The Banks Win, Again

[woo me with science]

NY Times Editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-banks-win-again.html?_r=1

The Banks Win, Again
Published: March 17, 2012

Last week was a big one for the banks. On Monday, the foreclosure settlement between the big banks and federal and state officials was filed in federal court, and it is now awaiting a judge’s all-but-certain approval. On Tuesday, the Federal Reserve announced the much-anticipated results of the latest round of bank stress tests.

How did the banks do on both? Pretty well, thank you — and better than homeowners and American taxpayers.

That is not only unfair, given banks’ huge culpability in the mortgage bubble and financial meltdown. It also means that homeowners and the economy still need more relief, and that the banks, without more meaningful punishment, will not be deterred from the next round of misbehavior.

Under the terms of the settlement, the banks will provide $26 billion worth of relief to borrowers and aid to states for antiforeclosure efforts. In exchange, they will get immunity from government civil lawsuits for a litany of alleged abuses, including wrongful denial of loan modifications and wrongful foreclosures. That $26 billion is paltry compared with the scale of wrongdoing and ensuing damage, including 4 million homeowners who have lost their homes, 3.3 million others who are in or near foreclosure, and more than 11 million borrowers who are underwater by $700 billion.

The settlement could also end up doing more to clean up the banks’ books than to help homeowners....

..... Worth reading the whole thing.

Wake up, America.

[WillyT]

1. Yep...

[tridim]

2. I will be getting a settlement check because of this.

Is it fair? Probably not. Is it better than nothing? ABSOLUTELY.

Has the author of the article asked anyone who was fucked by the banks their thoughts on this judgement and settlement? Have you?

Woo me with the perfect being the enemy of the good.

[sabrina 1]

10. Yes, people who were 'fucked by the banks' have been asked their thoughts on this.

And many of them will be refusing any pittance offered to them in order to get the banks off the hook. The one good thing about the settlement is that people can sue the banks still and many will be doing that. Hopefully that will help take back some of the money they cheated people out of, since the government seems more concerned about helping them to keep most of it.

[tridim]

22. Right, it's good and better than good. Not a massive disaster as the media is making it out to be.

I've noticed that most of the articles neglect to mention that the people who get a settlement don't have to sign a waiver giving up their right to sue. It just doesn't fit their narrative, it's irresponsible reporting.

[sabrina 1]

28. Yes, that was a huge concern and thankfully people like US Attorney Scheiderman held out

until they were at least able to get some rights for the victims, such as not removing their right to sue.

[ProSense]

3. It's time to

"Wake up, America. "

...nationalize the banks. Agree?

[girl gone mad]

7. The banks should have been preprivatized in 2008/2009.

At this point, people need to take their business elsewhere and organize at the local and state levels for state owned banks. Our Federal government is completely captured by Wall Street.

[TBF]

4. Those assholes ought to be nationalized -

not getting immunity.

[ProSense]

5. Haven't you

heard: "nationalized" is now a scary word.

[TBF]

6. Energy sector too ... I am just getting started. nt

[girl gone mad]

8. According to you, it was too scary back when it should have happened.

You were totally against bank nationalization and said it would be impossible, etc. Now you are for nationalization? I don't get it.

[ProSense]

9. Bullshit! n/t

[girl gone mad]

12. lol.

You were totally opposed to putting the banks into receivership back then. We argued many, many times about it.

You said it would be impossible, the President did not have the power, etc.

Remember our debate over prompt corrective action? When you said William K. Black didn't have the first clue what he was talking about?

[girl gone mad]

14. Here is just one of many examples.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5390234&mesg_id=5390327

Have you really forgotten your own position so quickly?

It isn't as if you just argued this once or twice. You were pretty relentlessly against any type of bank nationalization throughout this time period. You made the claim that "the President doesn't have the authority" many times.

Turns out all he had to do was issue an EO? It really was that easy all along?

[ProSense]

15. That

is not an argument against nationalization, it's rebutting a point that the government has the authority to take over all "banks."

That is a fact, and one made clear in the instance of too big to fail.

Some of the institutions were not banks (like Goldman), and the repeal of Glass-Steagall created institutions that were mixed entities (like Citi).

I pointed to the update here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5390234&mesg_id=5392500

You can read the it here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/04/04/716470/--UPDATED-Please-be-smarter-than-the-Freepers-

That is not an argument against nationalization. In fact, the new powers given to the FDIC do allow them to break up the big banks and these mixed financial institutions.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Goldman Sachs became a bank on September 21, 2008, no

It's entirely possible that I'm not understanding FDIC jurisdiction - let me know if I'm wrong here.

[ProSense]

20. It's

"It's entirely possible that I'm not understanding FDIC jurisdiction - let me know if I'm wrong here. "

..."entirely possible."

[MannyGoldstein]

26. What changed between late 2008 and today

that lets the FDIC break up Goldman?

Thanks.

[girl gone mad]

21. But now it turns out that you were completely wrong.

All Obama had to do to stay in full compliance with the law was issue an EO.

