anyone remember the old grey poupon commercials for the democratic party..."Principles or partisan? ahh but of course"
anyone ever hear that old democratic party saying... "half your battles dont have to be fought, by not showing up"
WASHINGTON – Following Senate Finance Committee Democrats’ unprecedented move to boycott two cabinet level committee confirmation votes, the Committee today passed a unanimous consent (UC) motion to suspend a rule regarding quorum requirements for nomination votes in an executive session to consider Steven Mnuchin to serve as U.S. Treasury Secretary and Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) to serve as Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary.
Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who described the Democrats’ protest as “the most pathetic thing,” outlined the details of the UC agreement, saying:
“The rules of the Finance Committee require a quorum to conduct any committee business, including the reporting of nominees. Specifically, under Rule 4, to achieve a quorum, one-third of committee members – including at least one member from each party – must be present. However, under Rule 19, the committee may opt to suspend any of its rules at any time. Senator Isakson asked for Unanimous Consent to suspend Rule 4 and all applicable rules for the purpose of voting on these two nominees. That request was agreed to after a successful appeal to my ruling on its germaneness, making the quorum requirements of Rule 4 and all other rules that could prevent a vote on these nominations inapplicable. We then proceeded to vote on the nominations. For the record, I’ll note that the Senate Parliamentarian Office has confirmed that this course of action is consistent with both the committee and Senate rules. I will also note for the record that every Republican member of the committee was present and voting, exceeding the one-third requirement for a quorum under Rule 4. The only thing missing was a member from the minority side. But, as I noted, they, on their own accord, refused to participate in this exercise.”
Hatch went on to note, “We took some unprecedented actions today due to the unprecedented obstruction on the part of our colleagues. As I noted earlier, the Senate Finance Committee has traditionally been able to function in even the most divisive political environments. Personally, as longtime member of this committee, I have been proud of that distinction. And, in my time as both Ranking Member and Chairman of this committee, I have bent over backwards to preserve its unique status as one of the few places where Republicans and Democrats not only work together, but achieve results. That all changed yesterday. Republicans on this committee showed up to do our jobs. Yesterday, rather than accept anything less than their desired outcome, our Democrat colleagues chose to cower in the hallway and hold a press conference. Now, I get that my colleagues think these nominees are controversial. I get that they don’t want to see them confirmed. We’ve all been in that situation. It comes part and parcel with the job of being a Senator. And, this is hardly the first time a nominee deemed to be controversial has come before this committee.”
Hatch further reaffirmed his commitment to returning the Committee to its bipartisan roots, “Needless to say, this discussion isn’t over. I intend to get the committee back to where it once was, and I will use every tool at my disposal, procedural or otherwise, to make sure this doesn’t become the new normal for the Senate Finance Committee.”
The far left is discovering, in just a week, what it took 2+ years for those of us who were adults in 2000 to realize. Elections matter. Party unity matters. Good is the enemy of great.
Sad times ahead. I just hope it won't take a generation or more to recover.
"Unity" mattered to Democrats at the Dem convention this summer as they shut down Sanders and his thousands of supporters with DWS doing what she could to cheat America into a Clinton nomination.
My ass you wanted unity. Not when you have to compromise. And now look at where we are.
Somehow you are mistaking the insiders at the DNC and the delegates for Sanders with the general population. I wasn't there. And I doubt anyone opining here was there. My ass you get to speak for anyone but yourself. Looking where we are requires you to look in the mirror.
I see taking responsibility is very difficult for you. Dems lost. They have lost big time. Time to take responsibility and make your party good again.
Whatever with the troll comments. They lost big time? What are you shilling for the Trump now... "landslide"? What a joke. It's the Millenials and kids today that are going to feel the brunt of this administration. Not people like me. Trump's policies help me, but I'm still against them morally. Kids needing student loans? Fucked. First time home buyers getting crushed by your PMI? Fucked. A young girl in college that got pregnant and has nowhere to turn for services? Fucked. An inner city mother who needs SCHIP for pre-school costs? Fucked.
I can sleep because I voted in November for the candidate that most aligned with my values, and had a chance to win. Wonder if you can say the same.
So this is foreign to you:
"In elections last night Democrats are now down to 48 senators, a minority. Democrats are down to 192 members of Congress. Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy.Nov 9, 2016
Two key elements characterized the kind of domestic political economy the administration pursued: The first was the foreclosure crisis and the subsequent bank bailouts.
