not trying to argue with you, but I notice this same thing when it comes to Quarterbacks in the NFL.

They could've gone to jail for other things before that settlement.
Am I suppose to feel better that they didn't manage to get absolute immunity for everything?

It's quite simple, banks have acted irresponsibly and almost destroyed the world economy, all while making dynastical amounts of money; the punishment need to be one that will deter them to do that in the future.
This isn't that punishment, at all.

I don't think you have to feel better. I feel slightly better (example: if I was a 1 out of 10 on this foreclosure issue, now I'm a 4 out of 10 on my feelings about this issue) now that I see the 5 major banks pay $26 Billion and possibly give the housing market a slight jolt. And I agree it isn't the punishment that's deserved. That's why it was agreed on that many lawsuits could still continue.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Obama to me has always been a pragmatist. He knows what goals he wants to achieve. And he knows what he is willing to give up to achieve them. He is not very ideological. He also knows that anything he lends his support to will automatically become polarized. That is why he chooses to support things publicly as little as possible. He wants to cut deals, not draw lines in the sand. He also doesn't want to be consider the leader of a Congress with a 90% disapproval rating. No benefit in leading a pride of cats. Ezra had a nice right up on this:

Maybe the big difference (between the past three presidents) is that Obama was part of the Senate, so he has already seen enough bullshit to last a lifetime.

 

[Puddles]

Crazy idea: what if when a bank foreclosed on a homeowner, they had to refund the homeowner 100% of their equity, regardless of what they were later able to sell the house for?

 

[gcubed]

Crazy idea: what if when a bank foreclosed on a homeowner, they had to refund the homeowner 100% of their equity, regardless of what they were later able to sell the house for?

i assume you meant wrongly foreclosed on?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Gaborn posted this thread in the OT about the licensing of a couple new nuclear reactors. A point I found particularly compelling:

The plants are being built with the help of a conditional $8.3 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. The loan guarantee is part of DOE's broader loan program that has been criticized for backing companies like Solyndra, the bankrupt maker of solar panels.

This probably makes for a good counterpunch on the whole Solyndra issue if the WH is inclined to do anything other than take it on the chin.

So you're saying that he didn't lead the DoD to end DADT? He didn't lead on Bin Laden's death? Do you think that maybe you are putting too much stock in what a President does on a day to day basis?

Not trying to argue with you, but I notice this same thing when it comes to Quarterbacks in the NFL.

I don't think it's at all controversial that the importance of the President is wildly overstated. Even by the politically savvy. One of my deepest disappointments with Obama has been his aggressive prosecution of the War on Drugs, because it's something he controls almost entirely. While I'm disappointed with the outcomes from health care or the closing of Guantanamo, those aren't issues on which he gets to exercise unilateral authority. Neither was DADT: that measure required significant Congressional cooperation.

And the importance of quarterbacks is definitely overstated. A middling quarterback can be elevated by talented receivers (Ryan). An excellent quarterback with a weak receiving corps doesn't do much (Rivers). A quarterback who is not technically proficient can be kept in the game by a defense that keeps games close (Tebow).

 

[Tim-E]

Post this on all your FB pages pls:

I posted it on mine and someone commented on it saying "Sounds like like Occupy Wall Street lol"

I'm not even going to respond to that.

 

[Puddles]

i assume you meant wrongly foreclosed on?

Any foreclosure.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Any foreclosure.

You are not serious.

 

[Puddles]

You are not serious.

Dead serious.

Let's say someone made payments on a $300k home for 15 years or so and built up $100k in equity. Then Dad loses his job, and they can't make the payments. They lose the house.

They should definitely get their $100k back. The bank can keep the interest.

 

[Puddles]

Why?

Because at that point they owned 1/3rd of a house. If the bank is taking the entire house, they should be able to walk away with the monetary value of the portion they owned.

Plus I think a policy like this would curb abuses and give banks an incentive to restructure underwater mortgages.

 

[mckmas8808]

Dead serious.

Let's say someone made payments on a $300k home for 15 years or so and built up $100k in equity. Then Dad loses his job, and they can't make the payments. They lose the house.

They should definitely get their $100k back. The bank can keep the interest.

That's crazy talk bro. For real.

Because at that point they owned 1/3rd of a house. If the bank is taking the entire house, they should be able to walk away with the monetary value of the portion they owned.

Plus I think a policy like this would curb abuses and give banks an incentive to restructure underwater mortgages.

But they didn't own 1/3 of the house. The bank owned 100% of it. That's the deal you agree to when you sign the contract.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Dead serious.

Let's say someone made payments on a $300k home for 15 years or so and built up $100k in equity. Then Dad loses his job, and they can't make the payments. They lose the house.

They should definitely get their $100k back. The bank can keep the interest.

I hate that you put me in the position of sounding like Lawrence Summers:

Do you understand what a contract is?

 

[jamesinclair]

Vote him out of office, and vote in Mitt "corporations are people" Romney? Romney would've made an even worse deal.

Of course not. We need a ralph Nader, a advocate. Someone who isn't bound to corporations.

