Fuzzy math + corporatism / liberal fascism = a trunk full of fail.
A trunk full of fail + Democratic Congresspersons running for re-election = lies about a trunk full of fail.
— Which, if I’m doing my proof correctly, means that (Democratic Congresspersons running for re-election) = liars.
Of course, I was an English major, so take that for what it’s worth…
****
update: TARP II? (Co-)Brought to you by establishment GOP favorite Mike Castle?
Re: November. Decide. Meet the new boss / same as the old boss? Or are we finally going to get serious about voting for people who represent our interests instead of wearing our team colors while representing their own.
I did math and engineering, and it looks good to me. The fact that it reaffirms my own beliefs has everything to do with my seeing it as correct.
Hmmm… I ran the math and came up with “A trunk full of Democrat CongressLiars = corporatist fail”.
Maybe I messed up with the Transitive Property or something?
Hey, this is kinda cool. Lookit how small an area political blogs take up.
Here’s the hi-res.
I just kinda like that is all it’s not particularly relevant here.
Looks right to me JeffG; in math parlance we’d call the “liars” part of your construct a constant-assuming of course that the fail was the variable quantity…
“Meanwhile, none of the TARP money that’s been repaid to the U.S. government thus far is actually being returned to taxpayers. Nor is it being used to pay down America’s ballooning debt. Instead, it’s being spent on new bailouts, more borrowing and additional deficit spending.”
Of all the facets of the TARP fail-ball, this one really get’s my goat.
Heh. Pursuant to my last, Maru has his own gulf on YouTube island.
Come on. You all follow Maru.
The sum of the squares on the sides a right triangle is equal to the square on the hypotenuse. Some old Greek told me that a long time ago, and danged if he wasn’t right.
Oh, and did you see the “Save the Big Crooked Bankers’ Asses” bill that made it out of committee (where it had been having a bit of a rest for several years) and through the Senate in flash time?
No debate. No names recorded. Passed by unanimous consent.
“Unanimous”? Ahem. Hey, Mr. Republican Senator, could we have a word with you?
mojo,
Meanwhile, the guys at Powerline are harping about the fact that O’Donnell is going to lose and it didn’t need to be that way, because Mike Castle could have run and won.
But wait, according to Malkin, Castle is a co-sponsor of the “Save the Big Crooked Bankers’ Asses” bill.
Hmm, so, who’s right here? The people who rejected RINO Mike Castle and went with O’Donnell or the beltway insiders, Powerline?
GM and AIG were not the sort of troubled assets we were told we’d be buying, now were they?
True, but the Democrats aren’t alone there.
Dannny Ocean is running this con, right
Linky?
JHo
http://michellemalkin.com/
Lead story on Malkin’s site.
So let me get this straight, they bought up assets that were not in the scope of the bill, left the
actual problem unresolved, and now they want credit for getting some of the money back, like the faux Russian oligarch in that direct TV ad
Look, if the people of Delaware want to elect a Bearded Marxist and inveterate tax-hiker over a conservative who promises to cut spending, etc., that’s their choice.
At least they aren’t electing a Republican who would sign his name to cap-and-trade and turn what could potentially be a transformational bit of legislation — another nail in the coffin of free enterprise — into a “bi-partisan” triumph of government overreach.
If it’s pain we as a country need to learn our lesson, pain it shall be.
Again: if Delaware wants to elect a tax-hiking Marxist, that’s their call. At least the choices are stark and clear.
I don’t really see what’s so appalling about what screech Malkin is calling the “stealth banking bailout” … it doesn’t really cost anything and it helps part losers from the homes their loser asses couldn’t pay for so people what can actually afford to live in them can buy them and move in or rent them out a lot faster than they would have otherwise.
2010 Social Networking Map.
Food for thought.
Oh. And it’s a guy what wrote it. So no chance of it being too “screechy” for you.
So they screwed up, and one doesn’t get an opportunity to challenge it,
Mr. Jeff it sounds to me like this mostly prevents dirty socialist trial lawyers from hugely cashing in on shoddy paperwork … but I don’t see where it’s documented that there are a significant number of foreclosures what have been unwarranted and that the paperwork was meant to paper over any unjust foreclosings.
I suppose the takeaway here is it’s always better to err on the side of making your fucking house payment.
Will Obama do it? Potentially – the banking lobby certainly has enough power over him and his superiors, the members of the FOMC. On the other hand, the populist revolt that will surely follow the enactment of such a law will certainly end any dreams of a second term, and potentially of a completed first one. The drama is now on: will Obama openly side on behalf of the bankers (without a “blame the republicans” fall back this time) or of the foreclosure “victims” (granted, the bulk of whom are deadbeat homeowners who should never have owned a home to begin with).
That seems a lot overwrought to me.