Second, Obama’s administration let big-bank executives off the hook for their roles in the crisis.
Two key elements characterized the kind of domestic political economy the administration pursued: The first was the foreclosure crisis and the subsequent bank bailouts.
Second, Obama’s administration let big-bank executives off the hook for their roles in the crisis.
This article is complete rubbish and written by a wonk, whose bio makes clear that he's never spent one day working in the industry that he purportedly is an expert in. The Dodd-Frank capital requirements and fee restructuring that they thought would be so effective has done nothing but caused solidly capitalized and regulated industries from walking away from sub-prime lending. Now the poor and disadvantaged have to go to fintech and other wildcat lenders for short term loans at literally 100+% effective interest rate (that's right..). It's the law of unintended consequences. Plus the entire premise Dems lost the election because Jamie Dimon wasn't perp walked is just silly too.
Two key elements characterized the kind of domestic political economy the administration pursued: The first was the foreclosure crisis and the subsequent bank bailouts.
Second, Obama’s administration let big-bank executives off the hook for their roles in the crisis.
This article is complete rubbish and written by a wonk, whose bio makes clear that he's never spent one day working in the industry that he purportedly is an expert in. The Dodd-Frank capital requirements and fee restructuring that they thought would be so effective has done nothing but caused solidly capitalized and regulated industries from walking away from sub-prime lending. Now the poor and disadvantaged have to go to fintech and other wildcat lenders for short term loans at literally 100+% effective interest rate (that's right..). It's the law of unintended consequences. Plus the entire premise Dems lost the election because Jamie Dimon wasn't perp walked is just silly too.
Foreclosure crisis Bank bailouts Zero accountability
Two key elements characterized the kind of domestic political economy the administration pursued: The first was the foreclosure crisis and the subsequent bank bailouts.
Second, Obama’s administration let big-bank executives off the hook for their roles in the crisis.
This article is complete rubbish and written by a wonk, whose bio makes clear that he's never spent one day working in the industry that he purportedly is an expert in. The Dodd-Frank capital requirements and fee restructuring that they thought would be so effective has done nothing but caused solidly capitalized and regulated industries from walking away from sub-prime lending. Now the poor and disadvantaged have to go to fintech and other wildcat lenders for short term loans at literally 100+% effective interest rate (that's right..). It's the law of unintended consequences. Plus the entire premise Dems lost the election because Jamie Dimon wasn't perp walked is just silly too.
Foreclosure crisis Bank bailouts Zero accountability
And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.
And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.
Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.
The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.
The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.
Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.
The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.
The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report? Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.
Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.
The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.
The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report? Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
Let's back up... I was responding to your chain of title response. If chain of title was broken say by robo signing, then yes the only remedy to the lender is collections enforcement NOT SEIZURE OF COLLATERAL. pay attention. Allot waisted energy here today.
And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.
Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.
The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.
The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report? Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
Let's back up... I was responding to your chain of title response. If chain of title was broken say by robo signing, then yes the only remedy to the lender is collections enforcement NOT SEIZURE OF COLLATERAL. pay attention. Allot waisted energy here today.
Well that's an inane argument so that's why I would not have guessed it. Either the chain of title is faulty and it is not appropriate to repossess and collect, or the faulty chain is immaterial to the underlying loan agreement and it does warrant unjust enrichment. You can't sit in teh middle and say "well you can't take the house but you can collect on the loan". It's not appropriate to have a 'compromise' position here.
Second, I think you are misunderstanding what robosigning is. It doesn't break a chain of title. Robosigning is when a person signs an affidavit or debt, bill or sale or some other legal document but does not have knowledge or contemporaneous knowledge to the information contained in the affidavit.. OR they did not review the information prior to signing. The case in the intercept article, if as explained, would not be robo signing. It would be forgery or perpetrating a fraud on the court.
I'm not doubting your statement that they are allowed to re-write procedures, although that seems unusual, but I have no knowledge of this pesonally. Other than that, this article has just declared that some 200+ law firms that specialize in foreclosure are perpetrating fraud, likely without ever having investigated a single one of them. Seems a bit overblown. You're a lawyer.. I'm sure your firm has a specialty or are aware that firms have areas of focus in their practice. That's all this is from what I can tell.
And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.
Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.
The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.
The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report? Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
Let's back up... I was responding to your chain of title response. If chain of title was broken say by robo signing, then yes the only remedy to the lender is collections enforcement NOT SEIZURE OF COLLATERAL. pay attention. Allot waisted energy here today.
