How Foreclosures Are Impacting Election Prospects

First, let’s clear out one thing: neither Romney nor Obama caused the wave of millions of foreclosures. In fact, while the Republicans are guilty of obstructionism in Congress and across the country, the most you could say about Republicans is that they didn’t do enough to stop the foreclosures. The same is true for a portion of Democrats. Wall Street created a scheme where the only possible ending was an enormous wave of fraudulent foreclosures.

Second as to the positions of the two presidential candidates, neither one has any bragging rights.

Romney in true Republican style said let the housing market “bottom out “— the market will take care of itself. That’s like saying to guests on a sinking ship, we’ll wait until after it sinks and then the natural action of the currents will bring your bodies up for recovery.

Romney was dead wrong on that, doesn’t understand the importance of housing in the economy and is completely out of touch with the idea that government is “of the people, by the people and FOR the people.” He said the same thing about the car industry and was dead wrong on that, so we shouldn’t expect any help from a Romney administration when it comes to housing, and therefore we shouldn’t expect anything more than a sluggish economy during his tenure, if he has one.

Obama has made some baby steps in the right direction but did not understand and perhaps still does not understand the scope of the crimes committed on Wall Street and is still acting as though the fall of the mega bank empires will have devastating results to our economy. Quite the contrary is true. And his estimates of how many homes he saved is about 10 times thee actual number.

As long as Obama listens to Wall Street about what to do about Wall Street crimes his policies are held prisoner to the people who ought to be in prison. And the criticism of his aloofness in dealing with Congress is justified. Not that Romney would be any better after more than 800 vetoes in Massachusetts as Governor.

So this isn’t about who SHOULD be president or who SHOULD control congress, it is about who WILL be president and who WILL control Congress.

The metrics are unavoidably simple and direct. Millions of people have been ejected from their homes. That is a fact. There are more than 10 million registered voters who were ejected from their homes. Why neither candidate has courted these people as voters is beyond comprehension. But the fact is that without registering to vote in their new places of abode, they won’t be voting in this year’s election.

The overwhelming majority of homeowners who were illegally foreclosed and ejected from their homes were from so-called minority groups. They included single mothers, some of whom were married to men fighting overseas — a foreclosure that is specifically prohibited under law, but that didn’t stop the banks from carrying out their illegal and fraudulent claims of securitization, assignment and keeping the huge profits from recurring resales of the same mortgages to multiple counter-parties.

In this group of foreclosures composed of “minority” or specially described voters, the overwhelming majority of them would vote for the President and Democrats running in their districts. But many of them won’t vote because of various reasons that either prohibited or interfered with their registration to vote — like desperate trying to find a job.

I cannot put an exact metric on it because all I have is anecdotal evidence. But from ALL ends of the political spectrum, it is clear that a high percentage of evicted homeowners will not vote this November. That could easily swing the election one way or the other. With more than 10 million disenfranchised voters (or some portion thereof), the deal is stacked for Romney and the Republicans.


28 Responses

  1. Did I mention how much I like the Rabi? …. …. I will tell you again …… I Likes the Rabi… He speaks the Truth! God Bless the Rabi!

  2. I’m sorry for your loss Marie, I’m not real familier with BK laws. I didnt know about that 3time rule. I sure hope I never have too find out. Best Wishes!

  3. @shadowcat

    You do make a good point. Although our home was sold when we were
    in a BK13 and because we filed 3 times (lawyer didn’t file paperwork on time for the last one) Trustee Corps of Irvine CA. told me (after an investor came to our door to inform us of a sale date within days) that they were choosing to use the third filing rule sec. 362 of the bankruptcy code to be able to auction our home of 17 years. So be careful about filing BK13 3 times.

  4. I Likes the Rabi … He speaks the Truth! God Bless Him!

  5. @Marie, what your saying does not hold water in a FC action. What I posted does. In BK 7 .. Insolvent… your lose your assets including the home. People will always lose jobs and go thru rough times ….. Its Always Been That Way! No one is saying these are not Good People! God Knows … I’ve seen enough of the elderly BK for Medical Bills! My Issue with Ivent .. does not in any way relate to families in General. Ivent knows she is insolvent and she thinks if she can avoid Bk like I did … she get a free house. hahahaha …. I offer Tender, I get Damages for Non Performence. You can not offer Tender if your Insolvent.

