Obama won't sign bill that would affect foreclosure proceedings

[nmap]

The title of this post is the title of the article.


LINK

Excerpt:

Amid growing furor over the legitimacy of foreclosure proceedings, White House officials said Thursday that President Obama will not sign a bill passed by Congress without public debate after critics said the legislation could loosen standards for foreclosure documents.

The bill, named the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act, would require courts to accept document notarizations made out of state. Its sponsors intended to promote interstate commerce. But homeowner advocates warn the bill could allow lenders to cut even more corners as they seek to evict homeowners.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the president did not believe Congress meant to undermine consumer protections regarding foreclosure challenges. Still, Obama will use a "pocket veto" on the bill, which will effectively kill it.


(The article at the link is longer, and may be of interest)

[Paslode]

The majority of us are going to pay a high price regardless of whether Obama signs this into Law. However, it would be nice to see the Banks suffer some severe consequences for the shell game they perpetrated.

[nmap]

LINK

Excerpt:

Millions of U.S. mortgages have been shuttled around the global financial system - sold and resold by firms - without the documents that traditionally prove who legally owns the loans.

Now, as many of these loans have fallen into default and banks have sought to seize homes, judges around the country have increasingly ruled that lenders had no right to foreclose, because they lacked clear title.


More at the link.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Paslode

However, it would be nice to see the Banks suffer some severe consequences for the shell game they perpetrated.

Respectfully, this type of zero-sum thinking will cause more problems than it solves.

Regardless of who's to blame, people will take actions to protect themselves.
Threatening banks will hurt us all.

It doesn't matter whether or not the "rich" have "earned" their wealth.
The fact is that they have the wealth.

If we threaten their wealth, they will not risk it, and everyone loses.
The idea that we should all get poorer in the hopes that a few don't get richer is zero sum thinking at it's worst.

I don't care if some people get insanely wealthy (by what some consider "unjust" means), so long as the tide lifts all boats.

The dims will use zero-sum thinking and class warfare to take everyone's wealth.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Respectfully, this type of zero-sum thinking will cause more problems than it solves.

Regardless of who's to blame, people will take actions to protect themselves.
Threatening banks will hurt us all.

It doesn't matter whether or not the "rich" have "earned" their wealth.
The fact is that they have the wealth.

If we threaten their wealth, they will not risk it, and everyone loses.
The idea that we should all get poorer in the hopes that a few don't get richer is zero sum thinking at it's worst.

I don't care if some people get insanely wealthy (by what some consider "unjust" means), so long as the tide lifts all boats.

The dims will use zero-sum thinking and class warfare to take everyone's wealth.

I do not disagree with your thoughts on zero-sum in the fact it will cause problem, fact is I do not like it. But the net return for most is zero-sum anyway you look at it and IMO it does make a difference how they make their income.

If a blind eye is allowed and these scam artist allowed walk away....it's isn't much different than letting a known serial rapist continue to rape. Allowing such things will in time make these illicit activities to become the accepted norm.

Personally I would rather (figuratively) stick a knife in their eye and take the chance of starving, than meekly earn my feed by allowing someone to continually ass rape me.

I don't care if some people get insanely wealthy (by what some consider "unjust" means), so long as the tide lifts all boats.

REALLY???

I think you might change your mind if your wife, girlfriend or daughter was requested to service clients at the Law Firm she worked....how would that float your boat? What a raise? It will require getting on your back in the file room.

Or how about Mr. Bob from a Fortune 500 company we all know, who has your hot wife bobbing for bottle caps to garner business, to lift her pay scale or save your job?


Those are things I have actually seen happen to others. I don't believe you want a tide like either of those lifting your boat.....so if you have any morals or dignity, it does matter how you make your income.

[The Reaper]

I, for one, would like to see a return of civility among members here, or at least respect.

Make your case and skip the personal attacks, gents.

TR

[nmap]

The following post discusses (and provides) an examination of the foreclosure issue.

The issue has the potential to have substantial political and social consequences along with the economic impact, IMO.

