It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama ``deal`` with the banks to cost taxpayers $40 billion

page: 1
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
This is a follow up to this : Fraudclosure -- You Have Been Sold Out

Not a big surprise coming from bank puppet Obama.

US Taxpayers to subsidize $40bn housing settlement

US taxpayers are expected to subsidize the $40bn settlement owed by five leading banks over allegations that they systematically abused borrowers in pursuit of improper home seizures, the Financial Times has learnt.

However, a clause in the provisional agreement – which has not been made public – allows the banks to count future loan modifications made under a 2009 foreclosure-prevention initiative towards their restructuring obligations for the new settlement, according to people familiar with the matter. The existing $30bn initiative, the Home Affordable Modification Programme (Hamp), provides taxpayer funds as an incentive to banks, third party investors and troubled borrowers to arrange loan modifications.

"But in the end the servicers are not really being punished. They’re getting off easy,” Ms Cohen said.

Let's make it clear here...

Banks :
1. Banks rob you
2. Banks get paid by you
3. They don't go to jail

You :
1. You get robbed
2. A lot of you lose everything in the process (job, house, car, family, moral)
3. You have to pay the people who destroyed your life

For banks : Got away with tens of thousands of felonies and trillions of $$$. And when they got to pay a ``fine`` so Obama look good, it's paid for by the taxpayers... aka the victim.

Justice? In America?


All this, thanks to Obama and the sellouts attorney generals of the states.

The only one running for office who's against all this is Ron Paul. Obama has proven again and again he's working for the banks and Romney/Newt/Santorum are too.
edit on 16-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Oh, this ticks me off so much. Why can't we have a referendum like Iceland has. This doing whatever they want to bailing out banks and leaving citizens homeless is explosive enough for me. But when they put it on taxpayers with no referendum, I just see red. I am so irate right now! :



edit on 17/2/12 by spirit_horse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
So you me and who ever else flagged it need to just post away on this and make it front page. You have any coffee brewing? I'm going to go check the source and if it legit I thninks I might haves me a god damn straw.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Oh and if it is a fraud fake or whatever then the source should be shunned, things are too tense for un warranted um..., how do you say rage nicely?



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Assuming a very naive position I will suppose the Financial Times are a trusted source of valid information? UK’s finest? Maybe someone will fill me in on the source there. Off to check their source.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Hey OP!

How abouts you tell us the source that Financial Times used for their info. I dont want to sign up with them to be able to read the info, and besides if this is legit then they will quote thier source.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by budro
 


My friend, it is commendable that you want this to go to the Front Page.

But it won't.

Even as ATS has so many posters who are aware, who are above the curve, the Apathy has taken deep roots.

We have been Robbed so often, for so long, it is "Just the way things are".



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
How much more has to occur before the streets are retaken and the buildings are burnt to the ground. Come home.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by budro
Assuming a very naive position I will suppose the Financial Times are a trusted source of valid information? UK’s finest? Maybe someone will fill me in on the source there. Off to check their source.

Yes. The Financial Times is very credible. It's the ``economic newspaper`` of the elite.


Originally posted by usernamehere
How much more has to occur before the streets are retaken and the buildings are burnt to the ground. Come home.

Probably the end of food stamps/medicare/medicaid/social security...

Why do you think Homeland Security is giving TANKS to small towns?

The government is preparing for war against it's own people.
edit on 17-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Well sir I take pleaseure in saying this.. You are wrong. You, me and the other 2 could make it go front page right now and keep it there. Then go tell our neighbors.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by spirit_horse
Oh, this ticks me off so much. Why can't we have a referendum like Iceland has. This doing whatever they want to bailing out banks and leaving citizens homeless is explosive enough for me. But when they put it on taxpayers with no referendum, I just see red. I am so irate right now! :



edit on 17/2/12 by spirit_horse because: (no reason given)


You can't have referendum. Referendum is not democratic



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by budro
Assuming a very naive position I will suppose the Financial Times are a trusted source of valid information? UK’s finest? Maybe someone will fill me in on the source there. Off to check their source.

Yes. The Financial Times is very credible. It's the ``economic newspaper`` of the elite.


Originally posted by usernamehere
How much more has to occur before the streets are retaken and the buildings are burnt to the ground. Come home.

Probably the end of food stamps/medicare/medicaid/social security...

