Posted on 05/28/2012 5:06:41 AM PDT by Zeddicus
(ref: How Banks Bought the Tea Party)
Seriously folks.
The 15 freshmen Republican representatives in the House Tea Party Caucus each ran in 2010 on a populist anti-Wall Street message, highlighting their opposition to bank bailouts like the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and criticizing Washington for enabling the banking sector as it became “Too Big to Fail.” After winning, all fifteen received significant PAC contributions from the banking industry — and have become a reliable vote and mouthpiece for the financial industry, a ThinkProgress analysis of campaign contributions, voting records and public statements reveals.
It would be nice if they just took money. They did worse.
11 of the 15 co-sponsored this piece of trash; is there any doubt they were bought and paid for?
‘(a) In General- In the examination of financial institutions--‘(1) a commercial loan shall not be placed in non-accrual status solely because the collateral for such loan has deteriorated in value;
‘(2) a modified or restructured commercial loan shall be removed from non-accrual status if the borrower demonstrates the ability to perform on such loan over a maximum period of 6 months, except that with respect to loans on a quarterly, semiannual, or longer repayment schedule such period shall be a maximum of 3 consecutive repayment periods;
‘(3) a new appraisal on a performing commercial loan shall not be required unless an advance of new funds is involved;
Got it? The fact that the collateral, which was the predicate for the loan in the first place, no longer supports the loan as originally agreed, cannot be used as the reason to place the loan in "non-accrual" (that is, at risk of not performing) status.
But the predicate for the loan being made in the first place was the provision of the collateral; but for that collateral's actual value the loan would have never been made in the first place!
This is what the so-called "Tea Party" that claimed to be against bank bailouts has supported -- literally changing the qualifications on a loan after it is made so that in effect there is no collateral required at all!
This is an attempt to literally approve by legislation the effective counterfeiting of the nation's currency and you are the victims as your purchasing power will be further destroyed by this bill should it become law.
11 of 15 "Tea Partiers" are co-sponsors.
Fire them all; they're traitors and mendacious bags of pus.
Let’s name names.
I am sorry to learn of this. I fear, really fear, for our country.
Nice try but no cigar.
There is a lot more to the Tea Party Movement.
As long as ThinkProgress doesn't LeanForward.
Mr. niteowl77
“Nice try but no cigar.
There is a lot more to the Tea Party Movement.”
Bingo!
We are the Tea Party. If the current freshmen don’t live up to our expectations, fire them and hire a new batch.
Besides, the tea party candidates weren’t voted in until 2010.
What, you think the federal government is unduly influenced or controlled by banking interests? That’s just kookery, KOOKERY, KOOOOKERY!!!
I think I speak for all FReepers when I say I’ll simply shout CONSPIRACY THEORIST at you so I don’t have to listen to what you say.
Just because every bill they pass seems to enrich the elite banksters in NY, doesn’t mean anything. Everything in life is a coincidence. Nothing happens for a reason. It’s all just a collection of randome, crazy, happenstance. Just because almost every law they pass these days strengthens the power of the banking elite, is no proof that they have any influence over our government.
It’s not any reason to look further and not just drive by shout “CONSPIRACY KOOK! YOU HATE AMERICA FIRST!”.
>>>‘(1) a commercial loan shall not be placed in non-accrual status solely because the collateral for such loan has deteriorated in value;>>>
Sounds like a good law to me. Take a home mortgage for example. As the house ages it decreases in value. If the home owner can still pay the mortgage, he will own the home at the end of the mortgage payments.