LINK

Excerpt:
The U.S. banking industry is entering a new period of crisis where operating costs are rising dramatically due to foreclosures and defaults. We are less than ¼ of the way through the foreclosure process.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Paslode

I do not disagree with your thoughts on zero-sum in the fact it will cause problem, fact is I do not like it. But the net return for most is zero-sum anyway you look at it and IMO it does make a difference how they make their income.

If a blind eye is allowed and these scam artist allowed walk away....it's isn't much different than letting a known serial rapist continue to rape. Allowing such things will in time make these illicit activities to become the accepted norm.

Personally I would rather (figuratively) stick a knife in their eye and take the chance of starving, than meekly earn my feed by allowing someone to continually ass rape me.

We're talking past each other.

You referenced "banks" in your original post.
Threatening banks does no good.

All of my comments should be taken in that context.

Originally Posted by Paslode

REALLY???

I think you might change your mind if your wife, girlfriend or daughter was requested to service clients at the Law Firm she worked....how would that float your boat? What a raise? It will require getting on your back in the file room.

Or how about Mr. Bob from a Fortune 500 company we all know, who has your hot wife bobbing for bottle caps to garner business, to lift her pay scale or save your job?

Those are things I have actually seen happen to others. I don't believe you want a tide like either of those lifting your boat.....so if you have any morals or dignity, it does matter how you make your income.

I said: "what some consider unjust means".
I did not say illegal means.

If someone breaks the law, they should be prosecuted accordingly.
That is entirely different from going after the amorphous "banks".

It may not be possible to catch those who broke the law.
That does not justify punishing everyone else.

****************************************
****************************************

Truly believe that the treatment for many of the nations ills is education of the public on economics.
The other side is to allow people and business to reap what they sow.

Politicians are not capable of effectively regulating many of these things.
It it's even possible, they collectively lack the technical expertise to do it.

Politicians broke the system in the first place by forcing banks to make unwise loans.
Now they claim to be able to fix the problem they created.

No thanks, elected/appointed public servants.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[The Reaper]

I am not a mortgage expert, but it occurs to me that once certain banks are red-lined from foreclosure actions, title insurance is going to be expensive, if not impossible to obtain on any properties they are trying to dispose of.

Lenders are not going to loan on a property sale without that insurance, and the ability of the banks to dispose of their bank-owned properties is going to be seriously compromised. This is going to have several unfortunate second and third order effects.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[nmap]

Can housing prices stabilize without an improvement in employment? I suppose we will find out.

LINK

[nmap]

Rhetorical questions: I wonder - does the bank suspect that the documentation on some percentage of the loans will not support foreclosures?


LINK

BofA Halts All Foreclosure Sales

Bank of America Corp. said it is placing a moratorium on all foreclosure sales across the U.S., amid political pressure on U.S. banks to examine foreclosure-documentation problems.

The nation's largest bank by assets is the first financial institution to stop all foreclosure sales amid revelations that the banking industry had used "robo signers," people who sign hundreds of documents a day without reviewing their contents, when foreclosing on homes. Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Ally Financial Inc. (parent of GMAC Mortgage) last week postponed foreclosures in 23 states where a court's approval is required to foreclosure on a home.

Bank of America also decided Friday to review the affidavits being used in foreclosure proceedings in the rest of the 50 states so the accuracy of the documents can be assessed.

Thus far "our ongoing assessment shows the basis for our past foreclosure decisions is accurate," a Bank of America spokesman said.

The decision by Bank of America to extend its postponement to all 50 states takes effect Saturday. The bank doesn't intend to lift the moratorium on foreclosure sales until its assessment is complete, a spokesman said. The bank hasn't halted all foreclosure proceedings, however. If a borrower is delinquent, the bank is still issuing notices of default and pursuing efforts to modify certain mortgages, the spokesman said.

On Thursday, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D., N.Y.), chairman of the House oversight committee, became the latest lawmaker to call for a nationwide moratorium on foreclosures.

BofA stock was up 13 cents to $12.44 a share in recent trading on the New York Stock Exchange, still near its 52-week low of $12.18.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by nmap

Can housing prices stabilize without an improvement in employment? I suppose we will find out.

LINK

Excessive public employment has to unwind.
This is good for the economy in the long run.

We are on the downslope of peak government, the efforts of liberals notwithstanding.

http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/201...rowing-at.html