Why do you think Homeland Security is giving TANKS to small towns?

The government is preparing for war against it's own people.
edit on 17-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)


And the people are preparing for war against the government. The question is, Who will have the military on their side?



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by six67seven
 


Like many do, I have allot of family in the military. I once asked a Marine friend of the family who was in charge of upper level security and has access to lotsa guns a series of questions to find out what the mind of a killer thinks. Went something like this.

So, Joe Marine, if your commander told you there was a group of radicals or terrorists in the next town over and your squad was to go take them out, would you? Jo, damn straight I would, we would eat them for lunch. Me, well what if it was a bunch of people who were tired of being controlled and raped by their government? Jo, well then they shouldn’t be threatening the peace. Me, I never said the group was a threat but your commander did, how would you know your family and friends were not in the group and that all they want is fair government and freedom? Jo, I guess I wouldn’t until it was too late but I am sure at some point we would question why a group of helpless civilians would decide to sacrifice their lives against the military and we defend the constitution. Me, so you would join the civilians? Jo, well if I knew it was just. Me, so do you know that the people are pissed and can only take so much more? Jo, Sure I do now, since I’ve been home for a week but when I was on duty, hell no, I was too busy playing with guns and blowing stuff up to care about news or what going on at home, I was taking out terrorists. Then he dropped the volume of his voice and said, it doesn’t matter bro, the US is going to be taken down from the inside with nuclear suit case sized bombs from the Russian cold war. He then said that’s why the southern border is open, as a route for the bombs and that there were enough to destroy every resemblance of society as we know it and we will end up like a third world country. This he believed was how TPTB would control our unruly uprising and the military would be used to combat the civil war and bring back government.

It was a mind blowing conversation and I am sure that if he knew who and why he was fighting he would do the right thing and so will my family members, but, they just like us, are too busy with their day to day grind to give a damn



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by budro
Assuming a very naive position I will suppose the Financial Times are a trusted source of valid information? UK’s finest? Maybe someone will fill me in on the source there. Off to check their source.

Yes. The Financial Times is very credible. It's the ``economic newspaper`` of the elite.


Originally posted by usernamehere
How much more has to occur before the streets are retaken and the buildings are burnt to the ground. Come home.

Probably the end of food stamps/medicare/medicaid/social security...

Why do you think Homeland Security is giving TANKS to small towns?

The government is preparing for war against it's own people.
edit on 17-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)


And the people are preparing for war against the government. The question is, Who will have the military on their side?


i think they would go half in half at first.

OP this is such a friggin load of icing on the corrupt cake we call D.C., thanks for the heads up.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by six67seven
 


Who needs people when you have drones to do the dirty work for you?

Plus if the military is the only way to feed your family and everyone is starving..people won't hesitate to turn on their fellow citizen. North Korea, Soviet Union, the police force in Greece at the moment, most 3rd world countries...


I love it that most people still get mad over welfare moms and not banks (which are the real problem) raping the system.
edit on 17-2-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

edit on 17-2-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Waiting for the Obamabots to come through. Strange how they respond to every Ron Paul related thread with ad homs, smears, & opinionated assertions; yet when Obama is exposed for yet more treasonous acts there's no defense.

I think this is the second time he's made deals with the banks this year? Since his term started he's given retroactive immunity not only to the Bush administration but to the big banks & foreclosure fraudsters (& continues to this day). The man was fueled into office by the special interest, serves the special interest, period. A SHILL. A pathological liar. A narc. Unfortunately he'll [probably] get a second term, and as Gerald Celente says "People will be wanting Bush back."



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Who needs people when you have drones to do the dirty work for you?


The problem is that people are willing to be paid to control them.

I wouldn't do it for a million dollars, because I know that war is evil. I will never kill an innocent, I would rather die.
If the situation was really honorable, I would strongly consider joining but it is not.

The politicians and greedy overlords might be the ones to blame first for wars but soldiers still tag along and are part of the problem too.

As for the bankers and their followers like Obama, the day of judgment will come.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
How are the banks at fault in this instance? Isn't this what borrowers in distress really want? Don't borrowers want a free ride on their mortgage, with lower payments and reduced principal balances owed?

If you loan me $100,000 to buy a house, and I lose my job, and can no longer afford to make my payments, do you have a right to foreclose on the house? Yes or No? Is the signed mortgage contract a valid legal contract if you signed it? Yes or No?

