If Obama lets the Banks "Off the Hook" I think his re-election is a "Non-Starter"

[FreakinDJ]

It just crosses too many political, and social-economic lines. American earning less then $1,000,000 per year have too much of their "Life Savings" tied into what is now an "Under-Water" investment.

And once again the Banks will profit - I don't care how carefully political pundits attempt to spin it - Working Class folks are just not going to accept it as a "Good Thing"

Its just too big of a hurdle to over come. The PACs are going to jump all over this and blast it 24/7 across the Air Waves from now until November. Anger at the State of the Economy and Wall St Profits over Main St Jobs has been fomenting for years and it may actually erupt into the streets this time.

But one thing is for sure - they won't show up at the polls for him - but they might show up to vote against him

[southernyankeebelle]

1. Really, so who you going to elect? Newt, Mitt, Rick, or Paul

[FreakinDJ]

2. It doesn't matter - anger is not rational

When you have nothing left to loose - threats don't matter too much

[WillyT]

18. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - HUGE K & R !!!

And neither is... fear.... which seems in abundance here.

[southernyankeebelle]

32. Thanks for the hugs. I wasn't trying to make any big issues. I was just trying to bring it

to the really basic question. Like really what are they on the republican side really going to do? Nothing. So am going to with the way who has his faults but is trying to do his best. We just need to support him. Hopefully if he gets reelected he really will move more to the left.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

49. When he gets re-elected, and he will be, why would he move to the left?

From the time that he took office and appointed Goldman Sachs personnel to high-level positions, and from the time that he doled out $350 billion of his share of the TARP funds to the present, what do you perceive as being a move to the left?

Senator Grassley (R-Iowa) is the one who originated the idea of mandatory health insurance. President Obama agreed with that and adopted that. Providing more profits for the insurance companies with the adoption of the mandatory purchase of health insurance seems to be a move to the right, not the left.

As you undoubtedly know, that's just one example.

Why, when he is re-elected, would he move to the left?

[southernyankeebelle]

51. We can hope. But if he doesn't I know one thing he won't take us to war so easily without

taking the time to think about it. Unlike the others who will fire first then think about it. Obama is a thoughtful thinking person. He is calm and that is what we need in the white house.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

53. He won't take us to war so easily? We are in endless wars now.

[southernyankeebelle]

55. We are out of Iraq and he is working on getting them out of Afghanistan next year. Remember he

didn't put us there in the first place. In Libya we were more in a support mode.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

56. Our UNIFORMED troops are out of Iraq. We (our contractors or mercs) are not out of Iraq.

[southernyankeebelle]

57. No one is holding them there. They have the option of quittting the job. They are getting paid

very very well over there. I know that they take risks but the risk they are taking are welled paid for. A uniformed soldier enlists in the military and they go where they are told to go. It is that simple.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

60. The simple thing is that our tax dollars are being used to maintain an invasion force.

We are not out of Iraq. Only our UNIFORMED troops are.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

61. The simple thing is that our tax dollars are being used to maintain an invasion force.

We are not out of Iraq. Only are UNIFORMED troops are.

[southernyankeebelle]

62. I was talking strictly about troops. I see corporations differently.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

63. Taxpayer-supported mercenaries are troops. WE are paying for them.

[southernyankeebelle]

67. Who work for Blackwater or whatever their names are now. They are a civilian corporation.

[elehhhhna]

66. ...and nothing to gain becomes nothing to lose

very quickly

[dogknob]

12. For many people...

... who think the President actually runs the world, letting the bankers off the hook will motivate them to vote for anyone who isn't Obama.

This issue is a noose that he runs the risk of wearing if he backs off. He needs to take a real stand on this.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. Noose?

n/t

[Dragonfli]

19. "It just crosses too many political, and social-economic lines."

You need to read the posts if you wish to understand them and reply intelligently.

It is obvious to those with comprehension skills that the OP was making an observation regarding the stupidity of coddling the bankers and letting them off the hook on this one during an election season where so many different camps are in opposition to their profits at the loss of most citizens.