Well that's an inane argument so that's why I would not have guessed it. Either the chain of title is faulty and it is not appropriate to repossess and collect, or the faulty chain is immaterial to the underlying loan agreement and it does warrant unjust enrichment. You can't sit in teh middle and say "well you can't take the house but you can collect on the loan". It's not appropriate to have a 'compromise' position here.
Second, I think you are misunderstanding what robosigning is. It doesn't break a chain of title. Robosigning is when a person signs an affidavit or debt, bill or sale or some other legal document but does not have knowledge or contemporaneous knowledge to the information contained in the affidavit.. OR they did not review the information prior to signing. The case in the intercept article, if as explained, would not be robo signing. It would be forgery or perpetrating a fraud on the court.
Okay your paying attention...if the chain of title was not properly recorded or not recorded at all the only legal remedy to the lender is to force collection on the loan document, not seize the property. There is no middle, there legal clear chain of title exists or not. Banksters in order to save of few bucks on the feed recording fee skipped a step knowing that the loan would likely be bundled and sold.
^^ I'm at work in a meeting, so I'm not watching a video. But I'm not inclined to defend any particular individual. But I'm also not inclined to indict an entire industry or 200+ law firms based on some joker's list when the chances of him knowing anything about those specific companies is just about zero.
BTW - edit here. I forgot the word NOT when typing.. kind of makes a difference in the argument:
Either the chain of title is faulty and it is not appropriate to repossess and collect, or the faulty chain is immaterial to the underlying loan agreement and it does NOT warrant unjust enrichment.
And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.
Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.
The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.
The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report? Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
Serious question...if you could skip out on a loan and maintain property ownership because of break in title chain would you? Serious.
And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.
Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.
The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.
The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report? Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
Serious question...if you could skip out on a loan and maintain property ownership because of break in title chain would you? Serious.
Yes of course. You're asking if I would take a free 300K and the answer is yes. And most people would say yes. That's why it can't be the system. The whole lending industry is based on the predicate that net adjusted charge off will not supersede the good loans revenue (compared to where that capital could be expended elsewhere). If people could just walk away with the property title clear and free, banks would cease loaning money to buy houses.
And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.
Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.
The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.
The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report? Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
Serious question...if you could skip out on a loan and maintain property ownership because of break in title chain would you? Serious.
Yes of course. You're asking if I would take a free 300K and the answer is yes. And most people would say yes. That's why it can't be the system. The whole lending industry is based on the predicate that net adjusted charge off will not supersede the good loans revenue (compared to where that capital could be expended elsewhere). If people could just walk away with the property title clear and free, banks would cease loaning money to buy houses.
Or they would not skip deed recording steps and follow legal procedure.
The title isn't clear thou, borrower can't sell house without bank approval. Basically the borrower would have to die still owning the house. It's a credit score for cash flow trade off. When the bank writes off the loan borrower pays tax on relief of debt amount.
And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.
Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.
The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.
The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report? Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
Serious question...if you could skip out on a loan and maintain property ownership because of break in title chain would you? Serious.
Yes of course. You're asking if I would take a free 300K and the answer is yes. And most people would say yes. That's why it can't be the system. The whole lending industry is based on the predicate that net adjusted charge off will not supersede the good loans revenue (compared to where that capital could be expended elsewhere). If people could just walk away with the property title clear and free, banks would cease loaning money to buy houses.
Or they would not skip deed recording steps and follow legal procedure.
The title isn't clear thou, borrower can't sell house without bank approval. Basically the borrower would have to die still owning the house. It's a credit score for cash flow trade off. When the bank writes off the loan borrower pays tax on relief of debt amount.
Whether the resident can sell the property or has to live in it forever would be entirely irrelevant to the bank. It would still be a bad loan that they could never recover or liquidate. And if the Bank paid 95% of the sale price to the builder (or previous owner) and the customer paid 5%, why does the customer come away with 100% of the benefit? It makes zero economic sense.
And yes, if you settle for forgiveness greater than $600 you do get a 1099, but that gets paid to the gov't as taxable income. It doesn't help the bank one iota.