Happy, try this link. Things are not what they seem in the mortgage foreclosure business.
Mr. Blake as far as I can tell that article makes a compelling case for the law what Malkin is opposed to. The purpose of this law is mostly to make it to where when people buy a house (that they can actually for reals afford) they can be confident they have a good title, no?
feets, the problem we’re loathe to talk about is that money is debt — dollars are lent into existence, so to speak, where they incur both interest and the interest manufactured by their multiplication by the principle of reserve banking.
Dollars are spontaneously spawned, to a limit of an arbitrary rule, as they’re needed. Then they disappear when repaid. What’s left is interest, and since the system is closed, it’s said there’s no way to pay the interest except to borrow — create — the amount it takes to cover it.
Coming back to your comment, all of these systems and subsystems and all this political reality-jacking constitute constructs and artificiality and in the end, the only thing that restores reality and sanity is if all of the hot air in them is let out and the greater system returns to some normal, market-based, organic operation.
Progressivism avoids this and a progressive monetary system like Wilson’s must avoid it at literally all cost.
From Jeffs link @ 17;
Yeah, I’m thinking “constituents” doesn’t mean “the actual voters in their districts” to these types.
I don’t see how ensnaggling everything in court cases is same as letting the air out and returning to normal though Mr. Howard… I think this law is probably a good thing for America. In any case it seems to save monies for the government as opposed to spending them. Without this law it seems to me that the Fannie and Freddie liabilities our failshit little country is already massively on the hook for will increase exponentially, which is a lot. Enough to cause a serious change in attitudes about the safety of U.S. treasuries.
This is gonna be another one of those buy canned goods discussions I can already tell.
Looks like Obama’s going to toss the bankstahz under the bus…
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/obama-veto-hr-3808
At least according to the zerohedge guy.
this is not a good thing that the cowardly bumblefuck is doing I don’t think
Happy, there are court cases pending out there that allege notary fraud in regards to foreclosures.
Giving banks the ability to use documents notarized out of state in foreclosure proceedings is throwing gasoline on the mortgage foreclosure fraud bonfire.
please explain
The whole thing’s a bit of a puzzle.
I read the thread over there, including most of the comments, and one of the commenters posted the actual text. Just reading the text, it’s not clearly apparent just what the bill does — we do, after all, have a clause in the Constitution requiring “full faith and credit” among States with differing laws, so if one State’s law says the notarization is valid it ought to work in another. Several commenters made the point that all it does is require recognition of the notarizations, which say nothing at all about whether or not the document itself is fraudulent — a proper notary doesn’t even examine the document, knows nothing about it, and only certifies that the signers are who they say they are, and if the notary doesn’t actually know who the signers are and stamps the paper anyway, that’s fraud in itself for which the notary can be fined or jailed.
So the question is: why the rush? It’s practically the last thing the Congress did before adjourning; the bill was yanked out of committee without a vote of the committee, placed before both Houses, and passed in a matter of moments — unanimously in the Senate, by voice vote in the House of Representatives. Does it do something that isn’t apparent from the language? Is there some way of taking three words from clause 1 and four from clause 2 and getting “Send a billion dollars to CitiBank”? What’s the deal?
Lawyers are begged to advise.
Regards,
Ric
where is the fraud Mr. Blake?
are you saying that these houses are ones what people have made their payments on and the bankstahs are stealing them away cause they want more foreclosed homes on their books?
And the lack of fanfare.
Wowsers. It’s twue, it’s twue!
Lack of fanfare bothers me only in a secondary sense. The whole point of a republican form of Government is that the people running it know things the citizens don’t, and work from that privileged position; it’s really only the recent revelations that (as some of us suspected all along) most of them can’t pour p* out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel that makes “lack of fanfare” relevant.
It’s the speed coupled with the violation of procedure that’s amazing, especially when contrasted with the rather petty contents of the actual bill. Not reported out of committee? What’s up with that? These are people whose normal MO is to take six weeks of haggling, horsetrading, and earmarking before issuing a joint nonbinding resolution saying oceans are wet. This got done in hours. That’s what has people peering anxiously over the barricades all up and down both sides of the lines.
Regards,
Ric
On the other hand, some liberal groups were apparently against it, which resulted in Obama issuing a pocket veto on the bill.
Well, I meant that the lack of fanfare doesn’t seem to mesh with the sense of urgency.
Makes my ears itch.
OK, the WSJ clarifies a bit. The bill passed the House back in April, so nobody there thought it was problematic or controversial. That confirms what I thought when I looked at the text; it just says if the law in State A says that’s a proper notarization, State B has to accept it as a proper notarization. It does not say that the notarization isn’t fraudulent; it shifts that question over to the law of the State that licensed the notary, which wouldn’t do much to smooth out Court proceedings, I reckon. And it most certainly does not say anything about the validity of the document notarized.