If you wish to know who else these many voters (that cross political and socio-economic lines) would rather elect, then you would have to check some polls for each group when questioned about these policies if you truly wish to know.

The Independents are the ones I feel we will loose the most of due to this political incompetence (or possibly corruption purchased by PACS). The OP may be more concerned about other sub-groups that cross those lines, but I take away that those are the bulk of whom the poster was speaking of.

[Autumn]

3. Well we do know the pukes will let them off the hook

So we wait and see what happens

[FreakinDJ]

5. The Ohio Tea Party was all over Foreclosure Fraud

like I said - it just crosses too many lines

[Autumn]

7. If it does happen there isn't really any point in

anything is there?

[FreakinDJ]

13. Let see how they try to spin it as "Better for America"

this is going to be good

[rhett o rick]

4. You are right, we are totally screwed. nm

[Scurrilous]

6. He's toast!!1! n/t

[boston bean]

8. If it's Noot as the repub nominee you think his superpac will do a video

similar to King of Bain, against Obama?

[southernyankeebelle]

33. They will have him nailed on the cross before its over. By the way

Why do you have that Im innocent thing on all your posts? Just wondering.

[jody]

9. Obama represents We the Corporatists. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me,

fool me over and over again and we have a corporate state.

[dogknob]

16. Nice pledge

Mine goes like this:

I feign obedience to the sham
with the divided souls of America
and to the police-state for which it stands,
one lie after another, unaccountable,
with pay-to-play justice for all.

[jody]

20. Excellent points. We need more people to join our movement. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

65. Yea, well, as some say: "You can't fool all the people all the time, but you can try."

[SammyWinstonJack]

77. And he isn't ashamed to show that he represents the one-percenters/corporatists either

with his in your face policies.

Makes me quite ill.

Even more inducing is that we have no choice but to vote for him.

[teddy51]

10. Obama is never going to prosecute the bankers, lets face reality. Just like he never prosecuted

the Bush mis-administration or reopened a 911 investigation.

[bluerum]

11. Good luck getting that started.

I don't like it either, but the pukes will do a thousand times worse.

[FreakinDJ]

14. Not up to me to "Get it Started" - Up to Obama to get re-elected

but I don't think I would be throwing any money at a loosing cause

[L0oniX]

15. I'm sure the over lords will tweek the machines to swing to their homeboy.

They don't need us to vote.

[mike_c]

17. wall street owns him....

He's a 1 percenter.

[pnwmom]

23. The fact that his income puts him in the top 1% doesn't mean Wall Street "owns him." n/t

[mike_c]

31. no, it's his consistent refusal to restructure or investigate or do ANYTHING...

...about Wall Street, the banksters who continue to squeeze profit out of the middle class, the insurance companies who strong arm the sick and injured, the dispossessed who have lost their homes, the longtime Goldman-Sachs insiders who dominate U.S. monetary policy, etc.

THAT'S what makes him a real 1 percenter. Not his income. His 1 percenter home boys.

[Cameron27]

81. Exactly

and why? Probably to insure that his real income will begin the second he leaves office.

[girl gone mad]

44. The fact that most of his key economic appointments have been Wall Street insiders..

coupled with the fact that he has consistently sold out Main Street to support Wall Street's interests means he's owned.

[_ed_]

71. Right, it's the fact that Goldmann Sachs was his largest campaign

contributor. That's why Wall Street owns him. Just look at his donors.

[Kolesar]

21. Poorly written. Is this based on some news story?

[FreakinDJ]

25. WOW - pulling out all the stops to win the friends and influence people

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002209057

[Kolesar]

30. Are you making some kind of joke? eom

[FreakinDJ]

37. Yep

but there have been numerous "Rumored" reports going on for several days now. I didn't want to think the worst but it looks to be getting a little more "official" in the lead up to the SOTU address tomorrow night

[SidDithers]

22. Of course you do...nt

Sid

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. Oooooooooohhhhhhhhh!! OBAMA BAD, BAD MAN!!!!!!

[LiberalFighter]

27. If Obama lets them off the hook?

The R's won't allow Obama to have them punished.

[FreakinDJ]

29. Then he can merely allow the States to prosecute then couldn't he

No - the President has taken the initiative to broker a deal - to allow the Banksters to finish destroying the Middle Class / Steal our homes by the MILLIONS - throw MILLIONS of Working Class American Families OUT INTO THE STREETS

Gee - Just how do you think this is going to play out politically

[okieinpain]

28. in your dreams n/t.

[Sheepshank]

34. your non starter is about 27previous non starters, too late.

For so many one issue people, there have been plenty of non starters to chose from.

Because you know, ignoring the multiple non starters on the Rep side is the other viable option?

*yawn*

[frylock]

58. those one issues start to pile up after awhile..

my "single issues" are stacked like cordwood.

[Nye Bevan]

35. I thought the judiciary was independent from the executive?

Aren't they different branches of Government?

Or is my recollection incorrect?

[JackRiddler]

64. The deal is not a judiciary matter.

The federal government has for some time now been on the verge of brokering a deal between the 50 State AGs (executive officials: prosecutors) and the MERS banks and creditors to grant them immunity from prosecution for fraud and forgery in their treatment of millions of house titles and mortgages. This activity was the generating fraud of the entire crisis, because by evading state law on property transfer the MERS system allowed the shifting, chopping and recombination of millions of mortgages to create the MBS securities that proved toxic (predictably) and crashed the banking system (a few stages down the line of the same process).

Anyway, it's not a judiciary matter, the federal government is leading the way and most of the AGs are on board and it hasn't happened yet only because of the resistance of New York, California and a handful of others. They are the heroes in this, at least so far: Schneiderman and Harris.

[mike_c]

39. spraying spittle, the last resort of the inarticulate....

--self deleted the quote so that your words disappear for good--

[Nye Bevan]

40. Do not go pass. Do not $200 collect. (nt)

[bhikkhu]

38. There are a number of different ways to prosecute

More traditionally it has been the role of state attorney generals (Spitzer, for instance). When people talk about the decline of prosecutions from Clinton to Bush to Obama, they are talking as much about what the AG's did or didn't do as about the presidents - who have a very limited role.

What I look at - if you have 50 attorney generals whose job is to protect from and prosecute fraud, and there is a great lack of prosecution everywhere, then maybe there isn't a whole lot of actual prosecutable crime? In any case, if all these different AG's in all these different states aren't doing much, but the administration is trying to get a big penalty assessed for the robo-signing issue, then how does beating the administration up over the size of the fine support prosecution?

It just seems like spin and faux outrage to me, targeting the one guy who is trying to get something agreed to and done and ignoring everyone else who have been sitting on their hands prosecuting nothing at the state level for three years now.

[Nye Bevan]

42. Greed, stupidity and excess compensation are not crimes, which is the problem,

although many here are very reluctant to acknowledge this. When it comes to this issue an alarming number of DUers are all too willing to throw away the concepts of due process and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and would like to institute a system like Russia's where people get thrown in jail on Putin's say-so.

[girl gone mad]

45. Fraud is a crime.

Always has been.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. Greed, stupidity and excess compensation do not excuse criminal actions.

[JackRiddler]

68. Fraud and forgery are crimes. Both were committed on an epic scale...

Last edited Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:19 AM - Edit history (1)

...in the MERS system: millions of mortgage transfer forgeries known to have been committed (extremely actionable and therefore the subject of the outrageous immunity deal the feds are trying to work out with the 50 states).

...by the predatory lenders who opened up the credit spigots for borrowers they knew would default; every witting acceptance of a false loan application is potentially actionable.

...by the paid academic and media stooges of the Wall Street complex who devised models and promoted hype they knew were based on imaginary premises but encouraged people to invest in the lie of perpetual growth in housing prices (a fraud, but here you'd be right to say not actionably criminal - a pity since Cramer and his fancier counterparts at the Ivies have it coming).

...by the market makers who violated fiduciary responsibility to their clients by devising and selling instruments they knew would fail, in some cases were designed to fail - and even betting against them. Actionable, as evidenced by the outrageous immunity deals the SEC has offered in several cases, allowing the scam artists to skate with most of their profits in exchange for paying a small cut in fines and no admission of guilt. Judge Rakoff just rejected one of these.

...by the ratings agencies who took the payoffs and didn't do due diligence before delivering false verdicts on these instruments, without which investors like pension funds could not have been lured into the trap (fraud in commercial speech, and they should be the first entities to be seized and interrogated in unravelling the fraud, being no better than Arthur Andersen)

...by the derivatives sellers and speculators who bet on the whole system to burn down and then lit the match (the biggest fraud of all: setting up a system allowng unlimited and unpayable bets running into the hundreds of trillions, but this one they made sure to make legal beforehand).

The beautiful moment at the start of Inside Job: Nouriel Roubini is asked, "Why do you think there weren't more vigorous investigations into financial frauds?" His marvelously deadpan answer: "Because then they would find the culprits."

THOUSANDS of executives were prosecuted during the S&L frauds of the 1980s. They were caught because of investigations. The whole trick is NOT to investigate, therefore not to discover perpetrators, and for the SEC to offer get-out-of-jail-free immunity deals for peanuts.

[FreakinDJ]

43. The States have been waiting on the Fed is my understanding

The Fed stepped in on this issue as all 50 States laid claim to the violations committed within their boarders.

At a court level - they stepped in the court room with fictitious documents. they committed a massive perjury on a unprecedented level. Criminal - YES Have Americans suffered economically because of their actions - YES

I don't see how you can dismiss this as FAUX Outrage. The issue crosses political lines just as Home ownership crosses political lines

[bhikkhu]

47. Robo-signing itself - which is the issue at hand - is a good case for civil penalty

...which is what the administration is pursuing. It has more do to with negligence in handling paperwork than any criminal intent, and the losses suffered were real, but haphazard rather than systematic. I think the $25 billion dollar fine which is being negotiated is a good piece of work, and the use that it is supposed to be put will benefit a great many people.

On the other hand, all this misdirected rage (looking at headlines and comments) serves little purpose and helps nobody. Going back six months ago when this was first in the headlines - Scheiderman's objections - the concern was that in the robo-signing case the administration would bundle up all sorts of other fraud, and give away the potential for other prosecution. The adminstration assured at the time that would not be the case, and it hasn't been the case. Yet where are the fraud prosecutions that the dissenting AG's wanted to move forward with? I would guess we won't ever see them.

The banks can afford the $25 billion, but I think they can also afford to blow a whole lot of smoke around to try to avoid paying it - which it looks like the recent coverage is just more of (though it claims to be all "anti-banster&quot

[FreakinDJ]

50. Its the WHOLE System - Foreclosure Crisis that will turn Voters against Obama

And this settlement will merely serve as the "Lightening Rod" for all that is wrong with the Banking System / State of the Economy

The Banks Refusal to Restructure Loans

FDIC paying losses / subsidizing forecloses

Obscene Executive Pay for Bankrupting Wall St Banks

I didn't say any thing about Voter Sentiment on this issue would be rational. In fact it is more aligned with Survival Instincts which as you may realize irrational by nature.

Working Class Citizens are being CRUSHED and Banksters are making $Billions doing it

[bhikkhu]

52. And if the banks wanted to pay for a result - what would it be?

They could kick the can down the road just a little - as they have been doing - and they could put a good sum of money into a candidate running against Obama. Because, if as you say people "outraged over the banking system" vote the other guy in - whoever that may be - it is very likely that the $25 billion fine goes away, as does any chance for other prosecution. Job done.

Just calling it "irrational" is one thing - I am saying it looks more like its bought and paid for.

Again, when I look at the deal negotiated to settle the robo-signing issue with a $25 billion fine which will go to help homeowners who have been hurt by the recession, I think that looks like a good deal which will be very beneficial to a lot of people. That's a "job done" I would vote for.

[ms.smiler]

83. bhikkhu, I respectfully disagree with some of your comments.

Your view is that robo-signing results from negligence and not criminal intent.

There are numerous document mills across the country which create fraudulent documents for the banks and their servicing companies. How can it possibly be negligence that is responsible for their existence and the reliance on the documents they create? Why do those mills exist if not for criminal intent?

Document mill price sheets:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38591053/Lender-Processing-Services-DOCX-Document-Fabrication-Price-Sheet

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59444662/Doc-Shop-Offerings-Optional-Collateral-File-Creation-services-can-be-performed-as-needed-pg-48

An audit of the land records in Recorder of Deeds John O’Brien’s office determined that 75% of the Assignments of Mortgage filed are invalid. Would it be your position that the banks are negligent to the point that they are nearly incapable of filing legitimate documents?

What is haphazard about millions of invalid and fraudulent documents filed in our land records across the country? What is haphazard about clouding the Titles to millions of properties?

Two of those “robo-signed” documents were filed on my own property, clouding my Title. I realize that no matter how much money I pay, I won’t ever receive a valid Deed and have a clear Title.

In order to clear my property Title and hold the banksters accountable, I filed a Quiet Title action. As I understand, I am entitled to 4 times the value of my property in damages because of those two fraudulent documents. We’ll see what the court decides as the trial is scheduled for May.

I paid an attorney $2,500 to file the lawsuit. I’ve read that homeowners may receive up to $1,800 if they were harmed by robo-signing.

Since you appear content with a 25 billion settlement, would you suggest I drop my lawsuit in favor of possibly realizing $1,800 from the banksters for the damage done to my property Title?

Robo-signing has resulted in wrongful foreclosure wherein the homeowner would be entitled to about 3 times the value of their property in damages.

Robo-signing has resulted in clouding the Titles of millions of homeowners who refinanced their mortgage loans. They would be entitled to 2 or more times the value of their homes in damages.

After doing trillions of dollars in harm to millions of homeowners and their properties, 25 billion doesn’t appear anywhere close to equitable to me.

I’m in agreement with Recorder of Deeds John O’Brien, in that not only the signatures are fraudulent but the body of the document as well. And that is where robo-signing connects with the securities fraud that took place on Wall Street.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/45526910#45526910

[lonestarnot]

46. I don't know, but I don't think they are going to get off before State of the Union, so no deal.

[CakeGrrl]

48. This is the umpteenth time someone has posted

"If Obama does _______, he's a one-termer/I can't vote for him/etc."

Why do you think he would do something so doomsday when it has yet to occur after all the other proclamations?

[JoePhilly]

59. The effort to keep dems home in 2012 continues.

But it will fail even as it becomes more and more screechy.

[JackRiddler]

69. Who's behind it? Are you positing a conspiracy theory?

Is the OP one of Them? Am I? Enquiring minds want to know.

[JoePhilly]

70. Its starts in the media. They need a close race.

And the only way to get that is to intentionally manipulate the turn out.

In the span of 10 minutes on the news, you will see a right wing pundit and then a "liberal" pundit, with each complaining about Obama, using opposite arguments.

The right wing pundit will call Obama a socialist, the liberal pundit will call him a corporatist. They don't care which one of these you or I internalize, just so long as we internalize one of these views.

Those on the right will be more likely internalize the socialist position ... get angry, and become more likely to vote against Obama.

Those on the left will be more likely internalize the corporatist position ... get angry, and become less likely to vote for Obama.

Obama beat McCain by 6% in 2008. All you need is a 3-4% swing in the turnout, and an election that Obama should win easily, becomes close.

As these totally opposite "Obama bad" memes spread out into the blogosphere, they find their way to places like DU, and Free Republic.

If you disagree, think of any liberal argument against Obama, and then spend 30 seconds thinking about its right wing totally opposite alternative. Probably won't take 30 seconds for you to think of it.

[JackRiddler]

72. This is hardly the only dynamic at work.

It starts with capital (money) rigging the system in the first place.