What if I came to you and said, "I can afford the payments if you would just reduce the principal by $75,000, and I'll make payments on $25,000 moving forward. This is all I can afford." Who gets to eat the $75,000 loss? The lender? Why would a lender take a $75,000 loss? Aren't lenders in the business of lending money for profit? Since when did banks become non-profit organizations?

The U.S. government is doing what the left-leaning public wants - A free ride on their mortgage. Let's be real: They are utilizing taxpayer funds to subsidize deadbeat and distressed borrowers. That's not the bank's fault. It's the fault of the borrowers for gambling and speculating in the real estate market, buying more house than they can afford.

Don't you want a lower payment on your mortgage? Don't you want free housing? A reduced debt balance on your mortgage? Isn't that what all of the left-leaning radicals want? Well, here it is. Served on a platter for the average Joe to enjoy. It's not a bank bailout --- It's a bailout for deadbeat borrowers. Let's be honest and at least factual about who is supposed to benefit from this arrangement, because it certainly isn't the banks.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
How are the banks at fault in this instance? Isn't this what borrowers in distress really want? Don't borrowers want a free ride on their mortgage, with lower payments and reduced principal balances owed?


No they are not asking for a free ride on their mortgage. Many mortgage-holders would like nothing more than to be able to pay their bills, but that's only possible for those with an income. The mortgage-holders did not anticipate the economic collapse any more than the banks who were handing out mortgages.


If you loan me $100,000 to buy a house, and I lose my job, and can no longer afford to make my payments, do you have a right to foreclose on the house? Yes or No?


If you hold the mortgage note, yes. However most banks do not hold the mortgage note and have no claim to mortgage payments. This is because it's illegal for banks to simultaneously collect mortgage payments and make bets against people being able to pay that exact same mortgage (aka derivatives).


Is the signed mortgage contract a valid legal contract if you signed it? Yes or No?


Yes, and it is an invalid contract once the bank illegally transfers it to someone else, which is pretty much standard practice because this how how they are able to sell derivatives on that contract.


What if I came to you and said, "I can afford the payments if you would just reduce the principal by $75,000, and I'll make payments on $25,000 moving forward. This is all I can afford." Who gets to eat the $75,000 loss? The lender?


Yes because that's the risk you take, as a lender, when you make bad loans and then actively bet against people being able to pay those loans in order to make much larger profits than what the actual loan is worth. All the mortgage payments illegally collected are just free money.


Why would a lender take a $75,000 loss? Aren't lenders in the business of lending money for profit? Since when did banks become non-profit organizations?


In case you haven't noticed, the banks have been quite profitable, and for the above-listed reasons, they are completely comfortable with taking a so-called "loss," which is often converted into a short sale, wherein the bank gets to repeat the entire process, courtesy of the tax payers' bailouts.


The U.S. government is doing what the left-leaning public wants - A free ride on their mortgage.


I think there are plenty of threads on ATS that demonstrate clearly that the U.S. government is doing what the banks and corporations want it to do, not what any public, left or right, wants it to do.


Let's be real: They are utilizing taxpayer funds to subsidize deadbeat and distressed borrowers.


which includes banks and corporations, not just individuals...


That's not the bank's fault. It's the fault of the borrowers for gambling and speculating in the real estate market, buying more house than they can afford.


I agree that borrowers are responsible, but that does not mean banks are absolved of their part in the deal. It takes two to tango. The banks signed the paperwork just like everyone else.


Don't you want a lower payment on your mortgage? Don't you want free housing? A reduced debt balance on your mortgage? Isn't that what all of the left-leaning radicals want?


Those are loaded questions, so I'm sure we can find some right-leaning people who would like those things too...


Well, here it is. Served on a platter for the average Joe to enjoy. It's not a bank bailout --- It's a bailout for deadbeat borrowers.


I agree, except banks also borrow from one another, so it's not as cut-and-dry as this statement makes it seem.


Let's be honest and at least factual about who is supposed to benefit from this arrangement,


Ok sounds good.


because it certainly isn't the banks.


Maybe the banks are not benefiting, but the CEOs of banks are certainly benefiting from those bonuses...

Good conversation. Here are some links to substantiate what I have talked about:

loanworkout.org...
en.wikipedia.org... (pay attention to the part about securitization)
www.nytimes.com...
abcnews.go.com...



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join