Comments
'Filibuster Everything': Thousands Demand Schumer Do More to Stop Trump
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/02/01/filibuster-everything-thousands-demand-schumer-do-more-stop-trump
anyone ever hear that old democratic party saying... "half your battles dont have to be fought, by not showing up"
WASHINGTON – Following Senate Finance Committee Democrats’ unprecedented move to boycott two cabinet level committee confirmation votes, the Committee today passed a unanimous consent (UC) motion to suspend a rule regarding quorum requirements for nomination votes in an executive session to consider Steven Mnuchin to serve as U.S. Treasury Secretary and Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) to serve as Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary.
Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who described the Democrats’ protest as “the most pathetic thing,” outlined the details of the UC agreement, saying:
“The rules of the Finance Committee require a quorum to conduct any committee business, including the reporting of nominees. Specifically, under Rule 4, to achieve a quorum, one-third of committee members – including at least one member from each party – must be present. However, under Rule 19, the committee may opt to suspend any of its rules at any time. Senator Isakson asked for Unanimous Consent to suspend Rule 4 and all applicable rules for the purpose of voting on these two nominees. That request was agreed to after a successful appeal to my ruling on its germaneness, making the quorum requirements of Rule 4 and all other rules that could prevent a vote on these nominations inapplicable. We then proceeded to vote on the nominations. For the record, I’ll note that the Senate Parliamentarian Office has confirmed that this course of action is consistent with both the committee and Senate rules. I will also note for the record that every Republican member of the committee was present and voting, exceeding the one-third requirement for a quorum under Rule 4. The only thing missing was a member from the minority side. But, as I noted, they, on their own accord, refused to participate in this exercise.”
Hatch went on to note, “We took some unprecedented actions today due to the unprecedented obstruction on the part of our colleagues. As I noted earlier, the Senate Finance Committee has traditionally been able to function in even the most divisive political environments. Personally, as longtime member of this committee, I have been proud of that distinction. And, in my time as both Ranking Member and Chairman of this committee, I have bent over backwards to preserve its unique status as one of the few places where Republicans and Democrats not only work together, but achieve results. That all changed yesterday. Republicans on this committee showed up to do our jobs. Yesterday, rather than accept anything less than their desired outcome, our Democrat colleagues chose to cower in the hallway and hold a press conference. Now, I get that my colleagues think these nominees are controversial. I get that they don’t want to see them confirmed. We’ve all been in that situation. It comes part and parcel with the job of being a Senator. And, this is hardly the first time a nominee deemed to be controversial has come before this committee.”
Hatch further reaffirmed his commitment to returning the Committee to its bipartisan roots, “Needless to say, this discussion isn’t over. I intend to get the committee back to where it once was, and I will use every tool at my disposal, procedural or otherwise, to make sure this doesn’t become the new normal for the Senate Finance Committee.”
Democrats have lost 1,000 legislative seats in last 8 years.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306736-dems-hit-new-low-in-state-legislatures
Two key elements characterized the kind of domestic political economy the administration pursued: The first was the foreclosure crisis and the subsequent bank bailouts.
Second, Obama’s administration let big-bank executives off the hook for their roles in the crisis.
Bank bailouts
Zero accountability
I see your point but I thought only Israel was allowed to illegally seize homes? Which came first Israeli chickens or bankster eggs?
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/18/foreclosure-fraud-is-supposed-to-be-a-thing-of-the-past-but-it-happens-every-day/
I have been building up a steady supply of stones just in case the banksters come for my home.
The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.
The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/foreclosure-mill-directory-state-by-state/
pay attention.
Allot waisted energy here today.
Second, I think you are misunderstanding what robosigning is. It doesn't break a chain of title. Robosigning is when a person signs an affidavit or debt, bill or sale or some other legal document but does not have knowledge or contemporaneous knowledge to the information contained in the affidavit.. OR they did not review the information prior to signing. The case in the intercept article, if as explained, would not be robo signing. It would be forgery or perpetrating a fraud on the court.
Banksters in order to save of few bucks on the feed recording fee skipped a step knowing that the loan would likely be bundled and sold.
Either the chain of title is faulty and it is not appropriate to repossess and collect, or the faulty chain is immaterial to the underlying loan agreement and it does NOT warrant unjust enrichment.
The title isn't clear thou, borrower can't sell house without bank approval. Basically the borrower would have to die still owning the house. It's a credit score for cash flow trade off. When the bank writes off the loan borrower pays tax on relief of debt amount.
And yes, if you settle for forgiveness greater than $600 you do get a 1099, but that gets paid to the gov't as taxable income. It doesn't help the bank one iota.