US Politics Mega-thread - Page 197

On April 14 2013 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Than that's what she should be discussing. I have no idea what the video was about beyond "big banks" did "illegal things" to "victimize families". What the hell was it about? What kind of illegal activity are we talking about? Missing paperwork or something serious? I assume nothing criminal (otherwise law enforcement would be involved, though maybe - you tell me).

Joining the Senate, the House of Representatives approved a measure today that repeals a requirement that top government officials post financial disclosures on the Internet.

The House, like the Senate, acted quietly without a vote. Instead, they sent the measure to the president's desk by unanimous consent.

The provision was part of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (Stock), which became law in March of 2012. The act was intended to stop members of congress from profiting from nonpublic information.

As NPR's Tamara Keith reported, at the time, Sen. Joe Lieberman called the law "the most significant congressional ethics reform legislation to pass Congress in at least five years."

The Washington Post explains:

"That law mainly addressed conflict-of-interest policies for members of Congress and their staffs, but it also included a requirement that the financial disclosure forms filed by some 28,000 high-ranking federal employees be posted online.
"While those forms are public records, they must be requested individually from employing agencies. The Stock Act envisions online posting first on agency sites and later in a central, searchable database.

"The posting requirement was delayed three times out of concerns about the potential for identity theft and other crimes against career employees, as well as security risks to the government."

The Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for a more open government, called today's repeal an "epic failure."

The foundation explained that instead of addressing specific security concerns, Congress has acted broadly.

On April 14 2013 02:53 HunterX11 wrote:


In 1086 William the Conqueror ordered the assessment of title claims to be recorded in the Domesday Book, and since then i English and British and subsequently American property law, it become necessary to demonstrate a chain of title ownership to claim land, unless it were to be taken under some other legal mechanism such as homesteading or adverse possession. MERS extrajudicially abolished this system, and many banks subsequently foreclosed on homes they had no legal standing to claim: a process which was legitimized in 2012 in the 50 state settlement where the banks admitted to no wrongdoing in return for offering up a pittance to pay restitution to pay homeowners who had been wronged by being foreclosed on or making unnecessary payments for houses with misplaced titles. This was to be determined by an independent review board, which was then dissolved before it even reviewed the majority of the cases. Some banks have even hired goons to lock people out of homes the bank has no claim to--it's even happened to homes on which there was no mortgage at all!

On April 14 2013 02:49 oneofthem wrote:

first couple of minutes is about whether the govt investigation in foreclosure practice will release the information to individuals seeking to file suit against banks. dunno if it's expanded upon later but that part is pretty straightforward.

the investigator guy probably is working with a concern to minimize fallout exposure and help banks collect as much money as possible

On April 14 2013 03:17 farvacola wrote:

This has nothing to do with preemption, it has to do with government bank regulators and their continuing failure to provide the Senate Banking Committee with pertinent information.

HOLLYWOOD, Calif. — In the GOP’s ongoing establishment vs. grassroots saga, chalk one up for the establishment.

Since Mitt Romney’s loss, the Rand Paul wing of the party has been on the ascendency. But libertarians hit a roadblock Friday as the Republican National Committee opted at its spring meeting to keep in place a host of rules rammed through by the Romney campaign at last year’s national convention.

The move represents at least a small setback to Rand Paul’s 2016 hopes, potentially making it more difficult for him or another candidate with strong grassroots support to pick up delegates. Had the rules been in effect last year — they were adopted after Mitt Romney secured the nomination — the former Massachusetts governor would likely have wrapped up the nomination much earlier and avoided the drawn-out warfare that weakened him heading into the general election against Barack Obama.

One plank that was maintained, for example, allows more states to award delegates on a winner-take-all basis, instead of proportionally. An attempt to overturn another rule that bounds a state delegation to support whoever won a statewide vote received only 49 votes; 107 committee members voted to keep it in place.

The vote followed a heated debate. Paul backers argued that the Romney rules favor big-money candidates at the expense of contenders with devoted followings among activists.

“This damages grassroots candidates in general, whether that be Rand or anyone else,” said Paul backer Jeff Larson, who carpooled from Texas with friends to lobby the committee.

Ron Paul’s 2012 deputy campaign manager, Dimitri Kesari, promised that the state chairmen and committee members who voted against rolling back the Romney rules will be forced to explain themselves if they run for reelection.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/rand-paul-gop-libertarians-establishment-90018.html?hp=f3

On April 14 2013 03:29 Souma wrote:
Does it look like she has that kind of authority? What is wrong with you today, Jonny? I don't sense your usual classiness.

On April 14 2013 03:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
If that's what we're talking about than, by and large, 'vicitmized families' is homeowners who weren't able to use a technicality to get out of an otherwise legitimate foreclosure.

On April 14 2013 02:57 RvB wrote:


Haven't read it all but the name of the source seems questionable.. the economic collapse?

edit: alright it has good sources ^^.

If there was going to be a recovery, there would have been one by now. The next major economic downturn is rapidly approaching, and that is going to push the employment-population ratio down even farther.

On April 14 2013 03:55 oneofthem wrote:
if it was up to obama you'd probably have that centralized regulator, and she'd be in that video

On April 14 2013 03:55 Souma wrote:
Talk about late, Jonny. Lol.

Banks including Citigroup Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., along with congressional staff members and trade groups, received potentially market-moving Federal Reserve information 19 hours before the public in a release the central bank called accidental.

On April 14 2013 03:55 oneofthem wrote:
if it was up to obama you'd probably have that centralized regulator, and she'd be in that video

On April 14 2013 04:09 HunterX11 wrote:


You accuse Warren of using loaded terminology, then say something is "otherwise legitimate" besides being patently illegitimate? That's the biggest euphemism of all! It's like saying that murder is perfectly legal, except the part where you kill someone. It might seem like a technicality that a creditor has to be able to prove that they are owed money, but it is the very basis of property law going back literally to time immemorial. You can't just be like "Hey bro, the house is like, totally fuckin' ours, man, so get up off that paper 'fore we throw you off your coach and switch the locks!" It's not a great basis for a legal system if you value rule of law over just giving the rich whatever they want because they deserve it.

edit: I'm not even saying that the banks shouldn't be able to go on a case-by-case basis and reestablish title when they mess up, but just giving the banks a free Jubilee is beyond insane.

On April 14 2013 04:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Homeowners that legitimately owe a debt shouldn't be given a free Jubilee either.

It's one thing if we're discussing legit ownership disputes, it's another if we're discussing a technical claim that does little else than delay an otherwise valid foreclosure.

On April 14 2013 04:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Homeowners that legitimately owe a debt shouldn't be given a free Jubilee either.

It's one thing if we're discussing legit ownership disputes, it's another if we're discussing a technical claim that does little else than delay an otherwise valid foreclosure.