Elizabeth Warren Battles With GOP Over CFPB

I have to say something about what’s going on in Congress these days, because it’s repulsive on an entirely new scale, and that’s saying something for our politicians.

As you’ve probably already heard, at a hearing of the House Oversight Committee yesterday, chaired by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), the House GOP showed themselves for what they are: paid for lackeys for the banking industry, nothing more.

McHenry, for example, the jackass that accused Professor Warren of “lying,” when he tried to hold her over the agreed to time for her testimony, spent the entire time trying to make her and the CFPB look bad.  Even before the hearing, McHenry went on CNBC and accused Warren of “lying” to congress, saying that she had misrepresented her role in advising the state attorneys general who are seeking a multi-billion dollar settlement with the country’s largest mortgage servicers.

McHenry pointed to a leaked internal document, prepared by the CFPB that presented the AGs with different settlement scenarios, which he said went beyond the giving of “advice,” as she had told congress she would be doing at her last visit to Capitol Hill.

In March, Professor Warren had readily admitted that the CFPB, at the request of the Treasury Department, had provided such advice.  At yesterday’s hearing, she said: “We’ve given advice when asked for advice.”  And from there, the elected morons in the House started debating the meaning of the word “advice,” with the large television screens in the hearing room showing the Merriam-Webster definition: to give [someone] a recommendation about what should be done.

Now, I don’t care what your views are about politics…this is just plain STUPID and McHenry looked like what he obviously is… a pantload.

I can’t imagine that it’s a coincidence that McHenry has received very generous donations this year from large banks and industry trade associations that oppose the CFPB, including $1,000+ checks from the American Bankers Association, Mortgage Bankers Association, American Express, American Financial Services Organization, Cash America International, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

And in 2009-10, commercial banks gave him $91,975… the American Bankers Association kicked down another $20,000, and Wells Fargo Bank was his single largest campaign contributor at $15,550.  Don’t believe me?  (Look it up HERE if you want.)

How can anyone vote for this guy?  The State of North Carolina would be better off just leaving his congressional seat empty.

It’s hard for me to imagine, but the Republicans have accomplished something I would not have thought even remotely possible… they have made me grateful for President Barack Obama.

Considering that I have never been so disappointed in a president in my lifetime, so much so that I cannot bring myself to watch his speeches, or even think about his inattention to the foreclosure crisis, it’s truly striking to think that I am thankful that he is in office and that he is certain to win again in 2012.  It’s truly an unbelievable condition.

How can ANYONE support today’s Republicans in the House of Representatives or United States Senate?  How can they think anyone will after seeing their behavior related to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”)?

The only possibility I can come up with is that they’re just totally sure that their constituents aren’t paying any attention at all to what they’re doing.  What else could it be?  I mean, they might as well be caught on camera dining and dancing at a lavish affair hosted by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Citibank and Bank of America, at which they are all presented with checks for a million dollars apiece.

This isn’t about “the right” and “the left,” or conservatives v. liberals.  This is simply about “RIGHT v. WRONG.”

The CFPB is the only bureau in our government with a mission to protect the interests of consumers… that’s you and me… regular middle class working people.  After what we’ve just been through in terms of the financial meltdown, how could anyone possibly make the case that we shouldn’t have even one federal bureau out of… I don’t even know how many… that is dedicated to watching out for consumers?

It would be like saying that we should continue to allow passengers to bring box cutters onto commercial aircraft following 9-11.  That’s not an exaggeration, that’s exactly what it would be like.

I recently had the opportunity to meet face to face with Professor Warren.  I wanted to ask her how I… and my readers… could help her cause, and then I wanted to ask for her advice as to how I should go about attacking the foreclosure crisis.  But before I asked her about either of those things, I told her that I found it stunning that there was anyone on the opposite side of the arguments she makes in her role at the CFPB.

So, I started our conversation by asking her: “When you says consumers should know how much a mortgage costs, or what risks are involved, or the interest rate on a credit card… does someone stand up on the other side of the table and say, “No! Consumers must not be told either of those things?”

She responded by saying, and I’d prefer not to quote her exact words in this instance, that I was quite right… there was no other side to those arguments.  Of course, consumers should be made aware of such things.

I told her I couldn’t believe that the financial industry even opposed such things and that it was shocking to see the industry go after her the way they have… and do.  And she said something to the effect of (again, I would prefer not to quote her exact words for fear of them being taken out of context by the House GOP):

When they go after me, the best they can do is to say that I’m too confrontational with the bankers. So, since when do we ask bank robbers what they think of the new laws for punishing bank robbers?

