GG Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 hen i get a chance i'll fact check but i'm betting on the cnbc writer over you. I'll gladly take the other side of that bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 18, 2013 Author Share Posted June 18, 2013 Looks like the judge feels BofA violated HAMP. I don't see anywhere that the court links HAMP and TARP. I see where the lawyer does...but only in a bloviating public statement. One attorney saying stupid **** (which attorneys do all the time) doesn't make HAMP part of TARP. EDIT: And you're bitching about an old case that was already settled? no. the second article refers to another case but makes the same point linking TARP to the obligation to modify loans. (i stated earlier this wasnt the first time they've been sued.) the first link is to the recent case that i saw first reported yesterday. we're talking probable theft of billions of dollars here but folks get much more excited about a beat down on an inner city bus. mystifying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 no. the second article refers to another case but makes the same point linking TARP to the obligation to modify loans. (i stated earlier this wasnt the first time they've been sued.) the first link is to the recent case that i saw first reported yesterday. we're talking probable theft of billions of dollars here but folks get much more excited about a beat down on an inner city bus. mystifying... And all you have to go on is the article which simply lifted the version of the complaint. Let's wait until the case outcome before claiming a theft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 no. the second article refers to another case but makes the same point linking TARP to the obligation to modify loans. (i stated earlier this wasnt the first time they've been sued.) the first link is to the recent case that i saw first reported yesterday. we're talking probable theft of billions of dollars here but folks get much more excited about a beat down on an inner city bus. mystifying... Well, you added the second article after I replied, didn't you? And the second article is the same old and already-settled case, you idiot. It's from 2010. And it still doesn't link TARP and HAMP outside of one statement from a bloviating lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 18, 2013 Author Share Posted June 18, 2013 And all you have to go on is the article which simply lifted the version of the complaint. Let's wait until the case outcome before claiming a theft? i have this http://nationalmortgagesettlement.com/ to go on from an earlier lawsuit. $1.5 billion settlement...that kind of payout implies some wrong doing to me. and this 11.8 billion dollar payout http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/bank-of-america-loan-modifications_n_1500902.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Notice his solution won't have anything to do with the idiots who put the incentives in place for such behavior. Of course not. Banks are greedy capitalists who engage in selling predatory loans. That's all you need to know so just shut up and believe what the OP says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 i have this http://nationalmortgagesettlement.com/ to go on from an earlier lawsuit. $1.5 billion settlement...that kind of payout implies some wrong doing to me. and this 11.8 billion dollar payout http://www.huffingto..._n_1500902.html So the banks agreed to the shakedown of state AGs. Note that as part of the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing, so you shouldn't be so quick to assume there was massive wrong doing to the tune of $13 billion. But I know, you're a doctor, so big numbers impress you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 So the banks agreed to the shakedown of state AGs. Note that as part of the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing, so you shouldn't be so quick to assume there was massive wrong doing to the tune of $13 billion. But I know, you're a doctor, so big numbers impress you. Note it has ****-all to do with the bailout, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 These good people that run the big banks just warm my heart http://www.cnbc.com/id/100818866. how perverse is it that they can make more in fees related to foreclosures than acutaully collecting mortgage payments? they seem to have rewritten the golden rule along with several other rules. not the first time they've been sued for fraud on foreclosures. just don't think you can teach old dogs new tricks especially when the punishment is a hand slap. i feel better knowing that these folks are so influential on legislation about finance reform. the lines between our political parties, tax payers dollars, campain contributions, lobbying groups and overall the banking sector have been blurred for some time.... that is unlikely to change, so this will not be the first nor the last time this happens... I go into any tranasction with a bank realizing they don't give a !@#$ about me as a person, we are entering into a contract where 1. they need to make money 2. they hold the cards if I sign up a bad deal 3. struggles to uphold that contract are on me, not on them to be compassionate and understanding. To me, its no worse than wind power producers paying a utility $10 to buy their power, because they get a $20 credit from the Government to produce it- but only if they sell the power- it !@#$s up energy market pricing, and create inefficiency in the system. I don't like Banks in particular, but they lend me the money to acquire asset, therefore wealth. I am a conservative responsible lendee who take ownership of illiquid assets ALWAYS with a escape route- the government got involved in the housing crisis and took the uneducated populus and convinced them to get heavily leveraged in illiquid, fickle assets like real estate.... banks were gleaming to sign up those FHA backed loans.. End game? Government stay out, banks don't loan at zero down with varibale interest rate in inflated asset prices, no bust- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 18, 2013 Author Share Posted June 18, 2013 the lines between our political parties, tax payers dollars, campain contributions, lobbying groups and overall the banking sector have been blurred for some time.... that is unlikely to change, so this will not be the first nor the last time this happens... I go into any tranasction with a bank realizing they don't give a !@#$ about me as a person, we are entering into a contract where 1. they need to make money 2. they hold the cards if I sign up a bad deal 3. struggles to uphold that contract are on me, not on them to be compassionate and understanding. To me, its no worse than wind power producers paying a utility $10 to buy their power, because they get a $20 credit from the Government to produce it- but only if they sell the power- it !