Pelosi: helping bankrupt homeowners avoid foreclosure won't be a part of the emergency legislation

[madfloridian]

I am no economist, and I will be the first to say so. But sometimes reading an article I will see a paragraph jump out at me that makes no sense at all. This paragraph did that.

Pelosi told fellow Democrats during a closed-door meeting that the idea of letting judges rewrite mortgages to help bankrupt homeowners avoid foreclosure won't be a part of the emergency legislation. That provision, pushed by several Democrats, would be a deal-breaker for Republicans whose votes are needed to pass the measure, she said, according to lawmakers at the meeting.

Democrats: Accord May Be Near In Bailout

I don't understand why the Democratic leadership would want to pass a bill that left out conditions such as that to help homeowners. Seems to me that would be a condition of any bill.

Two groups of our Democrats were instrumental in getting a bankruptcy bill passed in 2005 that favored the corporate world and hurt the least among us badly.

Guess what is NOT in the bankruptcy bill. There is a lack of exemptions for the ill, the disabled, the elderly who might have large bills from ill health....nothing to protect their homes and cars.

It does not exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing. It does not provide protection for medical debt homeowners. Homes and cars could be lost under this new plan if you have medical problems.

It does not preserve existing bankruptcy protections for
individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.

There is no provision to insure elderly people in financial trouble who seek bankruptcy could keep their homes. Republicans voted down a provision for it, and 3 Democrats from states with big credit card industries joined them.

Making the minimum payment on a credit card can often cause you to go
further in debt with the credit card company. An amendment was voted down by all Republicans and a few Democrats that would have required this disclosure on the danger of minimum payments.

It was the Blue Dogs and the New Dems who wrote a letter to Denny Hastert begging him to bring the above bill to a vote. He did, and it passed quickly.

Now Nancy Pelosi says the bailout bill won't include a part that will get help for the homeowners who are about to experience foreclosure....because the Republicans won't vote for the bill if it is included?

Explain this to me in simple terms, because I surely do not understand.

[The Magistrate]

It Is Pretty Simple, Ma'am

Any bill that passes on this must have majorities from both parties, and therefore cannot contain elements one side or the other will not vote for.

That is because the measure is not too popular, though popularity is not a good gauge of whether it is necessary, and neither side is willing to be the sole prop of its passage, lest the other use the vote to political advantage in the short run.

A bill for relief of mortgage holders is, certainly, a good idea, and ought to be pressed as seperate measure. Quite likely, it can be passed in the next Congress, and signed by President Obama.

[madfloridian]

2. Translation....we are afraid to stand for anything at all.

.

[The Magistrate]

8. Not A Translation Into Any Language Known To Me, Ma'am....

If there really is a crisis in the financial markets, which seems to be the case, and if the basic measure suggested will stem it, which is possibly so, then responsible governance would be to pass the thing with a minimum of posturing and drama. Most discussion on this matter, and most particularly discussion on it from the Congressional Republicans, is pitched at economic ignorance, and aims only to shift blame.

[independentpiney]

13. Thank you for explaining that so well in your replies

It in fact could benefit the Democrats to offer the mortgage relief separately and let the Republicons have to go on record opposing something that directly benefits the middle class.

[madfloridian]

17. So you and Magistrate agree to bail out Wall St and worry about Main St. later?

That's what it sounds like.

How often have we trusted the words of Bush and his minions only to find out later we had been screwed?

Pass the bill and worry about foreclosures later? That does not make sense.

[bigtree]

20. speaking ahead of The Magistrate, if I may

I think that both are important, but only one is achievable in this Congress.

[madfloridian]

23. Esp. if our leader says it won't happen.

Pelosi will pass a bill without protection for those about to experience foreclosure rather than call them out on it?

Rather than go public and say so...instead of saying it in a closed meeting?

I get the impression the country is against this bailout and only our Democrats want it.

[The Magistrate]

25. And That, Ma'am, Is What The Enemy Wants People To Think....

[madfloridian]

28. I think call and emails are running against it.

I am not much for falling for the "enemy" and their tricks. Give me more credit than that. I quoted Speaker Pelosi and you are excusing her remark.

[The Magistrate]

33. Of Course Calls And E-Mails Are Running Against It, Ma'am

However, given the near absolute ignorance of economics and financial markets and arrangements abroad in the voting public, popularity is no guide to proper action in this situation. There is a great deal of demagogery being engaged in at present, deliberately aimed at stoking emotional response from people whose understanding of the situation is no greater than mine of constructing and repairing automobile motors.

[madfloridian]

34. We have caved in on everything the GOP wanted .....we LET them propagandize

And we did none of our own.

I never fail to be amazed at the way anything they choose to do is defended here.

[The Magistrate]

38. To Explain Why A Thing Is Done, Ma'am, Is Not Defending It

That is why there are different words in the language for the different activities....

[bahrbearian]

58. I agree with you. to have a leader say they will cave, is not leadership.

[notaboutus]

74. You are not alone

I was all for waiting for the final terms before getting upset. I am UPSET no protection for homeowners and the worst part. The wording on how the other $350 billion gets handed over, Bush can veto their vote. The next $100.00 billion is given no questions asked. I personally will not be voting for anyone who votes for this bill. Congress and Senate hell anyone with common sense for that matter knows democrats have sat by and watched the republicans screw the country. It is NOT about party they have destroyed America but they all have a house in Dubai to escape to.
This whole mess was a set-up and the "rescue" is too. Being objective we the people are now even worse off because they get $700 billion plus government backed insurance for companies who don't want the money!