The day I met Professor Warren, she explained why she thought so few have been punished as a result of the financial crisis:

“With Enron you had Enron. One company that had caused the problems. With this financial crisis, there are so many they can barely be counted.  And we have multiple regulators in the Fed, the OCC, the OTS, the FDIC. And none of these are agencies came to the crisis with the perspective of the American consumer.

The competition between the OCC and OTS was designed to create under-regulation. If the OCC was too tough the financial institution could reclassify itself as a thrift and be regulated by the OTS.”

A little later she also said:

“The number one retirement plan in this country was to pay off the house and live on one’s Social Security and presumably whatever pension or additional savings one had accumulated over one’s working years.  That has been robbed from the American people by the financial sector.

The CFPB is the opportunity to begin to change that. It won’t solve everything and there is much work to be done, but it represents our only hope.”

Finally, she seemed a bit dismayed when she said:

“I thought we had the fight last year and we won.  And we got the agency that would have the mission of protecting consumers. But we now see that the fight is not over. There are bills in the legislature today that threaten the agency’s very existence by proposing to defund or defang the new agency.”

People, how in the world can anyone say that we didn’t need some consumer protections in place in light of the bankers having caused the worst economic meltdown in 70 years?  We had mortgage companies putting people into loans who couldn’t read.  Stockton, California was targeted because it has the lowest literacy rate in the state, for God’s sake.

First Premier Bank out of South Dakota offers a credit card with a 70.9 interest rate… but don’t worry ’cause it only applies to poor people, so f#@k ‘em?  Is that someone’s position out there?  Predatory lending is important because poor communities need loan sharks, is that the deal?

And even forgetting all of that… the CFPB is ONE bureau… one solitary bureau in a literal sea of federal agencies… with the responsibility to watch out for the consumers’ best interests… can’t we even have one?  Call me crazy, but shouldn’t the banks themselves even be in favor of consumers having one federal bureau… after all, they do have all of the others?

It’s like finding out that there’s someone who opposes a parking lot having a couple of spaces up front for the handicapped… when they have the other 700 spaces available in the lot.

McHenry was way out of line in the House Oversight Committee meeting with Professor Warren, and everyone knew it.  Well, maybe not the House GOP, but who cares?  They’ve shown us all, loud and clear, that they are in the pockets of the bankers, even more than the Democrats have… and that’s no easy task.

CLICK HERE – SEND A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF

ELIZABETH WARREN TO LEAD THE CFPB

And that’s all I have to say about that…

Mandelman out.

Below is the video of the hearing of the House Oversight Committee in its entirety, and below is a link to just the heated moments when McHenry was at his worst.

LINK TO THE WORST OF REP. PATRICK McHENRY

Comments

  1. Steevo says

    Martin Said

    Quote:
    How can ANYONE support today’s Republicans in the House of Representatives or United States Senate? How can they think anyone will after seeing their behavior related to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”)?

    Because single issue politics is always bad.

    You have one guy that you perceive as being "wrong". So you make that ridiculous statement you made. "All Republicans are *bad*".

    What you get then is a bunch of Democrats that will tax the hell out of you, stick you with government mandated healthcare you don't want, give away money and free stuff to the poor (but none for you no matter how desperate you were), but maybe *some* are right on your single issue.

    You will deserve what you get with that attitude. One thing you like and 50 things you hate. What you got with Barack Obama.

    What you're supposed to do is call him up and straighten him out. Without you and others telling him what we want the only voices he hears will be the banking lobby, etc. They are there talking, you can be sure of it. They spend millions getting their word out.

    Have you called him and set him straight? Have you called your own congressman and told him what you think? Have you written letters? If not that's what you need to do. You can't expect some guy from a congressional district 2500 miles away to have read your blog. Why not ask him to?

    I heard his facebook page is getting some action.
    http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/republicans-attack-eliz-warren-sleaze-bath-should-backfire/
    Watch for him to come around. That's how you make changes you can believe in.

    That's how you make changes you want. Not by attacking some guy on a single issue that you haven't even called him about.

    Those lobbyists cannot compete with *us*. There are thousands of *us*. They can spend millions lobbying and we can just call on the phone and write letters, no politician can afford to ignore the people. They have to run for reelection.