But the Senate Banking Committee didn’t act on it. The bill got sent to the floor without Committee action, and got a unanimous vote. Ears itching, yeah.
What’s a quorum for the Senate under present rules?
Regards,
Ric
I’m just a simple bear filled with fluff, but here’s how I see it:
They’re pandering to people with money weeks before an election. The people they’re pissing off have no money and probably ain’t voting anyway.
The lack of fanfare is because the money guys will get personal phone calls from Congresscritters (and followups from their fundraising directors), so there’s no need for a press conference. The rush is because the television stations want to be paid cash up front for their airtime.
Am I missing anything?
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/quorum.htm
How interesting.
Regards,
Ric
This may be a case of the dog that didn’t bark. The bill flew across the Senate floor, not to make something happen, but to keep something from happening.
It would take delving into what was going on behind the scenes in Senate Banking to get a handle on what, though.
Hmmm. happyfeet only harbors the h8 for conservative women.
Throws tantrums at Darlene (check)
Apoplectic if Sarah Palin appears (check)
“Screechy” if written by Michelle Malkin (check)
Like St. Amanda of Pandagon, only misogynist against conservative women.
you forgot that skanky Tebow hoochie but I would note how supportive I’ve been of Christy O which is sort of a big problem for your theory I think
((I would note how supportive I’ve been of Christy O which is sort of a big problem for your theory I think))
Bewitched!
Obama “pocket vetos” it while proclaiming that this Republican Bill is selling out the little people to the big banks. I smell an October political maneuver. Sessions got punked by Obama and Leahy.
Bit busy to do my own homework today. Would any be nice enough to give me a quick summary of HR 3808 from what you’ve read?
From the WSJ link in #33,
Plus Ric Locke in #37.
I tried to link the text but WordPress doesn’t like it so since it is a one page bill here it is.
Thanks, Geoff.
That is the simplest most straight forward bill I’ve ever read. I expect it would negatively effect some of the trial bar and that is why it never got out of committee until now when it could be used for political hay while still being killed.
From one of those zerohedge links:
I assume that’s the basic thrust from both Durden and Malkin. But why don’t they spell out their reasoning then? I don’t understand how they’re getting to that endpoint.
I also don’t understand calling it TARP II in any case, unless that’s referring to the quick and bi-partisan passage. Even then, that isn’t the thoughts that TARP II first bring to mind.
Is there something that notarization does other than certify that the persons signing a document are who they present themselves to be? That is all as far as I know that notarization does. It has nothing to do with whether the documents signed are proper only that the signatures are so.
Hi everybody I should like to read more discussion on this topic because of it would appear that bumblefuck’s veto of this bill could have serious repercussions for our little country thank you
bh,
I think they’re alluding to the banks not having to eat forclosures where sloppy paperwork, this electronic notary’s signature being part of that, would otherwise force them to.
TARP II being a broadbrush allusion to bailing the banks out by allowing them to not have to re-process forclosures that have supposedly already took place.
To me it sounds like the usual tension between federalism, interstate commerce and reciprocity, and state’s rights-that being the right to stipulate the particulars of forclosure law.
Did I make any sense?
There’s no way to know, happyfeet.
On its face, the only thing this bill would do is reinforce “full faith and credit” among the States against the machinations of slippery lawyers and foolish judges. geoffb is correct: all notarization does is certify that the people signing a paper are who they pretend to be. If they aren’t, then the notary is either negligent or engaging in fraud, and can be attacked on that basis — but the bill doesn’t say anything about that, so it doesn’t change anything. And notarization doesn’t say anything whatever about the document being notarized. That’s not what a notary is for.
I guess we just aren’t evil enough to figure out what the Smaaht Guyz™ are up to. It’s interesting that the leftoids are vociferously pushing the bill as an attack by Teh Banksters against All True Americans. Is that all it is? His O’liness defending True Americans against the machinations of the Evil Financial Industry, portrait suitable for framing (on black velvet, natch)? In that case, why have it unanimously approved by the Senate, which is mostly Democrats?
Got me genuinely puzzled. Like I say, I’m just not eeeevil enough.
Regards,
Ric
so this guy just called levin and says because he has health insurance he’s not allowed to pay for services out of his own pocket because of obamacare.
true?
Okay, looking through it a bit more I can’t find any actual connection between this bill and helping banks paper over shoddy paperwork and certainly the looser rhetoric is just that. If I had to guess, the implied connection is simply a) that allowing plaintiffs to challenge out of state notarization gives them an easy avenue to slow down the process overall so they have time object to something actually improper and b) challenging this bill has become a proxy for demanding some form of governmental inquiry into the poor state of mortgage record keeping.
Towards both issues, I think it would be better to approach the problem directly. Banks holding title need to be able to foreclose. We’ve had enough weakening of contract law lately and not allowing them to do so will be what actually creates calls for TARP II. Banks not holding title attempting to foreclose should face behavior changing penalties. Figure out what penalty would cause them to play this straight. Craft that bill, streamline that process.
Oh yeah, I’m never all that excited to hear that Holder is now on the case.
You know what’s awesome? When you work for a company that pays people to research these topics, figure out the related legal issues and then craft a short executive summary that’s so simple even a commodity trader can understand it.
Those places also have bagels and good coffee in the lounge.
bh,
When I spoke of “sloppy paperwork” in the foreclosure cases it is a bit more than just the electronically signing the notaries name. Evidently, some of these mortgages being forclosed on had been part of larger MBS tranches that changed hands several times. And while not trying to be as broad brush as others, in some cases there seems to be a question who actually is holding the paper!
So as always it’s more complicated than any generalization can convey, but CW is had Obama signed the bill it would have quashed many suits trying to overturn previous forclosures and delay on-going ones. Legal suits cost money, in some cases the forclosed properties have been resold, etc; all factors which would cost the banks money-especially if they had to reimburse for properties resold for pennies on the dollar at the original mortage paper’s value!
Which are all reasons why it was being called TARP II. Hyperbole…
Maybe it’s the paranoid feeling permeating the nation thanks to 10 years of crisis politics (longer if you want to go clear back to the beginning of Kyoto), and this is just of a matter of a senate committee knowing there would be virtually no objection from anyone if they passed this nothing bill along.
Or maybe it’s paving the way for a future surprise. Considering all the possibilities following this line of thought can be dangerous. A guy could sprain his soul…
Jake Tapper ABC.
This here seems to be the nub of it.
As has been mentioned, that is simply fraud. Nothing in this bill would remove the related legal consequences.
Or, to put it another way, if one of these instances happened entirely within one state (mortgagee, mortgagor, second mortgagee, notary), you’d still be able to use that fraud as grounds to object that the foreclosing mortgagee didn’t have proper title.
Ah, but the nice political message sent to a very needed to be fired up base group.
I still believe this whole thing is a political setup due to the way it is being reported.
Also an aside on how much sometimes I hate the way WordPress deals with comments. I had # 60 ready to go and it wouldn’t post, got busy for awhile at work. 40 minutes later I get it to post by removing the text and link to a Gibbs presser that covered this bill and veto.
I guess Kabuki theater — Hey, I pocket-vetoed that bank bailout bill! — could be the nefarity (is that a word?) we’re looking for. Doesn’t explain why we’d be helping create that theater though.
That’s actually what confuses me. I don’t understand what Durden and Malkin are seeing here and they just hint darkly rather than spell it out.
This is way good news carrying on quietly in the background. Things might could even get to a point where the next President can do the right thing.
Is it wrong that the first thing I thought of was that we’re like the Pakistanis in our determination to get into a trade war with China?
my feel Ric is that foreclosing on hooses is one of those things like nuclear power and manned space flight and balancing budgets and making and marketing toys for children what we should be able to do in this country but what we are increasingly wholly incapable of doing
it’s like we Americans as a people yearn for the embrace of fail and seek it out wherever possible
we are failshit and failshit are we
#65 – we were wroking on that since at least when I was there in 2004-2005. Once the Russians realized they could make a rouble or two off the deal, and could try to help shut down the smuggling into their own turf, they hopped on for the big commerce win. We were even gettinng bottled water from a Nestle plant in Kazahkstan…heh. We do need to make it even less Pak dependant – you would not believe how much cargo gets stolen between Karachi and the border points.
#66 – if the Chinese had good enough transport links through Badahkshah, they would be seeling us everything we needed in Afghanistan…
=80
It’s only justt begun, bitchez.
Yes, we live in interesting times that I think will become quite painful for many. But we can take comfort — as much as schadenfreude provides comfort — in knowing that those who’ve most loudly demanded something for nothing and depend on receiving a government check every month will feel the most pain if this fiscal house of cards comes crashing down.
I’m investing in beans and bullets….
Here’s the JournoList meme machine churning into action. A narrative in aborning facts be damned and they should only be alluded to in the final paragraph which leaves the implication that only the superior intelligence of the President himself saved us all from this horror. A horror which all others never suspected lurked within this innocuous seeming little bill.
Thank you oh mighty O! for saving us.
I think these committed reporters could start by phoning the offices of all the relevant committee members. Would that be so hard?
The White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee were held by the same party last time I checked. Which means it’s impossible for the heroes and villains to be on opposite sides.
Kabuki.
But the bill was penned by an [R]the one thing I was surprised to see Reuters left out. The whole flap smells of a rat. Perhaps this floundering one.