Jump to content

mortgagegate(leaked bank email)


ydoaPs
 Share

Recommended Posts

It just amazes me how the far right claim that the left hate America when the Republicans do things like this and obstruct life-saving deficit-reducing healthcare just because Obama's administration proposed it. They don't care about the people; they care about winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...when the Republicans do things like this

????

 

Video did not work. However, the e-mail itself states that the industry leaders may be willing to "alienate the Republican leadership" to acheive their goals. How then, are these Republicans?

 

Looks more like lobbying and politics as usual to me. If you are going to call out Republicans for playing politics, then do so for the Democrats as well. See for example the statement in the e-mail itself "they gave Durbin a wish list a while back...in his desperation to get something, he's given on most everything"

 

They don't care about the people; they care about winning.

seems applicable to both Democrats and Republicans to me. And espcially applicable to the bankers. Edited by SH3RL0CK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

????

 

The e-mail itself states that the industry leaders may be willing to "alienate the Republican leadership" to acheive their goals. How then, are these Republicans?

I think he's referring to the Republicans blocking mortgage relief efforts initiated by the Dems to renegotiate sub-prime loans that had ballooned and threatened foreclosures. It does seem like a direct political attack, since the banks would prefer to have the loans paid off at a fair interest rate rather than going through foreclosure auctions. The Republicans seem willing to further offer the kinds of deregulation and collusive deals that caused problems in the first place rather than let the Dems seem like saviors to at-risk homeowners.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's referring to the Republicans blocking mortgage relief efforts initiated by the Dems to renegotiate sub-prime loans that had ballooned and threatened foreclosures. It does seem like a direct political attack, since the banks would prefer to have the loans paid off at a fair interest rate rather than going through foreclosure auctions. The Republicans seem willing to further offer the kinds of deregulation and collusive deals that caused problems in the first place rather than let the Dems seem like saviors to at-risk homeowners.

 

I don't read the e-mail that way at all. Looks to me like the bankers trying to determine which party will give them the most. Who to stick with, the democrats promising everything now or the republicans who actually delivered everything in the past? Clearly a difficult choice for the banks. I think the best summary of their (the banks) motivations is the statement that

I know the every state association will have to do what's best for its members...

 

Politics as usual, but I don't see any side particularly clean nor especially dirty here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politics as usual, but I don't see any side particularly clean nor especially dirty here.
I agree that the banks are trying to decide which of the parties in their pocket will give them the best returns for the future, but I think backing the Reps in this instance seems to favor more of what caused the problem in the first place, while backing the Dems would provide mortgage relief to homeowners/taxpayers and the repayment of loans the banks suckered people into in the first place. I hate this dirty system but in this instance the Dems seem to be helping the people they profess to represent, where the Reps seem to be helping the banks and smearing the Dems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't read the e-mail that way at all. Looks to me like the bankers trying to determine which party will give them the most. Who to stick with, the democrats promising everything now or the republicans who actually delivered everything in the past? Clearly a difficult choice for the banks. I think the best summary of their (the banks) motivations is the statement that

 

What? Did you read the email at all?

Normally sir, I respect your posts, but really?

 

Apparently, they gave durbin a wish list awhile back and in his desperation to get something, he's given on most everything.

I have contacted the market presidents for each of the three banks and explained that in my humble opinion it's a big mistake to cut a deal with

Durbin and alienate our (in arizona) senator.

Kyl has pointedly told them not to make a deal with Durbin and then come looking to republicans when they need help on something like regulatory restructuring or systemic risk regulation

And the full quote:

I know the every state association will have to do what's best for its members, but I have told my largest three members that if they cut this deal,

AzBA will fight them on it. They may be willing to alienate Republican leadership, but I'm not quite there yet.

 

I hardly see how any of this is really in the bank's best interests, I wasn't aware that forming deals was detrimental to banks, nor do I see the necessity for most of the huge banks to be in the pocket of the republicans

 

EDIT:

I'm not grouping all the banks mentioned into this post as being bad guys, just the ones that look like they're not performing with logic, they're going with loyalty and with no regard to what's really actually good for the country or the bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? Did you read the email at all?

Normally sir, I respect your posts, but really?

Yes. Really. There isn't enough information here to definitively say anything. People are reading their own political views in statements where nothing definite is said.

 

See for example

Kyl has pointedly told them not to make a deal with Durbin and then come looking to republicans when they need help on something like regulatory restructuring or systemic risk regulation

 

 

This could mean:

Kyl finally sees the errors of the past and wants to establish regulations to prevent the abuses. The "and then" might have been a transition misinterpreted by whoever was discussing this issue with him.

or

Kyl thinks Durbins proposal (whatever that was at this specific time) will come back and bite the banks. If so, he isn't going to help them out of a problem they created themselves. They got what they wanted after all.

or

Kyl really, really does not like Durbin.

or

Kyl is playing politics, just as is Durbin.

or

any number of possible scenarios.