    This is advanced democracy after all. It takes effort. It will fight you. You have to make the effort. If you don't the lobbyists who were paid to make the effort will win.

  2. mandelman says

    Yeah, I knew someone was going to make your point when I woke up this morning. Fair enough... you're at least partially right... but, at the same time, you have to admit that the Republicans are largely on the wrong side of this issue. Shelby, for example, should be publicly stoned. But, regardless... you're point is still well taken.

    And I'm certainly not defending the Democrats here, just thinking about them makes me want to chew on glass. And for the record, I'm not a partisan person... I voted for Reagan once, Bush I twice, Clinton once, Bush II twice, and Obama once... mostly because McCain/Palin didn't really deserve to place second.

    The only part of your message that I'm not sure I can change is the whole single issue thing... I think I'm in too deep there. I don't care about anything else because I happen to know with absolute certainty that if we don't stop the foreclosure crisis... the deflationary spiral that began in the summer of 2007... the other stuff won't matter.

    Taxes... don't care, no one makes any money anyway. Health care... you have to be kidding. Afghanistan... pave the place. Iraq... where?

    What else should I care about? Anything else is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Thanks for slapping me around... I'll get on the phone and yell at a Republican... LOL.

    Martin

  3. Steevo says

    The foreclosure issue is not a partisan issue. You can't say Republicans or Democrats are on the wrong side, that's just ridiculous.

    No one is for ripoffs. No one is for lying, cheating, stealing. Neither party.

    The problem here is the banks aren't acting like banks anymore. They used to pay grandpa interest on his savings, and when you went in for a loan they loaned you grandpa's money. That's what banks are supposed to do. They made money slow and steady on that margin. And lots of it, over time. If they didn't make loans they didn't make any money. It's the way it worked.

    Now they are acting like fee-based moneychangers. It's not their money and it's not their risk, so no wonder they are acting recklessly.

    Remember all those ads on the radio 5 years ago? "We'll loan you 125% of your home's value". What the hell were all those appraisals for? To prevent that, and here they were doing it deliberately. Reckless. Not their money, obviously.

    Same with Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, all those wall street firms. They were, partnerships. Upstairs there were partners in all those offices, there would be hell to pay if you did anything to cause them to lose hundreds of millions of dollars, and the partners were all there every day. Watching over things.

    They, like the banks were using their own money, and they were very conservative.

    Now, it's not their money at all. No wonder things are much more reckless.

    If banks were actually banks, making money from loans, instead of fees there would be an end to all this and stability would return. But it just might be too late.

    I admit that Obama did a couple things right. One is limits on bank and credit card fees and on changes in interest rates. I am a Republican but I don't like ripoffs any more than Democrats, so I am comfortable with Democrats on consumer issues like these. I even voted for a couple in the last election. Imagine that!

    You should call your congressman and tell him what you think. Write a letter too. I have. You know my congressman knows my name. Heh.

  4. mandelman says

    I don't know if you're right about the Reps or Dems thing... while I don't like most of either party, there do seem to be a small handful of Dems that talk about the need to modify loans to stop foreclosures, while the Reps seem to only want to cancel HAMP, and stuff like that. All I ever hear from the right is how people were irresponsible, which is really not terribly relevant to the financial crisis, unless by people we're talking about bankers.

    Still, there aren't many Dems actively trying to stop the foreclosure crisis either, so I don't really know what I'm talking about.

    The bottom line is that we have asset prices in a free fall, unemployment that only rises, and banks still carrying toxic assets and unable to function without federal support... we're running in place in quicksand. And it's getting annoying... so, I vent at the idiot from N.C. So, sue me... LOL

    And I will write my congressperson... again... and everyone else in DC... again... in fact, I'm thinking it's time for Mr. Mandelman goes to Washington...

  5. Steevo says

    The main difference between Republicans and Democrats is Republicans are mostly for self reliance, responsibility.

    Republicans want (or are supposed to want) to push the decisionmaking down as close to the people as possible.

    The local school board and the school staff are better positioned to know what the school needs now. They are closer to the problem.

    Democrats want a strong central government, making the rules and doling out the money from afar.

    They feel Washington knows what the schools in Fullerton need and don't think the locals can be trusted with the money. The locals would waste it so they put all kinds of conditions on the money.

    An example that happened a few years ago here: Money came from the federal government for schools, it could only be used for books. One school had gotten all new books last year, what they needed was paint and carpet. But no, the book money could only be used for books.

    The difference between Democrats and Republicans.

