The Obamanation

[Lamplighter]

Details are coming out on the Obama Administration's agreement with banks and
State's Attorneys General with regards to forgeries of documents relating to foreclosures...

This article puts for the idea that the nature of this agreement shifts the motivation
of banks from foreclosure/eviction over to mortage adjustments.

Below is a brief summary of the people who will be eligible for either $ payments
or re-adjustments of the conditions or principal of their mortages.


Northwest Herald (Illinois)
2/11/12
Our view: Mortgage pact will help
<snip>
Because of the complexities of the deal, it could be months before individuals know
for certain if they qualify and how. But generally, here’s who will be eligible to apply for relief:

• Anyone who lost their home between Jan. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2011,
and made mortgage payments through Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase, CitiGroup or Ally Bank (formerly GMAC).

• Anyone who owes more than their home is worth, who is 30 days or more behind
on mortgage payments, or anyone who is at risk of falling behind on mortgage payments
and who makes payments to one of those five servicers.

• Anyone who owes more than their home is worth, is current on
their mortgage, and makes payments to one of those five servicers.

Homeowners who lost their home will be entitled to direct payments of $2,000.
Homeowners who still have their home have various refinancing and mortgage
reduction options through their servicers.

Those who are behind on payments are asked to contact the servicer or state attorney general’s office.
Those who are current will be contacted by their servicer if they are eligible for refinancing.
Only current homeowners with mortgage rates above 5.25 percent who
have been current for the past 12 months are eligible to be contacted.

For more information, call 866-544-7151, visit[your state's attorney general]
or visit www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com.

[classicman]

~~

[classicman]

The Mortgage Deal: A Reality Check

The $26 billion settlement represents a "drop in the bucket" compared with the approximately $700 billion in negative equity
that Americans carry on their homes. "I think it will help somewhat, but the scale of the problem is so large that it won't do that much
to help the market," Khater says.

Newport says $20 billion of the total will have a marginally positive effect on the housing market. While the approximately $6 billion
going directly to people who've already lost their homes may be a help to them, "this money helps neither the economy nor current homeowners. It's just a transfer of purchasing power from Peter to Paul," Newport says.

Even the remaining $20 billion in refinancing help and help to at-risk homeowners will not kick in for another six to nine months,
Newport says. "This timeline diminishes the program's effectiveness, since borrowers in trouble need help today, not in three years,"
he says.

The bigger impact will come in freeing up the banks to go ahead with foreclosures,

The settlement "removes some of the uncertainty and the legal hurdles, and so will begin to flush some of these properties out of the system, and that's the good thing," Khater says.

"My current understanding is that the program is targeted towards salvageable loans," Newport says.

But the language suggests that help can go either toward those who are delinquent and at imminent risk of default
or those who are simply underwater. It seems likely that those who are simply underwater would get the bulk of that relief.
That may make good sense from a macroeconomic standpoint, since these are the loans more likely to be "saved,"
but it's no help to homeowners most desperately in need.

"My current understanding is that the program is targeted towards salvageable loans," Newport says.

Is it something - yes, but at best its barely a start.
This is a mere pittance of what people have lost. It will help approx 10% of those in need. The 2-3 year timetable is a farce.
I think this "deal" is more about election year posturing than anything else.

[Clodfobble]

Even the remaining $20 billion in refinancing help and help to at-risk homeowners will not kick in for another six to nine months,
Newport says. "This timeline diminishes the program's effectiveness, since borrowers in trouble need help today, not in three years,"
he says.

Am I missing something?

[classicman]

Dunno - different parts apparently have different timetables.
Under the agreement, mortgage servicers will be required to set aside $20 billion toward financial relief for borrowers.

At least $10 billion will go toward reducing the principal on loans for nearly 1 million borrowers who are either delinquent or at risk of defaulting soon. Those borrowers are also considered "underwater" — they owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth.

At least $3 billion will go toward refinancing loans for borrowers who are current on their mortgages but are underwater. Borrowers who meet basic criteria will be eligible for the refinancing at current low interest rates.

Up to $7 billion will go toward other forms of relief, including forbearance of principal for unemployed borrowers, short sales and benefits for service members who must sell their home at a loss when they are forced to transfer locations.

The agreement requires the servicers to pay $5 billion in cash to the federal and state governments, and $1.5 billion of that amount will be used to pay up to $2,000 each to about 750,000 borrowers whose homes were sold or taken in foreclosure between Jan. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2011, if they meet certain criteria. A settlement administrator will send claim forms to persons eligible for the cash payments.

Under the deal, mortgage servicers will face penalties if they don't fulfill these obligations within *three years, and they must meet 75 percent of their targets within two years. Loans owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac are not covered by the settlement. All but one of the 50 states agreed to the deal.
**Oklahoma, the lone holdout, announced a separate deal with the five banks.

*Bold - That's the only three years I see.
**Bold - I wonder what deal Oklahoma cut for itself.

[classicman]

Pruitt struck his own $18.6 million settlement deal with the same five loan servicers. Pruitt and his staff say that the settlement will help underwater homeowners - those who owe more on their homes than they are worth - who were genuinely the victims of illegal, predatory lending practices. It will not reward home-owners who stopped paying their mortgages over those who continued to make payments even though they were underwater or those who might stop paying just to take advantage of the settlement agreement.

Pruitt said the settlement negotiated by the other 49 attorneys general had gone beyond the scope of state law and had turned into an effort by the Obama administration to restructure the lending industry.

However, a widely circulated blog by Foster Kamer of the New York Observer contended that the Oklahoma settlement agreement will not come close to covering all of the Oklahoma homeowners who are in foreclosure or under water, and that the average aid to victims will be considerably less than under the national settlement.

Details of both the national and Oklahoma settlement agreements are still vague, so it will be some time before the question of whether Oklahoma got a good deal is sorted out. But some other questions linger:

Was Pruitt's decision based on politics? His aides say no; but he did campaign for office on a platform of "pushing back" against Washington, D.C., and the Obama administration.

Would the five lenders have agreed to negotiate a separate settlement with a single state unless they thought it would be a better deal for them than the national settlement?

Finally, if negotiating a stand-alone settlement was such a good thing, why was Pruitt the only attorney general in the nation to do it?

Link

[classicman]

"I Voted For Obama Because He is Black"

Barack Obama's politics meant nothing to Samuel L. Jackson because the "Pulp Fiction" star only voted for the president for one reason and one reason only ... because he's black.

In an interview with Ebony magazine, Jackson explained, "I voted for Barack because he was black. 'Cuz that's why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them ... That's American politics, pure and simple. [Obama's] message didn't mean [bleep] to me."

Jackson then went on to drop the N-word several times when discussing Obama, telling the mag, "When it comes down to it, they wouldn't have elected a [bleep]. Because, what's a [bleep]? A [bleep] is scary. Obama ain't scary at all. [Bleeps] don't have beers at the White House.
[Bleeps]don't let some white dude, while you in the middle of a speech, call [him] a liar.
A [bleep] would have stopped the meeting right there and said, ‘Who the [bleep] said that?'
I hope Obama gets scary in the next four years, 'cuz he ain't gotta worry about getting re-elected."

Just a lil levity - bold mine.

[Lamplighter]

levity ?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

"I Voted For Obama Because He is Black"


Just a lil levity - bold mine.

I give him props for coming out and saying the obvious. He obviously was not alone.

[classicman]

Yes, levity. sarcasm, funny, humorous. The bold part was him joking around.

[TheMercenary]

The Fact Checker

Jack Lew’s misleading claim about the Senate’s failure to pass a budget resolution

Instead, the former budget director twice choose to use highly misleading language that blamed Republicans for the failure of the Democratic leadership.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...1z8Q_blog.html

[infinite monkey]

I voted for him because he isn't a fat pasty bald republican.

[TheMercenary]

lol

[classicman]

View of the "Deal" from The Economist

The administration and various attorney generals insist that the deal would not pre-empt future suits against the banks.
But a release from Wells Fargo notes that as part of the deal it has been released from numerous categories of claims. In sum, it appears the line on litigation has been drawn finely enough for the government to say it has preserved the rights of any aggrieved bank clients and for the banks to say the deal ends a sordid legal chapter.

Election year politicking or just business as usual?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Election year politicking or just business as usual?

Both, I would imagine, on one hand they don't want to appear giving in to the radicals who want everyone to get off scott free and on the other hand they are giving a small print break to the banks and lending institutions.