Obamanation Re-election MegaThread

[NorthSideSox72]

I think you're overthinking it.

 

The Bank hypothetically is the lender in these cases. They have lent money to buy assets which have decreased significantly in value. The settlement involves them writing down some portion of that value, taking the losses on those loans. The HAMP program paid banks to do exactly that, offering incentives to write down some portion of the value of those loans. The HAMP program did not involve payments to the borrowers, that'd be socialism, the HAMP payments went to the lenders or people who owned the loan, not to the borrowers/people who owned the asset.

Looking at it that way, it makes even elss sense. If the loans are already crammed down, then they aren't eligible for HAMP. And furthermore, the holder of the loan - not the lien - still has to ASK for HAMP.

 

And by the way, HAMP does not write down the linked asset. It writes down the loan principal. The banks can use whatever math they'd like to value the hard assets.

 

[Balta1701]

Looking at it that way, it makes even elss sense. If the loans are already crammed down, then they aren't eligible for HAMP. And furthermore, the holder of the loan - not the lien - still has to ASK for HAMP.

 

And by the way, HAMP does not write down the linked asset. It writes down the loan principal. The banks can use whatever math they'd like to value the hard assets.

The loans aren't already crammed down, if they were, then this settlement wouldn't have any applicability anyway. Secondly, the holder of the loan has to ask to participate in the settlement as well, right?

 

Did I say somewhere that HAMP was writing down the value of the asset? If I did I apologize, that sounds stupid. The value of the asset has depreciated on its own. HAMP was paying financial institutions to write down the value of the loan to more closely match teh value of the asset. This settlement will do exactly that...financial institutions will write down the value of the loan by some amount to move it closer to the value of the asset...which is again, exactly what HAMP offers incentives for the financial institution to do.

[NorthSideSox72]

The loans aren't already crammed down, if they were, then this settlement wouldn't have any applicability anyway. Secondly, the holder of the loan has to ask to participate in the settlement as well, right?

 

Did I say somewhere that HAMP was writing down the value of the asset? If I did I apologize, that sounds stupid. The value of the asset has depreciated on its own. HAMP was paying financial institutions to write down the value of the loan to more closely match teh value of the asset. This settlement will do exactly that...financial institutions will write down the value of the loan by some amount to move it closer to the value of the asset...which is again, exactly what HAMP offers incentives for the financial institution to do.

The loans would be crammed down if they become part of the settlement. Then, HAMP won't work for those loans. Alternately, if they HAMP a loan, it is no longer going to make it into the settlement. There is no scenario I can think of in which you could apply HAMP and the settlement to the same loan - they are really almost competitive, or at least additive, programs.

 

And think about this. If you are a bank, and one of your loans is modified down by HAMP, what sense would it make to then settle that loan down even further? It is the less-risky asset at that point, that would be idiotic. Or, if a loan goes through the settlement process, then the customer won't want HAMP, so again, not happening.

 

[Balta1701]

The loans would be crammed down if they become part of the settlement. Then, HAMP won't work for those loans. Alternately, if they HAMP a loan, it is no longer going to make it into the settlement. There is no scenario I can think of in which you could apply HAMP and the settlement to the same loan - they are really almost competitive, or at least additive, programs.

Then all it takes is for the settlement rules, which still aren't out btw, to say that loans for the settlement could count towards HAMP, for that to happen. You're assuming that someone will write a rule in a way that will be bad for financial institutions, when they can write that same rule in a way to be less useful to homeowners and good for financial institutions.

 

I'll hope you're right, but having the HAMP program pick up most of the cost seems like how I'd expect this kind of thing to work out.

[NorthSideSox72]

Then all it takes is for the settlement rules, which still aren't out btw, to say that loans for the settlement could count towards HAMP, for that to happen. You're assuming that someone will write a rule in a way that will be bad for financial institutions, when they can write that same rule in a way to be less useful to homeowners and good for financial institutions.

 

I'll hope you're right, but having the HAMP program pick up most of the cost seems like how I'd expect this kind of thing to work out.

Count towards HAMP? This is a legal settlement, not a piece of legislation. If the money being settled on against the banks requires added or re-used government funding, that would take an act of Congress to make work. And that won't happen.

 

[Balta1701]

Count towards HAMP? This is a legal settlement, not a piece of legislation. If the money being settled on against the banks requires added or re-used government funding, that would take an act of Congress to make work. And that won't happen.

Why?

 

This is TARP money. The White House basically can do whatever it wants with that money. It wouldn't be anything newly appropriated.

