Posted on 10/08/2010 1:21:45 AM PDT by paudio
President Barack Obama plans to veto a bill whose opponents say would make it harder for homeowners to stop foreclosures.
The move marks the Obama administration's most direct intervention so far into a growing debacle tied to how banks foreclose on homes, and the first effective veto of Mr. Obama's presidency. The veto could make it more difficult for banks to complete paperwork and speed the foreclosure process, and could give homeowners more time to rework loans.
Several of the country's largest banks, including Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Ally Bank, have moved in recent weeks to halt thousands of foreclosures in 23 states amid revelations that the banking industry had used "robo-signers," people who sign hundreds of documents a day without reviewing their contents.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
for later
‘If you cannot handle debt, then don’t use it. But if someone is willing to lend someone money, he should have the expectation of being repaid”
Sure and lender should accept the risk of not being repaid just as they accept the reward of being repaid.
I’m amazed you are supporting banks committing criminal acts and undermining property laws across the country. But then again you’ve admitted to being a banker.
I don't understand. How not constitutional?
I knew it wouldn't be too long before you would blurt it out.
Yes, yes. I've heard it all my life. Some folks think the world owes them a living. What's mine is mine an what's yours is negotiable. etc, etc, etc...
The Senate is still in session someone said upthread.
This bill deals with the legitimacy of out of state notarizations. No notarization obtained in an illegal form can be accepted, and the bill does not propose any change to this rule.
The problem is that some states did not accept out of state notarizations (some did) and the purpose of this bill was to make interstate law harmonious on this and agree that states would accept notarizations between them.
Otherwise, it will be impossible to do anything with these houses: not only foreclose on them, but sell them or buy them, because residents of particular states will dispute notarizations done in other states.
Naturally, a lot of the properties affected are those owned by big interstate banks that bought and sold blocks of mortgages for mortgage backed securities, but this does not mean that the banks were doing anything fraudulent.
I think the whole procedure was unsound, but the point now is to do something to enable sales, purchases and foreclosures to go ahead without the specter of somebody in some state finding a technicality (out of state notarization) that would prevent it.
This all revolves around contract law.
If someone says you owe them money and you don't agree, they have to produce the contract upon your request. This must be the original contract that contains your signature that proves you agreed to the debt and its terms.
This whole 'electronic paperwork' mess tries to bypass this legal concept that is over 200 years old by having some notary somewhere say "Yeah, I saw the contract", thereby relieving the party that is supposedly owed from the burden OF ACTUALLY PRODUCING the contract.
It not only flips the 'he who asserts must also prove' concept on its head, it puts the person who is contesting the debt in the impossible position of trying to prove the opposite - that he DOESN'T owe it.
The republican senators got snookered on this bit of political theater. Are there any US Senators at this point who are both honest and mentally competent?
But now the law and the veto are being exponentially expanded to stop ALL foreclosures - and thereby attacking the concept of private capital.
I is owed on the grandest scale yet.
“I knew it wouldn’t be too long before you would blurt it out. “
Blurt what out? That along with the rewards of your business you should also accept the risks. That YOU should be responsible for YOUR business decisions.
Surely you must support capitalism and the free market??? I mean you’re a banker right???
No, just like all other bankers you are willing to accept the profit but seek govt protection from the risks. I’ve spoken with numerous CEOs of smaller banks and EVERY single one knew the pyramid scheme was going to implode. The responsible ones acted accordingly.
But now the law and the veto are being exponentially expanded to stop ALL foreclosures - and thereby attacking the concept of private capital.
I is owed on the grandest scale yet.
According to the Constitution, the pocket veto can only be used when Congress is not in session. If Congress is in session, a bill becomes law automatically without the President's signature after 10 days, unless he explicitly vetoes it.
Obama hasn't explicitly vetoed it. He has just refused to sign it. The administration (via Gibbs) has announced this. But, the Senate is still in session. So, the bill should become law in about a week (I'm not sure when it was actually passed by the Senate).
You are probably thinking: what's the difference? A regular veto can be overridden by the House and Senate. A pocket veto cannot be overridden, because Congress is not in session. It permanently kills a bill, and a new bill must be filed and enacted by Congress when they resume.
This is an abuse of executive power. Once the precedent has been set, Obama (or a successor) can refuse to sign a bill and Congress would be powerless to override the pocket veto.
From what I understand, however, his plan to pocket veto the law is illegal, because congress is in session.
Oh, I take the risks of lending money very seriously. Trust me, I can decipher a credit report in my sleep. I know where the individual works and what he earns and how many times he’s changed jobs.
Back when I first volunteered at the credit union I kinda believed all the BS about the poor put-upon borrowers and the how it “never was their fault.”
I got disabused of the fairy tale pretty quick. Most deadbeats are just that.
Deadbeats.
Do you always take things out of context?
****President Barack Obama plans to veto a bill whose opponents say would make it harder for homeowners to stop foreclosures.*****
This sentence has so many negatives that it is beyond my math or English capabilities to comprehend.
I Think it means that Obama wants more people to be able to stay rent free in homes they can’t afford, compliments of the banks that Gave them their mortgage, but I’m not sure.
“Oh, I take the risks of lending money very seriously.”
But you aren’t willing to accept the risks of the business you’ve chosen.
Stopping all foreclosures is a serious overstep of congress. Bank who have their paperwork in order should not be penalized for the actions of the banks who are forging documents.
Sure we do. We’re still in business and manage to break even most years. But count on it when someone stiff us, they never get to come back. They can go down to the pawn shop or to the payday lender down the street and pay the 200 to 400 percent annualized interest charged at those places.
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.