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
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.
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.
“a commercial loan shall not be placed in non-accrual status solely because the collateral for such loan has deteriorated in value”
This is simply a reversal of the mark to market provision which came along shortly before the 2008 financial collapse and was a major cause of that collapse. Basically, the government said that a bank had to continually adjust its books to reflect the value of the collateral, even if the loans were performing....so the collateral goes down in value, and all of a sudden, the loan is in default...and too many loans in default, then all of a sudden you have the bank examiners running in and wreaking havoc on banks.
Bottom line, the government, as usual, created this mess by messing with the accounting rules in the first place. The cited pieces of the legislation correct that.
I’m not surprised.
These sneaky bastirds do what the politicians in New York do.
I left the Republican Party and officially joined the Conservative Party 2 years ago. What I didn’t expect was that the Conservative ticket was mostly liberals and RINOs. They were trying to camoflage their intentions. These Tea Party electees are just looking out for their next election and think that nobody will notice. They need to be brought out into the light and exposed.
Working for the goals that got them elected in order to get re-elected isn't very important once they find out how wealthy they will be in two years if they go along with the system and how less wealthy they they will stay if they maintain the principles that got them elected and get re-elected. They will fight for re-election but it is not the most important thing. The money is the important thing.
“So much for the Tea Party, or any hope of fixing our problems by voting, or the quaint notion that we have a government that represents We The People. “
*********************************
“We The People”
First found in the preamble, and assumed by most to mean all of us...but was “we the people actually” the remaning delegates who were the signers? !!!!!!
Semper Watching!
*****
No credibility. None. Might as well be straight from Van Jones.
Shill alert. Shill Alert.
(How much does Soros pay you to post, per post? Always wondered...)
Money talks and BS walks.
Source ? Link ? or BS conjured up by Soros...
received significant PAC contributions from the banking industry .....
You mean like Frank and Dodd got ? or just run of the mill PAC money ???
I expect to see LOTS of bogus or inflated troll posts to discouraging TEA party people...it's the Obama/Soros way
This doesn’t make me worry about the tea party for reasons other posters have stated better than I.
What I’m worried about is that the Tea Party is more about preserving existing medicare/social security entitlements, as some statistics from early tea party polls indicate.
The majority TP supporters were concerned about Obama care not because it was a socialist abomination in and of itself, but because it infringed on another socialist abomination that is the present social security/medicare system - from which they wish to “get theirs”.
Anything (including the Tea Party) that does not dismantle the existing big government, and severely limit the extraction of money that is earned in the private marketplace for the benefit of those who live off of government payments - of any kind - is not going to change the status quo - which is reckless fiscal irresponsibility - and the consequences thereof.