While you are all worried about a fire, the middle and lower class are about the get screwed again!

[Better Today]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6955YX20101006

A bill that homeowners advocates warn will make it more difficult to challenge improper foreclosure attempts by big mortgage processors is awaiting President Barack Obama's signature after it quietly zoomed through the Senate last week.

The bill, passed without public debate in a way that even surprised its main sponsor, Republican Representative Robert Aderholt, requires courts to accept as valid document notarizations made out of state, making it harder to challenge the authenticity of foreclosure and other legal documents.

The timing raised eyebrows, coming during a rising furor over improper affidavits and other filings in foreclosure actions by large mortgage processors such as GMAC, JPMorgan and Bank of America.

Questions about improper notarizations have figured prominently in challenges to the validity of these court documents, and led to widespread halts of foreclosure proceedings.

more at link.

WTF is wrong with our Congress and our President? Really WTF are they trying to do to us? I was a little concerned a few weeks ago when it was announced that the fed was trying to force banks to speed up foreclosures, but I sure didn't expect this sort of additional assistance for the banks. I guess the Admin has no intention of helping us, never did. Fuck 'em!

[provis99]

1. thousands of people are about to lose their houses,

and we're all worked up over one libertarian jackass in Tennessee who lost one of his several houses.

[Better Today]

12. Exactly right. Him and a witch girl, seems our side has trouble focusing

on the big issues that effect 1000s.

[Better Today]

2. And more, while they couldn't seem to pass middle class tax cut before

the break ...

"CONSTITUENTS" PRESSED FOR PASSAGE

After languishing for months in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill passed the Senate with lightning speed and with hardly any public awareness of the bill's existence on September 27, the day before the Senate recessed for midterm election campaign.

The bill's approval involved invocation of a special procedure. Democratic Senator Robert Casey, shepherding last-minute legislation on behalf of the Senate leadership, had the bill taken away from the Senate Judiciary committee, which hadn't acted on it.

The full Senate then immediately passed the bill without debate, by unanimous consent.

[NC_Nurse]

3. Amazing how they can pass this in a big fat hurry, shows who owns Congress.

[tsuki]

22. Amazing when you consider how the procedure, no debate,

hurry up, stand alone bill that helped ailing 911 responders was demonized.

"It's not that we don't want to help them, we just don't like the way it is being done."

Another lie exposed.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. WTF! Why in the world would the President sign that!!!???????????????

[Kdillard]

8. He hasn't signed anything yet. It was sent for his signature. I hope he vetos it

or it is otherwise stopped.

[Better Today]

9. Based on his decisions to date, I hold no hope. Add to that the fact

that his fed guy is the one pushing the foreclose fasting meme, I have less than no hope.

[Radical Activist]

30. I hope your hope is now rekindled.

[rufus dog]

47. and you would be wrong

[lonestarnot]

57. spankety spank spank Now you gona git it!

:spank: :spank: :spank: spankety :spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank::spank: :spank: :spank: spankety

[Xenotime]

29. I trust he will veto it.

[AzDar]

5. ...

:puke:

[Kdillard]

6. Why are you cursing Obama? This thing should have died like before

along with all the other attempts but it appeared to have slipped through. The White House said they were reviewing it and we need to keep a close eye on it to see what the White House and others do. No signature is on it but it is unfortunate that it even got this far because of Leahy..

[Better Today]

13. First I cursed "them" or more exactly "'em", not Obama specifically. Your more important

point is that this needs to be publicized at length before he signs it thinking we aren't paying attention.

[pa28]

7. "unusual display of bipartisanship"

:rofl:

Amazing how quick Congressional action can be when it comes to serving their true constituents against actual members of the public.

60 Senators is not the problem. Corporate cash is the problem.

[ProSense]

10. "Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy pressed to have the bill rushed through "

The House had passed the bill in April. The House actually had passed identical bills twice before, but both times they died when the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to act.

Some House and Senate staffers said the Senate committee had let the bills languish because of concerns that they would interfere with individual state's rights to regulate notarizations.

Senate staffers familiar with the judiciary committee's actions said the latest one passed by the House seemed destined for the same fate. But shortly before the Senate's recess, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy pressed to have the bill rushed through the special procedure, after Leahy "constituents" called him and pressed for passage.

The staffers said they didn't know who these constituents were or if anyone representing the mortgage industry or other interests had pressed for the bill to go through.

These staffers said that, in an unusual display of bipartisanship, Senator Jeff Sessions, the committee's senior Republican, also helped to engineer the Senate's unanimous consent for the bill.