According to the Chair of the TPC, there are a few more than 15 members:
bachmann.house.gov
Michele Bachmann
Contact:
Members of the Tea Party Caucus
Washington, Jul 21 -
Here is a list of those Members of Congress who have officially joined the Tea Party Caucus:
Robert Aderholt (AL-4)
Todd Akin (MO-2)
Rodney Alexander (LA-5)
Michele Bachmann (MN-6)
Joe Barton (TX-6)
Roscoe Bartlett (MD-6)
Gus Bilirakis (FL-9)
Rob Bishop (UT-1)
Michael Burgess (TX-26)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Dan Burton (IN-5)
John Carter (TX-31)
Howard Coble (NC-6)
Mike Coffman (CO-6)
Ander Crenshaw (FL-4)
John Culberson (TX-7)
John Fleming (LA-4)
Trent Franks (AZ-2)
Phil Gingrey (GA-11)
Louie Gohmert (TX-1)
Tom Graves (GA-9)
Ralph Hall (TX-4)
Gregg Harper (MS-3)
Wally Herger (CA-2)
Pete Hoekstra (MI-2)
Lynn Jenkins (KS-2)
Steve King (IA-5)
Doug Lamborn (CO-5)
Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9)
Cynthia Lummis (WY)
Kenny Marchant (TX-24)
Tom McClintock (CA-4)
Gary Miller (CA-42)
Jerry Moran (KS-1)
Sue Myrick (NC-9)
Randy Neugebauer (TX-19)
Mike Pence (IN-6)
Ted Poe (TX-2)
Tom Price (GA-6)
Denny Rehberg (MT)
Phil Roe (TN-1)
Ed Royce (CA-40)
Steve Scalise (LA-1)
Pete Sessions (TX-32)
John Shadegg (AZ-3)
Adrian Smith (NE-3)
Lamar Smith (TX-21)
Cliff Stearns (FL-6)
Todd Tiahrt (KS-4)
Zach Wamp (TN-3)
Lynn Westmoreland (GA-3)
Joe Wilson (SC-2)
A bank can't place a home in jeopardy of foreclosure simply because it is underwater - sounds reasonable
a modified or restructured commercial loan shall be removed from non-accrual status if the borrower demonstrates the ability to perform on such loan over a maximum period of 6 months
A bank can't place a home in jeopardy of foreclosure if the owner is still able to make the mortgage - sounds reasonable
a new appraisal on a performing commercial loan shall not be required unless an advance of new funds is involved
A bank can't place a business in jeopardy of foreclosure unless the owner wants to borrow more money - sounds reasonable
Am I missing something?
It's got to be the Plombo O Plato (lead or silver) thing that goes on in Mexico.
Until there are a few more specifics I see this as a stealth attack on the tea party.
"Yeah, just make up a few 'facts' and the rubes, who will never look it up, might vote the guys out."
This is a report on a study done by Think Progress here is their website: http://www.thinkprogress.com/
See if you think they are telling the truth. Don’t fall for propaganda by anyone on the left especially if they have “progress” in their name.
No way? I think the norm is for pols to abandon principles. They “have” to cater to dimwits and “have” to work to not offend anyone. They have no choice but to bandon (conservative) principles.
Nice headline. Wow, awful quick to slam the Tea Party [movement]. Since this one didn't meet the smell test, I had to research further. First, here's the entity behind all of the controversy: Americans For Financial Reform (SEIU, AFL-CIO, commies)
The only thing this bill changes (actually clarifies) is the definition of a "bad loan". AFFR wants a government examiner to be able to call a loan "bad" even if all of the payments are current.
The bill merely seeks reasonable regulation on banks in order to make the rules clearer on what are "good" loans for a bank to maintain. Banks can lend more which is good for the economy. This in no way hampers bank examiners from banking oversight. That is just the Union false charge.
Denninger and you have been punked.
You’re missing a lot.
This has nothing to do with being able to foreclose or not.
This has everything to do with a bank’s solvency, and whether the FDIC needs to step in and close them under the law.
Previously this law allows the bank to seriously inflate the assets on their books. Loans backed by collateral are counted very differently than loans with no collateral.
This is all fine if you don’t care about sound banking.
Oh and obviously the executives of these banks get bonuses based on these numbers. They have every incentive to lie about their balance sheets, and now it’s not even a crime!
Bailouts will be needed to fix this when it all inevitably blows up, and yes, stopping bailouts was what the tea party was all about.
Good catch. Thanks.
Yes, I would like to see names. In 2010, a lot of candidates co-opted the Tea Party mantle to give them a leg up. Doesn’t mean they actually bought into the Tea Party philosophy.
But money is the mother’s milk of politics and these guys quickly learn to toe the line to receive the most money with the least amount of effort. So favors = cash. I’d like to see both sides of this coin before making a judgement.
Take Denninger with a grain of salt. He’s a libertaria, voted for Obama and still maintains that Obama was better than McCain would have been. He was also an avid supporter initially of the OWS movement and I don’t know if he’s changed his stripes about that.
He does make good points on occasion, but I’d say he is often gullible to BS.
Indeed, there is nothing more hateful than a judge’s grinding ax on anyone with any means, banking or what not, who has the “audacity” of telling the community how good finance is run.
Judges invariably intimidate or lock away anyone who would dare raise a critical finger against the way the books are run in the city.
Governmentoid lawyers are criminal fascists inherently unless they themselves comes from the industry and have learned the private ropes prior.
This country consistently blocks the experts and knowledgeable persons from access or rights of expressions in decision making. This is the hallmark of weak government and emotional lawyering done by complete ignoramuses.
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.