Friday, December 18, 2009

New and shocking: Can Obama really be THIS bad?

If this is true, then progressives, liberals and everyone whoever once had a kind thought for the Democratic party and/or its values must make a clean break with Obama and his sick crew RIGHT NOW. From lambert at Corrente:

Obama's mortgage mod plan lets banksters reject borrowers and auction their houses without any written notification


From McClatchy:
Ten months after the Obama administration began pressing lenders to do more to prevent foreclosures, many struggling homeowners are holding up their end of the bargain but still find themselves rejected, and some are even having their homes sold out from under them without notice.
In the fine print of the form homeowners fill out to apply for Obama's program, which lowers monthly payments for three months while the lender decides whether to provide permanent relief, borrowers must waive important notification rights.

This clause allows banks to reject borrowers without any written notification and move straight to auctioning off their homes without any warning.
Unbelievable.

In 2008, I thought that Obama was just another lousy pol. I honestly did not believe he would prove to be this bad.

12 comments:

gregoryp said...

Joseph, he is a freaking libertarian. That is all you have to say about someone. Those people are rotten to the core as their only value system is greed. Now, the libertarian party puts out that they believe in equal rights for all, all kinds of good liberal things, yada yada yada, but the real proof is in the pudding so to speak. They care about propping up an oppressive system that preys on the poor, weak, indigent and not so bright. I just can't go along with that. I find them repulsive and since both main stream parties have been geckoized I find them repulsive as well.

wxyz said...

According to market ticker the banks have absolutely no intention of revising any home loans to the advantage of consumers with the money Obama has given them:

More than 650,994 loan revisions had been started through the Obama administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program as of last month, from about 487,081 as of September, according to the Treasury. None of the trial modifications through October had been converted to permanent repayment plans, the Treasury data showed. That failure is getting the administration’s attention.

None? Out of 651,000 "trial" modifications none have turned into a permanent repayment plan?

wxyz said...

And as for "struggling homeowners... holding up their end of the bargain" those same banks are simply walking away from their own commercial debts.

Perry Logan said...

Joe has said on occasion that he thinks the O-holes are essentially libertarians, and Gregoryp echoes the sentiment in the comments section.

I'm intrigued by this idea, but still have trouble getting my head around it.

Not that I know much about libertarians. They seem like very nice people who disagree with one another about everything and harbor the strange belief that a harmonious society will be achieved when we all join together in mutual hatred of government.

Sure. That'll work.

The point being, that while I like the idea that Obama and company are libertarians, the theory is marred by their acting not much like libertarians. Wouldn't libertarians be deregulating everything and shutting down portions of the government and getting us out of the United Nations--or at least, talking about such measures?

Also, the libertarians I've known have not been so mean. In fact, they are as nice as can be, whereas we all know the Obama people are the quintessence of mean.

I lean toward the theory that Obama and company are corporatists--not exactly an original idea these days. But it seems to best explain their behavior.

This is my theory of the day. Every move the O-holes make is designed to do one of two things: 1) keep themselves in power, by whatever means, and 2) satisfy the corporations, no matter how much it hurts the country.

Hard to believe our progressive colleagues fought dirty for this pr*ck. They still haven't figured out Obama has been working against them from the get-go.

Alessandro Machi said...

This is called Parallel Foreclosure. Banks start foreclosure papers the moment a person becomes eligible for a home mortgage re-fi plan by....drum roll please, falling behind in their payments.

If you don't fall behind in your payments, how does the bank now know you are just trying to be opportunistic and get a loan rate reduction?

If we could get enough people to agree that Income Tax Simplification and 4% home loan modifications for anybody who wants one would do in an instant what is otherwise taking 10 months and counting to get done.

10,000 homes get foreclosed upon each and every day in this country.

lambert strether said...

Can Obama really be THIS bad? Simple answers to simple questions....

Unknown said...

More Bad Obama News:

http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1887-dred-scott-redux-obama-and-the-supremes-stand-up-for-slavery.html

Unknown said...

Curiously enough, all the Libertarians I know either work for the government itself or for large government contractors.

I agree with the notion of Obama being a pure corporatist, as opposed to a Libertarian - the bailout alone is proof of that. He's perfectly happy to establish welfare programs for the corporate elite - only the poor, the unemployed, and the ill need fend for themselves in Obamaland (tm).

More and more I'm persuaded that the Obama "movement" is a calculated (and astoundingly successful) attempt to destroy what little remains of the Left from within. He has, after all, taken the signature issue of the Left in the US, universal healthcare, and perverted it into yet another government slush fund for the corporations. That's the *real* "audacity of hope".

Nibbles McGee said...

For the official record, I didn't think he would be this bad, either. Which is saying something considering I have never, for one second, bought into the Savior from Illinois bullshit. I just thought he was marginally more concerned with gee, I dunno, the place in history he seemed to desperate to secure. I also thought he wanted to avoid little things like economic armageddon, nuclear war with Iran, and, you know, ecological meltdown. Alas, I was wrong.

uncontrolled weeping

G said...

Well, I thought he’d be exactly this bad. And I thought so very early in 2007. I was tipped off by a friend of mine (“C”) – who recognized what Obama was about (long story). I briefly argued with C (I didn’t want this to be true), then checked out the man and his record. The more I checked him out, the more I realized where this all was headed – that Obama had good odds of winning the Democratic nomination (and Presidency), that he had NPD, and that he would be a disaster. Right now, he’s about six months ahead of what I would have predicted – in terms of publicly visible damage. And I thought that it would continue to get worse as his Presidency progressed – and that there were even reasonable odds of a truly disastrous outcome by the end of his Presidency (we ain’t seen nothing yet).

Taking about damage….

A report was recently released by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' chief actuary, Richard S. Foster, on the impact of the proposed $500 billion in Medicare cuts (embedded in the healthcare bill):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/14/AR2009111402597.html
The proposed Medicare cuts “would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday”

http://www.slate.com/id/2235758/
Also, as pointed out in the Slate article “Foster was the guy whom Medicare administrator Tom Scully threatened to fire in 2003 if Foster made public his report predicting the new Medicare drug benefit then before Congress would cost $156 billion more than advertised by the Bush administration.”

One of the most draconian measures is in the Senate bill – and from I’ve been reading, it was apparently inserted at the behest of the White House. It would set up a permanent, unelected “Fed for Medicare” board to independently institute further Medicare cuts. These cuts could not be blocked – only tinkered with (i.e. reallocating what specific services are targeted for cutting) – by Congress. If a “tinkering” bill is not passed and signed by the President, the cuts mandated by the board go into effect automatically. And after 2020 Congress loses the power to even tinker with the cuts.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/11/19/does-harry-reid-s-health-care-bill-create-a-fed-for-medicare.aspx

See pages 1000-1053 of the bill.

In addition, Senators Lieberman, Whitehouse, Rockefeller, and Bingaman are planning to offer an amendment that would even further “strengthen” the “Fed for Medicare” provisions for future Medicare cuts.

Such an unelected board, to cut Medicare, has been a wet dream on the Right and among Corporatists for decades. And we’re handing it to them on a silver platter (apparently with little awareness on the Left).

Also, on an unrelated topic, some of you might not yet have seen the following:

http://www.correntewire.com/dred_scott_ii
http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1887-dred-scott-redux-obama-and-the-supremes-stand-up-for-slavery.html
http://original.antiwar.com/fisher/2009/12/15/us-guantanamo-prisoners-not-persons/

alibe said...

I always said 0bama will be worse than Bush. I was wrong, he will be worse than Cheney!

Anonymous said...

I want to quote your post in my blog. It can?
And you et an account on Twitter?