[NorthSideSox72]

Why?

 

This is TARP money. The White House basically can do whatever it wants with that money. It wouldn't be anything newly appropriated.

It is a financial offset of incoming revenue. It is a new cost, in accounting terms.

 

Also, as I said earlier, none of that matters anyway, because it makes no sense for the banks to do that. And people who want in on HAMP won't qualify if their loan is already crammed down, because they will no longer meet the HAMP requirements.

 

[mr_genius]

Obama should just promise to pay off everyone's mortgage if he should happen to win re-election.

[kapkomet]

Obama should just promise to pay off everyone's mortgage if he should happen to win re-election.

 

 

Nah, he needs to do that BEFORE the election so he can win re-election. Wait, what's that? He's trying to? Oh, yea. Another useless money ploy to win votes that don't do a damn thing. Got it.

[Jenksismyhero]

worked last time:

 

[farmteam]

worked last time:

 

 

I'm not sure what bothers me the most among all the things that could from this --

 

*The misrepresentation of "Obama will pay for..." (which isn't what she said). However, I understand it's easy to infer (maybe even correctly) that that's what she meant, instead of a general "He gives me hope" thing. In that case, something that bothers me is...

 

*People who hear what they want to hear. I didn't listen to the speech in question (or maybe I did, but it appears to be from 2008 so if I did I don't remember it), but I'm guessing it was a typical "Sounds awesome, unless you read even slightly between the lines and nothing is being promised at all" type of speech. Maybe it's the cynic in me, but that's the lens through which I view every speech a politician makes; a lens which presumes we're being promised much, much less than what it seems, unless proven otherwise (proven in terms of what the speech actually said, not what happens later). However, do I put the blame on people who hear what they want to hear, or...

 

*The politicians who tell people what they want to hear, and in a way that can save their ass later. Again, me being a cynic makes me place the blame on the people hearing the speech; the politician is just playing a role that's to his advantage; it's the people who blindly listen who give them that power. No sheep to speak to, no double-talk, or at least much less. While politicians do have the ability to just not do this (and make me happy!), it's a device too easy to use, and too often used, for me to get mad at a particular politician over it. "Just the way the game is played" is a phrase that comes to mind.

 

*I'm not even going to touch on the "taking her daughter out of school" part in fear it could open a can of worms I want no part of. The only thing I will say is that I don't categorically oppose parents taking their children out of school for something that's beneficial (which I leave intentionally broad -- it could be a baseball game with a parent they don't see often, it could be a speech like this, whatever; depends on each parent/child); whether or not this was is the can of worms I don't want to open.

 

The above was not directed at any party or poster (including you Jenks, though yours was the post I quoted). It just sort of touched off that occasional feeling of incredulous I get at misinformed people. Reminds me of one my first weeks of law school last year, when someone made a comment along the lines of "Well, we're all going to get really jobs out of school anyway." I felt bad for her more than anything, for committing that much money under such a dangerous misconception.

Edited February 14, 2012 by farmteam

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not sure what bothers me the most among all the things that could from this --

 

*The misrepresentation of "Obama will pay for..." (which isn't what she said). However, I understand it's easy to infer (maybe even correctly) that that's what she meant, instead of a general "He gives me hope" thing. In that case, something that bothers me is...

 

*People who hear what they want to hear. I didn't listen to the speech in question (or maybe I did, but it appears to be from 2008 so if I did I don't remember it), but I'm guessing it was a typical "Sounds awesome, unless you read even slightly between the lines and nothing is being promised at all" type of speech. Maybe it's the cynic in me, but that's the lens through which I view every speech a politician makes; a lens which presumes we're being promised much, much less than what it seems, unless proven otherwise (proven in terms of what the speech actually said, not what happens later). However, do I put the blame on people who hear what they want to hear, or...

 

*The politicians who tell people what they want to hear, and in a way that can save their ass later. Again, me being a cynic makes me place the blame on the people hearing the speech; the politician is just playing a role that's to his advantage; it's the people who blindly listen who give them that power. No sheep to speak to, no double-talk, or at least much less. While politicians do have the ability to just not do this (and make me happy!), it's a device too easy to use, and too often used, for me to get mad at a particular politician over it. "Just the way the game is played" is a phrase that comes to mind.

 

*I'm not even going to touch on the "taking her daughter out of school" part in fear it could open a can of worms I want no part of. The only thing I will say is that I don't categorically oppose parents taking their children out of school for something that's beneficial (which I leave intentionally broad -- it could be a baseball game with a parent they don't see often, it could be a speech like this, whatever; depends on each parent/child); whether or not this was is the can of worms I don't want to open.

 

The above was not directed at any party or poster (including you Jenks, though yours was the post I quoted). It just sort of touched off that occasional feeling of incredulous I get at misinformed people. Reminds me of one my first weeks of law school last year, when someone made a comment along the lines of "Well, we're all going to get really jobs out of school anyway." I felt bad for her more than anything, for committing that much money under such a dangerous misconception.

 

I don't know if that's what she intended to mean either. But at minimum she was expecting more governmental assistance in her life (from policies created/extended/adopted by Obama) to lessen the burden of her having to pay for gas, her mortgage, etc. At most she seriously did think that she'd no longer have to pay for her gas or mortgage because Obama would take care of it. To me it perfectly summed up the average voter in this country - generally ignorant and uninformed not only about the political process, but of politicians and their true motivations.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Democracy guarantees equal representation for all, not good governance.

[iamshack]

I don't know if that's what she intended to mean either. But at minimum she was expecting more governmental assistance in her life (from policies created/extended/adopted by Obama) to lessen the burden of her having to pay for gas, her mortgage, etc. At most she seriously did think that she'd no longer have to pay for her gas or mortgage because Obama would take care of it. To me it perfectly summed up the average voter in this country - generally ignorant and uninformed not only about the political process, but of politicians and their true motivations.

I took that she meant things would improve under Obama to the point that these immediate concerns would no longer be as such....but maybe I am giving her the benefit of the doubt, because to think otherwise would leave me sort of incredulous...

Edited February 14, 2012 by iamshack

[farmteam]

I agree with this

 

To me it perfectly summed up the average voter in this country - generally ignorant and uninformed not only about the political process, but of politicians and their true motivations.

 

and this

 

 

I took that she meant thinks would improve under Obama to the point that these immediate concerns would no longer be as such....but maybe I am giving her the benefit of the doubt, because to think otherwise would leave me sort of incredulous...

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Another good one:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ven...raER_story.html

 

Until I read this I forgot that only Bush and Cheney helped out their friends as a result of their policy. I'm also glad the media is covering this on a daily basis like they did from 2004-2008.

 

Sanjay Wagle was a venture capitalist and Barack Obama fundraiser in 2008, rallying support through a group he headed known as Clean Tech for Obama.

 

Shortly after Obama’s election, he left his California firm to join the Energy Department, just as the administration embarked on a massive program to stimulate the economy with federal investments in clean-technology firms.

 

Following an enduring Washington tradition, Wagle shifted from the private sector, where his firm hoped to profit from federal investments, to an insider’s seat in the administration’s $80 billion clean-energy investment program.

 

He was one of several players in venture capital, which was providing financial backing to start-up clean-tech companies, who moved into the Energy Department at a time when the agency was seeking outside expertise in the field. At the same time, their industry had a huge stake in decisions about which companies would receive government loans, grants and support.

 

During the next three years, the department provided $2.4 billion in public funding to clean-energy companies in which Wagle’s former firm, Vantage Point Venture Partners, had invested, a Washington Post analysis found. Overall, the Post found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.

 

[mr_genius]

I'm not sure what bothers me the most among all the things that could from this --

 

*The misrepresentation of "Obama will pay for..." (which isn't what she said). However, I understand it's easy to infer (maybe even correctly) that that's what she meant, instead of a general "He gives me hope" thing. In that case, something that bothers me is...

 

*People who hear what they want to hear. I didn't listen to the speech in question (or maybe I did, but it appears to be from 2008 so if I did I don't remember it), but I'm guessing it was a typical "Sounds awesome, unless you read even slightly between the lines and nothing is being promised at all" type of speech. Maybe it's the cynic in me, but that's the lens through which I view every speech a politician makes; a lens which presumes we're being promised much, much less than what it seems, unless proven otherwise (proven in terms of what the speech actually said, not what happens later). However, do I put the blame on people who hear what they want to hear, or...

 

*The politicians who tell people what they want to hear, and in a way that can save their ass later. Again, me being a cynic makes me place the blame on the people hearing the speech; the politician is just playing a role that's to his advantage; it's the people who blindly listen who give them that power. No sheep to speak to, no double-talk, or at least much less. While politicians do have the ability to just not do this (and make me happy!), it's a device too easy to use, and too often used, for me to get mad at a particular politician over it. "Just the way the game is played" is a phrase that comes to mind.

 

*I'm not even going to touch on the "taking her daughter out of school" part in fear it could open a can of worms I want no part of. The only thing I will say is that I don't categorically oppose parents taking their children out of school for something that's beneficial (which I leave intentionally broad -- it could be a baseball game with a parent they don't see often, it could be a speech like this, whatever; depends on each parent/child); whether or not this was is the can of worms I don't want to open.

 

The above was not directed at any party or poster (including you Jenks, though yours was the post I quoted). It just sort of touched off that occasional feeling of incredulous I get at misinformed people. Reminds me of one my first weeks of law school last year, when someone made a comment along the lines of "Well, we're all going to get really jobs out of school anyway." I felt bad for her more than anything, for committing that much money under such a dangerous misconception.

 

 

actually, Farmteam, she works at Goldman Sachs and Obama basically has paid all her bills. Go figure.

[Balta1701]

It is a financial offset of incoming revenue. It is a new cost, in accounting terms.

 

Also, as I said earlier, none of that matters anyway, because it makes no sense for the banks to do that. And people who want in on HAMP won't qualify if their loan is already crammed down, because they will no longer meet the HAMP requirements.

Finally someone in legit media picked up on this and has people on the record. From the Financial Times:

US taxpayers are expected to subsidise the $40bn settlement owed by five leading banks over allegations that they systematically abused borrowers in pursuit of improper home seizures, the Financial Times has learnt.

 

The deal, agreed last week, calls for Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial to pay about $5bn in cash fines and to reduce monthly payments and loan balances for distressed US borrowers by as much as about $35bn.

 

However, a clause in the provisional agreement – which has not been made public – allows the banks to count future loan modifications made under a 2009 foreclosure-prevention initiative towards their restructuring obligations for the new settlement, according to people familiar with the matter. The existing $30bn initiative, the home affordable modification programme, or Hamp, provides taxpayer funds as an incentive to banks, third party investors and troubled borrowers to arrange loan modifications.

 

Neil Barofsky, a Democrat and the former special inspector-general of the troubled asset relief programme, described this clause as “scandalous”. “It turns the notion that this is about justice and accountability on its head,” Mr Barofsky said.

 

BofA, for instance, will be able to use future modifications made under Hamp towards the $7.6bn in borrower assistance it is committed to provide under the settlement. Under Hamp, the bank will receive payments for averting borrower default and reimbursement from taxpayers for principal written down.

 

Federal officials involved in negotiating the settlement defended the arrangement, pointing out that the amount reimbursed to the banks could not be directly used towards fulfilling settlement obligations. For example, if a bank wrote down $100 of loan principal under Hamp and received $21 of reimbursement from taxpayers, the bank only could apply the $79 difference towards the settlement.

 

Andrea Risotto, Treasury department spokeswoman, said this system “leverages a way to help more people”.

 

But people familiar with the matter told the FT that state officials involved in the talks had had misgivings about allowing the banks to use taxpayer-financed loan restructurings as part of the settlement. State negotiators wanted the banks to modify mortgages using Hamp standards, which are seen as borrower-friendly, but did not want the banks to receive settlement credit when modifying Hamp loans. Federal officials pushed for it anyway, these people said.

 

Alys Cohen, an attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, said that if the arrangement increased help, then it was ”good for homeowners in the long term”.

 

“But in the end the servicers are not really being punished. They’re getting off easy,” Ms Cohen said.

Here's a separate article, same byline.

[StrangeSox]

This is a giant handout to the banks, plain and simple. But Obama is evil and hates Wall Street.

[Jenksismyhero]

This is a giant handout to the banks, plain and simple. But Obama is evil and hates Wall Street.

 

As I've been saying for years, douche and a turd sandwich. All the same no matter what bulls*** they spew out.

[EvilMonkey]

This is a giant handout to the banks, plain and simple. But Obama is evil and hates Wall Street.

He does. But he loves their checkbooks.

[StrangeSox]

He does. But he loves their checkbooks.

 

He shows his hate in the form of showering them with money.

 

I'll take some of that hate.

[mr_genius]

He shows his hate in the form of showering them with money.

 

I'll take some of that hate.

 

Obama has created a new entitlement class. His banker buddies.

[Texsox]

It seems as if the GOP faithful are predicting lower gas prices if we elect a Republican. I like that twist!

[mr_genius]

It seems as if the GOP faithful are predicting lower gas prices if we elect a Republican. I like that twist!

 

if gas prices go up a lot we will totally blame Obama.