Neither Leahy's nor Session's offices responded to requests for comment Wednesday.

Maybe this will inspire people to focus on what is going on in Congress. Still, this story raises more questions than it answers. What does Senator Leahy have to say about this?

[Better Today]

11. We can only hope that our pundits and our forum brings this to the fore and

we can get some type of outcry about it before he signs it.

[Waiting For Everyman]

19. Daily Kos published Jennifer Brunner's call to action on it

She's Ohio's Secretary of State:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/5/907016/-President-Obama-Should-Not-Sign-the-Interstate-Recognition-of-Notarizations-Act

[flamingdem]

26. Leahy??? nt

[lonestarnot]

14. Son of a bitch!

[704wipes]

15. He could pocket veto it by not signing it, right?

Since Congress has adjourned, I think.

[depakid]

20. It's not that simple...

For one thing, Congress may have designated agents on its behalf to receive the veto message, and it's not at all clear whether Congress' is long enough for a pocket veto to do the trick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto

That doesn't mean with Obama's history of having it both ways (or having half a loaf) that he won't go that route.

[Radical Activist]

28. It is that simple. Obama killed it.

I'm sure you'll be thrilled and start a post about Obama doing something progressive since you care most about issues and not personalities.

[depakid]

39. No it's not that simple at all- and sure enough, he did go for the having it both ways/hallf a loaf

Here's Gibb's statement:

The President will not sign H.R. 3808. Our concern is unintended -- the unintended consequences on consumer protections, particularly in light of the home foreclosure issue and developments with mortgage processors. So the President is exercising a pocket veto, sending that legislation back to Congress to iron out some of those unintended consequences.

So the Whitehouse hasn't taken a position on the issue- other than asking for the usual public debate and clarification followed by a recorded vote.

So while he's blocked this on procedural grounds, there's no indication as to whether he'll ultimate;y sign the bill or not.

[Radical Activist]

40. There's no two ways about it. He killed it.

When Obama gives speeches you say that words don't matter. Only actions. I'm holding you to that. His actions in this case are that he killed it.

And they did take a position in opposition to what the bill would do. You're trying way too hard. Even when Obama does something clearly progressive you find a way to take lemonade and call it piss.

[depakid]

41. That's a false assertion

He sent it back to Congress for "clarification" of "concerns" about intended and unintended consequences.

Whether it's killed or not remains to be seen. We don't know whether the President would ultimately sign or veto it if it's passed again through the usual procedures.

Based on this statement- we don't even know what the administration's position on the issue is.

So half props for half a loaf (and avoiding a political firestorm for the moment at least).

[Radical Activist]

42. You're lying. The statement said he's opposed to the bill for issue reasons, not procedural.

He didn't sign it because "Consumer financial protections are incredibly important, and he has made this one of his top priorities" and because of that he's against the "intended and unintended impact of this bill on consumer protections."

It's very clear. Obama won't sign the bill because he's protecting consumers. He used gentle language to avoid offending Congress but the message is still obvious.
But then, as you say, only actions matter. Right? Except when Obama does something good I guess.

[depakid]

44. Gibb's statement says exactly what it says. Stamping your feet about it or making accusations

won't make it say something different.

However much you want it to say or support what you'd like to believe.

Now, the Whitehouse can surely issue a clarification on it and take a stronger stand on the substance if it likes. But my bet is that they won't.

[POAS]

45. Well then I sugest you stop stamping your feet n/t

[depakid]

48. I just quoted the man directly

took him at his word and commented on the real and potential implications.

The ball appears to be back in Congress' court. Let's see if they're willing to go on the record.

btw: Clinton faced a similar situation over egregious financial practices. He vetoed the legislation and was overridden, with Dodd leading the charge!

That was discussed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2207418

[Radical Activist]

50. And then you grossly misrepresented the quote.

It really is amazing. Obama listed the specific issues over which he chose not to sign the bill, and in defiance of reality that's plain as day, you accuse him of not being against it. Really. Unbelievable.

[depakid]

51. You seem to have difficulty with reading comprehension

Take a deep breath, and read through it again.

[Radical Activist]

52. I'll repost the words for those whose minds are not closed by bitter partisanship.

He didn't sign it because "Consumer financial protections are incredibly important, and he has made this one of his top priorities" and because of that he's against the "intended and unintended impact of this bill on consumer protections."

Yes, those are issue related reasons. That's clear, no matter how much it pains you to see Obama doing something progressive, again. This reminds me of our conversation the other day where we discovered that even Rush Limbaugh says more positive things about Obama than you do.

[depakid]

53. That's not what he said!

:rofl:

Statement from the press briefing:

MR. GIBBS: It’s been hours. Good afternoon. Before we get started, let me just confirm for you all what a number of you are reporting and some of you are seeing.

The President will not sign H.R. 3808. Our concern is unintended -- the unintended consequences on consumer protections, particularly in light of the home foreclosure issue and developments with mortgage processors. So the President is exercising a pocket veto, sending that legislation back to Congress to iron out some of those unintended consequences.

Q You can do that even though the pro forma session is going on in the Senate?

MR. GIBBS: It’s our understanding, yes.

Q I’m sorry, what bill is that?

MR. GIBBS: H.R. 3808.

Q I don’t know it by number. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t know it by title. (Laughter.)

Q We’re at an impasse.

Q Interstate recognition of notarization --

Q It’s the foreclosure --

MR. GIBBS: It’s the IRON Act. It has to do with notarizations -- out-of-state notarizations for financial documents.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/10/07/press-briefing-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-1072010

[Radical Activist]

54. I used direct quotes from the official statement.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/07/why-president-obama-not-signing-hr-3808

Be careful. This may be painful for you.

[depakid]

55. No you've tried unsuccessfully to spin it into something else!

It's basically an attempt (as many have attempted before) to project your wants onto the administration. That, as many have seen is a risk and sometimes ultimately a recipe for disappointment.

They're not vetoing it outright- they're simply signing it- and sending it back "to be ironed out" or clarified as to unintended consequences. The way that's typically accomplished is through he normal legislative process (not some secretive procedure which creates at the very least an appearance of impropriety).

There's no express indication that once that's done- if it's done, whether the President will sign or veto the "ironed out" legislation.

Will Congress take it up again and go on the record? Maybe, maybe not. There's no way of knowing. I wouldn't put it past them.

[Radical Activist]

58. "Why President Obama is Not Signing H.R. 3808"

That's the name of the statement. And yet, you're claiming that "they're simply singing it." If nothing else, that should make it extremely clear to everyone who feels the need to spin and lie. Have you no shame?

[Radical Activist]

46. This is ridiculous.

Even the usual strident Obama critics are giving him kudos for this. This isn't the first time you've found a way to attack Obama when he does something progressive that you wanted him to do. Why not let people know where you're coming from and just admit that you're an anti-Obama partisan here to campaign against him no matter what he does?

[depakid]

49. More accusation and ad hominems won't make the statement and action here different either

Though with some self-reflection, you might be able to see how some of our constituencies feel about half props half loaves.

[lonestarnot]

56. Yep. Looks like dat is the plan stan.

:hi:

[Hannah Bell]

16. wow. amazing how these kind of things get fast tracked while things that might

actually help people -- "take time".

kr

[Mimosa]

17. K&R n/t

[Hannah Bell]

18. double down

[Radical Activist]

27. You must be thrilled to see Obama do the right thing

by vetoing this. It's good to have a President who fights for the people! :toast:

[JuniperLea]

33. You don't think this is a help to people? Why? eom

[PVnRT]

21. I have to wonder, what else is in this thing?

There has to be some reason it got through so easily, unless it's just the usual corruption and bullshit.

[Waiting For Everyman]

23. It's a "your crime is now legal card" for the banksters.

Not even "get out of jail free". No jail at all, it's all legal now - just when they got outed for massive proof of fraud.

And they did it within days of the story breaking. Lightning speed. See how fast they can move when they want to? My, my.

[Greyskye]

24. Obama not signing this.

B-)

[elizm]

25. My President did not disappoint...

When I read this yesterday I wondered if President Obama would veto it. I'm sure some here will be very disappointed that he did veto it, since there will be nothing to beat-up the President and his administration on about this.

[Radical Activist]

31. The Statler and Waldorf caucus assumed the worst about Obama, again.

And they were proven wrong. Again.

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. You'd think they'd get tired of being outraged by rumors & gossip, but they live for it.

DU has become a bastion of outright hate & wild unsupported speculation. It's kinda pathetic, really.

[JuniperLea]

34. I disagree...

More like utterly, completely, and thoroughly pathetic!

:thumbsup:

[Radical Activist]

35. lol

:spank:

[JuniperLea]

36. the spank-ee in that emoticon...

Always looks to be having such a nice time!

:P

[Radical Activist]

37. In my experience

that's usually the case. :dilemma:

[azmouse]

38. It comes from an addiction to preemptive outrage.

Why should they wait for anything to happen when they can get their panties in a wad now?

[HughMoran]

43. Yep

Assuming the worst has it's pitfalls.

Like not being taken seriously.