Veto upheld - H.R.3808 - Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010

[tridim]

Veto upheld on pure Democratic party line.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=172573

[mzmolly]

1. K and R.

:kick:

Interesting comments from the tea party founder/link. Perhaps he'll start paying more attention to who actually represents the people?

[tridim]

2. I always have to hold my breath while reading that site.

The politics are nuts over there, but the raw information is good.

[mzmolly]

5. It's interesting that the tp is already disillusioned.

:rofl: That didn't take lone eh?

[customerserviceguy]

3. All it will do

is slow down foreclosures, and prolong the recession.

Other judicial acts are recognized across state lines, I fail to see the rationale for disallowing this with notarizations.

[mzmolly]

4. Not necessarilly.

It may make banks more likely to work with homeowners vs. screw them with a quickie, illegal foreclosure.

[laughingliberal]

6. Yep. nt

[customerserviceguy]

8. You're dreaming

They will not write down mortgage loan balances, period. And they can't go any lower on the interest than what the rates were at the time the loans were granted, that will be especially so when interest rates start rising again, as they're about to do.

They're looking to get these lousy loans off their balance sheets as quickly as possible, and if having to go back to dot every 'i' and cross every 't' to foreclose on people who shouldn't have been granted the loan in the first damn place is what they have to do, then it will be done. Like I said, all it does is keep foreclosure properties on the market, competing with homes that non-defaulting homeowners are trying to sell.

Until we find rock bottom in real estate prices, we won't see a real recovery.

[mzmolly]

9. They can do many things. They CAN lower rates. They CAN reset

terms etc.

Also, you don't know who should or should not have been granted a loan. As you know Bush was losing 750K jobs a month before the President took office. Some people got behind when they lost a job, or took a pay cut or had a health issue or ...

As for real estate prices hitting rock bottom. I'm sure the elites would love that. They'd come in and buy up properties at rock bottom prices, after tax payers bailed them out. I don't support that notion.

[customerserviceguy]

11. I'm not sure where you've been getting your financial news

but interest rates are at the lowest point they've been for many decades. Factor in the risk of lending money out for a long term, and you have mortgage rates that we're never going to see again in our lifetimes. When you add in the riskiness of rewriting a loan to a person who's already gone into severe default, even renewing the "teaser" rates that the borrower got in the door with makes the loan a poor asset on the books of a lender. That's why I believe they're willing to foreclose, sell off the house for whatever the market will bear, and just take the toxic writeoff on the books sooner rather than later.

We've never had a true recovery until real estate prices started to firm up. That gives people the confidence to buy, and fuels much of the spending in the rest of the economy. What I see happening is a raise in the general inflation rate that does not touch housing, at some point, housing will be 'properly' priced relative to all other goods. It will be real estate deflation without seeing prices go down. Even the President's advisors and Bernanke know this is the only way out of the crisis, and that's why you have the Fed printing buttloads of money right now.

[mzmolly]

12. I'm not sure where you're getting yours.

Banks claim they have no interest in foreclosing, remember? Re-writing loans through HAMP and other programs helps stabilize i.e. "firm up the market." If you're suggesting principle reductions on the part of banks as well as new terms, I'm in.

[customerserviceguy]

14. I'll admit, I read quite a bit of WSJ online

And while the lenders have been at least as sloppy at doing foreclosures as they were in making the loans in the first place, they really do want to clear their books of this cancer. Foreclosures are the preferred method at this point, even if they have to go back and do them right.

[mzmolly]

15. Should we only concern ourselves with what the lenders, who created this mess in the first place,

want? Would you mind providing a link or two to the WSJ articles which support your assertion, that mass foreclosure is the answer?

[customerserviceguy]

16. For starters, I don't give a crap about the lenders

I only know what I expect them to do.

Here's a sample of what you're looking for:

Lenders saying, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead": (titles are all mine, not from the articles)

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2010/11/17/redfin-despite-foreclosure-mess-banks-list-more-homes/?KEYWORDS=foreclosure

Modifications aren't working:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704805204575594453938527666.html?KEYWORDS=foreclosure

Title companies aren't standing in the way of foreclosures:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304316404575580752988987296.html?KEYWORDS=foreclosure

And finally, even Barney Frank says not to get your hopes up:

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2010/11/18/barney-frank-homeowners-shouldnt-have-false-hopes/?KEYWORDS=foreclosure

I've read a lot of stuff on the subject from the WSJ since the story about faulty foreclosures broke, and while it may be possible for a few state attorneys general and courts to slow the process down, it's still going to continue. It's not like the cops who get caught trying to introduce inadmissible evidence, the lenders merely need to go back to square one to get a do-over on a judicial foreclosure.

All this legislation was attempting to do was streamline the process of getting people's names off of homes that they couldn't afford in the first place, and prolonging that process is what will lengthen the recession. We don't see true recovery until real estate prices stop the free fall, and we don't have a chance of that until the bulk of foreclosures are completed, with the homes being sold to people who can figure out how to pay for them.

[mzmolly]

17. Perhaps you can point to the article that suggests your "foreclose now" notion is correct?

Saying there are problems with the system, isn't anything new. That's not the debate we're having.

Note the following WSJ article states a lack of jobs is the primary issue, not "people buying homes they can't afford". Additionally, the WSJ notes a decline in mortgage delinquencies and an easing of the mortgage crisis.

The decline reflects an improving economy and is the latest sign that the worst of the mortgage crisis may be easing.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703374304575622490905373672.html

Also, given there is an investigation underway, I think it's best not to rush into mass foreclosure.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703628204575619060971243820.html

"State attorneys general are intensifying pressure on lenders to fix the system they use to modify mortgages as part of a potential settlement in their multistate investigation of the foreclosure problems.

...

State attorneys general have taken the lead in investigating banks over paperwork problems. Many feared banks and investors might have to shoulder huge costs if the problems led them to reduce the principal of tens of thousands of mortgages. While principal reduction isn't being ruled out, some attorneys general appear willing to settle for a more transparent loan-modification system.

With the midterm elections over, the pace of discussions about a possible resolution has picked up. Several people familiar with the probe said the attorneys general aim to wrap up their investigation by as soon as December, though the effort could take longer. Bank of America Corp. has already met with Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who is spearheading the 50-state probe, about foreclosure issues."

I'm not finding the evidence to support your suggestion that the WSJ supports a hurry and foreclose stance, sorry.

[sendero]

10. It's about nothing more or less..

... than the rule of law. Fact is, the banks have screwed themselves by not maintaining the LEGAL PAPERWORK that the LAW REQUIRES to prove ownership of a note.

I agree that most likely congress will bail them out, again. It would be better if it were a law more tailored to this situation, no telling what the unintended consequences of this bit of chicanery would be.

But if there was any justice left in this country they would be allowed to FAIL like the FAILED INSTITUTIONS that they are. And frankly, even if they were given a total pass on this paperwork issue, they are still insolvent until house price rise substantially, which they are NOT GOING TO DO.

[mzmolly]

13. Another very important point.

If big business has no consequence for breaking laws and destroying the economy, why wouldn't they continue to abuse the system?

[MineralMan]

7. Yes!