Money by Kevin Dooley via Flickr

Senate Democrats Caving, May Roll Back Dodd-Frank Regulations

After the recent indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates which included charges for bank fraud, it should be obvious there are still problems with smaller banks making loans based on sketchy collateralization.

It’s right there in the indictments.

After reading about the recent relationship between bank fraudster Rick Gates, an identity monitoring company, and one of the biggest credit monitoring firms, it should be obvious there’s no daylight between bank fraud and other consumer financial products.

It’s right there in publicly filed records and marketing statements.

After reading about Donald Trump’s and Jared Kushner’s repeated real estate development failures, whether he borrowed the money from investment banks (Bear Stearns in 2006, in Trump’s case; Citigroup and Deutsche Bank recently, in Jared’s) or whether he licensed his brand while managing failing properties (Taj Mahal casino, Puerto Rico golf course, Panama condos, etc. failing after 2008), it should be obvious the underlying threats setting 2008’s economic crash in motion didn’t end after Dodd-Frank regulatory reform was passed. (Goodness knows Trump and Kushner aren’t the only failures, just the most well-known.)

Again, all of this is public record.

Which is why it is absurd that Democratic Senators are caving in and rolling back Dodd-Frank regulatory reforms with S.2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.

Do community banks need some relief from the additional expenses of compliance? Perhaps — but how does rolling back part of Dodd-Franks ensure that bank frauds like Rick Gates and Paul Manafort are stopped? Something isn’t working; the answer may be more, not less regulation.

Do Too-Big-To-Fail banks need to ensure they can’t crash the economy by virtue of their size? Sure, but what has been done to prevent more piecemeal failures like those Trump’s circle exemplify?

The capper? The CBO score on this bill sucks:

– The bill would increase federal deficits by $671 million over the 2018-2027 period
– And “would increase the likelihood that a large financial firm with assets of between $100 billion and $250 billion would fail.”

Read this piece by Mike Konzcal, Why Are Democrats Helping Trump Dismantle Dodd-Frank?

Also Matt Yglesias at Vox, and Molly Hensley-Clancy at BuzzFeed — the latter points out voters want more regulatory control on banks, not less.

See also Indivisible’s backgrounder-explainer and @Celeste_P’s call script on S.2155.

And then call your senators and tell them to vote against S.2155, then come up with a better solution to help community banks. Enlist friends and family to make calls; this bill is expected to go to a vote late today or first thing in the morning.

You might also point out to Senate Dems if smaller community banks fail because of Trump’s policies and his circle’s kleptocracy, it’ll be on them for aiding and abetting Trumpian nonsense when they are up for re-election.

EDIT: I forgot you may not have this phone number memorized as I do —

US Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121

Make the calls now!

49 replies
  1. Rayne says:

    Senators Stabenow and Peters of Michigan embarrassed me so far — this state was pounded into smithereens by the foreclosure crisis, both at state and federal level, and they’re acting like they’ve forgotten what happened. Quit being patsies for the financial industry which has yet to act in good faith with consistency.

    • Avattoir says:

      From the post:

      “voters want more regulatory control on banks, not less”

      Thing is, voters also want more choices, not less.

      And credible non-horserace polling shows younger voters yearning for a “strong president”.

      There’s a deeper problem underlying those obvious conundrums in that set of desires: we can’t get address the “strong man” crap without first resolving under the current U.S. banking crisis – which means regime change.

      Very few countries face this problem because

      1. most are nowhere nearly so confederalist as the U.S.,

      2. those at all comparably confederalist function under a constitution that provides for clear, enforceable hegemony of the federal power over banking, currency & financing, which for the most part actually gets enforced, and

      3. the U.S. continues to ‘enjoy’ some fumes-like “advantages” of Breton Woods (despite that, under Nixon the federal govt formally shucked off the overall structural carapace necessary to the Breton Woods accord), including for the most part being “the” national currency against which pegging occurs.

      Except now it’s a curse.

      Obama had a chance to try to address this when he was first sworn in. He had advisors who urged him to carpe diem (well, one for sure – the only woman). And it sure seems like he had a sufficient understanding of banking & financing to pull it off. But instead he chose to use his political capital towards energy reform thru the STIM and secondly health care reform thru O’Care.

      It’s quite possible the next preznit gets another such opening – except right now I don’t see a single credible nom for either party in 2000 having the background or cred to pull it off.

      One can certainly envision the cobbling together a Bernie-Beth 2000 single issue nom, but I don’t see that winning over any of the idealized Marvel superhero type.

