[Rjvpicux]

She's a Communist.


While speaking at a Los Angeles Town Hall event recently, Rep. Maxine Waters introduced an interesting idea when it comes to banks and loan modification. According to her, it’s up to the federal government to make sure people can afford their mortgages. So much so that it’s time the president “bring the gangsters in, put them around the table, and let them know that if they don’t come up with loan modifications and keep people in their homes, that they’ve worked so hard for, we’re gonna tax them out of business.”

Watch the video below


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=kJbBV-Ntwic

[Michmant]

This is specifically what she's talking about. Shameful.

Though I don't think anyone needs to tax them out of business. As soon as we can come up with an alternative for their various functions, most Americans are more than ready to abandon these corrupt mega-shrines to swindle and theft.

The short recent history since the savings & loan scandal:

• Banks fueled the housing bubble, eliminating any reasonable qualification for people to qualify for home financing or re-financing, inventing exotic sub-prime instruments to pull in more and more gullible citizens.
• When that bubble burst, they begged for and received massive bailouts to keep out entire fiscal infrastructure from crashing.
• They then began using the consolidation of failed banks to eliminate things like free checking and low credit card interest rates, fueling a massive profit surge under the guise of reorganization, and began awarding their executives large bonuses and lavish retreats at a time when the rest of the economy was crashing around them.
• Under scrutiny for their role in the sub-prime mess, they cut deals with the federal government and states to help some of the people they swindled and help them keep their homes from foreclosure.
• At the same time, when they realized they didn't have millions of documents needed to forge ahead with hundreds of thousands of foreclosures, they began actively forging those documents with fake signatures.
• Meanwhile, with those consumers they did engage toward a supposed process of refinancing to keep their homes, they repeatedly raised their interested rates rather than lower them and moved ahead with foreclosures regardless of their agreements with state attorneys general.

What part of that is defensible?

NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/bu...cord.html?_r=1

The attorney general of Nevada is accusing Bank of America of repeatedly violating a broad loan modification agreement it struck with state officials in October 2008 and is seeking to rip up the deal so that the state can proceed with a suit against the bank over allegations of deceptive lending, marketing and loan servicing practices.

In her filing, Ms. Masto contends that Bank of America raised interest rates on troubled borrowers when modifying their loans even though the bank had promised in the settlement to lower them. The bank also failed to provide loan modifications to qualified homeowners as required under the deal, improperly proceeded with foreclosures even as borrowers’ modification requests were pending and failed to meet the settlement’s 60-day requirement on granting new loan terms, instead allowing months and in some cases more than a year to go by with no resolution, the filing says.

The complaint says such practices violated an agreement Bank of America reached in the fall of 2008 with several states and later, in 2009, with Nevada, to settle lawsuits that accused its Countrywide unit of predatory lending. As the credit crisis grew, the settlement was heralded as a victory by state offices eager to help keep troubled borrowers in their homes and reduce their costs. Bank of America set aside $8.4 billion in the deal and agreed to help 400,000 troubled borrowers with loan modifications and other financial relief, such as lowering interest rates on mortgages.

But foreclosure problems mounted in Nevada, where Countrywide originated 262,622 loans, and complaints about the bank’s loan servicing practices began flooding into Ms. Masto’s office shortly after the settlement was struck. She found that Bank of America had “materially and almost immediately violated” the terms of the settlement, according to the complaint.