2,000 per homeowner is garbage. 20,000, is garbage. Should be full value of what was illegally taken. 1 trillion may have covered it. Sounds like too much? Then maybe the backs shouldn't have stolen so much

 

[Puddles]

I hate that you put me in the position of sounding like Lawrence Summers:

Do you understand what a contract is?

It's a poor way to structure the home-buying process. Pass legislation altering the terms of mortgage contracts.

You guys need to look at the bigger picture here.

 

[Byakuya769]

Because at that point they owned 1/3rd of a house. If the bank is taking the entire house, they should be able to walk away with the monetary value of the portion they owned.

Plus I think a policy like this would curb abuses and give banks an incentive to restructure underwater mortgages.

Your schema is definitely more equitable, but it would increase the risk of lending. Thus, mortgages would be a lot harder to come by.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Of course not. We need a ralph Nader, a advocate. Someone who isn't bound to corporations.

2,000 per homeowner is garbage. 20,000, is garbage. Should be full value of what was illegally taken. 1 trillion may have covered it. Sounds like too much? Then maybe the backs shouldn't have stolen so much

Those who receive these restitution payouts do not give up their right to participate in future lawsuits.

Doesn't this mean that people can still sue? It's just that the AG's won't go after them for those cases anymore, people have to sue themselves? I'm probably still not understanding this whole thing.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

It's a poor way to structure the home-buying process. Pass legislation altering the terms of mortgage contracts.

You guys need to look at the bigger picture here.

Why would banks do that? What would be in it for them if they have to give back the amount of money they received? What is stopping somebody from moving in order to get back the amount of money they accrued in equity over the amount of time they lived in the home? The banks have to make a profit or they're not going to lend.

 

[mckmas8808]

Of course not. We need a ralph Nader, a advocate. Someone who isn't bound to corporations.

2,000 per homeowner is garbage. 20,000, is garbage. Should be full value of what was illegally taken. 1 trillion may have covered it. Sounds like too much? Then maybe the backs shouldn't have stolen so much

So $1 Trillion may not have been enough either right?

 

[maximum360]

It amazes me that Obama has been in office for four years and is still making the same mistake of letting the right wing (with an assist from the media) distort sensitive issues into giant controversies. He has yet to address the contraceptive issue and democrats are already bailing ship.

If you're going to do this, best be prepared for any fallout. Polls are on his side, why not clearly address this in a short speech or press conference? I just don't get this guy or his clueless team

On this we agree...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34980159&postcount=2065

 

[Invisible_Insane]

It's a poor way to structure the home-buying process. Pass legislation altering the terms of mortgage contracts.

You guys need to look at the bigger picture here.

Why would banks do that? What would be in it for them if they have to give back the amount of money they received? What is stopping somebody from moving in order to get back the amount of money they accrued in equity over the amount of time they lived in the home? The banks have to make a profit or they're not going to lend.

That is the bigger picture.

Seriously, I hate that I sound like a bank apologist right now, but you're not grounded in reality if you think it's a good idea for Congress to pass legislation that would threaten the solvency of even the most ethical bank.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Of course not. We need a ralph Nader, a advocate. Someone who isn't bound to corporations.

2,000 per homeowner is garbage. 20,000, is garbage. Should be full value of what was illegally taken. 1 trillion may have covered it. Sounds like too much? Then maybe the backs shouldn't have stolen so much

I'm just irked at the total lack of accountability. Who's going to jail for this? They stole billions, broke up households, destroyed lives. They get off the hook, and people who had their house stolen can get a $2,000 check if they agree not to sue.

 

[Puddles]

Why would banks do that? What would be in it for them if they have to give back the amount of money they received? What is stopping somebody from moving in order to get back the amount of money they accrued in equity over the amount of time they lived in the home? The banks have to make a profit or they're not going to lend.

They make a profit on the interest they collect. A $300k loan at 4% is generating $12,000 in interest every year. I'm not going to take the time to calculate what the fully amortizing payment would be on that loan, but they're probably collecting more interest than principal for at least the first decade.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I'm just irked at the total lack of accountability. Who's going to jail for this? They stole billions, broke up households, destroyed lives. They get off the hook, and people who had their house stolen can get a $2,000 check if they agree not to sue.

I don't think that last bit is true.

 

[Aaron Strife]

PPP North Carolina

Obama 47
Romney 46

Obama 48
Santorum 46

Approvals

Obama 48 approve 49 disapprove

Romney 31 approve 56 disapprove

Santorum 35 approve 50 disapprove

 

[Manmademan]

PPP North Carolina

Obama 47
Romney 46

Obama 48
Santorum 46

Approvals

Obama 48 approve 49 disapprove

Romney 31 approve 56 disapprove

Santorum 35 approve 50 disapprove

I completely expect this to change as the economy/jobs report goes up and down this year, as well as when campaign season REALLY starts to hit and the negative ads start flying.

Still, the GOP has to be crying themselves to sleep over polls like this. And why is santorum polling as well as Romney in N.C.?? that's just insanity.

 

[Door2Dawn]

Who's going to jail for this? .