    Back to that responsibility thing, Republicans mostly think if you got a loan on your house that you can't afford, be responsible and pau up or you deserve to lose you house.

    But because of the widespread problems caused by the banks and the Democrats making them loan money to people who couldn't afford it (that was a Democrat program, remember?) and all the loans being securitized by wall street, so it wasn't the bank's money anymore, things got reckless.

    The problem has to be addresses but only the last 3 or 4 months has the true problem come to light. I've been paying attention as have you but we are a minority until the last few months.

    And as I posted in the past you really can't compare someone losing a $17,000 house in the 50s because they can't pay with someone paying $200,000.00 toward a house today and losing it with nothing to show for it. That's just ridiculous. It's just not right.

  6. mandelman says

    Yeah, I had a feeling we were somehow going to end up in-sync... I agree with what the pro-business Republican ideal used to be, but lately all I seem to see, besides the totally kooky, fringe Republicans, are those that seem to want to argue over things like the funding of Planned Parenthood, which costs the equivalent of about a nickel when compared with the problems at hand.

    The problem is as you say it is: Ten years ago, people that went into foreclosure really were often kind of "hopeless cases," and there were very few of them, a tiny percentage really.

    The Republicans seem to view today's foreclosure crisis as if it's just a larger number of the same type of people that went into foreclosure a decade ago or before... and that's just not the case at all.

    This incorrect view of the foreclosures today, has prevented us from doing anything substantive to stop the free fall in housing prices, and now we've created a negative feedback situation that is feeding on itself... and we don't even have anything on the drawing board that might possibly put a floor under our downward spiral.

    And yet, there are still people who think that anyone who starts struggling financially and is at risk of foreclosure should be punished for having made irresponsible decisions... and when... like 4-5 years ago? Who in the world would have planned for THIS situation 4-5 years ago?

    Well, I can't tolerate it anymore... I can't afford any more punishing of my neighbor for deciding to remodel his kitchen in 2004. The whole thing is too stupid for words... it wasn't borrowers who caused this meltdown, as I'm sure you know, and even if someone wants to go on thinking that, the people in trouble today are not them.

    The people in trouble today shouldn't be in trouble today because WE shouldn't be in this situation today.

    So, ready for this? Our home appraised for $925k in 2006, ridiculous, but whatever. We've had one home sell on our block in the last two years and it was a bank REO a few months ago for $360k. And, as we sit here today, prices aren't going to bottom out for at least three years... and maybe four or five.

    Well, we've got another home a couple of miles away on which we owe very little... maybe $70k. It's not as nice as ours but could certainly be fixed up. Lately, I've started to realize that sitting here and watching my home go further and further underwater is just silly... we owe about $500k.

    Now that we've got an REO sale at $360k... Zillow says it's worth $575k... but I'd bet against being able to get more than $500k. So, what's the point? Three years from now, assuming we don't do anything to change our course, it'll be worth $250k.

    And my wife and I are now actually talking about just walking away from our home, and moving into the other one... fixing it up to our liking and leaving the debt to the non-deficiency judgement state. I could care less about credit scores, and I'm not going to deal with my bank-servicer unless it's to tear apart their financials to expose what their CEO makes, or something like that.

    So, here we are... when this crisis started a few years back, I wrote on MSNBC's Newsvine... my first blog... that I would never leave my home... I'd destroy it before I'd hand the keys to the bank. And now... I don't even care enough lift a finger to do anything... and may just move on.

    And if I'm thinking like that, you know others are starting to do the same. And won't that be a nice addition to the current housing crisis situation? I've written before that "strategic defaults" were not YET a problem, but would be eventually if things were allowed to keep falling.

    And here we are...

  7. MinnItMan says

    In 2005, two things happened which nobody has ever adequately resolved to my satisfaction. Consumer bankruptcy (which is frequently self-employed person bankruptcy) was intentionally made more punitive, and emprical studies have shown that the system didn't really help creditors very much. At the same time, the bankruptcy of Northwest Airlines, in particular, was applauded by the likes of the WSJ and IBD editorial pages. Bankruptcy serves a vital economic function and while businesses and individuals are not the same, the rationale for bankruptcy for either, is pretty much the same. But, Republicans (along with Sens. Clinton and Schumer) don't see it that way. Bankruptcy is good for business when you can void labor contracts (that is, undo past bad business decisions), but bad for business when customers can void unpayable liabilities. Those people are deadbeats.

    I always resented the Democrats' caricature of the stone-hearted Republican, but I find it a pretty useful way of deconstructing Republican positions. Republicans are for liberty, right? But not if your a pothead or gay. They're for personal responsibility, right? Well, not if corporations are persons. I wish I had more time to expound, but Republicans regularly draw from the well of appealing to the desire for hard-assedness. Pro-cop, anti-deadbeat, almost unfailingly anti-minority (any minority - broadly construed). The more I think about it, the less I can see how Republicans don't basically think that loan-sharking is essentially good and just and what really should be the normal relation of creditor and debtor.

    I wouldn't say I've converted to being a Democrat (they still haven't figured out how make very much work), but I no longer dismiss good intentions, especially when so much of what Republicans actually do is, if not badly intended, not done with the most charitable, or even arguably a somewhat charitable heart. Here, there is a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Whatever you think, I simply don't think this is the number one item for protecting marriage. It is, however an electoral strategy to boost conservative-leaning turnout that targets a small minority and at least assumes that anti-gay bigotry will be advantageous to them. I really detest that.

    Republicans won't get my vote back until they extend liberty for folks or groups that aren't typically associated with Republicans (or more accurately, not particularly well-thought of by them), like gays or potheads, or someone other than the already-powerful.

    Your move guys. I don't mind costing you two votes.

  8. Steevo says

    I don't know what changes were made to the bankruptcy laws in 2005, but the conventional wisdom has been bankruptcy is a way to welch on your debts, and that's true. I agree that it does serve a purpose, a second chance. I think people do deserve a second chance. And as with anything there are certainly some abuses.

    As to labor contracts, remember the old Chrysler bankruptcy, they brought in Lee Iacoca? He said "We have good jobs at $18 an hour, but no jobs at $40 an hour"? Or something like that.

    The Democrats had to keep GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy to keep their buddies at the union's labor contracts in place. That's why the automaker bailouts. Call me cynical. So the dems are kissing ass at the unions and the reps are kissing someone else's. Not sure who or how effectively. Clearly outclassed at ass kissing by the dems. Heh.

    Obama was the one who did the real deals with wall street that caused the real problems.

    As to Republicans and civil rights, let me just say do you know why the Republican party was formed, and whom the first president was? To free the slaves and Abraham Lincoln. A black acquaintance of mine said something like you just said about Republicans, I told him that. He said "I didn't know that". Republicans are not anti-minority. What's going on is the Dems want to give out special group rights to get voters.

    Let me just ask you what kind of rights we have here in the US? Do you know?

    Wait
    For
    It.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    We have individual rights.

    There's a reason we don't have group rights, individual rights are what the constitution guarantees us. But that doesn't stop the clamoring for group rights. Rights because you are a minority, gay, have red hair, or anything.

    That kind of rights are always discriminatory. How'd you like your child denied entrance to a university or a job because you, and he are white? It happens. It happens right now. The UC is mostly Asian right now, and that just can't happen naturally. There is discrimination going on and you and your family are the target.

    Pothead or gay rights, you say?

    Forget that, that's all a smokescreen. Gays have the same rights you and I have. Potheads too. Individual rights.

    Gay marriage is a smokescreen too. If you want to discuss why I'd be available. Heh. There's a reason gays are mostly Democrats, and because of what I said you probably know what I think.

    Thanks for discussing advanced political theory with me.

  9. MinnItMan says

    I suspect you are not entirely right about Asians in the UC system - that they do not benefit from affirmative action the way you suggest. I could go into great length about affirmative action - I'm a very limited proponent of it - but probably we could agree that it is liberal BS, practically unworkable as a solution.

    I am reasonably informed about the history of civil rights, and the Democratic Party's questionable positioning through the years. But vote totals from 1964-65 don't change the fact the the Republicans did become the new Dixiecrat party and generally have not been able to convince African Americans - many of whom have a real gift for business, unlike say, Asians (way more could be said invoking stereotypes galore) - that they mean well. That Democrats get an inexplicable pass on this baffles me - Gov. Clinton left New Hampshire, IIRC, to execute an arguably mentally incompetent black man to prove his New Democrat bones. Whatever.

    Like Martin - with whom I share pretty deep roots and mutual friends, although we never met as far as I recall (see quaaludes and 1970s, the) - I care about people who can see right and wrong, and no longer care at all about people who see only right and left.

    Liberalism sucks. We saw its excesses contribute mightily to the collapse of our hometown. But, it wasn't just liberalism. It was more that liberalism couldn't prevent what happened, yet promised that it could if Walter Mondale was elected. (Note: where we lived was VP Mondales best county in the US).

    35 years later, we've seen that vague, Reaganite, neo-liberal, arguably extreme authoritarian, anti-statism (put that in my vaporisor - no, please don't), does really work either. It doesn't work in a different way that liberalism doesn't work, but it still doesn't work. And it didn't learn that real estate finance is an especially nasty area for government to make large mistakes in as the back end cost leads to huge taxpayer liability, generally in exponentially more serious waves.

    Elizabeth Warren, from what I can tell - and I've known of her for 15 years or so - is a Naderite, who has refined her message and thinking into a form that nobody should be reasonably opposed to. "Consumer finance" has grown exponentially, and it is a sympton of how screwed up our economy is. Producers make products that require debt to buy: real estate; cars; atvs; guitars; education; health care; jewelry; insurance premium financing (my personal favorite).

    We no longer live in a civilzation, but a finanacialization (I coined this word as a noun - it is usually used as an adjective). Maybe this is capitalism in the extreme where even the nominal owners of the means of production don't own the means of production. It's all finance. This is no longer about the older world where left and right meant something. And, this is the reality that can only be changed incrementally, and usually pretty half-assed.

    Ms. warren used to be fairly intemperate in her take on finance, IMO. Or, maybe it was me. What I do believe she understands, however, that virtually no Republican does (or will admit) is that our economy has made finance into something like a public utility.

  10. Steevo says

    mandelman wrote:
    I don't know if you're right about the Reps or Dems thing... while I don't like most of either party, there do seem to be a small handful of Dems that talk about the need to modify loans to stop foreclosures, while the Reps seem to only want to cancel HAMP, and stuff like that. All I ever hear from the right is how people were irresponsible, which is really not terribly relevant to the financial crisis, unless by people we're talking about bankers.

    Still, there aren't many Dems actively trying to stop the foreclosure crisis either, so I don't really know what I'm talking about.

    The bottom line is that we have asset prices in a free fall, unemployment that only rises, and banks still carrying toxic assets and unable to function without federal support... we're running in place in quicksand. And it's getting annoying... so, I vent at the idiot from N.C. So, sue me... LOL

    And I will write my congressperson... again... and everyone else in DC... again... in fact, I'm thinking it's time for Mr. Mandelman goes to Washington...


    Cancel HAMP? As bad as that is turning out it needs a cleanup.

    I contacted OCC who is running HAMP. Told them their banks are not complying with the contract they signed and what are they gonna do about it. When were they planning on enforcing the law?

    I offered to come over there and go to work for OCC enforcing every line and provision of that contract with each of those financial institutions.

    I got an evasion. An anonymous one after that. And I'd have done it. Give me a badge and backup and this'll all be over.

    I don't know what you think the problem is but that would go very far toward solving this problem but I got the impression that government agency lacked the will to do what they were charged to do and force the banks to do what they agreed to do. I can't imagine why we have laws and contracts and bureaucrats can just ignore the ones they don't *like*.

    At the root of the problem, there it is, the government, after all. Just like always.

    If you want positive change call your congressman and tell them you want each bank that signed up for HAMP to comply with their contract. Tell them you need a law with a $5 million dollar penalty for failure to comply on the part of those banks. For each occurrence.

    I'll be the private attorney general and this will all be straightened out.

    You think the congress understands what's going on? No, not until you and I tell them. As of now, the only voices they hear are the lobbyists.

    That's our job, this is advanced democracy. You have to do your part. It'll fight you.

  11. Shawnna says

    mandelman wrote:


    {SNIP}

    I don't care about anything else because I happen to know with absolute certainty that if we don't stop the foreclosure crisis... the deflationary spiral that began in the summer of 2007... the other stuff won't matter.

    Taxes... don't care, no one makes any money anyway. Health care... you have to be kidding. Afghanistan... pave the place. Iraq... where?

    What else should I care about? Anything else is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.



    You are absolutely right about this! NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!!! But please stop calling it a "foreclosure crisis" - that's just what the banksters want you to continue to do. It's a title crisis! It's all about the titles! Everything else specific to what you're calling the "foreclosure crisis" is incidental to the fundamental issue - it's about the title!

    http://shawnna.hersid.com/

Comment on this post! (Requires free membership in the Implode-Explode forums!)


Page Rank