      • cfost says:

        I agree. But the very idea of money has been revolutionized and made supranational. Putin has been one of the first to realize it, and has been acting on it. If Steve Jobs can do it, he said to himself, so can I. What, really, is a bank; and what, really, is a political regime? Who, really, are the citizens? And who are the slaves? Echoes of Ancient Rome.
        So I also agree with Rayne insofar as I agree that political action is necessary. It is important for citizens of a democratic regime to participate in their own democracy, but that has been lacking for awhile here in the US. For the average person, the entire day is taken up by work and/or kids, a good thing. People rely on the virtue of their elected representatives, but such virtue has also been lacking for awhile. Besides, a discussion on the ins and outs of money and finance vis a vis the national well-being is going to glaze the eyes of many.
        We put our trust in Liz Warren, and by god she got some stuff done. But the monied powers put their trust in money and lobbyists, and by god they got some stuff done, too. I see some hope on the horizon: a political tsunami will change things, but not before the monied powers do every nasty murderous thing they can to stop it. The one thing we have going for us, the only thing, is our willingness to stand before these powers and say, “Fuck. You.”

    • Rayne says:

      Thank you. It may not be enough to persuade them, but at least they won’t go into a vote without having heard dissent.

      I know there have been times I was the only person who called to ask for a Yea/Nay on a bill. Sometimes one call’s enough.

  2. orionATL says:

    i don’t understand this behavior; it seems so contemptible.

    i suppose it is to avoid having  banks or the chamber of commerce or kochsuckers run teevee ads against these senators. if so, why not take the alternative route of reminding voters just how much individual citizens lost in assets (mostly their homes) and income (jobs and wages  lost without replacement replacement for months or years) – the “recession”  was essentially a depression and lasted from 2006-2016.

  3. Rugger9 says:

    I don’t get it either, since the buzz in favor of this legislation is about it being “bipartisan” but not on its actual merits or what it does do, even before the GOP mucks around with it in the middle of the night or a conference committee.

    D’s need to not work with these vandals at all,  If Tester and Heitkamp, et al, want to protect little banks it is already the law.  Perhaps we need to follow the contribution money…

  4. Peacerme says:

    Dems, and Hillary (Obama too) had/have a bank problem. Just like pugs have an oil problem. The only thing I had against Hillary was that she voted to make it so that students couldn’t be released from student loan debt in bankruptcy, just as the predatory student loans began, AND she and Bill Clinton through the Clinton Foundation were part of a (perhaps well intentioned???) predatory loan scheme for small businesses, globally. Unfortunately, these were predatory loans (one missed payment, doubled payment plus fees, no less accepted, foreclosure in 2 missed payments, fake fees and no communication). These predatory loans spread poverty globally and very few success stories occurred.

    What is the deal?

    Obama did not hold the banking industry responsible for their part in the crash of 2008. There is a reason why only fines occurred and why, they keep passing bills that support these dirty practices. We know what it can do to the economy, but for some reason, this problem goes to the highest ranks. Bernie was the breath of fresh air on this issue.

    • orionATL says:

      peacerme sez:

       “… AND she and Bill Clinton through the Clinton Foundation were part of a (perhaps well intentioned???) predatory loan scheme for small businesses, globally. Unfortunately, these were predatory loans (one missed payment, doubled payment plus fees, no less accepted, foreclosure in 2 missed payments, fake fees and no communication). These predatory loans spread poverty globally and very few success stories occurred…”

      you either don’t know what you are talking about or you are deliberately spreading right/left-wing propaganda.

      here is an example of how the clinton foundation views predatory lending:

      • matt says:

        …deliberately spreading propaganda…  that’s a little harsh.  CGI made many “partnerships” with local lending firms- no doubt some bad actors in there.  Most unsecured small business loans have crappy terms, as they involve more risk.  From the Clinton Global Initiative point of view a legitimate “sub-prime” business loan is much better than a borrowing in desperation from a loan shark.  In other words, a hefty fine is better than a broken leg.

        • orionATL says:

          matt –

          the kindess thing that can be said of peacerme’s comment or your supporting comment is that you are simpletons, uncritically and ignorantly reiterating propaganda from either the rightwing tea party or the leftwing tea party. both tea parties are equally arrogant about their political goals and equally deceitful with respects to their targeted “opponents” political actions.

          you need to be more analytical and critical of the arguments of the leftwing tea party types you seem to be following.

          don’t let yourself become just another yelping pup in the pack, you’re too sharp for that.

          • matt says:

            Arg!, I feel so misunderstood.  I think the jist of Peacerme’s comment was that the CGI small business loan terms were not that good.  I was suggesting to her that it was not because of a “Clinton conspiracy,” but rather the fact that same old big lenders were underwriting loans, with usual and customary (bad) terms for sup-prime lending.   The CF is really a policy think tank, that looks to private partnerships to affect boots on the ground initiatives.  Without day to day operational oversight one can see how the manifestation from “idea” to “reality” might be corrupted.

            I totally agree with your warning to stay out of the Left or Right Tea Party weeds.   I’m certainly not one buy into either MSM or “alt” propoganda- I try my best to keep informed, which is why I read EW.  :)

    • matt says:

      Peacerme, you are so very right.  Clintons/Obama carried the same Wall St. Banking dynasty through their administrations as the GOP.  This was another huge reason Hillary did not have enthusiastic support among the majority of progressives.

      Finance is mysterious and complicated to most voters.  That’s why it’s easy to push this totally shitty S.2155 bill.  I can only dream of Elizabeth Warren ruling the free world some day…

      • Rayne says:

        Did you call your senators? Fax them?

        Edit — 12:55 am ET — and yes, you too, please provide a well-sourced explanation about the Clinton Foundation’s “predatory loan scheme for small businesses, globally.” Cite lenders since you believe there were bad actors.

        These claims are propaganda when not supported by fact.

    • Rayne says:

      Please provide a well-sourced explanation of your claim about the Clinton Foundation’s “predatory loan scheme for small businesses, globally.” Cite lenders.

      Did you call your senators? Fax them? My beef with folks who claim to be progressives is that they talk the talk but don’t actually walk the walk.

      • matt says:

        Rayne, yes.. on my list today to contact Senators/reps… In regards to CF/CGI lending programs- they were well intentioned. I applaud the Clintons for making initiatives like this. The Clintons, of course, don’t run a bank, nor do they oversee the details of lending. The criticism was of the partner banks- the same big bad boys that blew up the housing market- now being “nice” by “playing with Hillary” and allocating funds for high-risk small business lending. But the terms of sub-prime business lending didn’t change. As I admitted, a legitimate small business loan- even with high fees, penalties, and interest is better than the alternative- no loan at all or being forced to a loan shark. Predatory lending is a continuum, so a little less bad is still good, I guess.

        As per your request, a CNN reference to CGI banking partnerships.

  5. Rapier says:

    I’m not even sure of the particulars of the bill but you can be certain it is meant to induce credit growth. Somehow, if politicians know it or not. Credit growth is a systematic imperative. You can be sure the bills result will not be to lead to much credit growth beyond financial credit used to inflate financial assets. Which is what passes for wealth creation in our system. It’s the shit but as there is no other option then any politician in their right mind must help.

    Meanwhile China intends to build out all Asia, Central, S and SE, to India and beyond, to the Middle East, all the way to Europe. To create routes and systems of trade. On credit, somehow. If they do then they win this capitalism thing.

    And us? At least we will be white.

    • matt says:

      We’ve already lost “this capitalism thing.”  US economy cannot sustain post WWII growth that has been declining since the 80’s.  A little dot com bump and deregulation mania in the 90’s was nice. And, the housing bubble was good while it lasted.  However there is nothing in sight that can save our economy in the long term.   The USA is too rich and too deep  in debt to compete with China.  We’re headed for more austerity where upper class wealth is protected at all costs, while middle/lower class wealth is fleeced.  Our political leadership can’t even look forward past an election cycle, much less plan for mitigating the Climate Change catastrophe… much, much less plan for long term economic prosperity.

  6. Rapier says:

    It is very difficult to make clear my point which is that economic growth is a monetary phenomena. Crucially in today’s world money is created by credit. A simple truth that is beyond the real understanding of most. Understand it or not at least allow that credit expansion determines economic growth. And please please please to not separate governments use of credit as opposed to all others. It does not matter on a systematic basis who does the borrowing. It is more borrowing, period, that brings growth.

    China’s credit expansion dwarfs the ROW. It is generating about half of all new credit of G20 nations. How they do it is one matter and if it can be sustained is another but they are doing it. As long as they do it their GDP growth will be 3 to 5 times US growth. Again, without getting into how they do it or how we could, my point is if US credit does not expand at a much faster pace we will fall behind. Until the music stops.

    It is not recognized but we live in a period of historic monetary expansion many orders of magnitude greater than ever was

    • Rayne says:

      Emphasis on a growth economy is problematic, especially when a mere 1% harvest the greatest benefit from growth. Our measures are wrong when the average citizen struggles to scrape up $400 in an emergency and housing isn’t affordable for workers making minimum wage.

      It also does us little good to compare U.S. to China when China is recovering from decades of suppressed demand while we are in the midst of a recent and invisible ongoing suppression — not to mention China is more than three times the size of the U.S.

      Our economy needs to be rethought if we aren’t going to make new crises for ourselves which destroys gains; I’m thinking of the toxicity of our current economic growth models and the deepening of climate change volatility. We should be thinking more systemically: how do we improve the lives of the bottom 80% while not creating havoc? Increasing credit isn’t an automatic fix.

      • orionATL says:

        one of several needed major reorientations of our economy is to legislatively (and thru education about social expectations) change how corporations function in this society.

        the corporation must be legally required to consider the wellbeing of society its primary obligtion rather than the well-being of stockholders (in practice, the wellbeing of corporate execs).

        the corporation must be re-oriented to consider its decisions as one of thousands of similar organizations collectively making decisions about capital and labor allocations that keep this american society functioning at a high level economically.

        corporate pay, corporate mergers and acquisitions, expansion or contraction, sales to non-american entities, labor policies such as undisputed right of workers to organize, raw materials acquisition(e. g., shale gas), effect on climate (power plants), etc. must be undertaken with clearly socially beneficial goals.

        • matt says:

          Amen.  Let’s start with denying “Corporate Personhood”- constitutional rights given to entities.  Next, a reversal of Citizen’s United.

      • Anne says:

        How about the food system, with changes to production, distribution and waste?  The shift my community is experiencing to back toward local production (within 500 miles), and sustainable, organic, small farming networks…a general description.  We have food rescue groups, as well, that harvest or pickup extra food and distribute it  (ie, free or to food pantries).

        • matt says:

          Our community too! (SW Wisconsin).  Lots of permaculture & intensive biodiverse farming-  more local jobs, more productive output, less fossil-fuel inputs, higher nutrient density, and… best of all- better flavor!  Price is not too bad either when purchasing direct from farm or CSA group.  Of all the depressing trends in our country… this is an awesome trend that gives me hope.

    • matt says:

      Economic growth used to be limited by the money supply (gold).  Now we no conceivable limit to money supply… so the wrench in the machine will be exhaustion of energy/raw materials, or as Rayne suggests climate catastrophe.

      I curious as to your opinion, Rapier- which will end the inflationary expansion of capital growth first, “peak everything” or climate catastrophe?

  7. NorskieFlamethrower says:

    O T but just wanted to give a heads up. Last night I read the Lawfare article analyzing Mueller’s legal theory of conspiracy to defraud the US. I am old and not a lawyer or a cyber techie but I remember awhile ago trying to get an explanation here why treason would not apply to those Americans who “colluded”. The answer was pointedly short but understandable. I then asked about some kind of charge of conspiracy against the US but that was met with crickets. After reading the Lawfare piece I am hoping that maybe we could get a post that would analyze the case as we  see it now through the lens of the conspiracy theory in order to get an idea of  how far it can be stretched and how many of the players can reasonably be expected to get caught in it.  It seems to me that this theory is much better than any treason or espionage charge because the entire enterprise can be brought down. Is there a possibility that the RNC could be named at least as an unindicted co-conspirator and what about sitting congress folks and senators?

  8. earlofhuntingdon says:

    I knew Rayne would like Hope Hicks’s “the cat ate my Yahoo e-mails” excuse.

    And how about those portable penises on the conference room table for Donald’s latest Cabinet meeting?  Or were those supposed to be models of rockets?  Never mind.

  9. earlofhuntingdon says:

    I like the irony of Trump framing his tariffs news conference with cleanly dressed workers holding hard hats, people Trump claims to be “for”.  Trump spent decades profiting heavily from not paying his bills, most of all not paying workers who built and ran his properties.

    “Taxes” and “tariffs” were not why tens of thousands of factories closed in America.  Their owners intentionally closed them here to open them offshore in order to enhance their profits, and because they could.  Steel and aluminum are old-style, Cold War industries that appeal to Trump’s base, like coal.  Quoting William McKinley, died 1901, might not be the best voice to use to justify unilaterally increasing tariffs on basic commodities.

    • Trip says:

      Not to mention that Trump manufactures his crappy ties, hats and presidential seal mugs in China.

      Trump won’t be putting tariffs on Russian exports of raw steel.

  10. Peacerme says:

    This block quote comes off of the Clinton global initiative homepage. Dated 2005. There was much more about it at the time. I was very interested because I had a predatory loan. My neice, a professor at the university of Pennsylvania, used my case as the back drop of a paper she wrote about predatory loans and their impact on health. I was very into it.


    Trans-Africa Microfinance Banking Network

    Commitment by
    Opportunity International 

    In 2005, Opportunity International committed to ease the financial burdens of the poor in Africa by establishing a Trans-Africa Microfinance Banking Network that offers clients, through the use of sophisticated lending and technology, an array of financial services beyond what the predominant nonprofit structures allow.

    Here is an article with links to follow.

    I will admit that I didn’t research this topic thoroughly. These aren’t just loans with bad terms. These banks, remember cerebus? Did illegal things. They broke laws as they administered these loans to minorities, elderly and single women. And then they went global into small business loans. The damage caused by these loans never was vindicated, or stopped, and now, here we are again. I don’t know it to be a fact but I am suspicious about high profile Dems and potential conflicts of interest. The poor people who lost their homes had no real advocate in the Democrats.

    This was a quick research, but there is plenty more on the topic.

    • orionATL says:

      peacerme –

      this is what you wrote at 6:19pm above:

      “… AND she and Bill Clinton through the Clinton Foundation were part of a (perhaps well intentioned???) predatory loan scheme for small businesses, globally. Unfortunately, these were predatory loans (one missed payment, doubled payment plus fees, no less accepted, foreclosure in 2 missed payments, fake fees and no communication)… ”

      are you recanting?

      because if not, that statement is grossly inaccurate. as best i can tell, you are blindly copying a meme going around in socialist circles to the effect that all micro loans are exploitative. that makes as much sense as asserting that all bank loans are exploitative. some no doubt are. most are productive and many are essential to the operation of small and large businesses. credit availability and expansion is the foundation of business and economic growth.

      here’s a story about the origins of micro-loans many of which have enabled competent but very poor women in india and africa to develop their business ideas:

      • matt says:

        Recanting??  Are you a grand inquisitor?  Socialist meme?…  Take it easy there….

        Rayne’s post brings the international banking issue to light- those that control the credit purse-strings will do anything to exploit the population that enriches them- here in the US or anywhere else in the world.

        Hillary Clinton is no Mohammad Yunus.  The CF/CGI took a good idea and handed it off to the same nefarious international bankers (who then made donations to her) that have screwed the masses begging for fair financial services from their hovels.

        Good ideas are often exploited:  WaPo critique on micro-credit.

        • orionATL says:

          matt –

          yes, “recant”. you got a problem with using english words properly? peacerme slandered the clinton foundation in a sloppy bit of thinking and writing and then seemed to want to avoid acknowledging what she had said in the quote i cited.

          as for your wapo article “Microcredit doesn’t end poverty, despite all the hype”, this title is about as inane and uninformative as writing “the sun rises in the east”. of course micro-credit doesn’t end poverty; who ever claimed it would? . this kind of arrogant cynicism is just what you would expect from a self-aggrandizing academic – an academic who praises this kind of inadequate research:

          “… The first randomized studies of microcredit appeared in 2009. MIT economists found that in the slums of the megalopolis of Hyderabad, India, small loans caused more families to start micro-businesses such as sewing saris. Existing businesses saw higher profits. But over the 12 to 18 months the researchers tracked, the data revealed no change in bottom-line indicators of poverty, such as household spending and whether children were attending school…”

          oh my, who could believe it? poverty didn’t change noticeably in all of 12-18 months. what a trivial academic study.

          by the way, matt, the article you cited does not mention the clinton foundation at all. your free lance criticism of the clinton foundation is just more reflexive, copy-cat piling on to a socially approved target – the clintons.

          and yes, socialist ideological cant revolving around antipathy to “neoliberalism”.

          but it’s not just the few noisy socialists who have decided to pile on a useful idea and bury it under their own ideology. it’s also the teaparty progressives. you can read that between the lines in this wapo article from 2016, 4 years after the one you cited:

          you’ll note that in this opinion roundup, despite having to acknowledge (with a photo no less) some qualified success with microlending, the wapo reporter feels obliged to yammer:

          “… Why were we misled by microcredit in the first place? How did turn it into a false silver bullet? It’s possible that microcredit became so popular simply because it offered a free-market approach to solving problems that avoided government intervention.

          “… That message appealed to the free-market ideologues and also appealed to the dignity-for-the-poor advocates on the left.”… ”

          this is typical on the one hand on the other hand, fair and balanced journalism.

          one could ask:

          in the first place, white man, who is the” we” in “why were we misled by microcredit…”? washington d. c. teaparty ideologues of the right and left? academic and think tank hangers-on?

          i wasn’t misled. i doubt others who actually worked directly with the poor were misled. i’d guess they saw promise and some success in microlending, modified it with the benefit of hindsight, and kept on lending.

          to end where i started, there is no justification for peacerme or you or others to tar the clinton foundation for working to implement a new idea and a good one. this kind of criticism amounts to using hindsight as a broadax.

          • matt says:

            Orion, sorry.  I did not mean to ruffle your feathers.  I banter in good humor- The subtitles of human communication are difficult at best in writing.  I meant no disrespect… just a sort of “challenge,” without which dialog can drift in to yes, yes blather.

            From the start I was not bashing the CF, just pointing out that they were not too careful in vetting their lending partners (the sentiment expressed in the WaPo article).  I think what Peacerme pointed out was that some of these partners acted in bad faith.  Just because I am a Democrat and a Liberal does not mean that I cannot criticize “my own.”  Like a lot of liberals, I want to see the Democratic party change directions- can’t do that without keeping the good, and tossing out the “bad.”

            The Yunus microcredit model worked really well- and it should be emulated.  But we have to call out exploitative impostors as well (or well-meaning mishaps).

            You are a staunch defender of the Clinton’s and the Democratic establishment- which is fine.  Liberals are not always going to agree on everything and that’s OK too.

            With respect…  thank you for the good reading in your comment.

            • orionATL says:

              thank you, matt.

              i can get a little hot under the collar at times.

              it just happens on this topic i spent some of my earlier years working with rice farmers in a remote village where the kade (tiny store like that pictured) was the only source of staples like sugar, canned fish, loose tea, aryuvedic medicines, betel leaves, matches, cigarettes, plus fresh cooked snacks, hot sweet tea, etc.

              small loans to farmers for seeds and fertilizer to increase yields were the whole point of the program i worked in. the (small, pilot) program worked well as a whole, but individual farmer interest, industry, and, i have to say, intelligence (in my estimate) explained a lot of success or failure. gov’t supported rice prices were also a critical contributor.

              based on that experience, i have no doubt microloans can work, but they will be variously successful. as for exploitation, exploiting microloans in developing countries requires the same sort of defective personality as exploiting payday loans or student loans does in our country (with recent additional legal help from our congress).

              • matt says:

                Sounds like you had a great experience- first hand- was that India? just guessing by your reference to Aryuvedic medicine.

  11. Peacerme says:

    And I am a democrat who voted for Hillary and would do it again. I was very unhappy with the way Obama handled the bank disaster in that, no one went to jail. I noted this development in 2005 and waited to see what kind of loans we exported to small businesses. Then I heard a price on NPR a few years ago, reporting it to be a disaster for poor people who now, may never recover financially. And time and time again, I see high ranking Dems protecting banks. It’s just a suspicion. I think there’s at least enough of a pattern to encourage more looking. I stated it as a fact and that was sloppy. But that was my process.

    • greengiant says:

      Talked to a relative on staff of Dem congressperson.  They denied mortgage service fraud and mortgage broker/lender fraud by saying “those” people who were foreclosed on were overextended.  It is a problem.

      • matt says:

        Yes, Just like Hank Paulsen (immediately after begging for a Trillion dollar bailout for the banks)- when asked by congress if homeowners should receive help, he said no… that they should bear all fiscal responsibility.

        I despise this argument- blaming the homeowner- because it implies that the average American knows the intricate details of credit and finance.  They do not, just like they do not know the intricate details of surgery or estate taxes, which is why we seek the paid guidance of professionals.  “Cash-out, adjustable rate, balloon mortgages” were bad products.   And, they were pushed on the unsuspecting as a “welcome to the American Dream.”

  12. earlofhuntingdon says:

    “Gary Cohn may be a ‘globalist’, but I still like him,” says Donald. “He’s a ‘nationalist’.”

    Does the president mean that Gary Cohn is not part of a global conspiracy of co-religionists intent on consuming the world through their control of financial capital? Let me pop over to my favorite alt-right bar in Harlan County and see if I understood that correctly.

Comments are closed.