@#$s up energy market pricing, and create inefficiency in the system. I don't like Banks in particular, but they lend me the money to acquire asset, therefore wealth. I am a conservative responsible lendee who take ownership of illiquid assets ALWAYS with a escape route- the government got involved in the housing crisis and took the uneducated populus and convinced them to get heavily leveraged in illiquid, fickle assets like real estate.... banks were gleaming to sign up those FHA backed loans.. End game? Government stay out, banks don't loan at zero down with varibale interest rate in inflated asset prices, no bust- no problem with banks making a legitimate profit. this is something very different. it's a pattern of very questionable practices that so far have been settled for billions of dollars...in favor of people who lost their homes to foreclosure through the actions of this particular bank. (and sevral others have settled for billions as well) and now another lawsuit with bank employees ready to testify to systematic and premeditated fraud. it appears to be an industry tactic. that's a little different then having add on charges below a certain balance that was in the fine print of a contract all along. if most of america is ok with that then i suppose we deserve what we get. i personally don't like to be played and don't like to see others played. but that just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 19, 2013 Author Share Posted June 19, 2013 But I know, you're a doctor, so big numbers impress you. took a little while as this struck me as just so wrong and then it hit me. yup, big numbers impress me. like the amount of money need to buy nearly 1/2 the existing nfl franchises or hell, to start your own damn league.. or to pay the salaries of everyone in the city of buffalo for several years...too lazy to do the math but rest assured, several. yup, that impresses me. but not you. i wonder why, i really do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 took a little while as this struck me as just so wrong and then it hit me. yup, big numbers impress me. like the amount of money need to buy nearly 1/2 the existing nfl franchises or hell, to start your own damn league.. or to pay the salaries of everyone in the city of buffalo for several years...too lazy to do the math but rest assured, several. yup, that impresses me. but not you. i wonder why, i really do. Do you care to put another context to those numbers, such as total mortgage originations by those banks? Who do you think is going to pick up the cost of the AG extortion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Do you care to put another context to those numbers, such as total mortgage originations by those banks? Who do you think is going to pick up the cost of the AG extortion? The only context that matters is the one that makes it look big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 19, 2013 Author Share Posted June 19, 2013 Do you care to put another context to those numbers, such as total mortgage originations by those banks? Who do you think is going to pick up the cost of the AG extortion? why are you so sure that the banks did nothing illegal? what's the evidence in their defense? HAMP and TARP were supposedly meant to save us from economic collapse by limiting the housing crash impact. so the banks apparently devise a way to reverse the intentions, increase foreclosures and pocket tidy sums. all at the cost of the foreclosed and the economy as a whole. wealth redistribution at its pinnacle or nadir depending on whether you're in the banking industry. makes anything progressives propose in the other direction look trivial. bravo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 HAMP and TARP were supposedly meant to save us from economic collapse by limiting the housing crash impact. Nope. Your entire argument is built on a fundamental lack of understanding of how ANY of this works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 19, 2013 Author Share Posted June 19, 2013 Nope. Your entire argument is built on a fundamental lack of understanding of how ANY of this works. well, that's easy. i'd think an OC manifesto would be mandated for that response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Nope. Your entire argument is built on a fundamental lack of understanding of how ANY of this works. And that there are very big numbers involved. Never mind that much of the penalties covered the periods prior the meltdown. But I'm sure that was covered already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 19, 2013 Author Share Posted June 19, 2013 And that there are very big numbers involved. Never mind that much of the penalties covered the periods prior the meltdown. But I'm sure that was covered already. not that i concede your point, but how would that make their actions any more palatable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 why are you so sure that the banks did nothing illegal? what's the evidence in their defense? HAMP and TARP were supposedly meant to save us from economic collapse by limiting the housing crash impact. so the banks apparently devise a way to reverse the intentions, increase foreclosures and pocket tidy sums. all at the cost of the foreclosed and the economy as a whole. wealth redistribution at its pinnacle or nadir depending on whether you're in the banking industry. makes anything progressives propose in the other direction look trivial. bravo! Out of curiosity, have you ever wondered how the bubble started and how a reasonable person would want to understand that before arguing about how to fight the symptoms? Why did the downtrodden get sucked into or feel that they were intitled to loans that would provide them with homes way out of their price range? What would make a business owner (lenders) make loans that were very questionable? Answer that and you'll be on the road to discovering what the real problems was/is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 not that i concede your point, but how would that make their actions any more palatable? Again, your whole premise is that the bulk of the blame was on the banks and not on the mortgage brokers who fronted the loans. There's a reason the AG went after the banks - it's easier and that's where the money is. Good luck chasing thousands of shady mortgage brokers who disappeared into the woods as soon as the music stopped. The banks found it a lot easier to accept the fines, move on and charge more for the next mortgages to recoup the extortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts