May 12, 2013

Bank obligated to give loan modifications

There is due process for foreclosure, and these lenders ignored it. The monetary settlements are mostly punishment for the lenders, not restitution for the foreclosed. The vast majority of the checks are for $300, with only the most egregiously violated persons – those who were in the midst of a loan modification, or those whose foreclosure should have been stopped by bankruptcy while they sorted out their finances – getting more than $300.. 6 2 Reply

Jackie Nichols e98201an hour ago Not true. I personally know 3 families who were given settlements in the thousands simply because they were denied a loan modification and foreclosed on after the denial. Since when is a bank obligated to give loan modifications? To make matters worse, 2 of these 3 families walked away as a matter of convenience because they just didn`t like that their houses were worth less than they owed and 1 of those 2 families only owed more than it was worth because they used their house like an ATM machine to get cash during the high period. If the banks were to be punished, then the money should have went into a fund that benefits everyone, not directly into the pockets of those who helped create this mess with their irresponsible behavior. Reply

2lilkitty2
May 9, 2013
Stimulus check anyone? Reply

2lilkitty2
May 9, 2013
Two words come to mind. “Stimulus check”. Reply

skilly
May 9, 2013
HOLY Wachovichit! Hey Fanny, I think they Mae of noticed. Issue the difference BefOrA they notice we shorted them again! 1 Reply

john smith
May 9, 2013
That bank MADE me take that money and I don`t want to pay it back !!!!!! 5 2 Reply

Stuart Peacock
May 9, 2013
Goldman Sachs & Morgan Stanley need to be closed down for destroying the US economy and making the rich richer. 4 2 Reply

sunny5280 Stuart Peacock
May 9, 2013
More like the deadbeats who borrowed money they could not repay. 6 4 Reply

Chizzlin` Sam
May 9, 2013
Sorry Uncle Sam sent your Social Security money to Iraq and Afghanistan– if you want it back give KARZAI a ring… 3 Reply

dryhole
May 9, 2013
Are they getting paid for being deadbeats? 7 1 Reply

sunny5280 dryhole
May 9, 2013
It seems so. 7 2 Reply

IlCapodiTuttiCapi
May 9, 2013
Wait, wait, this is about banks scre wing people, right? So where`s the news? 2 1 Reply

sjacobs IlCapodiTuttiCapi
May 9, 2013
God forbid they expect people to honor a contract they entered into voluntarily and legally. 5 Reply

john smith
May 9, 2013
This all boils down to people made a deal with the mortgage companies and then these people didn`t abide by the deal and make their payments and now they want to blame everyone else. You make an agreement – you abide by it or suffer the consequences. It is called a contract. It does NOT include a clause that says. “Ya only have to pay if it everything goes all nice and well for ya.” I wonder how many of these people would have said that they would “re-do” their agreement to pay more if the mortgage company had gotten into financial hurt. None? Why not? That is what these people are wanting done for them. 2 Reply

Steve Solomon
May 9, 2013
So how many in the housing and banking industry ended up in prison for fraud and other illegal activities?? **crickets** Yeah, that`s what I thought…………………………………. 18 1 Reply

sjacobs Steve Solomon
May 9, 2013
Maybe because they did nothing illegal. At least that is what the courts have said, numerous times. 1 Reply

Plantiful sjacobs
May 9, 2013
It is truly hard to believe that banks can remove 10`s of trillions of dollars of value from the U.S. real estate system without breaking some laws. Sounds like a call for more regulations. 2 1 Reply

sjacobs Plantiful
May 10, 2013
How is the bursting of a bubble removing 10s of trillions of dollars? More to the point, the banks were only 1/3 of the cause of the bubble. We had a bubble burst in 2001 as well in the tech market. Was that the fault of tech companies? No. Reply

sunny5280 Steve Solomon
May 9, 2013
Why should they have? 1 3 Reply

Jimbo sunny5280
May 9, 2013
Because the banks took advantage of people who were down on their luck. Their luck was down because the banks screwed the economy. First the banks made a bundle by making loans that they shouldn`t have and selling off their responsibility as mortgage backed securities. Then they made another bundle by acting in bad faith, breaking the law and screwing everybody they could to make shareholders happy and bank big bonus`.. Reply

Reasontospeak sunny5280
May 9, 2013
Because they committed crimes 3 Reply

Billoriley9191
May 9, 2013
Now, shortchanging people is the garbage flavored icing on a crapflavored cake. But IMO, If I lost a house wrongly that put me 300 thousand or even five hundred thousand I would be a little upset to get a check for 30 thousand. Even 100 thousand would be a ripoff and I feel sorry for the souls who got 300 hundred bucks. Why even settle if you are just gonna rip people off? Better to just do a lottery and give a few people 1 million dollars. That way at least “SOME” get restitution instead of everyone getting screwed. 8 Reply

Gordon
May 9, 2013
Are we ever going to be able to overcome the greed of the bankers, GS and MS, etc,. I doubt it as they own the congressmen who are supposed to oversee them. It`s time to change the system and I`m looking for a way. It`s not going to be easy, but I`ll love doing it. 2 Reply

sunny5280 Gordon
May 9, 2013
If they`re so greedy why do people continue to do business with them? There are many, many options. 3 Reply

jonbme sunny5280
May 9, 2013
`Define “many, many” and provide supporting data.` 3 Reply

Gordon sunny5280
May 9, 2013
The same reason that businessmen do business with individuals they don`t like. The have no choice, other than giving up their business. Look at the world for what it is. 4 Reply

Billoriley9191 Gordon
May 9, 2013
There are options. I recently went back into business with a bank. I tried Bof A, and Wellsfargo. Now I am swapping back to my credit union. Anyone who deals with banks is stupid. And get this. WellsFargo is trying so hard to get me to take out a home loan. Heeeeeeeeeeeelsnaw! If I ever get a home loan it will be with my credit union. The one that DOES NOT charge me for checks, checking/savings account fee, no minimum monthly deposit quota, and they refund any and all ATM fees. Screw banks. And anyone who continues to use them and complain later, well you knew what you were getting into. 2 Reply

sunny5280 Gordon
May 9, 2013
Did you happen to miss the last sentence in my post? 3 Reply

Shane Parker
May 9, 2013
this is all a giant joke. people got loans they couldn`t afford. on house they paid do much for, that drove up the prices of the housing market. And they didn`t read the details of the loan. so naturally they should get financial help. How does this make any sense at all. 5 Reply

VLevrero
May 9, 2013
I am in love with the smell of my own farts… 4 Reply

Gordon VLevrero
May 9, 2013
Your problem. Reply

kelcy
May 9, 2013
The Trolls are certainly out tonight. Hope you Trolls reap what you sow in your nasty, nasty attitudes. There have been many, many stories the last few years where people were illegally foreclosed on having never missed a payment. Guess you guys only read the stories that conform to your little Troll minds. Besides…..people may well have been well within their means until they lost their jobs and with homes underwater they couldn`t sell them without taking a hit….and even if you do a short sale you have to pay taxes on the non-existent gain….. money you don`t have because you lost your job! As for the banks. There have been hundreds of thousands of foreclosures where the bank did not own the mortgage. They haven`t had to prove it. They don`t have the mortgage documents. They committed fraud. This whole not really owning the mortgages is what makes the 49 state settlement a joke. The only mortgages impacted by the settlement are ones the banks actually own. Now when it is in their best interest they are turning down on the refi that were supposed to occur based on the settlement because they say they don`t own them. The only ones still on their books are the ones they had not sold yet. Finally, lets not forget that most of the mortgages were spliced and diced across hundreds of mortgage backed securities. When everything crashed Lehmans securities were left nearly worthless. Other banks lost loads. They all (plus the Lehman Brothers liquidators) took huge tax write offs on the losses but continued to collect those mortgage payments. Don`t forget those pennies on the dollar Lehman`s securities……someone bought them for pennies but that did not pass down to the mortgagees. 10 Reply

BravoEcho240 kelcy
May 9, 2013
I`ve NEVER met a single person this has happened to. And I know A LOT of people who were foreclosed on. Your tax on a short sale is incorrect. (unless is was a second home or one did a cash out re-fi) The Mortgage Relief Act took care of that little problem and allowed the U.S. taxpayer to help out. **Source IRS: Normally, debt that is forgiven or cancelled by a lender must be included as income on your tax return and is taxable. But the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act allows you to exclude certain cancelled debt on your principal residence from income. Debt reduced through mortgage restructuring, as well as mortgage debt forgiven in connection with a foreclosure, qualifies for the relief. 1 Reply

sunny5280 kelcy
May 9, 2013
“There have been many, many stories the last few years where people were illegally foreclosed on having never missed a payment.” Define “many, many” and provide supporting data. Until then the rest of what you wrote is founded on an unsupported premise. 7 4 Reply

mceehops sunny5280
May 9, 2013
Sunny, you seem to be in the know about everything based on what you feel, not the facts. This settlement is all about the fact that these things happened, over and over until people finally caught it and put a stop to it. It was well documented and the banks won by settling on this any many other cases. In the US if you`re powerful enough, you can commit crimes, get caught and settle to stay ahead and stay out of jail. The banks have done just that. Your holier than thou attitude tells me you feel pretty superior to most people… sometimes life messes with you, even if you are super smart, and oh so great like you! Your time may just come in spite of how smug you seem to feel. As a society none of us should feel secure when giant corporations can run their businesses as the banks did. If you can`t see that, perhaps we are all doomed to repeat this process until we finally learn a lesson. greed trumps all in business, unless there are checks and balances to keep the human being from falling prey to it. Good luck to you. A little empathy goes a long way. 1 Reply

asdf asdf
May 9, 2013
Gee I wonder how many millions this “honest” mistake saved the banks in interest alone. 7 Reply

Time1
May 9, 2013
Please the banks benefited when they were handing out money to those they should not have and even more so now while they and their buddies are getting the properties back at pennies on the dollar 11 Reply

john smith Time1
May 9, 2013
I didn`t realize that people were forced to take that money. 5 1 Reply

Time1
May 9, 2013
What T F when will the banks be called for screwing the country and the people? 14 Reply

Gordon Time1
May 9, 2013
They won`t. Reply

BottomFeeder
May 9, 2013
All of you whining because you didn`t get a check, don`t worry, the next housing collapse is right around the corner. The Fed has blown us up another bubble and the current bubble is bigger than sub-prime. Your turn will come to find out what it feels like to be foreclosed on. Patience, please. 8 2 Reply

Sirius
May 9, 2013
Their all crooks! 3 Reply

Justanothermonkeyman
May 9, 2013
I`m sure MANY of these people lived in homes were they did NOT pay a mortgage or rent. Buy responsibly this is a lesson. 10 2 Reply

sunny5280 Justanothermonkeyman
May 9, 2013
No, the lesson is be irresponsible and you`ll be rewarded. 8 5 Reply

beertoast sunny5280
May 9, 2013
You must be referring to the bank bailout and their executive bonuses. 11 1 Reply

sunny5280 beertoast
May 9, 2013
No, I`m referring to the deadbeat borrowers. 5 2 Reply

beertoast sunny5280
May 9, 2013
What lesson did you learn from the bank bailout? 4 Reply

sunny5280 beertoast
May 9, 2013
− That people can borrow money, not repay it, and then be rewarded for it.

May 12, 2013

The banks loaned money to people who did not have the income to support payments

Where is the Republitard outrage for these Americans? Oh, that`s right, the GOP is busy worrying about the bankers having to pay a bit more in taxes! 7 2 Reply

This comment was deleted.
IDrinkCoffeeAndTea Chief of Reef
May 9, 2013
You should get back to twisting one off to that centerfold of President Reagan and continue your illusion (delusion) about your own self worth! Reply

Nunya IDrinkCoffeeAndTea
May 9, 2013
I think the conservative outrage is aimed at everyone involved, likely based on a belief that people shouldn`t take on debt that they cannot repay …. as well as banks shouldn`t get gigantic bailouts at taxpayer expense. I`m not sure if thats exactly the official Republican view… but it`s likely in line with many on the conservative side who actually comment here. 1 Reply

Daphne Perry Nunya
May 9, 2013
The banks loaned money to people who did not have the income to support payments…many borrowers had no income. Builders were constructing houses at a very fast pace. GWB encouraged people to buy homes. I don`t buy into conservatives are outraged. Many people made a lot during the housing bubble. My guess is that these people are in the top 2% income. That 2% is being protected by the conservatives today. 4 2 Reply

Nunya Daphne Perry
May 9, 2013
Names can be confusing and conservatives, like liberals, have a pretty big tent whose occupants don`t always agree with one another. Fiscal conservatives can be found in both parties and as a whole have been aghast at the previous lending policies which reach back to 1977 with Carters Community Reinvestment Act, followed up by Clintons GLBA.. through the policies of GWB. Neither party has clean hands – GLBA was sponsored by Republicans and signed by a Democrat… The history is pretty clear on this one.. if you choose one party to blame for this mess, it`s a pretty good guess that you are a card carrying member of the other party. Reply

Daphne Perry Nunya
May 9, 2013
Thanks for the info…yet I know the banks were not entirely working to loan money to people who couldn`t afford the loans. When my husband and I bought our first two houses (not at the same time) in the 1990s our financial status was thoroughly scrutinized. For our first house we barely made the grade, but we did make the grade. I do blame the conservatives for the mess. And of course I am not a card carrying member of the conservatives…but only because of the conservative policies and actions. Reply

sjacobs IDrinkCoffeeAndTea
May 9, 2013
Goldman and Morgan are big Obama supporters. 1 4 Reply

Plantiful sjacobs
May 9, 2013
Yes they are, and they are doing just fine. 2 Reply

sjacobs Plantiful
May 10, 2013
Interesting isn`t it. Reply

Plantiful sjacobs
May 10, 2013
Just one of many exampels of self preservation (and/or profiteering) through political “donations.” Reply

Anton Dubinski
May 9, 2013
Apparently many of you are unable to read or even understand the issues regarding the settlement. Instead, you just spout off the usual republican nonsense about supposed deadbeats and ignore the raping of america by wall street and banks. I suppose many of the comments here *are* probably from bank workers or Wall Street types. 4 5 Reply

Jimh77
May 9, 2013
There are many folks out there that had great jobs, paid their bills on time, some probably didn`t even have credit cards and the only real debt they had was a mortgage. Then 1 or both earners were cut from their jobs putting them in a situation they had never dreamed of being in. So stop the BS and cut some of them some slack. The BANKS then screwed all these folks looking to get some help and keep their house. When banks make more money repossessing houses then the mortgages do, ands they take advantage of that, they need to be put out of business and placed in prison for what they have done to people`s lives. 4 Reply

sjacobs Jimh77
May 9, 2013
It`s called life. It happens. Plan for it. FYI – banks don`t make money repossessing houses. 7 Reply

Jimh77 sjacobs
May 9, 2013
They sure do make more money. Do some home work. 2 4 Reply

worldscam Jimh77
May 9, 2013
The food stamp happy, free loading non- mortgage payers should all be put out on the street. This country is as pathetic as it gets. They should have received 0 money 6 Reply

Marty Meatball Jimh77
May 9, 2013
If you need two incomes to pay the mortgage then you bought too much house. 10 Reply

kcsue
May 9, 2013
Americans still getting screwed by Americans, the banking industry, the mortgage/banking industry, the Insurance industry, Wallstreet, most Finance, still screwing us 99ers over all the damn time, every day, how can these rotten, evil people sleep at night, we`ll crash again and again, they won`t learn how to be any way but greedy and evil!!! Got us all by our hard working toenails,……rotten!!! Shame, shame, shame on all you ladies and dudes working in the evil empires! You will get yours some day!!!! Reply

john smith
May 9, 2013
Wonder where the checks are for those people who bought responsibly and who paid their obligations on time ? Those that worked two or more jobs to pay their bills, those who didn`t go buy expensive autos, and toys, those who didn`t spend every single dime they made immediately. Those who didn`t continue to borrow more money every time they got a dime of equity in their home. 12 3 Reply

D Sc john smith
May 9, 2013
Don`t forget, that each house that was foreclosed upon had driven up the market for you at the time… Take heart though, the market will recover for you to sell when these nitwits finally recover their credit lines… Reply

e98201 john smith
May 9, 2013
I believe it`s called the mortgage interest tax deduction. 6 3 Reply

Plantiful e98201
May 9, 2013
still doesn`t make up for the next 20 year`s of paying that inflated mortgage principal. Banks got that locked up nice and tight. Reply

2lilkitty2
May 9, 2013
For some reason I am being blocked from posting on this forum. Is freedom of speech completely gone now? Reply

Underwater Ops
May 9, 2013
So the banks were told to pay the victims, and the payments are short. Who is surprised? Someone at the bank needs to start going to jail for these “mistakes”. 11 2 Reply

sjacobs Underwater Ops
May 9, 2013
Every time DOJ has tried to send someone to jail, 13 times in fact, they failed. Maybe the banks did not do anything wrong. Reply

This comment was deleted.
Jimbo Chief of Reef
May 9, 2013
look up the word arrogant in the dictionary Reply

motorfirebox Chief of Reef
May 9, 2013
Dude. You really ought to go back on your meds. Running around yelling at hallucinatory deadbeats is just embarrassing. 7 Reply

Mark Maysey Chief of Reef
May 9, 2013
You`re an idiot. 7 Reply

2lilkitty2
May 9, 2013
Stimulating the economy? Reply

Jackie Nichols
May 9, 2013
I really don`t understand this whole settlement thing. You sign a contract agreeing to pay a monthly mortgage, knowing full well that the consequence for not paying is foreclosure. You stop paying and the bank forecloses on you (surprise, surprise). Now exactly why are you entitled to a settlement? Seems to me that the only people short-changed are the ones who continued to live up to their responsibilities and paid their mortgage and now will get nothing. We are cultivating a culture where doing the wrong thing is more beneficial than doing the right thing. Someday we (or our children) will pay for that mistake. 16 3 Reply

Plantiful Jackie Nichols
May 9, 2013
Indeed there were a lot of stupid people with little income for the house they were purchasing. Banks, if they were properly managed would simply deny their request for a contract. But, with the bubble expanding at explosive speeds, everyone was making fast cash, pulling out equity and spending it. Banks were selling musical mortgages as packaged derivatives and credit default swaps insulating them from risk. Other countries were buying them up. Then the music stopped. Responsible people ended up absorbing the needlessly high costs of these houses (people need houses to live in). The poor were thrown out, and the banks keep their cash. Yeah, that happens, and no one goes to jail. Just don`t bounce a check. 2 Reply

Bennie b Jackie Nichols
May 9, 2013
Jackie You don`t understand the Obama bernacke world. If a person works hard saves and does the right thing they are punished. If a person buys a house they can`t afford they are great Americans and get rewarded 3 1 Reply

motorfirebox Jackie Nichols
May 9, 2013
Because there are rules, regulations, and laws on when and how your property can be foreclosed on. What I don`t understand is why you`re so concerned about the pittance that the banks are paying out. The banks caused massive damage to the economy by pursuing loans they knew wouldn`t be paid, and then selling financial instruments based on those loans as if they were good. The amount of damage caused by the actual liar loans is pitifully small–a few billion, maybe a hundred billion, tops. The amount of damage caused by the banks` fraud ranges into the trillions. And, unlike the people who took out liar loans, the banks PROFITED from the deal. 6 1 Reply

sjacobs motorfirebox
May 9, 2013
That pittance being paid out by banks is less money available for them to lend, pay shareholders a dividend, expand and most important really paid by everyone in the form of higher banking fees. 4 Reply

motorfirebox sjacobs
May 9, 2013
The pittance being paid out by the banks is a drop in the bucket compared to their profits. Man, I swear you conservatives have Stockholm Syndrome. “The banks beat us because they LOVE us!” 1 2 Reply

sjacobs motorfirebox
May 10, 2013
Most Americans are shareholders of these banks. These multi-million dollar pittances are coming at the expense of public and private pensions, mutual fund investors, cd holders and stock owners. Reply

motorfirebox sjacobs
May 10, 2013
Yes, and the financial fraud these banks engage in are coming at the expense of the ENTIRE REST OF THE FREAKING ECONOMY. This, here, is me playing the world`s tiniest violin for the banks. It is making the very saddest sound. Reply

sjacobs motorfirebox
May 10, 2013
If these folks committed fraud, where are the guilty findings in court? Better yet, where is the culpability of government for its role? Government created the market for the banks to make the loans and strongly encouraged the banks to make them. Reply

motorfirebox sjacobs
May 10, 2013
Wow, guy, you really don`t understand anything at all about this. Yes, Fanny and Freddy helped open the market for these loans. But you know what? There weren`t TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of loans made. So, the trillions of dollars of damage to the economy–where do you think that came from? I`ll tell you: it came from securitizing those loans and reselling them with a fruadulent AAA label. When the bottom fell out–as the lenders knew they would, having made the loans in the first place–the buyers lost big time. Where are the guilty verdicts? Well, as I said, it`s still in court. Though, of course, this particular instance of ratings fraud isn`t the only one. There`s the LIBOR scandal, for which multiple confessions of guilt have been secured (along with some laughably pathetic fines). There`s also the money laundering scandal, in which multiple banks have admitted moving literal boxes of cash for drug cartels, among other illegal activities. Honestly, at this point, if you aren`t aware of how insanely corrupt the banking industry is, you must either be living under a rock… or have voted for Romney. Reply

Daphne Perry sjacobs
May 9, 2013
The banks broke the law. They should pay. The money being paid will certainly be spent which will then go to business profits and also tax revenue. The US bailed out a lot of financial institutions and many of them are very profitable now. 2 Reply

sjacobs Daphne Perry
May 10, 2013
The DOJ went to court 13 times for alleged illegal activity by banks. They lost every time. Reply

Marty Meatball Jackie Nichols
May 9, 2013
Yup. Those of us who live frugally pay for those who don`t. 12 2 Reply

motorfirebox Marty Meatball
May 9, 2013
Dude, the least frugal–and most fraudulent–participants in our economy are the banks. 4 1 Reply

Marty Meatball motorfirebox
May 9, 2013
That may be or may not be the case but it`s irrelevant. People took loans beyond their means. Those who did not are footing the bill. 10 Reply

motorfirebox Marty Meatball
May 9, 2013
Uh, it kinda is relevant. The “bill” for those who took loans beyond their means is in the billions of dollars. The “bill” for the banks` financial shenanigans is in the TRILLIONS of dollars. And the banks made a profit, while those who took loans beyond their means are even further in the hole. 1 Reply

Daphne Perry Marty Meatball
May 9, 2013
Did you ever hear of predatory lending? The banks loaned money to everyone. A friend of mine said some were NINJA (No Income, No Justified Assets). The banks knew better. 1 Reply

sjacobs motorfirebox
May 9, 2013
Funny, the courts don`t agree with you. Reply

motorfirebox sjacobs
May 9, 2013
− …Actually, the courts do. That`s kinda what this article is about.

Tags:
May 12, 2013

Everyone who bought a property before 2008 is still paying for an inflated mortgage price

Funny how “mistakes” always mean shortfalls. If it was a mistake 50% of errors that occur should result in over payments. I`d call this an intentional accounting error. Even if they eventually make good the longer they can delay the payments is money in their pockets. 7 1 Reply

Suzann Anderson belseth
May 10, 2013
Yep, raking in the interest. 1 Reply

Blahblah
May 9, 2013
Waaaaaah, I stopped paying my mortgage and I expect a free handout because of it! Waaaaaah. 1 Reply

Red Poison
May 9, 2013
The banks have hijacked the United States. 12 1 Reply

Jim Walker Red Poison
May 10, 2013
Hijacked? The own the US and our government and have for a very long time. 2 Reply

MarcusLeonin Red Poison
May 9, 2013
The wealthy have always controlled the political life of this country, the Founders themselves were mostly, according to the standards of their times, very wealthy men of property. There has never been a time when great wealth wasn`t accompanied by disproportionate power and influence and that isn`t likely to change any time soon barring a Marxist Revolution and in that case it will just be another group of selfish elites with their power based on position within the party, not exactly an improvement given the history of such endeavors. 4 Reply

okiejoe MarcusLeonin
May 10, 2013
These men were the only people who had the leisure time to involve themselves in politics, most people had to work from dawn to dusk just to eat. They were also the only people with much education. Women, of course, were excluded because they were thought not to be capable of understanding. Reply

johno54 MarcusLeonin
May 10, 2013
Well this must be true especially when even Justice Thomas can make such a profound statement, things must be coming to a head.(the elites helped to put Obama in the White House) I`m about to head for the hills. Reply

Plantiful MarcusLeonin
May 9, 2013
Very true. Voting rights were reserved for white, male property owners originally. The Koch brothers are looking to take us back there. 6 Reply

Plantiful Red Poison
May 9, 2013
Banks and corporations….., thanks to the flawed Citizens United USSC judgement. Welcome to the United Corporations of America, “In Profit We Trust.” 8 2 Reply

johno54 Plantiful
May 10, 2013
You really must finish your statements Plantiful. “In profit we trust while subjugation is a must” 1 Reply

BedroomEyes
May 9, 2013
CORRUPT AMERICA AT IT`S FINEST ! ! 10 1 Reply

Hemlock
May 9, 2013
No surprise here folks! Where do our elected leaders invest their money? Banks, oil and real estate! keeping these crooks out of jail keeps their investments happy and prevents the dirt trail from getting too far up the food chain. 1 Reply

Laughin` out Loud
May 9, 2013
“Oops”……..effin` banks. 4 1 Reply

Mike
May 9, 2013
Ah Bankalism, not even crony capitalism can reach the levels of corruption caused by bankers. A bank should be there for loans only, when they literally have the power to crash the world economy, they have gotten too big. 4 Reply

j.reed Mike
May 9, 2013
Tell me about it bro! For all you who are ignorant(and I mean the definition of the word, and not trying to offend you) banks are >= to the federal reserve! Think about it, they can create money out of thin air!!! Except it is not tangible money, but only debt money. See, they got caught up in 2008. It is not a hard concept to grasp, but needs a better explanation then I can give here. I encourage everyone to look up the video “money as debt” it is a 3 part series, but explains so much! 3 Reply

Plantiful j.reed
May 9, 2013
The Fed has been printing $85 billion dollars a month and buying government bonds with this “money”. This is being done under the “quantitative easing,” and this printing has not indication of stopping anytime in the near future. Where is the inflation….? The DOW has been propped up nicely to over 15,000, but where is this great economy that is responsible for this soaring measure? It seems to be quite hollow. The media is not too interested in asking any questions. The CBC did a nice news piece on their “The National” program (29 April), called the Monarchs of Money. Google that with CBC and have a watch. At least Canada is aware of things. 3 Reply

j.reed Plantiful
May 9, 2013
Got ya, I know it is not our job to wake the sheeple……….but I do feel convicted on sharing knowledge. I mean, knowledge IS power. And power to the people!! 3 Reply

Plantiful
May 9, 2013
Everyone who bought a property before 2008 is still paying for an inflated mortgage price. Normally, once a bubble has burst, everyone stops paying the inflated prices. But, this does not happen with mortgages when you are locked in for 20-30 years. The only way that this should have been solved would to have ALL primary mortgage principals adjusted to what the values should have been, assuming a “normal` market. All of this money that responsible owners still have to pay is going to the banks instead of the general economy, thus hampering any recovery. The banks created this mess with their unqualified mortgage program, “Mortgages for everyone and anyone,” and the banks should now own up to it, and correct all 2000-2008 (?) mortgage holders by reducing principals. Investors who own these mortgages… well, investments carry risks. Too bad. The banks are still robbing the American public, focused on responsible people. Let`s get this fixed properly. 11 3 Reply

john smith Plantiful
May 9, 2013
Buying a house and expecting it to hold its value or go up in value is a risk. Ya lost, so man up, big boys !!! 3 Reply

Plantiful john smith
May 9, 2013
Responsible people buy a house they can afford to live in. It has also been considered a relatively safe place to put your money: better than giving your money for someone else`s mortgage (e.g. renting). Banks engineered this bubble knowing fully well that if they survived the pop, that they would have money secured in mortgage payments for 1-2 decades. Then our trusty corporate-owned government came in and saved them from their own stupidity and greed. Many investors lost money too with foreclosed mortgage contracts. The banks however, are doing quite well. Former U.S. Treasurer, Henry Paulson, was CEO of Goldman Sachs, and oddly enough Goldman came out of the wreckage unscathed. Gee, what a surprise. 6 Reply

Suzann Anderson Plantiful
May 10, 2013
Paulson should be in jail too. 1 Reply

Michael Wolf Plantiful
May 10, 2013
This whole issue was not due entirely to leanding to people that could not afford the initial payments. I don`t have numbers but think that the percentage of those lent money that shouldn`t have ever been considered is < 10% … the biggest problem was an overinflated market and rediculous ARMs … buyers didn`t understand that after 3 years, the interest rate was going to skyrocket, making the monthly payment unaffordable. I know someone that bought a house in 2004; payments were OK … 3 years later, her payments doubled, now out of her reach. So the buyers should have read the fine print. The lender should have ensured the buyer knew what they were signing. And lenders shouldn`t have packaged mortgages with derivatives. Enough blame to go around. Reply

MarcusLeonin Plantiful
May 9, 2013
No fan of the banks but saying that "everyone who bought a property before 2008 is still paying for an inflated mortgage price" is a bit of an exaggeration. My mortgage, payed off now, was originated in `96 and I can tell you I got a good deal on the house at reasonable rates and the house is still worth nearly 4x what I paid for it even after the bubble. If you bought after `02 in an inflated market what you say may be partially true but it doesn`t apply to everyone who bought in those years and it certainly doesn`t apply to people with older mortgages. Reply

Plantiful MarcusLeonin
May 9, 2013
The "before 2008" was further explained later, with a year 2000 estimate for the start of the bubble. Congratulations for paying your house off. Indeed, not everyone would get a great principal correction: we bought and sold along the way up the bubble, so we would get less of a correction than someone who bought at the peak of false value. This could easily be corrected with a proper algorithm, Reply

This comment was deleted.
Plantiful Chief of Reef
May 9, 2013
Got a house, it`s being paid for, got a job, kids, wife…. seems to be going pretty well. Can`t take any trips or vacations because the banks are taking some extra loot for their inflated profits. I don`t see any basis for "deadbeat" comments. 5 Reply

This comment was deleted.
Edward J. Ferraro Chief of Reef
May 9, 2013
lenders have a burden to bear as well, don`t lend to hundreds of millions of people who cannot pay, you will lose. unless of course your insured by the Federal government, and twist their arma bit.. that WAS the plan, wasn`t it? 1 Reply

Dustin Goldsen Chief of Reef
May 9, 2013
You tell`em Chief. Everyone should have known we as a nation would lose 8 million jobs and people would not be able to pay their bills. Why not? Republicans were controlling the entire government for more than two years. Same thing happened last time they did that, it was called the Great Depression. 4 1 Reply

Plantiful Chief of Reef
May 9, 2013
We needed a house, and we bought one. "Normally, once a bubble has burst, everyone stops paying the inflated prices. But, this does not happen with mortgages when you are locked in for 20-30 years." The is a long-term theft. 2 Reply

john smith Plantiful
May 9, 2013
If after you got the mortgage the value of the house skyrocketed, would you agree to pay the bank more money on the mortgage? That is the equal reverse of what you are wanting the bank to do. 2 1 Reply

Plantiful john smith
May 9, 2013
Neither I myself, nor a large collection of homebuyers has sufficient influence to alter house values to the extent that the banks have. They created this artificial home value / bubble crisis, and they profited quite nicely from it. If the value of my house increased rapidly (perhaps platinum studs, or some neighboring asset-laden creation….). that is real value. A bubble is an artificial value driven up by false market forces. if I sold my skyrocketing house value based on false claims of value, that is called fraud, and then there is a trial and then off to prison. They manipulated the market, creating high demand, creating more homes to meet demand, pushing prices up. Lots of money was made. Banks were also selling interest-only loans to buyers to keep the market moving, sometimes allowing for skipped payments. The banks own the property, and with its rapid rise, they made money just on owning the property, and having someone in it to increase demand. The issue is not who is paying whom for a change in value. It is who created the false values, which lead to the bubble. It was primarily banks with no lending standards. Anyone could apply to get an expensive property. That is the banks fault. 2 Reply

This comment was deleted.
Eric Swinson Chief of Reef
May 9, 2013
No it`s because you are a loser. CDs have never been good returns. They are only for people that want to lock their cash up for 60, 90, or 180 days at a time. 2 1 Reply

Plantiful Chief of Reef
May 9, 2013
Indeed I did, and we lost a good chunk of "equity," while i am still paying the bank for what the banks (no lending standards) and your "deadbeats" created: artificially high demand, over supply, and collapsed home values. In response, the Fed is keeping interest rates near zero and printing tons of cash ($85 billion every month), creating a future inflation and robbing everyone of their expected interest earnings. www[dot]cbc[dot]ca[slash]news[slash]world[slash]story[slash]2013[slash]04[slash]30[slash]f-rfa-macdonald-monarchs-money-secrecy[dot]html The Banks are still winning and doing great, however, with no one going to jail. No hearings, no trials. Nothing. 2 Reply

This comment was deleted.
Plantiful Chief of Reef
May 9, 2013
It is likely that many did not lie on their applications- i read reports of low-income people getting significant houses. Applications were simply not properly reviewed, then approved, put into a pool of high-risk mortgages, wrapped into a derivative pool where investors could buy them up selecting packages from low-risk to near-junk. Credit default swaps were being traded to eliminate risk of default for the banks, No risk with lots of money pouring in eliminates all forms of caution. Giving some money to these financially illiterate people (so that they can stay on the property) reduces foreclosures, which only further depress the market by lowering the neighbor`s property values. If principals were corrected, then more people could stay in their homes, (and if that did not help, then you are over-extended and out you go), more people could sell their homes, and the market would recover very quickly. if you are underwater, then you really do not want to sell your home, which freezes the market up. It`s a bloody mess when you really look at it. 1 Reply

enoughalready Plantiful
May 9, 2013
You are out of your mind 1 Reply

Plantiful enoughalready
May 9, 2013
I never said it was going to happen– too logical of a fix. Yes, I may be out of my mind thinking that this bubble could be fixed allowing the economy to recover at the banks` expense. That is crazy stuff. 2 1 Reply

Jimh77 Plantiful
May 9, 2013
Right on, finally a voice of knowledge rather than these folks that have no clue. Thank you. 3 Reply

Plantiful Jimh77
May 9, 2013
Indeed, and thanks. This will never happen, especially since the banks own the federal reserve and a good chunk of Congress. This kind of solution has to come from a huge mass of American public, with only a hope of being seen. There aren`t enough of us to do such, I don`t think. 3 Reply

Jimh77 Plantiful
May 9, 2013
I agree, I am really beginning to believe we really do need a revolution to reset America back to what it once was before all the corruption and greed we have now. It is just disgusting. 3 Reply

Mike Jimh77
May 9, 2013
− Don`t worry, a revolution will happen alright. One more crash and I promise you the people will rise up.

Tags:
May 12, 2013

Buying real estate has its risks

I lost an investment property. I had a 2 year ARM on it. After 2 years, I planned to sell it or refi into a conventional loan. I could do neither when the bubble popped. Sad part was I was able to maintain paying what I had been paying but the bank wouldn`t work with me. The bank could have continued to make money if they simply froze the rate. But they chose to lose money then have the government bail them out. 4 Reply

huh Joe Sixpack
May 10, 2013
Buying real estate has its risks. Had the market continued to climb no one would be complaining about their large mortgages. Banks are a business and if you don`t feel like the house is worth the price then don`t pay for it. Otherwise it seems like some people think its like buying something from Walmart with a return policy. I know a guy who bought a town house for around 300K. Then when the market shot up around 2006 his value went to over 400K. He then took out a 90K home equity loan. Then around 2008 when the market crashed he put the property up for a shortsale. Do you see the problem with this? 1 Reply

some dude huh
May 10, 2013
I see that either he shouldn`t have been given a loan to begin with OR just because the property value decreased he gave up on paying what he could already afford. 1 Reply

huh some dude
May 10, 2013
Yes and this is one of the problems of the housing crash. As long as you have at least 20% equity, banks will give you a home equity loan. My “friend” got a free 90K by cheating the system. Im sure a lot of other people did the same thing. Reply

MikeNY1111 Joe Sixpack
May 10, 2013
So your plan didn`t work. Why is that anyone else`s problem? And you took a 2 year arm?? Huh?? and it didnt work out with the terms tou agreed to and you wanted to renegotiate. But they sidnt want to change the terms?? SO WHAT. That risk is your risk. You lost. Your problem. Investing is a risk. If there was no risk involved everyone would be doing it and making money. Reply

shexbends
May 10, 2013
I was not foreclosed, I made my payments regularly throughout the crash. I was underwater for a while too. Send me a check for being a good guy. 22 2 Reply

some dude shexbends
May 10, 2013
Do you feel superior? Reply

rp518dan shexbends
May 10, 2013
There was an inverse relationship between income and the likelihood of walking away from a home that was way underwater. Paying off a 500k mortgage on a house appraised at 300k, with scant hope for imprpve.ent in sight, is a bad decision–from a financial point of view. The wealthy are wealthy because they know how to cut their losses. I`m glad you came through it OK. 3 Reply

some dude rp518dan
May 10, 2013
Even if the home is underwater, what difference does it make as long as you like the home and plan on staying in it. The only reason being underwater would matter is if you had planned on selling it within a year, and then it`s too bad so sad. Reply

VIC_MORROWS_HEAD
May 10, 2013
Thought Crime Here Reply

Bruce Thompson
May 10, 2013
It is not a crime. It is banks doing business. You are the criminal for arguing. NWO. 3 2 Reply

capjack
May 10, 2013
Getting paid because you couldn`t/wouldn`t pay your bills… Where do I sign up? Oh and I loved this part, “Some early recipients of settlement payments took the checks to check-cashing stores and had trouble cashing them. ” Check cashing stores? Great idea, let`s pay 45 – 60 dollars to cash a $1500 check. 9 6 Reply

some dude capjack
May 10, 2013
And so the banks are rewarded for fraudulent business practices??? Reply

Guest
May 9, 2013
Barney Frank should be in jail along with Bernie Madoff. 16 6 Reply

kevin tate Guest
May 10, 2013
It was the buffoon Bush admin who allowed the banking / investment industry to run like criminals for 8yrs,,,,, 4 Reply

Regnad
May 9, 2013
OH, they got caught 3 Reply

Vincent Wolf
May 9, 2013
Legalized theft by the banks. Who would have thunk it? 23 1 Reply

juicebab1 .
May 9, 2013
While the check is in the mail, bubble#2 is brewing. Wonder who`ll be left holding the bag this time. 7 1 Reply

Plantiful juicebab1 .
May 9, 2013
Indeed it is… brought to you by Quantitative Easing. Stock market is already overinflated with cheap cash. When that goes down, that will finish off anything in those 401k “retirement” accounts, reducing security, reducing home sales (which will lower value further), and reduce capital gains. I wonder if that will be enough to cause some collections of large amounts of people, angry at these financial extortions, to really take some significant actions. Occupy Wall Street may have just been an appetizer. This would be an entree selection. Then you have the idiot Paul Ryan wanting us to invest what`s left of our Social inSecurity money into the stock market…. proposing this after the crash. How stupid and disconnected can you really be? “Ebedibedibedi dat`s all folks!” (Porky Pig closing Looney Toons) 9 2 Reply

Tigrr1
May 9, 2013
Seven years of banking hell, and still no arrests. Congress must resign. No more corporate bought-and-owned politicans. No more Corporate Nazism. 18 1 Reply

Burrito Jackson Tigrr1
May 9, 2013
Clinton passed the bill to lend to people without money. It is the law and you cannot arrest anyone. 3 Reply

Martin Wiescholek Burrito Jackson
May 10, 2013
The Bill that Clinton passed had meat and checks and balances. It worked great for 5 years until Bush came and loosened banking regulations in 2003. That is when the frenzy started and the money started rolling. Once they were allowed to get rid of the mortgages they were supposed to hold under Fanny/Freddie. Which let to no really looking at the quality of the application, fast tracking applications and even switching mortgage applications from regular applications to no money-down applications with cash back at closing. It made the lenders more money so they did it because who will complain at the closing table that they are receiving a check back for buying a house. If you know Fanny and Freddie programs you know that the original regulations were not easy. You had to have a job, you had to put little money down and you had to show responsible money management. Yes you did not have to be a millionaire to buy a house, you could be lower middle class, but very few of these loans in the early program were foreclosures. In fact they were less than average because people were vetted properly. 6 Reply

stoshie Burrito Jackson
May 9, 2013
And Bush pushed Fannie and Freddie to loosen their lending requirements. Remember his Ownership Society? No? I guess that is what blind partisanship does to one`s ability to look at issues objectively, eh. 12 1 Reply

kevin tate stoshie
May 10, 2013
Hey Buffoon, did you miss the headline about Fannie and Freddie suit over the banks and winning hundreds of billions……. Reply

Suzann Anderson stoshie
May 10, 2013
Nope. Bush did not do that and you are a liar! Clinton STARTED all of the “everyone should be able to participate in home ownership, regardless of their ability to pay.” BUSH tried on several occasions to warn Fan and Fred that things were getting dicey, not to loosen requirements by any means. He was told by Frank and Dodd, who were lining their own pockets and should be in jail, everything was peachy. They too, are liars. 3 Reply

rp518dan Suzann Anderson
May 10, 2013
Banks were redlining neighborhoods and Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Stegal as part of the compromise to end that practice. The banks took the lax regulations and practiced rampant fraud. That was not what Clinton expected. Reply

Guest stoshie
May 9, 2013
Barny Frank belongs in jail. He crashed the banking system a year after he took chairmanship of the banking industry. 3 4 Reply

moreover504 Guest
May 10, 2013
As does Chris Dodd. 2 1 Reply

drake666 Guest
May 10, 2013
LOL The banking crash was already inevitable in 2000. After the dot-com bubble burst and all the cash moved, there was no way to stop the crash. I`m still not sure if it would have been better to force an early (smaller) crash or if recovering from the dot-com crash and 9/11 first was the right decision. 3 Reply

john smith
May 9, 2013
I`m a deadbeat. Where is my check? And it better damn well be for the right amount !!! 2 5 Reply

Badly-Bent john smith
May 10, 2013
You must work in the mortgage industry Reply

johno54 john smith
May 10, 2013
First you have to have your house taken from you by a bank or mortgage institution,(white collar home invasion) Then you have to become destitute ( social genocide like the sequestration) and if enough people raise a stink about it maybe, maybe, the bank might give you back some thing ( possession is nine tenths of the law) So john smith “dead beat”, how would you like such a travesty to take place in your life because it would not be a bad idea to see them dispossessing you of your toys including your MR15… because I know in your psychopathic mind this is a reasonable alternative for you ( plucking your gun from your cold dead hands) 2 Reply

tryityoulllike it john smith
May 9, 2013
Working your whole life, paying all your bills, paying your taxes, losing your job and then losing everything does not make you a deadbeat, idiot. Oh, I meant Republican. 4 Reply

This comment was deleted.
Plantiful Jennifer J. Meikle
May 9, 2013
Jennifer is hot. I wonder what her co-worker`s sister is doing on the internet….. Let`s see now… a check for $13,531 / 86 = 157 hours (per month). That`s a “few hours” ? 2 Reply

bobpitt Plantiful
May 10, 2013
Does she shaves? Reply

jpurse
May 9, 2013
the funny thing is the settlement amount was literally pulled out of thin air because it would be to much work to calculate a fair amount and most people got $300 checks that bounced 6 Reply

happyRNCrip
May 9, 2013
The people need to show up at their banks with ropes and pitchforks.Thats the only way these bankers are going to change their evil money grubbing ways. 6 1 Reply

Steven CaboWabo happyRNCrip
May 9, 2013
But the people working at those local banks normally dont make these decisions. 2 Reply

Tigrr1 Steven CaboWabo
May 9, 2013
It wasn`t Hitler or his generals that trashed Europe – it was all the bankers, car makers, workers and soldier who supported the clowns that did it. Same goes for today. Germans at Neuremburg trials, said they `were just doing their jobs.” 2 Reply

johno54 Tigrr1
May 10, 2013
Very insightful but somewhere in there you forgot to include that Hitler was the catalyst that caused this catastrophe. Whichever way you want to take it, Hitler was the head cook and bottle washer, so stop rinsing this spawn of hell. Right now I`m beginning to think that because the state department was responsible for bringing many of Hitler`s helpers here to help with our space program we now have to contend with our own home grown Neo Nazis, and guess where many of these Neo Nazis antecedents come from? “anyone for a cup of tea” Reply

rp518dan johno54
May 10, 2013
The governments of France and England loved him in the mid thirties. He received widespread financial support from America`s wealthy in getting to power and in the Spanish Civil War. Franco, was loved by the Republicans until the day he died and he was an ally in the same fascist movement as Mussolini and Hitler. Reply

Michael Wolf Tigrr1
May 10, 2013
Sure, go after the noncoms while the generals get off? The decisions are made at the top and carried out by the middle and lower end. I refute your assertion … it WAS Hitler, et al, that trashed Europe. Don`t go after the noncoms for doing their job … they have no choice. 4 Reply

rp518dan Michael Wolf
May 10, 2013
I don`t agree. Hitler told people that they were better than other people and that those other people should suffer. His followers agreed and gleefully watched and helped create misery for millions of human beings. It wasn`t Hitler that made WW2 so horrid– it was all the little Hitlers on all sides of that conflict. Reply

This comment was deleted.
johno54 Chief of Reef
May 10, 2013
Yow Reef, If you`re going to use such a large brush to paint the situation at least try and paint between the lines. You should have learned that from kindergarten. 1 Reply

R. DuFresne Chief of Reef
May 10, 2013
Been in my house 19 years and got laid off my job, how is that a lie on my mortgage agreement made when I was fully employed. Must be nice to never have tragedy enter your life but for the rest of us we do best we can to keep ahead of the stupid and greedy. Your casual dismissal or clumping of all facing this issue just high lights your small mind and narrow focus on issues.

May 12, 2013

96,000 borrowers shortchanged in mortgage settlement

Bill CLinton and ANDREW EVIL EYES CUOMO are responsible for the housing mess. CUOMO pushed the money to those who could not afford. FREE MONEY!!!!! now CUOMO wants to be Prez after he unilaterally destroyed the Second Amendment too? EVIL EYES should be strung up by his neck and swing for eternity. The buzzards should pick his bones clean. 2 1 Reply

TexMan GENUG
May 10, 2013
You are crazy as a sh. .1t house rat. Reply

Kyle Moore
May 10, 2013
Whats the point the banks are in cahoots with the polaticians, and the polaticians will do just enough to appease the masses, and pretend like they care, they will steal 100,000 in equity, and buy off enough of the poupulation with $1000 penalites from people that got 200,000 bonuses, to make you think they are going after the banks, and the funny part is they will pay you the 1000 with money they took from you and called a stimules, or bail out. It`s funny if you think about it, who says crime doesn`t pay. 1 Reply

Charles Houston
May 10, 2013
Lawyers 1 taxpayers and homeowners 000 3 Reply

David Blackburn
May 10, 2013
These financial institutions are crooks much like those who came up with this settlement! 4 Reply

Charles Gustafson
May 10, 2013
Just like Bankruptcy Trustees, Rust Consulting is in league with the banks. Never, ever trust a lawyer or a JUDGE who is a Bankruptcy Trustee. 3 Reply

Terry Seligman Charles Gustafson
May 10, 2013
Well said! Most people dont know but bankruptcy trustees are paid a percentage of all cash and property they oversee. If you file bankruptcy they get at least 10% of all your property regardless of whats owed on it and 10% of all cash they make you come up with. All with the blessing of a bankruptcy judge and court ordered Reply

Scott Gourley
May 10, 2013
LOLOLOL. And Republicans keep saying, “trust the banks! trust the corporations! NO regulations! Let them run free and wild!” LOL just wow. People like to be raped and reraped by the suits, I guess. Just DO NOT come crying to ME when corporations and the rich steal every single penny you are worth including your home, either legally or not-so legally. Just remember, us liberals WARNED YOU. 4 1 Reply

Sherri McKee
May 10, 2013
What redress is due those ( myself included) who paid the high interest loans, sometimes @ 3 times the stated length of the loan. Tried to have it re-written; oh no , just borrow more money. Totally deaf ears. The real estate loan industry in this country still has a really sweet deal- and when you do comply, in essence you are lining their pocket with the money that those who did not make their payments cost them. `No financial gain`? Really? Reply

Kyle Moore
May 10, 2013
The justice department will fix this, Got a letter yesterday, if I am black or Hispanic, I get another $9,000 if NOT I get nothing, seems the Justice department is taking a stand against the banks, and possible racism, but it`s OK for them to be racist when they do it. 5 1 Reply

EGB2
May 10, 2013
And the people who took out the “risky” loans bear no responsibility for their stupidity? They`re not children. They got someone else`s money, which they never paid back. 4 2 Reply

some dude EGB2
May 10, 2013
And absolutely no responsibility lies with the banks for knowingly giving out fraudulent loans??? Feeling a bit superior. 3 Reply

ironman59
May 10, 2013
For those complaining about people not paying, that is not the issue. Nobody would disagree they should pay their mortgage. However when a situation arises where they get behind or are working through to a resolution the lenders cannot simply by-pass all of the laws because they are inconvenient. There is a due process in a bankruptcy or foreclosure but the lenders cut out most of that taking away the legal due process of the borrower. Learn to know the difference between a true deadbeat and a business violating the law. 10 Reply

Doris Lesser
May 10, 2013
First it you paid your mortgage on time you. You would not be in foreclosure Second why would you take a check to a place that charges you to cash it. You take it to the bank or credit union where you have an account. 4 1 Reply

Sherry Omalley Doris Lesser
May 10, 2013
THERE WERE MANY WHO NEVER MISSED A SINGLE PAYMENT, BUT TRYING TO NEGOTIATE LOWER MORTGAGE, AS UNDERWATER, STILL ILLEGALLY FORECLOSED ON 3 Reply

tony3055
May 10, 2013
Lawyers run this nation. Pure and simple. 3 Reply

EGB2
May 10, 2013
How shocking that people who borrow money actually are expected to pay it back. Whoever heard of such a thing? The bank doesn`t get any of the upside if house values go up. It`s really not the bank`s responsibility if values instead go down, or if people buy more house than they can afford. Take some personal responsibility for once. 7 2 Reply

tiz_walstib EGB2
May 10, 2013
LOL@ your complete lack of understanding of the role that Goldman and others played in crashing the values of homes via credit default swaps that were essentially bets against the market while at the same time encouraging lenders to make ever riskier loans to consumers. Also LOL@ your lack of understanding that the TRILLIONS of bailouts (US taxpayer funds) went to pay off the institutional and sovereign investors that were ripped off by Goldman et al. The institutions have been made whole and then some—- as evidenced by the DOW breaking 15,000—- while Joe Sixpacks around the world have been saddled with austerity. 6 Reply

tony3055
May 10, 2013
Arrest the mortgage companies and Bank CEO`s for thievery and robbery. 8 Reply

apod
May 10, 2013
so I should expect another check? I hope so..nothing will give me back my home but I do expect them to pay for their mistake. 2 Reply

datc192
May 10, 2013
Carter (CRA), Clinton (put CRA on steroids), Dodd & Frank (lied to everyone), ACORN (protested by blocking customers from getting into banks demanding banks give loans to people who were super high risk saying it is everyone`s right to own a home) and Fannie and Freddie are the main causes of the housing market collapse. Also, just the government getting involved in the first place is another major cause. 8 2 Reply

Roo
May 10, 2013
No one forced them to procure a loan. The concept of a borrower being “owed” anything is ludicrous. 6 1 Reply

ironman59 Roo
May 10, 2013
That is correct but if the lenders agree to issue the loan then they must follow the laws in place, that includes during banktruptcy or foreclosure proceedings. The issue is they failed to follow those laws and allow the legal process to proceed in full. 3 Reply

tony3055 Roo
May 10, 2013
Both parties are at fault. Loaning money knowingly with false pretenses even when you know they would be incapable to pay back and people borrowing knowing they cannot pay back. 2 Reply

nytw
May 10, 2013
There is no reason that people that were stup1d enough to buy a house they could not afford should be getting any money from banks or the government. It is time for those people to grow up and accept some personal responsibility. No wonder America is becoming more liberal and socialist by the day. 10 2 Reply

J T
May 10, 2013
3.6 billion? we should demand $100 billion. 2 Reply

Badly-Bent
May 10, 2013
I lost my home and my $58,000 down payment in 2011. I got this settlement check for $400.00. And printed on the check was a statement that there is no ability to appeal the amount. A significant part of the settlement money is being siphoned off somewhere. 6 Reply

Justin Dragovich Badly-Bent
May 10, 2013
I got a check for $300 and on the note it basically said “by cashing this check you are not waiving your right to sue. You may still pursue other means of settlement” It was from US Bank Reply

Charles Gustafson Badly-Bent
May 10, 2013
Siphoned to Rust Consulting. Reply

J T Badly-Bent
May 10, 2013
it`s siphoned off to the lawyers and lawyers who act as the trustee. duhhhh! 1 Reply

Joe Smith
May 10, 2013
I`m one of the short changed. I`m totally outraged that this would happen. I bought a house 3 times the size of my old one, made the first couple payments with no problem, then lived in the house while it was in foreclosure for over 2 more years, as the property kept losing value, because I was a victim of mortgage fraud. My check was for around $100k, which coverted my monetary loses, but they told me I`d be getting an additional $50k-100k as punitive compensation to deal with my emotional distress and mental anguish from the fraud, and that amount never came. I since bought a house about the same size at the one when I was the victim of mortgage fraud, but for a fraction of the price, I hope to turn this for a huge profit in a few years. 2 Reply

EGB2 Joe Smith
May 10, 2013
You should have gotten nothing. Don`t borrow money if you can`t pay it back. 6 1 Reply

some dude EGB2
May 10, 2013
Being a victim of mortgage fraud?? Reply

Gerald Abrahamson Joe Smith
May 10, 2013
You used to own a small mobile home. Your newly-purchased used double-wide was resided with stucco to get a higher value–you did it yourself. That explains everything…. 6 1 Reply

kevin tate
May 10, 2013
and the buffoon Bush admin just keeps on giving…..I`m thinking Bush`s economic cesspool has surpassed the other Buffoon GOP Reagan before he left the WH…. 7 1 Reply

Allan New kevin tate
May 10, 2013
you need to go back where this started look it up CLINTON 2 Reply

Krehator
May 10, 2013
I thought big business regulates itself???????? lol 10 Reply

rp518dan Krehator
May 10, 2013
They do. Whether you are their customer or shareholder, their regulation is “heads we win, tails you lose”. 4 Reply

J Hall rp518dan
May 10, 2013
More like “heads we win, tails we win.” 2 Reply

kevin tate
May 10, 2013
..Anyone seen those Buffoon Anti-OWS GOP dimwits lately……. 4 Reply

MnFatts kevin tate
May 10, 2013
“Anti-OWS”? There`s still one of you left? WOW! 2 Reply

Martin Wiescholek
May 10, 2013
So wait, they foreclosed on people they were not allowed to foreclose who were essentially protected from foreclosure under the law. They whipped their behinds with the laws that protect consumers from aggressive tactics of financial institution. They paid a small amount of money into a pool and paid off people for them breaking the law with a few breadcrumbs. $31,000 when you lost your home that you may have had a good chunk of equity in it? May have put people to live on the street for a while. May have depressed some to commit suicide. But more importantly, apparently laws do no apply to banks. They can break them, abuse their clients, do whatever they want and then….say sorry, pay a little and no have to go to jail like anybody else. I think this new thinking should go either way. I should then be allowed to walk into a bank, rob it, steal from them $100,000 and create a settlement fund, say sorry and repay them $10,000 and of course keep the rest and not go to jail or even face prosecution. 14 3 Reply

TaxLoyr Martin Wiescholek
May 10, 2013
A banker with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns. To paraphrase Mario Puzo in The Godfather. 2 Reply

rp518dan Martin Wiescholek
May 10, 2013
If you did that as a corporation boardmember, they`d remove you for thinking small. 2 Reply

MnFatts Martin Wiescholek
May 10, 2013
Or….you should be able to go into a bank, borrow a couple hundred grand, not pay them back, and receive a settlement because of a technicality, then act like a high school girl that`s been felt up on prom night! 7 Reply

a123a
May 10, 2013
What do you expect? A company that is so incompetent that it cannot execute a mortgage properly screwed up while fixing their initial problem. I wouldn`t be suprised if 200k people received more than they should have also. 2 Reply

MikeNY1111
May 10, 2013
So many people couldn`t afford the home they bought. So many people didn`t think that paying home equity loans were ever going to be a problem in the future. But where is the personal responsibility?? Yea there are a few cases where there were obvious wrongs with foreclosure……but billions worth of relief??? They got into trouble and didn`t pay……why is that the taxpayer responsibility?? No consequences=it`s gonna happen again. Deadbeats. And please save your bleeding heart cr*ap. One conversation with half of these borrowers would probably make you sick from stupidity. 7 1 Reply

TechnoBarb MikeNY1111
May 10, 2013
Right, but it was OK to bail out the corporations. Just reading your post makes me question evolution. Chump. 4 Reply

rp518dan MikeNY1111
May 10, 2013
Feeling better now? The number one reason people lose their homes is that one of the wage earners in the household gets sick. The fact is that you just heaped derision on people whose lives were ruined by illness. Feeling superior to other people is the problem behind the problem. It`s why we don`t have good healthcare. It`s why people buy houses that are too expensive. It is why the wealthy consider money to be points they accrue to measure their self worth and it is why they despise the middle class and have trained the middle class to despise the poor. 6 Reply

Roo rp518dan
May 10, 2013
It`s called mortgage insurance.

May 12, 2013

California announced a lawsuit against JPMorgan

Vulnerable? What are you talking about. Any bank is more than willing to explain rules and regulations? You just have to be smart enough to ask what they are. 1 Reply

truthb4allelse Blake Krukiel May 11, 2013
This is true, yet they still find a way to manipulate the borrowers into predictable in their eyes catch 22`s! If your out to support what they do then don`t complain about the economy ….. Reply

sunny5280 truthb4allelse
May 9, 2013
Let`s assume, for the sake of argument, they`re criminal. Why are people still doing business with them? 1 Reply

truthb4allelse sunny5280 May 11, 2013
Are you so blind that you can`t follow what has happened to those people??? Are you that in the dark??? Maybe stick to easier blogs that you can understand! Reply

truthb4allelse sunny5280
May 9, 2013
Frankly I don`t know why. I sure don`t but people are free to burn their money anywhere they want to or simply get burned;) 1 Reply

sunny5280 truthb4allelse
May 9, 2013
Then people need to stop complaining about them. Let`s assume for the sake of argument these people didn`t know before. They should now. If they choose to do business with them now they have no right to complain. 2 Reply

sunking
May 9, 2013
She doesn`t look like the hottest AG in that photo. Face looks kinda flat. I think Obama lied to us. 7 3 Reply

Hellfire1968
May 9, 2013
Remember when local banks were your friend and helpful to the community? They fostered growth for whole neighborhoods, cities, states and the nation. Not JPM or Goldman Sachs – they will find every way possible to skim money from your hard labor. States should Unite against these crooked institutions – We are supposed to be the “United States” of America. 8 Reply

MrSmartyAss Hellfire1968
May 9, 2013
Right, support your local credit union or small local or regional bank. Reply

sunny5280 Hellfire1968
May 9, 2013
Skim money? You mean trying to collect the money they loaned you which you`re not paying back? 10 2 Reply

Hellfire1968 sunny5280
May 9, 2013
Hey Colorado – it is the cumulative fees like withdrawing money from my account, cashing a check, monthly check fees, skimming on interest rates on savings and the ultimate fee – the lollipop fee ( for suckers!!!) !!! 4 Reply

oddjob3422 Hellfire1968
May 9, 2013
Sure, and none of these people agreed to these terms…oh, but wait, they most certainly did, and the fact that they did is what allows these credit card companies to allow the responsible members of society to have a grace period and not pay any service fee. You don`t like the terms? Don`t open the account. Find a better competitor. Go to a credit union. To complain and cry and stamp your feet, after the fact, that the terms aren`t “fair” is ludicrous. 2 1 Reply

sunny5280 Hellfire1968
May 9, 2013
Withdrawing money from your account? Is it your assertion they just randomly pull money out of your account? If so I would contact regulators immediately. Cashing a check? Isn`t that what banks are supposed to do…cash checks? Monthly check fees? Did you buy your checks on an installment plan? What is skimming on interest rates on savings? 2 Reply

Blake Krukiel sunny5280
May 9, 2013
Sunny. These people have no clue 1 Reply

sunny5280 Blake Krukiel
May 9, 2013
That`s an understatement🙂 I`d love to see all these people faulting the banks loan the people they`re defending money and how they would respond when it`s not paid back. 2 Reply

oddjob3422 sunny5280
May 9, 2013
I was going to say that. To say that it is an understatement is itself an understatement. There is no stopping someone who signs up for an account, and runs the card up from bleating about how unfair it is once they are asked to pay back the balance, or live up to the terms they agreed to. 2 1 Reply

TexansAFC
May 9, 2013
California desperate for money, any way they can get it. What a disaster of a state, 7 3 Reply

disqus_Im4OiQpCsG
May 9, 2013
Run up the credit card ! Debt will be bailed out ! Ben fire up that printing press more debt coming ! 1 2 Reply

sunny5280
May 9, 2013
Why are we so quick to protect those who are not repaying money they borrowed? While I agree the law should be followed I`m tired of hearing about how deadbeats are being mistreated by those trying to collect money legally owed to them. 6 2 Reply

geggyg sunny5280
May 9, 2013
So you wouldn`t be unhappy with JP Morgan if they sued you unpaid debts , even if you weren`t actually behind in payments . What if they didn`t tell you they were suing you and one day you open the mail and their is court judgement against you all because the paperwork is robo signed and the paperwork not checked properly . How would you feel if this happened when you were trying to get a loan to expand your business or your business overdraft was withdrawn causing your business to close down. Not everyone can afford to sue a bank when things like this happens These sort of the things happened many times during the wave of home foreclosures . This is why banks should have to follow the law , otherwise all consumer protections might as well be repealed , why have laws if they aren`t enforced 8 Reply

sunny5280 geggyg
May 9, 2013
“These sort of the things happened many times…” Supporting evidence please. I`m not denying there are legitimate cases of error. But I suspect the vast majority were people who weren`t repaying. “What if they didn`t tell you they were suing you and one day you open the mail and their is court judgement against you…” That would be the failing of the court to notify me of pending legal action. Regardless if I weren`t repaying money I borrowed I shouldn`t be surprised. 1 2 Reply

Emitr sunny5280
May 9, 2013
Nobody is protecting California`s residents from the obligation to repay their debts under the law. They are holding banks accountable to collect debt repayments lawfully, without committing fraud. 10 1 Reply

Blake Krukiel Emitr
May 9, 2013
How does a bank commit fraud here? They are simple waiting to receive payment of credit debt and never receive it. The courts are the ONLY avenues for the bank to take to reclaim the money they are owed. This is like 2nd grade logic. I don`t understand the difficulty. Reply

sunny5280 Emitr
May 9, 2013
Yes, that`s what they`re doing under the guise of “holding the banks accountable”. 1 Reply

Emitr sunny5280
May 9, 2013
I could as easily say that you wish to protect banks from being prosecuted for committing fraud, under the guise of holding debtors accountable. But neither the lender nor the debtor are outside the law, and I, for one, am quite happy to see lenders held accountable to it in this case. Reply

T4TFish
May 9, 2013
Rumor has it that all financial institutes are trying to maximize their profits. We should put an end to this and make them all government entities. History shows this is a winning formula, right? 3 Reply

Hard Little Machine
May 9, 2013
I say we give California another 20 billion dollars so they can give it to CALPERS to blow on risky speculative investments such as these JP Morgan loans and mortgages. Oh the irony. 2 Reply

BOhasFailed
May 9, 2013
Harris looks like one of those angry women who is having a bad period. Wonder what she has done anything worthwhile in her life? 3 6 Reply

Blake Krukiel BOhasFailed
May 9, 2013
I don`t agree with her But I`d still tap that Reply

Emitr BOhasFailed
May 9, 2013
She has brought charges of fraud against a major bank. Charging banks for defrauding state residents is worthwhile, to the extent that the justice system is. 8 1 Reply

Albert D`Alligator BOhasFailed
May 9, 2013
Funny; I was thinking I could ask you the same question… 7 1 Reply

drkent3 BOhasFailed
May 9, 2013
“great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people” – Eleanor Roosevelt. 13 Reply

BOhasFailed drkent3
May 9, 2013
“You be a worthless Obama parasite!” – BOhasFailed. Reply

drkent3 BOhasFailed
May 9, 2013
If you knew anything about my politics, you would realize that you just revealed yourself to be a complete i-diot. I`m guessing you are immune to self-reflection (and intelligent thought), however… 1 Reply

BOhasFailed
May 9, 2013
Wonder what office the Obama bimbo will be running for? 4 5 Reply

The Judge
May 9, 2013
They`re Banks! Their whole being and operation is Fraud! They have created their own laws perpetrated against the American People (and others around the world) since they were known as “Money Changers” and directly affect US through the not so Federal, Federal Reserve act of 1913. Come on! Really! You knew you were born into this Pyramid Scheme! Did you really think cloth paper with green ink and numbers on it has any value! 8 1 Reply

oddjob3422 The Judge
May 9, 2013
Why did those people use those credit cards and run up those debts? I swear people are completely off their rockers. If you go and buy something, you should pay back the borrowed money. If you don`t like the terms, don`t accept them. How it became legitimate in mainstream America to just refuse to pay your debts and cry like a 3 year old that it isn`t fair is beyond my comprehension. If these consumers don`t owe the money, they will not lose these lawsuits. 3 Reply

enoughalready oddjob3422
May 9, 2013
FINALLY, someone who makes sense: “How it became legitimate in mainstream America to just refuse to pay your debts and cry like a 3 year old that it isn`t fair is beyond my comprehension.” I couldn`t agree more. It`s time for individuals to take responsibility for their actions and quite blaming everyone else. 2 Reply

disqus_Im4OiQpCsG The Judge
May 9, 2013
make banks accountable .. Jail the CEOs for fraud ….don`t just bailout …. 5 Reply

WJM980 The Judge
May 9, 2013
Yes, let`s nationalize them all; that will solve everything. 2 Reply

MW WJM980
May 9, 2013
Nationalizing banks will solve the problem of robo-signing, failing to notify, failing to redact documents, etc. Umm, have you ever seen how any and every government office or agency operates? The abuses would be tenfold. 2 Reply

Greg0311 MW
May 9, 2013
Because the government would NEVER do something unethical, inefficiently, or in a crappy manner. /sarcasm off Edit: Replied to the wrong person, my apologies. 1 Reply

MW Greg0311
May 9, 2013
− It`s all good, I knew what you meant. I just don`t understand how people think that government is the answer. They need a history lesson.

May 12, 2013

JP is at it again

JP is at it again? 2 Reply

Chizzlin` Sam
May 9, 2013
Sorry Uncle Sam sent your Social Security money to Iraq and Afghanistan– if you want it back give KARZAI a ring… Reply

oddjob3422
May 9, 2013
If those people legitimately owe that money, whining that the documents were “robo-signed” is nothing but pure tripe. It`s crying over not being awarded free money on a technicality. Real fraud, by commission, has to have some illegitimacy to the substantive issue. 5 6 Reply

Joe Williams oddjob3422
May 9, 2013
Sorry that`s not how it works. We have laws and legitimate legal procedures to ensure peoples RIGHTS are respected – and NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. 3 1 Reply

oddjob3422 Joe Williams
May 9, 2013
How is there a substantive difference between this so called “robo-signing” and signing the same documents, with the same truths behind them, following all the red tape? If the procedures aren`t legitimate, that can come out in the lawsuit. It`s like somebody getting out of a speeding ticket because the cop wrote down the wrong time. It has nothing to do with the substance. Reply

Blake Krukiel Joe Williams
May 9, 2013
So why do these people not have to repay their loans. Isn`t it right that NO ONE is above the law? 5 1 Reply

Emitr Blake Krukiel
May 9, 2013
Who said they didn`t have to repay their loans? No one. 1 Reply

Dustin Goldsen Blake Krukiel
May 9, 2013
We don`t have debtor prison. We do have laws regarding debt and bankruptcy. If someone violates them, then the state can make their case. Reply

Blake Krukiel Dustin Goldsen
May 9, 2013
Correct and tax payers fit the bill for this. I wish you idiots would understand; when people take money and don`t pay it back. It doesn`t hurt jpmorgan. It`s hurts the tax payer. You people probably do not pay taxes, therefore having no sense as to how sad it is to witness this news. Reply

durm_dude oddjob3422
May 9, 2013
But you know what, if Jamie D. and his lackeys accidentally put your name on a robo form would you just pay it and quit whining? Kind of don`t think so. Rules are there for a reason to make sure that the proper amount is collected from the correct person. Companies can`t just ignore the rules or take short cuts because doing it properly would take time. Reply

Blake Krukiel
May 9, 2013
Here`s your sign!!!! People in Cali can`t pay their debt, cry when they are called out on it, and this chick sues the loaning agent. THAT MAKES ALOT OF SENSE! Lol Well probably in California people are like, “what you mean I actually have to pay for all that stuff I bought w/my credit card?” And the California answer is, “hopefully the judge is as stupid as we are and will rule in our favor so you won`t have to worry about it.” No wonder the lights go out over there so much. No one knows how to screw in a light bulb. 10 6 Reply

cjacja Blake Krukiel
May 9, 2013
If the banks filed fruadlent documents and broke the law, they are going to be fined. The borrower still has to pay the debt. These are different issues. For example the bank gives the court a signed statment saying the check if the borrower is in the military and in fact they never checked. Apparently there is a $2,500 fine for filling a false document like that. They filed thousands of such false document. It should be very easy to figure out if this happened. They will settle out of court. 1 Reply

Blake Krukiel cjacja
May 10, 2013
There would be no POSSIBILITY of fraud if these people had been successful of paying back what they borrowed. Therefore this legal issue is only an issue because laws and regulations are currently in place that encourage government dependence and undermine capitalistic philosophy. If you would stop and look at this situation. The only people that will lose is anyone who has stock in JPM. This is exactly what Obama wants, to stifle growth and even the field. Pseudo-Keynesian principles hard at work. Are you people really THAT blind? It`s as clear as day. Reply

Spirit Equality Blake Krukiel
May 9, 2013
If you`re wondering why “the lights go out over there so much” (an issue that is several years old, by the way), go get “Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room” on Netflix. It`s not the fault of Californians, it was the fault of a corrupt corporation. 1 Reply

Ixion Blake Krukiel
May 9, 2013
If the banks did nothing wrong in collections we would still only be talking about debtors. In other words, just because people do not pay a bill dose not give a bank or anyone else the excuse to violate the law in order to collect their money. You have to talk about personal responsibility all around, not just for those that owe the money. 2 Reply

Lrgetrout9
May 9, 2013
I`m more and more glad I left these guys 3 years ago for a credit union. 12 Reply

Lrgetrout9
May 9, 2013
JPMorgan? Fraud? Nahhhhh. 8 Reply

OldJoe
May 9, 2013
DEADBEATS WIN AGAIN! And the rest of us will end up paying for it. Anyone REALLY TRULY believes that JPMorgan (or any other bank) will just pay the fines out of revenue and not get it back from the existing customers? 6 3 Reply

cjacja OldJoe
May 9, 2013
No, they just make $2 billion less dollars. How can you raise fees if your competitors don`t? The smart customers would leave. Reply

Ixion OldJoe
May 9, 2013
Yep, they can just keep passing on the cost and then they can go out of business when people leave them for other banks or credit unions. It really is not as simple as you might think to get away with passing the buck. People still do have choices. Also, it would have remained a “deadbeat” only problem had the banks taken responsibility for their own actions and NOT cut corners and broken laws to quickly recoup their money. Now, they will likely lose far more then they sought to collect. The fact that they did not take responsibility for their collections is on them and them alone. Reply

billiam62 OldJoe
May 9, 2013
That is what ignorant people think. That they can mess with a business because we just all hate big business, don`t we. When, in reality, they are messing with the customers of that business. Or, to put it another way, little guys are messing with other little guys. Reply

Richard Ramirez billiam62
May 9, 2013
So let`s just let them screw over whoever they want? The key is we need to make the actual decision makers pay for their decisions. 1 Reply

billiam62 Richard Ramirez
May 10, 2013
If leaders at JP Morgan have broken the law, then by all means, press charges. But that is not what this is about. JP Morgan is being sued for not crossing their T`s and dotting their I`s. This is nothing but a money grab by the state of California and a “there” for the “poor little people” that were delinquent on their loans. But as I said, this is all part of doing business and the customers of JP Morgan will be paying for it. 1 Reply

Tiffany France
May 9, 2013
Funny a story about a bank heist and now one about a bank screwing over customers. 5 Reply

kevin tate
May 9, 2013
Anyone seen those Buffoon Anti-OWS GOP dimwits lately…… 3 2 Reply

Cataccord
May 9, 2013
The bank will pay a fine without admitting any wrongdoing, and the people actually responsible will get a bonus. 8 2 Reply

bumby Cataccord
May 9, 2013
Actually, the bank will profit $400 million, but only have to pay $60 million in fines. The incentive for fraud is way greater than the cost of, if any, repercussions. 1 Reply

goofizz Cataccord
May 9, 2013
In this case, I don`t think the bank will even pay any fine. 2 Reply

oddjob3422 Cataccord
May 9, 2013
No, the people responsible will have to pay their debts, instead of getting out of them on a technicality by crying about how a document was signed, as opposed to whether the complaint is legitimate or not. If these whiners don`t owe that money, they will prevail in these lawsuits. The trouble is, they do owe it, and they will not, so they are looking for a lifeline to blame the “evil greedy banks” for the debts they freely chose to pile up. This is ridiculous. 5 2 Reply

Spirit Equality oddjob3422
May 9, 2013
So, you don`t think banks have to follow banking regulations? Or that certain banks are large enough to evade them while their smaller competitors have to abide by them? That`s the America you`re in favor of? Because that`s what this suit is about: a bank failing to follow the procedure set forth for foreclosing on homes. JP Morgan cut corners on the rules to save money, allegedly. That`s wrong, period. Get your ideology out of the way, it`s blocking your vision. Reply

oddjob3422 Spirit Equality
May 9, 2013
Not in the least, but that does not legitimize people not paying debts they owe. If the person sued has a problem with it, the bank should be able to dot the i`s and cross the t`s as needed, when the case is legitimate. Why should such lawsuits be blocked on the basis that the bank didn`t do enough research before filing? If the case isn`t legitimate, that will come out. The attempt here is very clearly to block legitimate lawsuits because of procedural, not substantive complaints, and yes that is wrong. Get YOUR ideology out of the way. The fact that 100,000 lawsuits have been filed in the last 3 years by one company shows where this country is going. That`s a hundred thousand cardholders that haven`t been paying their debts, and have gotten sued as a consequence. The result of all this bleating and suing over the paperwork has been that these companies have stopped going to court to get their money – the exact result desired. Just don`t pay your debt, and when called on it, go on a fishing expedition to try to pin the blame back on the creditor. You know who pays then? The people who DO pay their bills, in higher fees that DO get collected. I call BS, just as I do when health insurers try to get out of paying claims by fishing through application paperwork for errors. It`s nonsense. 2 Reply

Blake Krukiel oddjob3422
May 9, 2013
Well put, fellow citizen 2 Reply

Greg0311 Cataccord
May 9, 2013
As we sit here and play arm-chair jurors without any concrete evidence to discuss…. 3 Reply

Emitr Greg0311
May 9, 2013
It certainly is a good thing the justice system will operate without us while we blow partisan smoke up each other`s asses. Reply

Blake Krukiel Greg0311
May 9, 2013
Amen Reply

z2rock
May 9, 2013
Another example of the government taking money from the honest customers of a bank instead of helping to get back money owed by the deadbeat few. And trying to fool us into thinking they are here to help us. 7 6 Reply

Spirit Equality z2rock
May 9, 2013
The money awarded as a result of this suit, if any, will come from shareholders, not depositors. Reply

Blake Krukiel Spirit Equality
May 9, 2013
Which is further evidence of liberal bs. Since a banks key profit comes from the investment of said shares. our shares will go to the government as a result of this technicality. And this isn a PERFECT example of a law written to make criminals out of INNOCENT men. The Liberal Handbook is all over this. Enjoy the lime while you have it. 2016 brings new beginning real opportunity and liberty for us all. Bask in the ignorance while you can. Soon. You and your kind will be downwind. Reply

truthb4allelse
May 9, 2013
I hope they fine them big time for this criminal business ethic! 11 2 Reply

sunny5280 truthb4allelse
May 9, 2013
If they`re so criminal why are people doing business with them? 3 Reply

bumby sunny5280
May 9, 2013
Because they`re too big to fail! Geez! Reply

truthb4allelse sunny5280
May 9, 2013
Because before when people went to a bank for their services they were vulnerable and didn`t think they would be stolen from or sued . JP Morgan was supposed to be a trust worthy firm but turned out they weren`t. I don`t blame those who didn`t know. Most Americans don`t understand the business which is what banks bank on. I feel sorry for those who lost in all this and hopefully there will be a penalty and fine so enormous that banks won`t think twice about doing anything to hurt the consumers. 2 Reply

emiller28 truthb4allelse
May 9, 2013
Yes, I feel sorry for the people who forced to pay back money they borrowed. JPMorgan is a bunch of meanies! 1 2 Reply

truthb4allelse emiller28 May 11, 2013
Well I see where your going with this and I will just end it here! Despite all the sarcasm, the only thing you said right was “yes”! Reply

Ixion emiller28
May 9, 2013
− Yes, and now that JPM cut corners and did not do what they where supposed to do, they will likely be on the hook for a lot more then they where collecting from those that owed money. I am sure that JPM will feel like CA`s government are a bunch of Meanies as well, but they did not take responsibility any more then their debtors took responsibility for their own debt.

May 12, 2013

California accuses JPMorgan of fraud in credit-card-debt collection

Only 250,000,000 total 2500 multiplied by 100,000 It is like quarter of billions, it is like pocket change for JP. The london whale costs more than 6 billions. 2 Reply

Joel
May 9, 2013
it`s good to see that Kamala Harris (the best looking attorney general, according to Obama) is going after companies that break the law. In her campaign literature in California, she made it a major focus of her campaign that she was going to use her position to stop global warming. I kid you not. Geez, lady, go get the bad guys. That`s what your job is. 1 Reply

FRED_E
May 9, 2013
* In California, prison workers and peace officers will now be prohibited from having sex with inmates and prisoners in transport…………………. California and New York City are in a different world from normal people. Business is money, JP Morgan is in business. Who would replace Jamie Dimon? Maybe another banker. Reply

Daryl Revok
May 9, 2013
I`m no fan of California…but I`m even less a fan of JPMorgan…..anything you can throw at them to make them bleed money works in my book!! 6 Reply

IndianaHoosier
May 9, 2013
The banks were never setup for the number of foreclosures that occurred, so it really isn`t a surprise that they didn`t do them very well. They tried to do things as quickly and cheaply as possible because they didn`t have the resources to handle the volume of foreclosures they had to deal with. 4 3 Reply

kevin tate IndianaHoosier
May 10, 2013
Since the economic Cesspool caused by the banks/investment industry, 12 plus million jobs lost….what`s your freakin point……. 1 Reply

MarcusLeonin IndianaHoosier
May 10, 2013
Did you even bother to read the article? The piece is not about foreclosures, it is about lawsuits related to credit card debt collection. 3 Reply

Stephen Hinkle IndianaHoosier
May 9, 2013
These foreclosures never should have occurred in the first place. The banks made tons of bad loans that the person could not afford. If it was me,I think the HOMEOWNERS should have won most of these foreclosure cases. I agree with the Massachusetts case US Bank v Ibanez, in which the bank did not have the right paperwork to foreclose (The original note and proof of transfer of loan ownership), and because of that, the homeowner won in the state supreme court! To me, the bank should have to produce the original note to foreclose (prove they own the loan), plus all other required paperwork. Robo-signed paperwork should NOT be used. Additionally, the case should evaluate if the homeowner was properly qualified for the loan (ability to pay the highest rate the loan could adjust up to). If there is any doubt in the paperwork, or if the borrower was not qualified, the homeowner should win the foreclosure case and own their home debt free. This would show banks NOT to use these practices! Lastly, I think the law should be changed. I would require a bank to have done all of the following BEFORE a foreclosure: 1) Attempt to work out a payment plan with the homeowner for the amount in arrears 2) Show that the bank attempted to complete a mortgage modification with the homeowner 3) Tried at least one other collection action (e.g wage garnishment, bank levy, etc) And if it were me, I would ammend the bankruptcy code to allow the courts to do the following in a any type of bankruptcy: 1) Ability to discharge the portion of a mortgage that is underwater 2) Ability to lower the interest rate on a loan or mortgage 3) Ability to convert an adjustable rate loan to a fixed rate 4) Ability to increase the principal percentage paid of future payments 5) Ability to recind an acceleration clause and replace it with a payment plan for what is due up to that point 6) Ability to suspend foreclosure when a person is recieving unemployment benefits for up to a year Lastly, I would also require all future adjustable rate loans to be qualify the borrower at the highest rate the loan could adjust to rather than the lowest rate. A better sub-prime model would be fixed-rate at a slightly higher rate (no teaser rates), qualify the borrowers at that rate, and if they pay on time for three years, lower their interest rate to prime rate. see more Reply

drake666 Stephen Hinkle
May 10, 2013
I don`t see what importance the original note holds. If someone takes a credit, they agree to repay it at a certain rate. Failure to do so should be seen as theft or at least breech of contract and they should be punished for that. I certainly see no reason to reward them by reducing the amount of money they should pay back. Why should the bank (and other bank customers) be punished because someone can`t repay the credit the way they agreed to? It`s not like anyone was forced to take a credit in the first place. Certainly not one with a payment schedule they couldn`t service. As for the power of the court – what does it matter if a mortgage is underwater? The bank still gave you your money, why shouldn`t you have to repay it? What makes that money different? Not to mention that not all money was necessarily spend on the home to begin with. Overall a very bad idea. I can see giving the court the power to restructure the loan as they see fit, as long as the lender takes no loss in the end. If he takes losses… mortgage should be no different than anything else. Although a mortgage is secured by the house it`s on, it should be easier(!!) for banks or other lenders to actually collect the loan security in case of default. 2 Reply

Stephen Hinkle drake666
May 10, 2013
The LAW says that you should have the original note to foreclose (after all, you can`t legally foreclose on a loan you don`t own). The note is the contract that says you can do this. Without it, the court doesn`t know the terms of the loan. I was also giving recommendations for new bankruptcy laws that would keep people in their homes. Many corporations restructure debt in bankruptcy, and I would give individuals a chance to do the same when their situation is dire. Reply

J B
May 9, 2013
There is no one saying a great many of these people shouldn`t lose their homes or whatever. If they didn`t pay, then the bank is entitled to reposess. However, in making the loan they(the bank) assumed responsibility to adhere to every law that is part of that process, they have to take responsibility as well. If the bank wasn`t staffed sufficiently to process all the defaults then that is their problem, that doesn`t mean they are entitled to break the law, it means they need to take responsibility for their mistake, not staffing their business, and not underwriting their business appropriately. Don`t talk about californians personal responsibility and not bring up how the bankers are avoiding their personal responisibility. When that bank agreeed to operate in california they agreed to abide by those laws and the consequences, just as the people who took out those loans did. 10 1 Reply

Blake Krukiel J B
May 9, 2013
What law, specifically, do you refer? Reply

kevin tate Blake Krukiel
May 10, 2013
You must be one of those buffoon Anti-OWS dimwits….Lookie here, perhaps we can make it through a 24hr period without reading about another bank/investment firm being sued for F`ing over the U.S. Taxpayers… 1 Reply

Malcolm Heard
May 9, 2013
The settlement is 250million if you don`t feel like adding all those zero`s 4 2 Reply

livefreeordie Malcolm Heard
May 9, 2013
2.5 billion 3 1 Reply

Mateo Adams
May 9, 2013
Capital One was notorious for doing this in California as well.. It`s the easiest job an attorney could have! 3 Reply

enoughalready
May 9, 2013
I am so sick of the garbage – attacking the banks, OR ANYONE ELSE A DEBT IS OWED TO……..You buy a house, you don`t pay, you lose it. Rent a house, an apt, lease a car…don`t pay, you have to leave or give the car back. Don`t pay your debts, expect to be sued or chased by collectors. Take responsibility for your own actions. STOP BUYING what you can`t afford!!! If you do and they come after you for not paying, then its your fault and none elses. I know, there are exceptions for the truly unfortunate, but must of this is just bull. This poor me syndrome just goes on and on. Of course, we can be assured the lawyers will keep their pockets full by participating in this never ending cycle. Here is an idea. Own up to the fact you can`t pay the bills, and move on. Realize that someone else doesn`t have to be sued, if YOU don`t pay your bills. I am not well off, but I pay my bills because a live below my means. It burns me to no end when people expect everyone to pay their bills for something they shouldn`t have bought in the 1st place. 12 8 Reply

Marc enoughalready
May 9, 2013
Yeah, it`s a real shame when banks, mortgage companies, insurance companies, oil and gas companies, pharmaceutical companies, healthcare companies and others like them are forced to actually obey the laws under which they are chartered to operate. I just hate it when that happens! 8 2 Reply

Spirit Equality enoughalready
May 9, 2013
The banks took a shortcut to mass-file legal claims without taking the proper steps, according to the law. They were dead wrong, period. The law applies to everyone, including banks. There are laws JP Morgan (allegedly) failed to follow and they`re about to pay through the nose if CA can prove it in court (or they settle). 8 1 Reply

DerKommissar
May 9, 2013
Chicago land gestapo like tactics are work, again. Recall how close Obama is to this Attorney General? The current administration and their lackies are after Jamie Dimon. Why? He was once a big supporter of Obama. However, after he was elected Mr. Dimon recognized real fast what Obama is really about. Destroying capitalism, punishing success, and rewarding sloth. 4 5 Reply

MarcusLeonin DerKommissar
May 10, 2013
You can always count on the short bus conservatives to come up with the most inane explanations for things they obviously don`t understand. You guys are like political wind up toys, turn the key and you endlessly repeat the same phrase over and over again “Obama did it, Obama did it!!” 1 Reply

Marc DerKommissar
May 9, 2013
Come on, man. Did Jamie tell you to say that? Reply

Spirit Equality DerKommissar
May 9, 2013
Look at a map. California is nowhere near Chicago. Reply

Mateo Adams DerKommissar
May 9, 2013
This is CNN not Fixed News. Reply

Hellfire1968
May 9, 2013
How Much does Chase JPM make off of the EBT cards??? Senate Needs to Know!!!! 2 Reply

Hellfire1968
May 9, 2013
ebt cards – jamie dimon 1 Reply

disqus
May 9, 2013
JPMorgan is evil. 1 Reply

goofizz
May 9, 2013
What a waste of tax payers money. Over zealous prosecutors are worse than greedy bankers. 6 5 Reply

cjacja goofizz
May 9, 2013
Waste of money? Not if thay are able to collect 2.5 billion dollars. And if the bank really didn`t follow the law and issued signed statements to courts that were in fact “robo-signed” where no one ever read them then they will have to pay the fines. The borrower still owes the money, that is not the issue here. Here we car looking if the bank broke the law and wrote fraudulent documents. This should be an easy case to prove or not. 2 Reply

Spirit Equality goofizz
May 9, 2013
If they don`t have a case, JP Morgan will file a motion to have the case dismissed, but reading the facts here, it looks like an actionable claim to me. If it wasn`t, JP Morgan would have filed a motion to dismiss already. We`ll have to keep watching. 1 Reply

bumby goofizz
May 9, 2013
Greedy bankers? Are you speaking of yourself? I for one am happy to read that someone`s finally putting the hammer down on the banks. It`s no where near enough, but it`s a start. 8 Reply

Trueblue711 goofizz
May 9, 2013
Sounds like they have a legitimate case. Exactly how is this over-zealous? 12 1 Reply

Dustin Goldsen Trueblue711
May 9, 2013
We have laws for a reason. 7 1 Reply

110soldier
May 9, 2013
Boy Obama was right about that gal! 2 Reply

worldscam
May 9, 2013
Jamie Dimon the SCAMMER is also making money on the SCAMerica`s Food Stamp programs to keep all the losers eating too. So the CALIFORNIA LOSERS want BOTH FREE FOOD AND FREE HOUSES. California is the MOST pathetic state in a pathetic country 7 1 Reply

Louis worldscam
May 9, 2013
CA is not as bad as TX where losers are plentiful. 1 Reply

Marc worldscam
May 9, 2013
Don`t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out! Reply

BOhasFailed
May 9, 2013
Funny to read all the Obamabot liberals comments, which always have the same theme, “The banks are screwing me”. However, the one continual theme of the low-intellect no value added obamabot liberals is, “I am not responsible for my actions, and I hate people who make money. Gi`me their money!” 12 9 Reply

Louis BOhasFailed
May 9, 2013
Did this article go way over your head. Funny how all you BO haters can`t read. 1 Reply

cjacja BOhasFailed
May 9, 2013
This has nothing to do with Obama. It is about a bank filing a fraudulent document with the court. Apparently there is a $2,500 fine for signing your name to a document you never read. It is that simple. Nothing about “liberals” just some bank employee signing a statement that said he reviewed the case when he did not in tact review the case. No one trying to get out of repaying loans. 1 Reply

Dustin Goldsen BOhasFailed
May 9, 2013
You can always tell when someone`s losing an argument, they have to start the ad homonym attacks against their opponents since they have nothing else to offer. How is the middle class responsible for corporate and government policies in the first few years of the century that cost Americans eight million jobs? But hey, if I was arguing from your position and had no answer for that, I`d be calling people names too. 6 Reply

basedonfact BOhasFailed
May 9, 2013
Banks don`t make money they only take it. 4 1 Reply

Blake Krukiel basedonfact
May 9, 2013
The irony of someone`s pseudonym and what they write being completely opposite of each other. Basedonfact and this ^^^^ comment. Haha Are you trying to be funny or do you really think what you say is true? Reply

j.reed basedonfact
May 9, 2013
Both actually! Think about it, they make debt…..debt to them =money in thier pocket, money, which they never actually had to pony up, as long as no one defaults. So by creating debt for you to take on, they have in effect created money because you pay them real money for the “bank promise” they gave to who ever you financed whatever you bought. 1 Reply

streamlinepi j.reed
May 9, 2013
Ha, I read basedonfact`s comment as a joke. I thought he/she meant that they are in the business of just taking your money one way or the other and not really earning the money like hard working people. Reply

j.reed streamlinepi
May 9, 2013
Oh well, i guess I over anal….ized it huh? Reply

ReddishBlue
May 9, 2013
Even though she is Democrat, that chick is not bad. Not bad at all. 4 Reply

j33 ReddishBlue
May 9, 2013
− Does Obamacare cover vision? You need one. She is just as ugly as Pelosi.

May 9, 2013

Raising taxes only killed jobs and would lower revenue

How is this possible? I thought raising taxes only killed jobs and would lower revenues? I thought the only way to narrow the deficit was cutting spending? That`s what my local republican told me. Another fallacy debunked. But are the bulk of Americans smart enough to realize it? 20 1 Reply

Mojeaux grover1318 May 9, 2013
It will. It`s no surprise that they announce how great things are in the treasury after April 15th. Everyone was caught by surprise by the increased taxes. As summer wears on and people might be strapped for cash they thought they had at this time last year then we might see a difference. It`s all just a matter of time. Reply

Valkyrie-MT Mojeaux17 May 9, 2013
ah Yes, after 36 straight months of job growth, month after month, it just has to fall apart? It`s just Obama had beginners luck right? Or… maybe, just maybe, Obama`s policies are actually working! 1 Reply

oddjob3422 grover1318 May 9, 2013
The impacts of those tax raises haven`t actually had time to show up. It has only been a few months. It`s a silly argument to disagree with only “Republicans” when they say tax cuts are economically stimulative, and raises the opposite. All Keynesian types believe this, regardless of what letter comes after their name. Furthermore, you are once again falling for pure folly to think that the absolute result economically in a given time frame can be controlled entirely with tax policy. That`s rubbish, even if the tax policies had been in place long enough to take hold. This is where people just won`t think problems through. They bleat that the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” didn`t improve the economy. How on earth would they know? The relative impacts of such policies in no way guarantee an absolute outcome, given the billions of factors that move an economy. The question on taxes is one of relative differences, and is always speculative. You have to guess as to what the result would have been with other policies, and that is what politicians are best at – no matter what the result, they claim the positive aspects of it are due to the policies they favored. Pure rot is what it is. Reply

DKennedy oddjob342217 May 9, 2013
Tax policy has a noticeable and rather immediate effect. I don`t think you are 1) giving the economy enough credit when it comes to it`s volatility / malleability 2) Realizing that the vast majority of those other “billions of factors” are governed by the over arching tax policy. In other words — consumer spending, confidence, hiring… these “other factors” are driven by the top level policies. What else really affects them but law… and weather? Reply

oddjob3422 DKennedy16 May 9, 2013
Are you for real with that response? The issue is that people point to a given result, correlate it with a given tax policy, and assign causation to that tax policy. This is straight up nonsense. The economy went through a big expansion after tax rates dropped under Reagan, and it also went through a big and long term expansion after those rates were increased under Clinton. In neither case can a thinking person assign those results to those tax policies, and yet that is exactly what they do, but ONLY for the instance they agree with, just like any hack politician would. It`s a circular argument every time. If things get better, you say “look how great things are due to my brilliant policies!” If things go the other way, you say “things would have been sooooooo much worse if not for my brilliant policies!” Reply

RejctReligon grover1319 May 9, 2013
“But are the bulk of Americans smart enough to realize it?” No 4 1 Reply

Underwater Ops19 May 9, 2013
Since most corporations are showing record profits, but banking the results and sending the funds overseas to private accounts or private investors – all while Americans go without jobs – much of the deficit could be further reduced simply by offering tax breaks for hiring new workers in the U.S. at the $100K or less level, and taking tax penalties on those companies that saw profits increase while the employees received no raises or suffered layoffs or attrition. The US does better when its money stays home. The only way corporations can do that is for them to be forced to hire to get the tax breaks they want or want to keep. 7 Reply

Phat Daddy19 May 9, 2013
A significant component is the one-time tax impact of dividends, capital gains and stock option income that was accelerated into 2012 to avoid the higher taxes in 2013. No one mentions this one-shot impact of an estimated $100 billion. 3 Reply

Charles Ferrin Phat Daddy18 May 9, 2013
just look at the fact that it came in. who cares how it came in, there are always one time expenses and one time revenues that you see. Reply

modavations Phat Daddy18 May 9, 2013
I mentioned it at least 3 times.You, however, came up with the answer.Where did you find it,I`ve been looking for two days?.Take a bow kid and I rarely give praise 1 Reply

skytag Phat Daddy19 May 9, 2013
Good point. Most people probably didn`t think of it.😉 Reply

modavations skytag18 May 9, 2013
Stop it.I mentioned it to you,I believe.At any rate I`veI asked it and proposed it any # of times today Reply

skytag19 May 9, 2013
Republicans are incessant whiners. This would bad enough, but it`s made all the worse by the fact that they were often a contributing factor to the subject of their whining. Consider the following: FY2000 debt increase: $9 billion. (Last budget passed and spent under Clinton) FY2001 debt increase: $135 billion. (Passed under Clinton, spent under Clinton and Bush) FY2002 debt increase: $409 billion. (First Bush budget) FY2003 debt increase: $589 billion (equivalent to $725 billion in 2012 dollars). FY2004 debt increase: $605 billion (equivalent to $735 billion in 2012 dollars). FY2005 debt increase: $561 billion (equivalent to $651 billion in 2012 dollars). FY2006 debt increase: $578 billion (equivalent to $650 billion in 2012 dollars). FY2007 debt increase: $514 billion (equivalent to $562 billion in 2012 dollars). These are the actual increases in the national debt, not the official deficit which doesn`t include off-budget spending in the form of supplemental appropriations. (You can confirm these numbers using the Treasury Dept.`s Debt to the Penny web page.) Note that the last six years were under budgets passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican president. Note that during the two-year period FY2006-2007 we added $1.1 trillion to the national debt despite record revenues each year and unemployment averaging 4.7% and 4.6% respectively. What this clearly shows (with facts that have not been approved by Rush Limbaugh) is that prior to the onset of the recession Republicans had established a pattern of adding more than $500 billon annually to the national debt. The last Republican budget ended on Sept 30, 2007. The recession started two months later in Dec 2007. Recessions always make deficits worse because they decrease revenues and increase spending on safety net programs. To hear all their posturing and preaching about spending cuts and fiscal responsibility one would never guess that these are the same people who used to believe “Reagan proved deficits don`t matter.” — Dick Cheney, 2002 I`m thrill Republicans have seen the error of their ways and come to realize that deficits do matter, but less thrilling is the complete lack of integrity and personal accountability they consistently exhibit in refusing to admit they screw up the last time they were in charge and instead try to blame Democrats for their own failures simply because they were voted out of power just as the consequences of their failures were coming home to roost. It`s truly shameful. Had Republicans been fiscally responsible ten years ago they would have imposed a tax to help pay for the wars and they would have made serious efforts to balance the budget. Instead they happily ran up the debt and had no issues with raising the debt ceiling to do it. As a direct result of their fiscal foolishness we were very poorly positioned to deal with a major recession, running $500+ billion real deficits and $9.2 trillion in debt going into it. Had they reduced that deficit, perhaps even balanced the budget in 2006 or 2007 our deficit and debt today would be much lower than they are, but you`ll never hear Republicans admit this. In their minds “personal responsibility” is code for “never admit responsibility for any failure.” Let them whine. I was warning people about the debt years ago and it was Senator Barack Obama warning about it in March 2006, not any Republican Senator. Facts are facts, folks, and these are all facts. They`re just not facts Republicans want you to know. see more 19 3 Reply

racingvturr skytag18 May 9, 2013
I`m a democrat and you`re boring me. Why can`t you come up with your own words and quit copying off from Google to make yourself look good/idiot? Reply

modavations skytag18 May 9, 2013
Here`s a tip kids.Give me a sheaf of #`s and I`ll make them say anything you want 2 Reply

Manny Villalobos modavations18 May 9, 2013
So can you make those #`s say Republicans are fiscally responsible, and Democrats are Tax and Spend fools? 2 Reply

SkarPhace modavations18 May 9, 2013
Ok, then take the above numbers that Skytag provided and make them say that Republicans during that time were fiscally responsible. 3 Reply

Eli Cabelly SkarPhace18 May 9, 2013
That`s impossible to prove. Please don`t have moda back up his senseless claims. It might make his head explode. 1 Reply

SkarPhace18 May 9, 2013
Come on now, don`t be shy. You said you could do it, so do it. 3 Reply

WouldYouLookAtThat skytag18 May 9, 2013
To suggest that the president controls the budget is elementary, at best… 2 Reply

SkarPhace WouldYouLookAtThat18 May 9, 2013
So Obama is not to blame for the deficit and debt? 1 Reply

Charles Ferrin SkarPhace18 May 9, 2013
absolutely the President is not to blame for the deficit and certainly not the debt Reply

SkarPhace Charles Ferrin18 May 9, 2013
My guess is that you are most likely not a Republican based on your response. Reply

NashNash19 skytag19 May 9, 2013
Too bad President Obama doesn`t agree with Senator Obama……………..so why don`t you show the stats for the last 6 years???? 3 2 Reply

Andrew Stalzer NashNash1915 May 9, 2013
You mean how the deficit has been cut nearly in half since he came into office…those stats? Reply

NashNash19 Andrew Stalzer13 minutes ago The ones that show the deficit level is not back to where it was in 2007……………yeah, those stats. Not sure what your point is but mine is simply that while our deficit has come down better than expected, just imagine how much more it will be if we finally reduce spending further which we can easily. Reply

skytag NashNash1919 May 9, 2013
The stats for the last six years are the direct consequence of a mess Republicans utterly failed to do anything to prevent. As I said, they are not absolved of their failures simply because they got voted out of office just as the consequences of those failures were coming home to roost. Go tell Rush you did your duty, but that`s all you`ve really accomplished here. 12 2 Reply

modavations skytag18 May 9, 2013
Excuses 1 Reply

Charles Ferrin modavations18 May 9, 2013
truth 1 Reply

NashNash19 skytag18 May 9, 2013
You are a sensitive liberal partisan fool, now aren`t you? Keep the excuses coming though as you make yourself look incredibly foolish with every post. So by your same logic, we can blame all of Bush`s budget problems on Clinton since the effect is cumulative according to you…………….yeah, that is stupid logic indeed. By the way, I never absolved any Republican from “failure” at all and simply asked why you didn`t show the stats. Sorry but don`t listen to Rush who is simply a shock-jock entertainer for partisan fools. 3 1 Reply

skytag NashNash1918 May 9, 2013
“So by your same logic, we can blame all of Bush`s budget problems on Clinton since the effect is cumulative according to you” Sorry, but that`s not my logic at all. That`s a straw man, another intellectually dishonest act of desperation when you have no valid counter argument. The degree to which a president is responsible for anything of this nature is largely a function of how long he`s been in office, as that determines how long he`s had to implement his policies and for their effects to be manifested in the economy. When the housing bubble burst Bush had been in office for about 5½ years. Republicans had controlled the House of Representatives for over 11 years, and the Senate for most of that time. That`s plenty of time for them to have addressed problems and concerns regardless of what Bush may have inherited from Clinton. Obama, on the other hand, took office in the middle of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. LIterally in the middle. We`d already been in recession for 13 months, unemployment was 7.8% and rising half a percentage point a month, the housing market had collapsed, and the worst month for job losses occurred while he was taking the oath of office. You obviously have no valid counter argument to these facts, yet your brainwashing won`t allow you to accept them so you flail around insulting me and using absurdly flawed logic to keep reality at bay. Fine with me. I didn`t raise you, so I have no responsibility for the fact you`re a brainwashed fool who can`t deal with reality. see more 4 Reply

NashNash19 skytag18 May 9, 2013
You are simply repeating all the same ridiculous excuses that we have heard now for years………….seriously, enough already as no one is buying it. All you have proven is that Obama is the most ineffective president in history seeing as how we are still being impacted by events from over 6 years ago. Sorry but Obama is 4+ years on the job now and he owns the record, good or bad, no one to blame now. 1 Reply

Eli Cabelly NashNash1918 May 9, 2013
Actually, we`re still being impacted from the events of 30 years ago, when Reagan screwed us by dropping the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%. Clinton got that back to around 40%, which is where it currently stands. Raising that rate to 50%, and eliminating about 30,000 pages out of the tax code, would help us raise revenue without negatively impacting the economy. Reply

NashNash19 Eli Cabelly17 minutes ago We badly need tax reform but sadly it will never happen under this administration. Reply

Charles Ferrin NashNash1918 May 9, 2013
You are an unintelligent monkey 1 Reply

NashNash19 Charles Ferrin18 May 9, 2013
WOW Charlie, good one…………..you actually used 5 words this time! Reply

skytag NashNash1918 May 9, 2013
“Keep the excuses coming though as you make yourself look incredibly foolish with every post.” It`s not my fault reality is not your happy place. Revenues in FY2009 were $470 billion lower than their FY2007 record high. That`s a fact, not an excuse. We lost 8.7 million jobs due to a recession that started 13 months before Obama took office, 4.4 million of them while Bush was still in office, and the worst single month for job losses was the month Obama took office. Those are facts, not excuses. The national debt increased $1.44 trillion in Bush`s last year. That`s a fact, not an excuse. Obama took office in the middle of an economic free fall. Your suggestion that he is 100% responsible for everything that took place after Jan 20, 2009 is patently ridiculous and you know it. I based by comments on well documented facts. Like a good Limbot your “counter arguments” are nothing but juvenile personal attacks and insults. 10 Reply

NashNash19 skytag18 May 9, 2013
Congrats, you now look even more foolish. I never said Obama was “100% responsible for everything” but I understand that partisan fools only see what they want to see. Sorry but your comments really don`t even make sense, you cannot blame the results of the last 6 years on the 6 years prior to that, unless of course you are in elementary school social studies right now. Here, let me translate your post for everyone: “Waaaaaaaahhhhhh, stop blaming Obama and the Democrats, it is the Republican`s fault, waaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!” Hahahahahahahaha!!!!! 1 Reply

skytag NashNash1917 May 9, 2013
Yet another fact-free response devoid of any logical argument, just more unsupported claims and juvenile insults. Snooze alert. 1 Reply

NashNash19 skytag36 minutes ago Waaaaahhhhhhh, stop picking on Obama as he is my hero, waaaahhhhhhhhh…………………..hahahahahahaha, hit the reset button, loser!!!!! Reply

skytag NashNash1917 May 9, 2013
“Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!” Oh yeah, that`s mature. 1 Reply

NashNash19 skytag35 minutes ago As Forrest Gump said “Stupid is as Stupid does”……………..you should obviously understand that, mental midget. Reply

SkarPhace NashNash1918 May 9, 2013
If you have to laugh at your own jokes, it probably means that they are not very funny. Reply

NashNash19 SkarPhace18 May 9, 2013
if you actually replied to my post then i know they were funny! Here you go: HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Reply

skytag NashNash1918 May 9, 2013
− “You are a sensitive liberal partisan fool” You are a Limbot. Rush trains his minions to call anyone who doesn`t agree with them liberals, even if they have advocated no liberal positions.

Tags:
May 9, 2013

The downturn in employment accompanying the 2007–09 recession

Loving the comments from the right frantically trying to convince people that Obama is still destroying the country and this means nothing and how everything wrong in the world was caused and is the fault of Obama. These people don`t care about the country or the people, just themselves, their party, and whatever Fox “News” tells them. 28 Reply

Danny Lee Steve Kaz16 May 9, 2013
They tend to forget this little fact don`t they….. The downturn in employment accompanying the 2007–09 recession was notable for its prolonged length, for affecting an especially wide range of industries, and for being deeper than any other downturn since World War II Reply

allisonfaye Steve Kaz18 May 9, 2013
Here we go again with the Fox news. 3 Reply

Mark Baird allisonfaye17 May 9, 2013
We all go somewhere to self-indoctrinate. 1 Reply

SLNH allisonfaye18 May 9, 2013
So if you don`t like the “liberal” media, where do you get your news? 1 Reply

Steve Kaz SLNH18 May 9, 2013
Not my fault the truth tends to have somewhat of a liberal bias a lot of the time. 2 Reply

sg18 May 9, 2013
the sequester is working Reply

Giovanni18 May 9, 2013
Why dont you liberals read the entire article? “While the country has still racked up an estimated $489 billion deficit in the first seven months of this year, that`s about a third less than the $720 billion recorded for the same period last year.” The deficit is stiill went up 489 billion you idiots! Obama is getting us into worse and worse debt 5 10 Reply

Mark Baird Giovanni17 May 9, 2013
And the debt went up every year under Bush, Reagan and Buss Sr. Your point is what? 5 Reply

skytag Giovanni17 May 9, 2013
Except that you can`t attribute that to Obama. There is no such thing as a presidential checkbook. You`re just another Republican whiner who will always find a way to put negative spin on good news. 4 Reply

Eli Cabelly Giovanni18 May 9, 2013
That`s the debt that has gone up, not the yearly deficit. Please try to figure out what you`re talking about before you start spewing all over the comment board. 8 Reply

Missing Giovanni18 May 9, 2013
Boo! Stop pointing out the facts you right wing nut! 3 2 Reply

SkarPhace Missing18 May 9, 2013
Well, if you had said stop pointing out fallacies as facts, then you would have been spot on. 2 Reply

Missing SkarPhace18 May 9, 2013
Please explain and feel free to use numbers. How can you argue that the deficit was not $489 billion in the first 7 months of the fiscal year? How? Please enlighten me. Reply

Giovanni SkarPhace18 May 9, 2013
were almost 20 trillion in debt can you explain how hes doing a good job? 1 Reply

Andrew Stalzer Giovanni16 May 9, 2013
Can you explain why you think the 20 trillion in debt is Obama`s fault? Thanks I`ll wait. 1 Reply

sandiegan9326 Andrew Stalzer16 May 9, 2013
Don`t hold your breath… They been trained that all the bad things in the universe is Obama`s fault since time was created… Reply

Bryan Giovanni18 May 9, 2013
Anything to believe what you want huh? Reply

Giovanni Bryan18 May 9, 2013
Fact Obama added more to our debt than any other US President 1 5 Reply

Valkyrie-MT Giovanni18 May 9, 2013
The Debt was a by-product of the Bush Wars and Bush Recession. Digging us out of that disaster carefully and slowly is a Job well done by President Obama. 4 Reply

Eli Cabelly Giovanni18 May 9, 2013
Fact: Reagan tripled the national debt. Bush Jr doubled the national debt after inheriting a surplus. Obama is nowhere close to those ratios. Get a clue. 11 Reply

Giovanni Eli Cabelly18 May 9, 2013
who cares about Ratios??? Were almost at 20 trillion in debt wake up Eli. It affects me just as much as it affects you 1 2 Reply

sandiegan9326 Giovanni16 May 9, 2013
Chiken Little? Reply

Mark Baird Giovanni17 May 9, 2013
Who cares about ratios. Absolute numbers have no meaning in pretty much everything related to economics. Ratios are the key to understanding and comparing. 4 Reply

SLNH Giovanni18 May 9, 2013
You should care about ratios. The 2008 and 2009 deficit were almost triple the prior year. If we followed that trend, the debt would be truly crippling 1 Reply

DKennedy Giovanni18 May 9, 2013
So… inflation isn`t relevant in your economics? Spending a dollar in 1930 is the same as spending a dollar now to you? When comparing spending from different periods of time inflation – – and RATIOS – are pretty d@mn important. 3 Reply

sambec Giovanni18 May 9, 2013
Slow and steady wins the race, friend. It may not seem like a dent but the point is our government is getting better at regulating spending. We are getting closer to being on the right path. 9 Reply

JonesMatthew sambec13 May 9, 2013
Your point is too optimistic. Obama is the devil! Haven`t you listened to people like Giovanni! Reply

Giovanni sambec18 May 9, 2013
sambec were getting farther and farther into debt Reply

Mojeaux sambec18 May 9, 2013
lol I`m getting better at drinking. I only have 4 more beers than is healthy instead of the usual 7. Reply

Charles Ferrin Giovanni18 May 9, 2013
so what these deficits are required now to get us out of the bush economic disaster 2 Reply

Mojeaux Charles Ferrin18 May 9, 2013
Bush hasn`t been President in 4 years now. The recession has been over for 4 years as well and Obama “fixed” all our problems years ago. But I agree we should blame the previous administration. That would be Obama`s 1st term. 1 Reply

Giovanni Charles Ferrin18 May 9, 2013
that makes no sense 3 Reply

sandiegan9326 Giovanni16 May 9, 2013
I know it can be fustrating.. it`s okay… relax… breathe… inhale… exhale… I use to be a Republican too… so I can relate… Reply

SkarPhace Giovanni18 May 9, 2013
What does `deficit` refer to? What is the difference between the `deficit` and the `debt`. Answer these questions and you will see that you are making yourself look like a fool. Here is a hint: if the deficit was at 720 billion, and the deficit (not the debt) went up an additional 489 billion, then it would be currently at 1.2 trillion. Is this true? Clearly, it is not. Therefore, you are unclear on the concept of fluctuations in the deficit. 2 Reply

grover1319 May 9, 2013
Wow. So, republicans screamed that raising taxes would hurt the economy. But it didn`t. The economy grew, AND the deficit dropped. Then they blamed Obama for the sequester, saying it was his idea, and would crush the economy. But it didn`t. The economy grew AND the deficit dropped. Republicans had better get busy inventing some other crisis to blame Obama for. Because at this rate, by the end of the fiscal year (Sept), it will show a growing economy, narrowing deficit, and lower unemployment rate….and they won`t be able to point to a single thing they did to accomplish all that. 24 1 Reply

allisonfaye grover1318 May 9, 2013
This economy is really bad and would be flying high if it weren`t for Obama. The rate of growth is horrible. 3 Reply

Mark Baird allisonfaye17 May 9, 2013
The average rate has been below 2 percent and since the second quarter of 2000 Reply

DKennedy allisonfaye17 May 9, 2013
The damage done in 2008 was, by most economists estimates, far worse than the damage done to the economy in the great depression. I think we`re doing pretty well considering. Reply

Eli Cabelly allisonfaye18 May 9, 2013
The economy would be flying high is government employment were at the same levels it was under Bush. Instead, government employment is down by over 1 million jobs. That`s why this economic recovery is only limping along. We have smaller government and it`s hurting the economy. Satisfied? 1 Reply

racingvturr Eli Cabelly18 May 9, 2013
Eli Cabelly, it seems like you have no idea what you`re talking about, huh? Did you read the article? Can`t you comprehend ANYTHING you read? Stop with blind faith and face the facts, just for once! Reply

Giovanni Eli Cabelly18 May 9, 2013
Government employement is way to high the problem is the rediculous pensions of government employees 1 Reply

Mark Baird Giovanni17 May 9, 2013
And because you do not have a ridiculous pension no one else should. Reply

Giovanni grover1318 May 9, 2013
the deficit did not drop! its still went up 480 billion dont be a sheep 9 Reply

Eli Cabelly Giovanni18 May 9, 2013
The debt went up, the deficit went down. Please learn the difference. 9 Reply

Bryan Giovanni18 May 9, 2013
Clearly you are the sheep sir. 3 Reply

SkarPhace Giovanni18 May 9, 2013
The AMOUNT of the deficit did indeed drop. You are referring to the debt, not the deficit. You do know the difference, right? It doesn`t seem so. 11 Reply

modavations grover1318 May 9, 2013
JFk is the Father of the Tea Party,the inventor of trickle down.Between the great tax cutters JFK,LBJ,Ronaldus,Clinton and W ,47 million jobs were created and Treasury was awash in tax receipts. Had we not embarked on Stimulus 1,2,3,4,5,we`d have grown naturally and grown at a faster pace.The Ship would have righted itself naturally.We could have taken the 2.5 trillion we blew on the Stimulus Plans and cut all workers a check for 13500ish 4 Reply

DKennedy modavations17 May 9, 2013
− Do diseases cure themselves? Do boulders push themselves up hills? Some things actually require intervention.. and it`s ignorant to think that allowing all things to run their “natural course” is the best option… life is a natural course – it leads to death.

Tags: