Senator Tester, "A deal is a deal?" Regardless of the malfeasance of banks...stick it to the folks

[thunder rising]

Didn't take that asshat long to sidle up to big money.

And, just to think, my $100 from way down here in FL helped him get into office.

Anybody up in Montana that can relay this message for me, I would appreciate it.

[montanacowboy]

1. I have not been happy lately

with what I am hearing from Tester - it's the same old story

I know plenty of people in Montana who are losing or going to lose their homes and it's because they lost their goddam $10/hr job in Montana.

Tester should be ashamed of himself, turning into another Max Baucus

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Do you have a link so I know what I'm talking about if I transmit for you?

[Eric J in MN]

4. Link

http://firedoglake.com/2009/04/28/jon-tester-a-deals-a-deal-even-if-theyre-stealing-you-blind/

[John Q. Citizen]

10. Thanks.

[Eric J in MN]

3. Going into bankruptcy = breaking deals NT

NT

[brentspeak]

5. I just called Tester's Washington office to complain

Told them that he can expect this out-of-state resident NOT to contribute to his reelection campaign (in 2112) if he continues to oppose mortgage write-down, etc.

Phone: [phone]

[thunder rising]

6. Thanks.

[DURHAM D]

7. It is disappointing.

He got $200 from me down here in North Carolina when he was running third in the polls in the Dem primary.

After looking at his website I had called his campaign headquarters to clarify his position on choice. The staffer handed the phone to Jon and we talked for 20 minutes about education, music, farming, Senator Burns, his wife and family and Jon's pro-choice position.

He told me to come see him in D.C. if I was in town. I think I will make the trip.

[OregonBlue]

8. I posted the same yesterday. I emailed and called his office. He is wrong on this one!! I also sent

him money but not again.

Tester, Nelson(Neb), Landrieu, we know what they are, the question is how much?

Edited on Wed Apr-29-09 12:58 PM by OregonBlue
Jon Tester has expressed his opposition to mortgage write-down in bankruptcy (cramdown). "I just think a deal's a deal. I have a lot of empathy for folks who tend to get led astray, but I just think it's going to create some problems," he says.

I have NEVER been late with my credit card or loan payments but 3 months ago, Chase decided to double my monthly payments forcing me to cancel my health insurance. I had a rate that was "guaranteed" for the life of the loan. When I protested, I was told that I needed to read the fine print which allows them to increase my rates or payments at any time they choose. I could avoid the doubled payment by accepting a new interest rate from Chase that was more than double than what I had originally agreed to.

Is a deal a deal when it's a liar loan?

So my question is, why is it okay for the banks to change an agreement at any time but not okay for a judge to change an agreement in order to keep people in their homes.

I'd say the lobbyists have gotten to these guys, the only thing we don't know is how much? Tester claims to be a man of the people but I guess he's more worried about getting re-elected than in doing the right thing.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. OK, I talked to Tester's office in Missoula and they had

a staffer get back to me.

Staffer said Tester opposes cram downs because when cram downs became law in chaper 13 in 1985, it caused a large jump in the cost of farm loans, and made credit tighter because the risk was greater for the lender.

He also said that Tester opposes all cram downs, including for commercial real estate, second homes, etc.


I tend to agree. While the quote used from Tester is almost cryptic as far as rational for his vote, the issue of loan fraud, (Appraisal scams, predatory lending, abusive practices) isn't solved by allowing cram downs in bankruptcy.

What is needed is a law that if a lender engages in illegal practices it's fairly quick and easy to sue them, and that a judge can reset loan terms if a borrower successfully sues under provision of the law.

Separate reseting of loans from bankruptcies, and put them into the framework of consumer protection laws.

What needs to be done is consumers need easy and ready access to the courts when lenders defraud them. We need access to state courts instead of only prohibitively expensive federal courts for mortgages. We need to be able to go to small claims court, even, when our lenders have defrauded us for smaller amounts of money.

We need laws that if the lender is non-responsive to their legal obligations then all interest and fees are suspended until said lender responds. Why should all and every administrative and legal recourse be open to the lender and practically nothing available to the borrower to be able to protect their interests?