Well, no one. And anyone who thinks they were going to is delusional.

I think the left need to except the fact that they have already gotten away with it. What we need to do now is to implement rules to make sure this doesn't happen again.

 

[gcubed]

PPP North Carolina

Obama 47
Romney 46

Obama 48
Santorum 46

Approvals

Obama 48 approve 49 disapprove

Romney 31 approve 56 disapprove

Santorum 35 approve 50 disapprove

so basically we are looking at Obama/McCain redux?

 

[GhaleonEB]

I don't think that last bit is true.

I just went back and read where I got that, and you are correct. I had misread this sentence:

Those who receive these restitution payouts do not give up their right to participate in future lawsuits.

Glad to hear that.

Well, no one. And anyone who thinks they were going to is delusional.

I think the left need to except the fact that they have already gotten away with it. What we need to do now is to implement rules to make sure this doesn't happen again.

The only reason they got away with is because the administration worked so very hard to let them. It is not unreasonable to expect accountability. Indeed, it was Obama himself in the SotU speech last month who called for a new era of accountability. And here he is, directly contradicting that philosophy.

 

[Officerrob]

Rasmussen Ohio:

Obama 45, Romney 41

Obama 44, Santorum 44........What?

 

[Frank the Great]

i told you guys, santorum is a much better candidate than romney. views aside, of course. he is just way more like-able and would give obama a hard(er) time.

most people don't see him as the butt of jokes like we do.

 

[empty vessel]

That is the bigger picture.

Seriously, I hate that I sound like a bank apologist right now, but you're not grounded in reality if you think it's a good idea for Congress to pass legislation that would threaten the solvency of even the most ethical bank.

The bigger bigger picture picture is that we do not have to rely solely on banks to make loans for houses. That is a social choice.

http://www.govloans.gov/about-us

 

[ToxicAdam]

Santorum's just been lucky that he hasn't had the spotlight turned on him yet. Once that happens (like it happened to Gingrich and all the other non-Mitts), his numbers will sink like the rest of them.

 

[jamesinclair]

i told you guys, santorum is a much better candidate than romney. views aside, of course. he is just way more like-able and would give obama a hard(er) time.

most people don't see him as the butt of jokes like we do.

I agree he looks like a nice, genuine guy.

The stuff he spews is toxic, but he doesnt sound like an asshole when he says it, like Newt does. And hes genuine, unlike "what position do the polls say I should take today" Romney.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Santorum will probably turn off as many Democrats/Independents as Romney does, but he'll energize more Republicans. I'd prefer Romney as an opponent. The chances of Obama winning would be lower, but I think Democrats would have a better chance at regaining the House and holding the Senate.

 

[thefro]

i told you guys, santorum is a much better candidate than romney. views aside, of course. he is just way more like-able and would give obama a hard(er) time.

most people don't see him as the butt of jokes like we do.

I could see Santorum doing a little better in Ohio than Romney, but if Obama can hold Virginia/North Carolina he's going to be very tough to beat

 

[AlteredBeast]

Santorum's just been lucky that he hasn't had the spotlight turned on him yet. Once that happens (like it happened to Gingrich and all the other non-Mitts), his numbers will sink like the rest of them.

That and Mitt's money.

People are fooling themselves if they believe that the tide won't return to Mitt again. Barring scandal or some major, major funding going Rick Santorum's way.

 

[Officerrob]

i told you guys, santorum is a much better candidate than romney. views aside, of course. he is just way more like-able and would give obama a hard(er) time.

most people don't see him as the butt of jokes like we do.

Because most people don't know him. This is the same reason Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachmann lead the national polls at certain times in the last year. Once people learn about Santorum, he's in deep shit. With his views on contraception there would be a landslide among women voters

 

[Frank the Great]

okay seriously did none of you guys get my butt pun or is it just too obvious to mention

 

[gcubed]

i told you guys, santorum is a much better candidate than romney. views aside, of course. he is just way more like-able and would give obama a hard(er) time.

most people don't see him as the butt of jokes like we do.

the only reason he is polling anywhere near what he is polling now is because he is a joke candidate. 5 days of focus on him and he become Herman Cain.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Because most people don't know him. This is the same reason Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachmann lead the national polls at certain times in the last year. Once people learn about Santorum, he's in deep shit. With his views on contraception there would be a landslide among women voters

heh.

okay seriously did none of you guys get my butt pun or is it just too obvious to mention

actually it was pretty subtle relative to the rest of the Santorum jokes so bravo.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

the only reason he is polling anywhere near what he is polling now is because the Republican Party is a joke.

fixed

 

[ToxicAdam]

Dammmn! You told 'em!! whoooo

 

[Zzoram]

Santorum's just been lucky that he hasn't had the spotlight turned on him yet. Once that happens (like it happened to Gingrich and all the other non-Mitts), his numbers will sink like the rest of them.

Santorum's manufacturing plan sounds good so he's popular with blue collars, he's got rock solid family and anti-abortion credentials so he'll lock the Christians, and he isn't as rich as Romney so people are less likely to see him as an elitist.