[Demeter]

55. The Public May Be Ignorant About "Economics" As Practiced on Wall Street

but they aren't stupid. This bill will give them NOTHING, not even a stable credit market, for its enormous and unaffordable expense. It's an amputation of our future to feed the roaring blaze that Wall Street laid and fired up. NO SALE!

[defendandprotect]

86. This has been tried before -- doesn't work -- you have to have REMEDY and

REREGULATION ....

Wall St has to bail itself out under gov't supervision, controls --

[avaistheone1]

45. Only 30% of those polled were for bailout in both AP and Rassmussen polls.

[Pete2069]

106. Republicans are making a fool of Pelosi

Does anyone start to smell this as a Rove Plan to change the
course of this election.

Pelosi is ramping this bill though as if the plan belong to
her or she was Paulson herself.   Do you also believe by the
way Pelosi has up help , supported Bush and his administration
look like a republican stomp out for the destruction of our
party...   
As Keith would say ... Pelosi is certainly the WORST PERSON of
the last two years for the Democratic party and policies..  
Pelosi has just about single handedly destroy any respect we
have progress we would should have made and a lot of respect
we would have had if she would have do the right thing since
2006..
  
You know also that Bush Sr.'s Carlyle Group which has ties to
our government , telecoms , intelligent military agencies ,
our government heads , war contracts is also very heavy
involved in this financial institutions AROUND THE WORLD.  

Wonder if the Carlyle Group is getting their share of our tax
bailout welfare...  The Carlyle Group has certainly received
it's share of our taxes on the war contracts , intelligent
military operations , telecoms business and other government
contracts.. 

[The Magistrate]

24. You Asked For An Explanation Of Why Something was Being Done, Ma'am

My comment was an attempt to provide it.

It is unclear to me whether the course proposed is the proper one to deal with the situation, and whether the proposal should be enacted into law or not.

Make no mistake, though: if the present situation of the credit market is not resolved, and in a manner that preserves much of the nominal worth of 'debt securities', it is the proverbial 'Main Street' that will take the worst blows. I would commend to you this commentary by a forum member here, a gentleman I often disagree with, but respect as a reasonable and knowledgeable man at heart, for an excellent piece on this topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4105489

[madfloridian]

27. We control the House, not the Republicans.

It does not seem to matter anymore. I had trusted our Dems on this until I read that paragraph.

[The Magistrate]

31. And We Want To Keep On Controlling It, Ma'am

If this provision is attached, and the Bill passed with Democratic votes only, two things are likely to happen. Either the bill will be vetoed, and Republicans will proclaim all subsequent economic difficulty is the fault of the Democrats, or it will be signed, and Republicans campaign to attach all responsibility for 'bailing out Wall Street' (which most people react viscerally against) to Democrats. Either thing may well result in loss of seats.

These are the things professionals calculate, and amateurs have the luxury of ignoring, since they bear no responsibility for the consequences of the things they urge professionals to do. What the professionals do often strikes me as poorly calculated, or even wrong-headed, but their calculations are easy to follow, and to understand, whether viewed as correct or not.

[madfloridian]

32. That way of thinking has gotten us.....

The Iraq War, the bankruptcy bill, the failed Medicare Drug bill, the FISA cave in....and yet they just keep doing it.

Right now, the GOP is playing us for fools.

[The Magistrate]

35. Never Said They Were Particularly Good At The Game, Ma'am

Only described the game actually being played, and its conventional rules and strategies....

[madfloridian]

88. Call me idealistic

Which is not so bad, been called a lot worse....but our dead soldiers and the dead Iraqi civilians are a shameful example of going along to get along instead of standing up for what you believe.

[avaistheone1]

66. The Democratic strategy todate is killing us. They desperately need a new one.

[notaboutus]

75. WHY? We get screwed no matter who is in control.

Your post are causing me to want to scream! Politics is not about CONTROL.

INTEGRITY:
The highest courage is to choose right over wrong, ethics over convenience, and truth over popularity... These are the choices that measure your life. Travel the path of integrity without looking back, for there is never a wrong time to do the right thing.
Author (unknown)

Most politicians could give a crap about America. The democrats knew what the republicans were trying to do and should have called them out on National Television about their plan. It was trying to screw us worse but instead it was a bunch of whining and finger pointing.
Since you seem to be in the know explain why they never called them out on it.

[avaistheone1]

46. This bill is about the taxpayers bailing out the rich. My trust in all politicans has hid a new

low after this stunt.

[AZ Criminal JD]

50. Translation: Always later

Always the next session will be the one to pass something. Same thing was said two years ago.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

39. so the GOP are against helping homeowners- that should be headlines!

[bertman]

57. bambino, you should be a Democratic tactician. If we're going to give something away,

let's at least make the Repubes pay the price in the process. This is what pisses me so much about the Dem leadership. The Repugs fuck us over every time and then we treat them like they deserve respect.

Pelosi is a gutless, treacherous, shill.

Politics is a cutthroat game and Pelosi is playing for the other team. And has been since she took the reins as speaker.

[depakid]

9. Why Republicans won't support this is beyond me

from an economic standpoint, foreclosure relief increases the chance that plan is going to work- by shoring up the collateral obligations underlying the distressed securities.

Not that I think Republicans are rational creatures- just that it makes one wonder who's pushing them to take this stand and why.

[The Magistrate]

14. Pure Ideological Cussedness, Sir

Republicans dedicate themselves heart and soul to piling further afflictions on the afflicted, and can no more understand the benefit of, let alone the desire to, help people in difficulties, than a Roman centurion could comprehend a plea for mercy in a burning Dacian town....

[Missy Vixen]

67. It's simple: Follow the money

Whom do you think will be scooping up the foreclosed homes for pennies on the dollar once the dust settles?

Nancy Pelosi is nothing more than an appeaser. I'd even go so far as to call her a collaborator. She does not represent people. She represents her campaign contributors, and I'd say the above to Ms. Pelosi's face. Unfortunately, I'll never get that chance. She doesn't meet with the little people.

Julie

[Jackpine Radical]

53. Meanwhile, a lot of "little people" watch their lives go down the tubes.

There are reasons to suspect that the crisis is not so imminent that the Democrats can't do some fighting for what is right before putting together the final package.

Personally, I think we need something like a Swedish model to get us out of this one, reform the industry, and make lemonade out of the lemons we're about to acquire.

[bvar22]

63. Then AT LEAST offer a bill with provisions for the Working Class....

...and let The Republicans vote it down before the election.

Send video clips of the vote to the Democrat running against these assholes.

FUCK!!!!!

[Occulus]

71. "Republicans want people to keep losing their homes while this crisis continues"

"Republicans want people to keep losing their homes so they can take away their votes, too"

Why is that framing so hard to come up with on our side? It's not as if there aren't any responsible homeowners in dire need of help paying the home off.

And your last comment: if we get President Obama. Which is, amazingly, by no means a done deal. That's why we need to give homeowners relief now. There is no guarantee that we will even have control of Congress after this election if you factor in stolen or prevented votes. Ironically, there's a push on the Republyin (sic) side to strike from the voting rolls the names of people whose homes have been foreclosed upon. If you honestly consider that fact even all by itself you must come to the conclusion that continued foreclosures = lost votes. That alone should give us cause to support adding foreclosed homes to the bailout bill. It also makes me personally wonder if that's why the Republyins are dead-set against adding it in.

And I'm a renter, so the very idea should at least make me grumble. But then, I've neither invested in anything at all nor bought a home out of fear of being directly involved in a crisis such as this. So I guess I'm one up on the people I'm saying need help.

But they do need help, and they need it now, not in January. We're talking about school age kids and parents with jobs who are suddenly out of their home here, too.

[lonestarnot]

94. Nearly 4 months down the road, in time for the implosion of our currency to have already occurred

due to the next mortgage fucking meltdown, and $270 or so billion already thrown in to the richies' fire.

[Mandate My Ass]

1. I'll give it a try

Nancy is owned from the top of her lacquered head to the bottom of her expensively shod toes by corporate masters whose bidding she always does at the expense of we the people.

[roguevalley]

65. she's a cow. anyone who thinks pugs give a damn will know now that they don't.

[Night_Nurse]

78. Nice try - you got it in one. nt

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[OnionPatch]

3. Then to hell with it!

WTF is wrong with the Dems? All they have to do is say, forget it, then.

[Supersedeas]

56. leading the way for Repig priorities -- heckuva job NANCY

[dkofos]

4. It's obvious whos side she is on. wretched old hag

[20score]

5. God, this pisses me off! Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing!

[amdezurik]

6. guess that is off the table

no shock Nancy fucked the country over again.

[leftofthedial]

7. justice is off the table again.

pelosi is such a sack of shit.

a gucci sack of shit.

[flvegan]

10. I don't think judges should be able to "rewrite" mortgages

OR, they need to be well-schooled in exactly what terms they can alter and for how long.

A novation to a mortgage could change the lien priority of the mortgage, thus hurting the lender and making them unlikely to come to any agreements. Quite honestly, I've testified on both sides of a foreclosure simply to correct a judge's decision in regards to title. Bankruptcy judges that haven't done any time on real property cases would be detrimental to both sides.

Judges SHOULD impress upon the lenders that THEY should consider changing terms that wouldn't alter the lien priority of the mortgage, such as lowering an interest rate or kicking late payments to the end of the loan.

[madfloridian]

18. I don't care who does it....help the homeowners somehow...

without getting bogged down in words and territory. I am to the point that I am giving up hope that they know what they are doing.

Does that sound simplistic. Probably....but put the homeowners first now.

[flvegan]

22. I agree completely.

I don't think it sounds simplistic. There were a couple very simple solutions to the pending foreclosure crisis that the banks ignored, and it pisses me off.

[Eric J in MN]

60. What do you think of Chris Dodd's proposal regarding judges re-writing mortgages?

http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/LegislativeTextofChairmansDoddsproposalfortheTreasuryBailoutplanAYO08B68_xml.pdf

SEC. 123. MINIMIZING FORECLOSURES.
2 (a) SPECIAL RULES FOR MODIFICATION OF LOANS
3 SECURED BY RESIDENCES.—
4 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1322(b) of title 11,
5 United States Code, is amended—
6 (A) in paragraph (10), by striking ‘‘and’’
7 at the end;
8 (B) by redesignating paragraph (11) as
9 paragraph (12); and
10 (C) by inserting after paragraph (10) the
11 following:
12 ‘‘(11) notwithstanding paragraph (2) and other13
wise applicable nonbankruptcy law—
14 ‘‘(A) modify an allowed secured claim for
15 a debt secured by the principal residence of the
16 debtor, as described in subparagraph (B), if,
17 after deduction from the debtors current
18 monthly income of the expenses permitted for
19 debtors described in section 1325(b)(3) of this
20 title (other than amounts contractually due to
21 creditors holding such allowed secured claims
22 and additional payments necessary to maintain
23 possession of that residence), the debtor has in24
sufficient remaining income to retain possession
25 of the residence by curing a default and main66
O:\AYO\AYO08B68.xml
1 taining payments while the case is pending, as
2 provided under paragraph (5); and
3 ‘‘(B) provide for payment of such claim—
4 ‘‘(i) in an amount equal to the
5 amount of the allowed secured claim;
6 ‘‘(ii) for a period that is not longer
7 than 40 years; and
8 ‘‘(iii) at a rate of interest accruing
9 after such date calculated at a fixed an10
nual percentage rate, in an amount equal
11 to the most recently published annual yield
12 on conventional mortgages published by
13 the Board of Governors of the Federal Re14
serve System, as of the applicable time set
15 forth in the rules of the Board, plus a rea16
sonable premium for risk; and’’.
17 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section
18 1325(a)(5) of title 11, United States Code, is
19 amended by inserting before ‘‘with respect’’ the fol20
lowing: ‘‘except as otherwise provided in section
21 1322(b)(11) of this title,’’.
22 (b) WAIVER OF COUNSELING REQUIREMENT WHEN
23 HOMES ARE IN FORECLOSURE.—Section 109(h) of title
24 11, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
25 the following:
67
O:\AYO\AYO08B68.xml
1 ‘‘(5) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect
2 to a debtor who files with the court a certification
3 that a foreclosure sale of the debtor’s principal resi4
dence has been scheduled.’’.
5 (c) COMBATING EXCESSIVE FEES.—Section 1322(c)
6 of title 11, the United States Code, is amended—
7 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the
8 end;
9 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at
10 the end and inserting a semicolon; and
11 (3) by adding at the end the following:
12 ‘‘(3) the plan need not provide for the payment
13 of, and the debtor, the debtor’s property, and prop14
erty of the debtor’s estate shall not be liable for, any
15 fee, cost, or charge, notwithstanding section 506(b),
16 that arises in connection with a claim secured by the
17 debtor’s principal residence, if the event that gives
18 rise to such fee, cost, or charge occurs while the case
19 is pending but before the discharge order, except to
20 the extent that—
21 ‘‘(A) notice of such fees, costs, or charges
22 is filed with the court, and served on the debtor
23 and the trustee, before the expiration of the
24 earlier of—
68
O:\AYO\AYO08B68.xml
1 ‘‘(i) 1 year after the event that gives
2 rise to such fee, cost, or charge occurs; or
3 ‘‘(ii) 60 days before the closing of the
4 case; and
5 ‘‘(B) such fees, costs, or charges are law6
ful, reasonable, and provided for in the agree7
ment under which such claim or security inter8
est arose;
9 ‘‘(4) the failure of a party to give notice de10
scribed in paragraph (3) shall be deemed a waiver
11 of any claim for fees, costs, or charges described in
12 paragraph (3) for all purposes, and any attempt to
13 collect such fees, costs, or charges shall constitute a
14 violation of section 524(a)(2) of this title or, if the
15 violation occurs before the date of discharge, of sec16
tion 362(a) of this title; and
17 ‘‘(5) a plan may provide for the waiver of any
18 prepayment penalty on a claim secured by the prin19
cipal residence of the debtor.’’.
20 (d) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.—The amend21
ments made to title 11, United States Code, by this sec22
tion shall apply with respect to cases commenced under
23 that title on or after the date of enactment of this Act,
24 or pending on the date of enactment of this Act.
69
O:\AYO\AYO08B68.xml
1 ø(e) HOPE FOR HOMEOWNERS AMENDMENTS.—
2 Section 257(e) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
3 1715z-23(e)) is amended—¿
4 ø(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting before
5 ‘‘a ratio’’ the following: ‘‘, or thereafter is likely to
6 have, due to the terms of the mortgage being
7 reset,’’; and¿
8 ø(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting before
9 the period at the end ‘‘(or such higher percentage as
10 the Board determines, in the discretion of the
11 Board)’’.

[Romulox]

83. Bankruptcy courts already have the power to "cram down" secured claims to their present value

Mortgages on homesteads are a specific exclusion from this general power.

"A novation to a mortgage could change the lien priority of the mortgage,"

The entire premise of bankruptcy is that similarly situated creditors should be treated similarly. In other words, adjusting secured claims in bankruptcy does not involve changing the priority of secured creditors.

[Greyhound]

11. BOHICA America. n/t

:kick: & R

[Hidden Stillness]

12. Sometimes, They are Just Stunning--and They Will "Never Get Around to It," Either

Rewriting mortgage (and other debt) terms to help the debter--and I am no economist either--used to be a standard part of the Bankruptcy Court's business, then was killed by the credit-card-industry-written Bankruptcy Bill supported by most of Congress. What was once an ordinary court duty is now presented as if it is just too extreme, and had never existed. (Remember this is the group that passed a "Medicare" Part D bill that refused to allow the Federal Gov't. to negotiate prices down as bulk purchases, as the Veterans' Admin., etc., does, then prices went through the roof--some of them, increasing by hundreds of times; nothing has been done.)

They should follow the Marcy Kaptur idea that things should be regulated and reformed first, and the American people sharing the profits of what they are actually paying for anyway--before any talk of "bailout" payments at all. By the way, most older people on many medications will tell you they would rather have the old Medicaid, or the old subsidized pharmaceutical free-drug-giveaways program that used to exist, than this crushing "popular bi-partisan" Part D shit. Sometimes, the answer is not to pass it at all, and do something real instead.

[Waiting For Everyman]

15. This is what proves the Dems DO NOT GET IT either.

They don't know, or care, what our problems are. They SAY they do, but obviously they don't. They're ALL 'out of touch'.

Some simple changes about banking transactions and bankruptcy could do more to help people than a huge spending program. It wouldn't cost the budget anything.

And not doing that, is causing people to go under, or if not, to have nothing left to spend and put into the economy. Most people literally are working to do nothing but pay interest, and at a time when money is dirt cheap - the banks are charged almost nothing for it. It's all going to excess bank profits, and it is not right or deserved.

The banks create their own 'risk' in bad credit scores, and then can get away with extortion for it, and it's long term. If person A is paying twice as much as person B, which one is more likely to be late or default? Most of us are nothing but indentured servants to the banks. And this all came about within the last 10 years, it's NOT our tradition of how things are done.

Some simple rules about credit scores would fix a whole hell of a lot in this country. Damn right it belongs in this bill - it has everything to do with this problem. But only banks and investors count in this country - the people who have already made it - the Dems made that quite clear.

From now on when they say 'Main Street', I'll know to tune out.

[Waiting For Everyman]

16. If Pelosi heavily publicized that the Repubs scuttled this, and sent it viral,

none of them would get elected. People would be so up in arms against Repubs for this, they'd vote almost all of them out this time.

If this was made THE talking point and everyone knew it, she'd HAVE her precious majority - probably 90 Dems in the Senate, I wouldn't be surprised. The Dems are political idiots. This is a rare chance for them, with the election's only weeks away, and they're blowing it. AND also hurting their own constituency at the same time.

[mzmolly]

19. How much do you want to bet that it will include a capital gains tax cut though?

:eyes:

I think we need to make it clear that "Republicans rejected help for the middle-class" in this case. We need to repeat it over and over again...........

[RC]

30. Don't forget the corporate tax cut the repugs want along with this.

We're drowning in debt and still their answer is more tax cuts!

[mzmolly]

36. One good thing is that Obama will have a way out of voting for the measure

under the circumstances. I hope he'll do so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Simple terms, SHE'S an idiot

She has a bunch of ideologues holding their breath and she is surrendering

So what else are they going to surrender about?

SEND A FAX, CALL THEM...ENOUGH OF THIS SHIT

[judasdisney]

61. She's no idiot. She's a mole.

[madrchsod]

26. there has to be a complete overhaul of the bankruptcy bill

this bailout bill is not the time nor place to change the fundamental flaws of the existing bankruptcy rules.

chapter 13 and 7 which have different rules and remedies.

http://www.uscourts.gov/bankruptcycourts/bankruptcybasics/chapter13.html

http://www.uscourts.gov/bankruptcycourts/bankruptcybasics/chapter7.html

filing chapter 13 does`t mean one would have to sell ones home if the payments are current.

filing chapter 7 means you`ll have to sell your home but in some states one would receive money from the sale

it`s not as simple as it seems to pass this bit of legislation and have it make a difference

[madfloridian]

37. You trust them to bail out Wall St first?

And get to homeowners later? I don't.

[madrchsod]

43. god no....but

if they would have put this in it would have been tied up in legal problems. the better solution would be to turn over defaults to the federal government to insure and set new loans requirements. but you know that would cut out those who make money on those defaults.

[madfloridian]

44. Our party helped push throught the 2005 bankruptcy bill...

which took away protections for those I mentioned in the OP.

If they passed the bill, let them amend it.

But they should NOT pass any bill that doesn't help keep people in their homes.

That would be an outrage.

[Romulox]

84. Ahem, Joe Biden. nt

[bdamomma]

29. well I guess we got to them our calls really shook them up

The House is in session, probably worried about losing their re election seats, too bad.

[closeupready]

68. And they will lose their seats if they don't pass homeowner relief, period.

Times are too tough, and IT IS THEIR JOB to help the middle class.

[scarletwoman]

40. This is just pitiful.

Don't these Dems even know how to do simple politics?

Repugs say, "We won't pass this bill if you include this provision."

A SMART Dem would say, "Okay, then I guess we don't have a bill. Time for our recess, see ya, bye!"

Then the Dems could return to their home districts -- where their constituents are ALREADY more than 100 to one OPPOSED to the bailout and mightily pissed off about it -- with brave tales about how they TRIED to turn the bailout into something that would have benefited the People, but the asshole Repugs wouldn't let them.

It would kill several birds with one stone -- if only the Dems HAD any stones.

1 - It would put an end to they utterly unseemly spectacle of Dems lining up with Bush when Bush's OWN party is balking. I mean, WTF is up with THAT anyway?

2 - It would undercut the Repug's current image as the ones who are listening to their unhappy constituents while the Dems are not.

3 - It would clearly lay any consequences of not passing a bailout bill at the Repug's feet.

4 - It would demonstrate for once in their miserable corporate-bootlicking careers that they ARE actually on the side of the People.

Unfortunately, #4 is the rub. Which is why Nancy will just keep plugging away to rescue her masters while throwing the rest of us under the bus.

sw

[madfloridian]

41. We let the GOP control the message.

That's the problem still.

[spin]

42. Money and power currupts...

Most politicians start off their Washington D.C. careers with good intentions and intend to represent their voters and improve our country. Unfortunately, they run into a corrupt system controlled by the big corporations.

They find the job fascinating and love all the perks and power. It's a great life. They do accomplish some good for their voters, but they have to compromise their morals and beliefs from time to time. The long term members assure them that it's all for the good, so they play along. In order to achieve reelection they have to come up with considerable sums of money. If they don't tow the line, they find their opponents enjoy better financing and are able win in primaries or the general election.

The really honest politicians usually get disgusted by the system and leave after one or two terms. If they don't, the system will chew them up and spit them out.

And the voters, who spend their time watching American Idol, really have little interest in what's happening in Washington D.C. unless it screws their life up. As long as they country muddles along but people have jobs and can buy homes, SUVs and LCD TV to watch football on, everything is just fine.

The Big Boys have just demanded a 700 billion dollar bail out and threatened the end of the world as we know it if it's not approved immediately. The American people are waking up and getting really upset. They turned their TV sets off for a while and are starting to protest on the streets. They are threatening to vote against any politician who votes for the bail out. Sounds like the population is about the regain the control of the country.

But with our new updated electronic voting system, the votes won't really count anyway.

We are screwed!

[JonLP24]

47. I can't say this....

But if I lived in her district, aw nevermind.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. She's still keeping the powder dry that's now blowing up in her face.

The public, usually benighted, can smell the bullshit being sold to them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. She's still keeping the powder dry that's now blowing up in her face.

The public, usually benighted, can smell the bullshit being sold to them.

[sce56]

51. Um I thought we, the Democrats, were the majority? why do they need Repugs?

[geckosfeet]

52. Simple terms: corporate socialism - better known as facism. And old fashioned greed.

[baldguy]

54. The best recommendation in favor of such a measure is the fact that Republicans are against it.

[slay]

59. FUCK PELOSI - why will she not stand up to these assholes?!?!

Just call her Nancy Lieberman Pelosi - traitor #2. :mad: :grr:

[bertman]

62. Now is the moment to introduce the rider that could change the entire game in our favor:

No bailout whatsoever without an immediate change to paper ballots for the November 4th elections, counted by hand in every precinct in the country.

This is entirely doable. The Sec'y of State of each state commissions the printers to have the ballots ready and distributed to the precincts by October 26. This insures that each will be checked in time to remedy any errors that SHOULD already have been found in the pre-printing verification.

Citizen volunteers are appointed to count ballots under the supervision of the appropriate local election officials in full view of volunteer election monitors of both parties.

Talk about a resurgence of citizen participation in democracy. This would do the trick. Already there is so much interest in this election that getting folks to take on their duties as citizens of this democracy would be a piece of cake.

NO VOTING MACHINES OF ANY KIND ALLOWED FOR THIS ELECTION.

If necessary, in districts/precincts where problems might be anticipated there would be additional law enforcement, election officials, and multi-party citizen election monitors assigned.

I know that this will be viewed by some as unachievable, especially with Quisling Pelosi as Speaker, but it's worth a try.

If you don't think it's NECESSARY read the thread about Stephen Spoonamore's comments on how the election is going to be stolen.

[antimatter98]

64. But Pelosi's AIG stock was 'saved' by the AIG bailout...

Another example of Pelosi only supporting Republican goals, to hell with
the American people.

She and Reid have done nothing but bow to Bush and the Republican goons
since 2006.

It's time for a massive march on DC---to Pelosi's office to show her
who she's ignoring. Emails and phone calls are not going work with such
a hardened criminal as Pelosi.

[defendandprotect]

69. Will the elite agree to bail out citizens .. NO!! -- Only the reverse ....

[madfloridian]

82. We are to wait for them to fix Main St . later.

Trusting these guys has never worked.

[autorank]

70. She should be removed immediately, without much hesitation.

"Pelosi told fellow Democrats during a closed-door meeting that the idea of letting judges rewrite mortgages to help bankrupt homeowners avoid foreclosure won't be a part of the emergency legislation. That provision, pushed by several Democrats, would be a deal-breaker for Republicans whose votes are needed to pass the measure, she said, according to lawmakers at the meeting."

This sounds like she's trying to persuade the Republicans to accept the measure.

Let me get this straight. She's working on a deal to get Republicans to pass the measure even though
the crook in the White House is offering up the idea.

She needs to be removed immediately. We're looking at a complete betrayal of the people.

How much of this nonsense do they think that they can hand out.

When I saw Franks press conference, he sure looked like he had the same attitude complaining that
the Republicans wouldn't come to the table. What's his problem. The Republicans should have to
fall on their faces, detray their guy Bush, and wallow to get this passed.

Why are our leaders so lame?

[dailykoff]

72. A "deal breaker" for the pukes. A DEAL BREAKER FOR THE PUKES!!!

It's their freakin' bacon we're getting f##cked over to save!!! HOW INSANELY STUPID IS THIS FREAKIN' DIPSHIT?!?!?!?!?!

:mad: :grr: :mad: :grr: :mad: :grr: :mad: :grr: :mad: :grr: :mad: :grr:

[ColbertWatcher]

73. She should have left it in and made the GOP vote it down. n/t

[riverdeep]

76. I'm so mad at this point, I can't type straight.

The first thing the Dems did when they accepted this fiasco, instead of holding the hearings, finding out it was a crock and tabling it, was say how we need to think not just about Wall St., but Main St. When push comes to shove, it's all just rhetoric, they won't fight for us.

From the perspective of economic sense, it doesn't seem to make any. You're trying to shellac the boat while it's still letting in leaks. Fix the leaks first!

I don't want a bailout, but God if we have one, at least make it give some immediate relief to those who need it.

[Two Americas]

77. I will try to explain this

Since the people do not understand economics, their economic interests need not be served. If the people were smart, they would be in the market and then they would be doing fine. So they have no one but themselves to blame. They probably made bad choices, and hey why should we have to bail them out? Lazy worthless good for nothings.

While the Democrats are now in office, and do have a majority, that doesn't matter because they need to worry about staying in office. That is why they must vote for something that the public opposes 100-1.

But the thing to remember is that they are different than the Republicans. For example, they carry Bush's water even when the Republican representatives won't. Then they pressure the Republicans to join them in supporting Bush, so they can be bipartisan.

Because of the ignorance of the public, democracy is no longer an option. Any anger that the people may have toward the leaders is just an emotional response. Anyone trying to represent the people and fight for their needs is a demagogue.

For those who understand "how things work" and are "realistic" this is understandable. Your mistake is that you are trying to figure out what they are doing, and then basing your support on that. You talk about this as though we had a representative democracy or something. All wrong.

You are supposed to decide first whom you support, and then no matter what they do it is your job to come up with some sort of explanation that excuses and defends them. It is all about loyalty, see? If we are not loyal, they cannot win, and if they cannot win, then they cannot do anything. That is just the reality of the situation, I am not saying that it is right, but this is the real world we are living in and you can't always get what you want. So don't blame me. I am just a neutral observer - but loyal no matter what! I don't really care what the outcome is, but if I don't get my way I will fight like a tiger to shut down any opposition. And then deny I am doing that.

Once they do win, they do whatever they want to do, and you have no right to say anything, because you must be loyal. And realistic.

I hope that clears up any confusion.

[madfloridian]

79. Consise, terse, and painfully to the point.

.

[Two Americas]

80. hi mf!

Thought you might get a kick out of that.

Keep up the good work.

[madfloridian]

81. Obama thinks homeowner relief is in the bill.

"Instead, Obama said he deserves credit for making sure the proposal includes safeguards for taxpayers. Obama said he is inclined to support the bailout because it includes increased oversight, relief for homeowners facing foreclosure and limits on executive compensation for chief executives of firms that receive government help."


http://kezi.com/news/story-48692

Does it or doesn't it?

I am so tired of the spin and games.

[DainBramaged]

85. Pelosi is ineffective, and needs to be replaced by Hillary.

[The Stranger]

87. The Traitor Pelosi strikes again!

[Joe Chi Minh]

89. I'd thought she meant it should be dealt with under another measure

to be taken by the Government, but it seems the penny hasn't yet dropped for her. The pathological corporatists, whose "ethos" she is so comfortable with/in are being exposed as swindlers and traitors of the first water, but she lacks the imagination and intelligence to see the writing on the wall.

When it happens, I hope George Soros will show the same generosity with his cash towards his own people, as he did promoting capitalism in eastern Europe.

[obamashow]

90. JUST IN: the new bill WON'T ELIMINATE golden parachutes

Republican Sen. Judd Gregg just said the new bill WON'T ELIMINATE golden parachutes for these greedy fatcat Wall Street/corp executives....they will only knock off 20% of any golden parachute!

I'm telling you, this bill is BOGUS and not good for middle class Americans!

Democrats and Republicans are on TV L-Y-I-N-G their asses off right now.......

.r o n

[wordpix]

109. so-golden parachutes in the bill, sick/elderly losing homes are out. I see

WTF, Dems-in-Congress? Are you with us or against? Or are you too entrenched with the Big Banking interests?

[obamashow]

110. Here you go...................

If you knew who I was, you'd probably genuflect.

Yes, I'm with the Dems.....what I posted was just one aspect of this heinous bill.

"BailOut Bill" - There is NOTHING in this bill mandating assistance to the homeowner with mortgage troubles; instead, they have used the term, "encourage" - instead of "shall" or "must." Very misleading, politically-charged legislation, designed to appease constituents without forcing lenders to do a damn thing for homeowners.

This is like a murder statute saying, "We encourage criminals not to commit murder and to develop plans not to murder folks."

Section 109. Foreclosure Mitigation Efforts.

For mortgages and mortgage-backed securities acquired through TARP, the Secretary must implement a plan to mitigate foreclosures and to encourage servicers of mortgages to modify loans through Hope for Homeowners and other programs. Allows the Secretary to use loan guarantees and credit enhancement to avoid foreclosures. Requires the Secretary to coordinate with other federal entities that hold troubled assets in order to identify opportunities to modify loans, considering net present value to the taxpayer.

Section 110. Assistance to Homeowners.

Requires federal entities that hold mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, including the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve to develop plans to minimize foreclosures. Requires federal entities to work with servicers to encourage loan modifications, considering net present value to the taxpayer.

http://financialservices.house.gov/

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
This section of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 " exemplifies the misrepresentation and contradictory statements of this horrendous "BailOut Bill."

Nothing in this section prohibits corporate executives from "golden parachutes," despite the phrase "golden parachute" being used; this section specifically ALLOWS "golden parachutes" as evidenced by:

".........including a 20% excise tax on golden parachute payments triggered by events other than retirement, and tax deduction limits for compensation limits above $500,000. "

This is some of the most scandalous, misleading, politically-motivated, proposed legislation ever written. This section was designed and written to attempt to satisfy the People's call for an END to "golden parachutes," UNFORTUNATELY, it does NOTHING OF THE KIND!

All this section does re: golden parachutes" is to levy a 20% tax on "golden parachutes."

In other words, instead of an executive getting a $40 million "golden parachute, he or she will get a $32 millon "golden parachute instead." Lots of sacrifice, huh? Do you feel sorry for them getting only 80% of their "golden parachute???"

Times are tough....the Democrats are "cracking down" by limiting corporate executives' "golden parachutes" to 80% of their FULL "golden parachutes." ......get a rope............r o n

http://financialservices.house.gov/

Section 111. Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance.

Provides that Treasury will promulgate executive compensation rules governing financial institutions that sell it troubled assets. Where Treasury buys assets directly, the institution must observe standards limiting incentives, allowing clawback and prohibiting golden parachutes. When Treasury buys assets at auction, an institution that has sold more than $300 million in assets is subject to additional taxes, including a 20% excise tax on golden parachute payments triggered by events other than retirement, and tax deduction limits for compensation limits above $500,000.

[Gman]

91. Very simply: 1) Get something in place now so business can proceed

people can get paid and businesses large and small can continue to have people work for them so they can put food on the table.

2) Get Obama elected, have 10-20 more Democrats in the House and 5-6 more Democrats in the Senate.

3) Go after and fix the bankruptcy bill as a whole. Maybe even include some retroactive provisions for those that filed since the GOP bankruptcy bill was passed.

The most important thing is get something in place now.

p.s. kill the black background... kinda looks cool at first, but it's hard to read (for some of us old fogies).

[madfloridian]

93. I am also an old fogy....

and I am experimenting with the backgrounds. They took the blue background out of the option I was using, and the text space is just white now. I have been trying the others. I am not that up on the needed html to do my own design yet, but working on it.

[lonestarnot]

95. And work on getting rid of the DLC'rs.

[Gman]

101. Yeah, I think you should go tell Billl and Hillary to quit campaigning for Obama

Don't you think? Don't you think they have no place in the Democratic Party?

[lonestarnot]

105. Bill sure is doing a bang up job isn't he?

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. It will be

[madfloridian]

96. Did you hear it or read it? I have not had TV on much today.

Thanks for letting me know.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. Hear it, as of the agreement reached last night

I suspect, not that I can prove it, that the dems stood firm and Roy Blunt got a drubbing

David Shuster also covered it today, as well as Barak Obama on the campaign trail. He's trying to 'splain this on the trail and I applaud him for that as well

[madfloridian]

98. It will help those facing foreclosure?

I certainly hope so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. Yes, read section 108 of the working draft

at the banking committee...

It is NOT the most recent version (they are still writing it, or editing it) but it expands HOPE

[LWolf]

100. I am so fucking sick of the "we don't have the votes" bullshit.

Is there not a Democratic majority in the House? Can our "leaders" not unify the party on crucial issues, thus guaranteeing a simple majority?

Can they not work aggressively to pull some votes from moderate Republicans to attain more than the simple majority?

When will the majority party not having enough votes cease to be a legitimate excuse for passing republican bills, and for not working for Democrats?

[w4rma]

102. If she really wanted the votes on this, she could get them. Her priority is our Chinese debtors.(nt)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

104. because if this bill doesnt go through, and the entire financial system collapses

whom do you think the american people will blame? the democrats

yesterday, i was hoping one politician or news pundit had the balls to say, when asked whose fault is this that its partly the fault of the people who vote their leaders in based of xenophobia, homophobia and jingoism. i heard a lot of them blame people for taking out loans when they couldn't afford it but none stating the truth, that we the people voted for bush.

[madfloridian]

107. I was right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7237601

[SammyWinstonJack]

108. Translation= fuck the little people and in the end, we all will be the little people.

:silly: And Nancy with all due respect, Go Fuck Yourself!

[whistle]

111. That is not what Pelosi said in her announcement yesterday, when and where

...will homeowner and commercial foreclosure protection be legislated? Until it is there ought to be a freeze on all foreclosure actions of homes and commercial banks and credit unions.

[madfloridian]

112. I find myself agreeing on that...

Just stop the whole circus until we get something in there for the common people.