[ProSense]

25. Nonsense

But now it turns out that you were completely wrong.

All Obama had to do to stay in full compliance with the law was issue an EO.

The executive order and the FDIC powers have nothing to do with each other.

[girl gone mad]

31. Is there some other agency equipped to put the banks into receivership..

aside from the FDIC? What, is the President just going to go in and nationalize banks by himself? With Seal Team Six?

I get it. You were so in favor of nationalization that you spent your time arguing that breaking up the banks was impossible and Bill Black was a liar, when you could have been calling for this executive order instead.

[sabrina 1]

29. That DK diarist has a history of arguing for rightleaning policies and for being

particularly nasty towards anyone he perceives to be slightly left of the DLC. I see he, true to character, attempts to smear Black, no surprise there. I do not know why you would use someone like to that to make any kind of point frankly.

His diaries are generally diaries to skip over when it comes to facts. He is way too invested in protecting the status quo.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Wow. Ouch. Well Done.

Is it a CandidateObama vs. PresidentObama thing?

[ProSense]

19. Do

"Is it a CandidateObama vs. PresidentObama thing?"

...you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002233756

[Kaleko]

38. Is that supposed to be a rebuttal or what?

You keep throwing out nonsensical smoke bombs, barely related to the topic at hand. It's as if you were using the oldest tactic in the world, which is to take a marginally relevant truth and sandwich it between two kinds of deceptions in order to create confusion.

[anti-alec]

37. I take Prosense's nonsense with a grain of salt.

Most of the time, she has no idea what she is talking about, and instead spams you with the blue links.

There. I said it.

[girl gone mad]

33. "Nationalize? Hey, Not So Fast (interesting considerations)"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8250973&mesg_id=8250973

Among the arguments you were pushing at the time:

THE CONFIDENCE QUESTION Finally, because nationalization runs counter to deeply ingrained American traditions and attitudes, there is a danger that it might undermine rather than bolster confidence. As I said, this is not Sweden. The Treasury, of course, would never use “nationalization” in public; it would invent some nice euphemism. But the commentariat would not be so constrained.

In other words, the word nationalization was just too scary for the public to accept. You posted this dreck as an "interesting consideration". Hypocrisy much?

and

"The.. cost to tax payers from an unknown" made it far too risky.

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. What a surprise!

[kenny blankenship]

13. And it will only be FIVE billion in cash

the remainder will be in phony credits.
See here:

[AtomicKitten]

17. This particular deal limits immunity to robo-signing abuses only.

... not "immunity for a litany of alleged abuses" as alleged in the OP. Matt Taibbi calls it a "narrow slice of the fraud pie." NY AG Schneiderman is leading a task force established by Pres O to prosecute actual "litany of alleged abuses".

[tridim]

24. That's not true. Read it..

http://www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com/

[girl gone mad]

27. Matt Taibbi retracted that statement.

The release is broad, not narrow.

See Why the Foreclosure Deal May Not Be So Hot After All

[AtomicKitten]

35. I saw Matt Taibbi I believe on Cenk's show the next

Last edited Sun Mar 18, 2012, 10:13 PM - Edit history (1)

day and honestly I laughed because his 'self-rebuttal' was more a retraction of enthusiasm for the deal than anything else. I don't have an axe to grind; I love the guy. He is one of my favorite writers and I find him decidedly sponge-worthy. He was glad that NY AG Schneiderman was appointed to head up the mortgage fraud task force. Schneiderman seems quite pleased to have federal resources available to him, and hints quite strongly that bankers will be going to jail. He's definitively the guy to put them there. We shall see.

[just1voice]

23. We're a country that won't hold torture camp creators responsible so...

of course we won't hold banks accountable, especially when they buy elections. I know you already know all this, I'm just stating it for posterity as it'll be 20 years before most people look back and realize what a mess the U.S. is currently in.

[woo me with science]

30. Kick

[PA Democrat]

32. Fewer than 5% of underwater homeowners are expected to see relief;

that is about half of the number originally projected.

One major feature of the $25 billion mortgage settlement reached last month among the five big banks, the state attorneys general and federal housing officials was the money set aside for principal writedowns.

The settlement negotiators estimated that as many as 1 million homeowners would be eligible for that help.

Try half that, says Ted Gayer, co-director of economic studies at The Brookings Institution. He calculated that the number of eligible homeowners is closer to 500,000, or fewer than 5% of the 11.1 million U.S. homeowners who owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth.

http://realestate.msn.com/blogs/listedblogpost.aspx?post=dbab6939-d1cb-48d6-95dd-809b2a5abfdf

[bvar22]

34. But the Stock Market is UP, so its ALL GOOD, Right?

Wall Street IS main Street, isn't it?


[font size=4]Cherish your memories,
because they're taking everything else.

Now THIS is Bi-Partisanship.
Better get used to it!
Hahahahahahahahaha



[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[gratuitous]

36. We got a big batch of regulations and enforcement with some teeth, though, right?

Oooh listen, crickets!