It starts with a system that is pre-rigged by structure and ideology.

It starts with institutions that want the world to serve their interests.

Somewhere in there, the media dynamics you describe are a part of the picture.

This hardly says that all criticism of the government or policies (at the moment often meaning "criticism of Obama" as the current executive) is therefore a product of the media dynamics, as you imply.

We are thinking human beings who can figure out truth independently of these dynamics, and if the truth "makes Obama look bad" (as if that's our only concern in the world?) then so be it.

Here's an example from today: the administration's point engineer during the BP oil spill significantly understated the flow rate. What does this have to do with the media? You should look instead to the political dynamics of not wanting to piss off the oil companies (an example of capital) or create discontent and uproar among the people -- by telling them the truth! This is a mentality that treats people like children and institutions of governance and power like wise patriarchs empowered to withhold information. It's authoritarian.

So, under your scheme, is the story about alleged scientific manipulation at NOAA to minimize perceptions of the BP oil spill (Gulf extinction event) a media creation to suppress voter turnout and keep the race close so as to boost ratings? If you say yes: Are you kidding me?! Do you believe that people should just shut up about such things?

HIGH-LEVEL LOWBALL IN GULF DEEPWATER CRISIS — Scientific Integrity Complaint Details Official Underestimation of BP Spill Rate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002207861

[JoePhilly]

74. Did not say it was the only dynamic at work, nor did I say that all criticism is unwarranted.

I also did not say it was to boost ratings, although there is some truth to that. After all, if it becomes clear that Obama is going to win in a landslide, you don't need pundits screaming 24/7.

Keeping the race close is part of the money and influence game.

As for the rest ... you built a strawman describing a position that I did not take.

[JackRiddler]

75. Okay if you want to evade...

But let's leave the question aside of whether what I wrote was a representation of what you said. Because it was not intended as a representation of what you said, but as a description of important factors you had omitted, the omission of which compelled a narrow conclusion. Regardless: is the description inaccurate? Do these factors not apply?

[JoePhilly]

80. I think in my response I agreed they do apply.

The effort to manipulate the politicians and the electorate are not mutually exclusive.

Both are occurring.

The media is far more likely to promote attacks on Obama regardless of whether they come from the left or the right.

If the race is close, and the Nation is divided, does Obama move left or right as he campaigns??

Let's be honest, no GOP candidate will do ANYTHING progressive.

Consider this ... during the HCR fight, the media was happy to say that "most Americans" did not support it. When they did so, they IGNORED the fact that many of those who opposed it wanted MORE ... public option, single payer.

But the media portrayed it as if the majority did not like Obama's overreach. They simply added up the total unhappy, then painted it all as if it was the same.

The do the same thing on many other topics. Obama does something ... the GOP screams socialist, the left screams corporatist ... and the media concludes that Obama is "too liberal" ... and they sell that to those who don't have the time to pay attention.

The reality is that Obama is not the caricature that the far right, or some on the far left describe him to be.

He's done progressive things, and conservative things. And he's getting lots of good things done.

[FreakinDJ]

73. WOW - "Way out in left feild"

Try the Washington Post for "Head Conspiracy Advocate"

:ROTFLMAO:

[T S Justly]

76. Here's a chance for Progressives to take the Party to a different candidate ...

Occupy the Delegates. They are maleable and under no legal obligation to support Obama, at least in a
majority of States. There are eight months to go. It can be done.

[NAO]

78. but does HE realize this?

somebody should tell him.

Bitch-slapping the banks is the best campaign strategy (besides being desirable on a general principle standpoint) any candidate could have.

[jody]

79. "but does HE realize this?" ROFLMAO nt

[FreakinDJ]

82. Just you wait

After Obama "Drops the Bomb" an announce he is giving the Banksters this will become the GOP Battle Cry of the Campaign.

GOP, TeaFarty, Independents, and former Democratic Voting Democrats alike are going to cry foul and vote with their wallets along economic lines

C-Ya !!!