Speak Out: Justice the Obama/Holder Style

Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Aug 28, 2014, at 11:04 PM:

"This is part of an ongoing scheme in which the DOJ puts the money it has gotten from bank settlements in a slush fund and then funneled the money to liberal groups."

http://news.yahoo.com/doj-money-bank-america-settlement-liberal-activist-groups-...

Replies (26)

  • This sounds like a scheme to extort money from the banking industry to funnel to your political cronies to me.

    -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Aug 28, 2014, at 11:06 PM
  • I read a little about that today. Looks like it coincides with the newest bread and circus ideas of those in charge.

    -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Aug 28, 2014, at 11:24 PM
  • Back door reparations.

    -- Posted by rocknroll on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 7:15 AM
  • "...money it has gotten from bank settlements..."

    What was the "settlement" for? No one seems to say what the lawsuit involved.

    From your link...

    "...give loans to minorities, even if they can't afford to pay them back."

    I'm still waiting for anyone to produce a valid document that clearly and specifically says, "your bank must loan money to people that cannot pay it back."

    When you find that statement, please post it.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 8:31 AM
  • -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 8:31 AM

    Common,

    You need to get your head screwed on straight. I don't believe there is such a document. But the "incentive" was given to the banks to make loans to people without the means to repay them and I believe you are smart enough to recognize that. The proof it happened lies in the busted housing bubble and the default crisis not fully resolved to this day.

    -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 9:34 AM
  • So no one actually said "loan money to those that can't repay. And those that claim that was the case are not telling the truth.

    The "incentive" given to banks was to discourage them from excluding applicants because of their race and where they lived.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 9:39 AM
  • Rick

    You are correct. What is the correct thing to do with fines, penalties and legal settlements? They definitely are not the property of the administration in power to divide up among their political cronies.

    -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 9:40 AM
  • The "incentive" given to banks was to discourage them from excluding applicants because of their race and where they lived.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 9:39 AM

    If that was the absolute truth, which it is not, the bubble would not have formed and busted and there would have been no crisis that required bailing out. The "incentive" was there to "allow" banks to make loans to people who could not afford them.

    And Congress was warned about what was going to happen.

    -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 9:51 AM
  • "If that was the absolute truth..."

    and it is, very much closer that you care to recognize.

    Maybe you've forgotten that lenders invented a means of "bundling" loans into complex packages that were sold and resold to a point each successive "owner" of the bundle made money by selling it to someone else. You may also want to recall that rapidly rising real estate prices convinced many to borrow freely on their mortgages, since "their" property would continually increase in value.

    Try reading up a bit more...

    "Others argue that "pretty much all the evidence on the housing crisis shows" that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the (CRA) and their affordability goals were not a major reason for the bubble and crash.

    "Law professor David Min argues that view (blaming GSE's and CRA) "is clearly contradicted by the facts", namely that

    * Parallel bubble-bust cycles occurred outside of the residential housing markets (for example, in commercial real estate and consumer credit).

    * Parallel financial crises struck other countries, which did not have analogous affordable housing policies

    * The U.S. government's market share of home mortgages was actually declining precipitously during the housing bubble of the 2000s."

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

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 11:07 AM
  • What you don't care to recognize:

    -Loans increased dramatically as a 9/30/99 New York Times article explained, "In a move that could help increase homeownership rates among minorities and low income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corp. is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders."

    -"President Clinton also reduced Fannie Mae's reserve requirement to 2.5%. That means it could purchase and/or guarantee $97.50 in mortgages for every $2.50 it had in equity to cover possible bad debts. If more than 2.5% of the loans go bad, the taxpayers (us) have to pay for them."

    -"Senate Democrats demanded that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (FM&FM) buy more of these risky loans to help the poor. Since the mortgages purchased and guaranteed by FM&FM are backed by the U.S. government, the loans were re-sold primarily to investment banks which in turn bundled most of them, taking a hefty fee, and sold the mortgages to investors all over the world as virtually risk free."

    -- Posted by Dug on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 11:16 AM
  • Dug

    We may as well recognize that facts only confuse Common. Easy money with taxpayers suffering the loses was the problem.... but Congress created the problem. Relax banking regulations, guarantee losses and what do you think will happen.

    The modern undereducated on finances consumer will over obligate himself and that is exactly what happened. Without Congress sticking their nose in the bankers would not have allowed it to happen.

    -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 11:45 AM
  • Wheels - true!

    I was searching for the information / news story that named a huge billionaire real estate couple in Arizona? New Mexico? Nevada? that bundled a ton of bad loans and resold them. They were big democrat donors.

    And they have never been investigated or fined to my knowledge. I'll keep looking.

    I agree with Rick 100% - even if the fine were paid it should go to debt reduction or something. Not divided up by any president in the way he wants to.

    -- Posted by Dug on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 11:51 AM
  • The banks agreed to settle according to these terms. What's the problem?

    -- Posted by L'Espagnol on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 3:42 PM
  • They definitely are not the property of the administration in power to divide up among their political cronies.

    -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 9:40 AM

    They are when Bank of America agrees to it.

    -- Posted by L'Espagnol on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 3:45 PM
  • The banks said to disperse this money as the DOJ sees fit ?

    This is the problem .

    -- Posted by ✴Rick on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 3:45 PM

    Bank of America AGREED to it in the settlement.

    -- Posted by L'Espagnol on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 3:46 PM
  • You would be okay with getting a settlement and letting somebody else spend it all on what they want ?

    You are a better person than me ..

    -- Posted by ✴Rick on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 3:48 PM

    Bank of America settled the lawsuit and agreed to send the money to these groups as part of the settlement.

    -- Posted by L'Espagnol on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 3:51 PM
  • Bank of America set this up so Holder could hand it out to these specific groups ? Isn't this fraud ?

    Dang , you believe each and every word the Government says .

    -- Posted by ✴Rick on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 3:51 PM

    If Bank of America agreed to have these funds distributed according to the terms of the settlement, how is that fraud?

    -- Posted by L'Espagnol on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 3:53 PM
  • Show me where each and every one of these groups are outlined and specified in this agreement .

    -- Posted by ✴Rick on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 3:53 PM

    Radical Democrat activist groups stand to collect millions from Attorney General Eric Holder's record $17 billion deal to settle alleged mortgage abuse charges against Bank of America.

    Buried in the fine print of the deal, which includes $7 billion in soft-dollar consumer relief, are a raft of political payoffs to Obama constituency groups.

    Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082714-715046-holders-bank-of-america-s...

    -- Posted by L'Espagnol on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 3:54 PM
  • These payoffs were part of the deal that Bank of America agreed to...

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/08/21/5119407/bank-of-america-settlement-a...

    -- Posted by L'Espagnol on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 3:57 PM
  • Either way , it's major fraud . If it did happen as you say doesn't make it right .

    You or I would be put away for a long time .

    -- Posted by ✴Rick on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 3:55 PM

    How is it fraud if both parties agreed to these terms in a binding settlement agreement?

    -- Posted by L'Espagnol on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 3:58 PM
  • A bunch of bias thieves and criminals in the White House ..

    I guess you're cool with this , huh ?

    -- Posted by ✴Rick on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 4:01 PM

    I am not opposed to Bank of America and the US govt freely negotiating terms to settle a lawsuit. Is Bank of America a bunch of thieves and criminals too? They signed off on this too.

    -- Posted by L'Espagnol on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 4:09 PM
  • Either way , it's major fraud . If it did happen as you say doesn't make it right .

    You or I would be put away for a long time .

    -- Posted by ✴Rick on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 3:55 PM

    Rick,

    It would not surprise me at all that it happened that way, which only makes it worse. Holder settles for "X$" if you agree to giving the money to Obama's friends.... otherwise we go for the jugler. This Obama administration makes me sick to my stomach. As stated earlier somewhere, yes this country is in the toilet. This administration is as rotten and dirty as it gets. And that has nothing to do with Bush and all of the other crooks who came before him.

    -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 4:37 PM
  • I am not opposed to Bank of America and the US govt freely negotiating terms to settle a lawsuit. Is Bank of America a bunch of thieves and criminals too? They signed off on this too.

    -- Posted by L'Espagnol on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 4:09 PM

    Then you are as bad as they are Ike! If Holder had a legal reason to sue Bank of America, then the people damaged by this suit are entitled to the compensation, be it the citizens or some individual or company.... not Obama's friends. It is not within the power of Obama and Holder to split up the money collected by the government as it suits them.

    -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 4:42 PM
  • The "incentive" given to banks was to discourage them from excluding applicants because of their race and where they lived.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 9:39 AM

    And that therein was the problem. "Incentive". Government need not be in the incentive business.

    If unfair practice occurs, the mighty justice department is here to the rescue.

    Barney Frank and other democrats were warned about the potential problem of making government backed loans a trading commodity as far back as Carter days.

    And today the rules are gradually being changed back to allow the same things that caused the problem the first time only expanded into other areas such as financing the college educations that have been deemed necessary to get a shovel ready job.

    -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 11:35 PM
  • It is not within the power of Obama and Holder to split up the money collected by the government as it suits them.

    -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 4:42 PM

    This is a settlement. All of the parties involved made this decision.

    -- Posted by L'Espagnol on Sat, Aug 30, 2014, at 10:06 AM
  • Ike, I have been in involved in a few settlements in my time. They were called bankruptcy in which I was owed money.

    The settlement involves a bunch of lawyers deciding how much they are going to take and who gets the left overs after they make it not worth the trouble for the little guy to spend more time and money than the collection is worth.

    Same scenario here.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Aug 30, 2014, at 9:29 PM

Respond to this thread