Posted on 01/23/2012 1:48:53 PM PST by Beave Meister
Rumor has it that in a matter of days, after months of negotiation with big banks, the White House may announce a settlement that would let the banks off the hook for their role in the foreclosure crisis -- paying a tiny fraction of what's needed in exchange for blanket immunity from future lawsuits.
... and several hundreds of thousands of individual campaign donations in increments of $200.00 each.
a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do...for re-election...he can’t get money from anywhere else...
I have found that the outrage over rampant white collar crime and crony capitalism cross the entire political spectrum. Every person, be they left, right, center, or libertarian, thinks that financial fraud was committed leading to the financial crisis.
Getting tough on white collar crime is a powerful, populist theme that will resonate across the entire country.
Where is the politician who cannot be bought or bullied?
A deal implies an agreement where both sides give a little and get a little--a compromise. This sound more like a capitulation.
Someone got the message.
Linkie no workie
Home
We’re sorry. The page you are looking for cannot be found. If you believe you received this message in error, please contact us. Thanks.
About Us (from their website)
A bunch of Leftists promoting 200 “community organizers”.
Obozo foot soldiers, or Dem/leftie slugs.
Here’s the whole article
BREAKING: Obama to strike sweetheart deal with big banks
Rumor has it that in a matter of days, after months of negotiation with big banks, the White House may announce a settlement that would let the banks off the hook for their role in the foreclosure crisis — paying a tiny fraction of what’s needed in exchange for blanket immunity from future lawsuits.
We hope these rumors are untrue, and that the President lives up to his words:
“Major banks that were rescued by taxpayers have an obligation to go the extra mile in helping to close that deficit of trust.
At minimum they should be remedying past mortgage abuses that led to the financial crises.”
President Barack Obama...December 6, 2011
President Obama has the ability to stop and change the direction of this sweetheart deal. He should reject any deal that benefits the one percent and lets the big banks get away with their crimes. Instead, the president should stand with the 99 percent and push for real accountability and a solution that will help millions of people in this country.
Federal prosecution of financial fraud has reached a 20-year low under the current administration1. President Obama should reverse this trend and make sure the Wall Street executives responsible for this economic crisis are held responsible. No deal should be cut that lets them off the hook.
Call the White House today and tell the President to stand with the 99% by making sure banks pay their fair share in any settlement over mortgage fraud and illegal foreclosures.
Call The White House at (202) 456-1111
Here’s what you can say when you call:
“Hi, my name is [NAME], and I am calling from [STATE].
I’m calling to ask President Obama to stand up for homeowners and hold Wall Street accountable. We need a full-scale investigation into the big banks and Wall Street, and criminal prosecution for bank executives. Furthermore, any settlement with big banks must include at least $300 billion worth of principal reduction for underwater homeowners.”
Because the Banks/Loan Companies were criminal how they handled MERVS is no legal justification to force the banks to make principal reduction on the loans.
The issue with the banks is not the foreclosure (but there were some horrible individual abuses), but the inability for the banks to furnish the proper paperwork to support clear transfer of title to new owners.
I call BS on this. Most of the lawsuits against banks are in state courts, and even the few in federal courts are brought by private parties, not by the government. So there is no way the President can unilaterally “settle” with the banks. Add in the fact that the only support for the claim is a “rumor,” and you will understand why I am very skeptical of this.
Regardless, under what authority does he do this?
Is he the judge and the jury now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.