 

Also, see for example

I know the every state association will have to do what's best for its members, but I have told my largest three members that if they cut this deal,

AzBA will fight them on it. They may be willing to alienate Republican leadership, but I'm not quite there yet.

 

It is in the banks best interests to maintain as good of a relationship as is possible with as many senators as possible. And apparently having a great relationship with a senator (Kyl), it is probably not a good idea to throw that away over a single issue, even one as important as was apparently going on here. While perhaps partisan loyalty is involved, it isn't at all definitive. Certainly not, in my opinion, enough to justify a statement like

I'm not grouping all the banks mentioned into this post as being bad guys, just the ones that look like they're not performing with logic, they're going with loyalty and with no regard to what's really actually good for the country or the bank.
as I can see a logic behind some loyalty to Kyl with regards to what is best for the bank as I've described above. And what is the best for the country overall depends on a lot of subjective things, and shouldn't necessarily be the concern of a bank or banking association. Really hard to say without sufficient context.

 

My belief is this is all politics. But again, I don't see any side particularly clean or especially dirty here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only one I see any likelihood of happening is:

Kyl thinks Durbins proposal (whatever that was at this specific time) will come back and bite the banks. If so, he isn't going to help them out of a problem they created themselves. They got what they wanted after all.

 

In which case, don't you think Kyl could look at Durbins proposal and say why it won't work, or offer a better alternative, or do something other than plant his foot like a 5 year old shouting "no!" -

 

it would be like instead of me quoting the above sentence and writing this post, if I just came back and posted how stupid I think you are.

(I don't, for the record)

 

I'm no pro-democrat or anti-republican, I'm just anti-act stupidly, in this case I see someone trying to get a deal cut for homeowners, and someone trying to block it at all costs. I don't see much reason to block it, but if there is I'd love to learn about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In which case, don't you think Kyl could look at Durbins proposal and say why it won't work, or offer a better alternative, or do something other than plant his foot like a 5 year old shouting "no!" -

 

Maybe he did, but its just not recorded in the e-mail.

 

... in this case I see someone trying to get a deal cut for homeowners, and someone trying to block it at all costs. I don't see much reason to block it, but if there is I'd love to learn about it

 

I'm not a fan or either political party either. And yes, I agree stupidity seems a fairly common trait in our politicians. The only other point I'd like to bring up is that if someone is getting a deal, doesn't that mean someone else is paying for it? Depending on the specifics (which we don't have because we do not have the full context of this e-mail), that alone might be enough for someone else to try to block it.

 

Is the taxpayer going to be paying the difference between the original and the modified mortgage? Or is this going to be the bank customer in the form of higher fees, lower interest rates on savings and interest rates on loans? How do you feel about paying for someone else? Or is this going to be the consumer in the form of higher inflation? Someone is going to be forced to pay for this difference, probably in a way that isn't readily discerned (i.e. our national debt, or inflation).

 

Maybe this payment is worthwhile by preventing a worldwide financial collapse, and maybe it is a scam transfering wealth from those who save it to those who squander it. But I don't know which is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should probably try to figure out what "help from the Republicans" Kyl is referring to in this context. I, for one, highly doubt that the top banks would be looking for regulatory restructuring or systemic risk regulations that favored homeowners over themselves. I think the banks would've liked to embrace Durbin's plan because it would mean the repayment of much of the debt rather than massive foreclosures, which helps the banks fiscally and with their public image. But they don't seem to mind it too much when they can get sweetheart deals from the Republicans that let them set their own regulatory restraints and then get bailed out if things go pear-shaped.

 

The public is becoming wiser and isn't as willing to forgive the "Sorry, federal regulations are tying our hands" excuse, now that we are becoming more aware of the fact that the banks are spending huge amounts of political capital to make these collusive deals that put those regulations there in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doesn't that mean someone else is paying for it? Depending on the specifics (which we don't have because we do not have the full context of this e-mail), that alone might be enough for someone else to try to block it.

 

Is the taxpayer going to be paying the difference between the original and the modified mortgage? Or is this going to be the bank customer in the form of higher fees, lower interest rates on savings and interest rates on loans? How do you feel about paying for someone else? Or is this going to be the consumer in the form of higher inflation? Someone is going to be forced to pay for this difference, probably in a way that isn't readily discerned (i.e. our national debt, or inflation).

 

True and I agree for the most part - and yes, as I've stated earlier, I'm completely up for helping pay down some of the stupidity of the large businesses, but only if they're not going to get more money to do it again, it seems a bit redundant at that point.

 

I think more information is needed on Durbin's proposal, the wish list by the bankers, and what, if anything, is offered alternatively by the conservative side. I think I'll check that out over the day when I get time at work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also should keep in mind this e-mail is probably biased and in fact may not be factual.

 

Consider the statement "in his [Durbin] desperation to get something, he's [Durbin] given on most everything" from a "wish list". Somehow, I think Senator Durbin would recall the situation and the conversations differently.

 

Likewise, I have to take the statements attributed to Sen. Kyl with a grain of salt. If given the chance, Kyl would also probably state his viewpoint differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.