  6. People do have a short memory. Remember the Notarization Act, that would have legitimized robosigning and by default MERS….Obama pocket-vetoed same. Had he not done that, game would be over for all homeowners a long time ago. Come on folks, stop playing the Ostrich.

  7. According to the American Heritage Dictionary The definition of insolvent is: Unable to meet debts or discharge liabilities; bankrupt. Insufficient to meet all debts, as an estate or fund. Of or relating to bankrupt persons or entities. A bankrupt.

    OK. Who received the $700 billion bailout and made a few bucks of their own before going BK? Who made the decisions? Are they good people? They are not insolvent.

    Lots of good people are insolvent, as the economy has not recovered.

    Focus on contributing some useful information that readers of this blog want and need and not on pettiness.

  8. Risky Business!

  9. @JG… Damages derived from Criminal Actions not covered under the Consent Orders…. Sumtin abouts le dates … with pretty girls. oh wait.. sorry that was my grandsons answer. lol

  10. @JG… They Do! But there is still the debt… If you Tender or BK11 or 13 you can demand performance and file suit of your own for damages. Damages offset your expences and damages … Yep! Yep! You cant be Insolvent!

  11. Robo signing – what a catchy phrase, and what a way to minimize what’s still going on. Servicer employees are still executing assgts of collateral instruments to their bosses or others in the name of MERS, as designed from word 1. “Robo-signing” makes the act sound essentially harmless (“no real damage”) and un-criminal. I prefer fraud, RICO, conversion, theft and that’s when I’m not shouting that the dot is an unconscionable and void document for at least its false inducement and failure of meeting of the minds (what is it you think
    you agreed to – did you agree that for $20.00 to MERS any one could assign your deed of trust to anyone they wanted, including themselves?) This class-A suit names names of servicer employees, like Theodore Schultz of Aurora Loan Services nka Aurora Bank fame, and accuses them of conversion and other misdeeds: DC ND CA 12-03000 (Cabusas).
    Maybe your “robo-signor” is named therein. I truly hope the attorneys for the homeowners are up to the mission they’ve started.

  12. @ Neil, I’ll Make a $500.00 donation to this site if you Banish the Insolvent Idiot here! Anyone want to up the anny with me ….. Good For Everyone Involved and we Help a Few More Level Headed Homeowners at the same time ….. What do ye Say?


  14. @marie

    “..Judges in CA. being allowed to rule on Wrongful Foreclosures cases (more times than not in favor of the banks) when their Pension fund CalPERS is tied to the securitization of the mortgages?”

    BINGO! If that’s not a conflict of interest—I don’t know what is.

    Congress doesn’t seem to care about conflicts of interest…if they did, they wouldn’t get away with all of their insider trading—among other things they get away with…

  15. @carie
    Thank you!

    Has anyone made a complaint to their local Office of the District Attorney Special Prosecutions Real Estate Fraud unit against the County Recorders Office for filing Documents which are illegally robo signed docs with: Gary Trafford NOD, Mike Stanford (attorney in fact), and Suchan Murray on ADOT in CA. and the result?

    Also, why are the elected Judges in CA. being allowed to rule on Wrongful Foreclosures cases (more times than not in favor of the banks) when their Pension fund CalPERS is tied to the securitization of the mortgages? JC Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo are all on the list as well as others. Research the Wrongful Foreclosure case rulings by Superior Court Judges vs. Bankruptcy Judges…interesting.

  16. Members of Congress are always profiting at our expense. WE no longer have a representative government. We are going to get fleeced no matter who wins, but it will be worse with Romney. We need to get viable third parties, but not third parties that are still working to fleece the people as well. You may or may not have seen that Jill Stein, a third party rep for President was arrested on Long Island during the last debate. Fascism lives!

  17. @iwantmynvp and whomever else cares)

    You had asked a question regarding GSE’s and HAMP/HARP on another thread—
    I lost the other thread so I am posting the response here (from my friend):

    “…not trying to discredit Neil — only trying to WAKE HIM UP.

    HARP/HAMP is after the fraud, it is to remedy the fraud (if that is possible), but not the beginning of the fraud.

    The fraud occurred before HARP/HAMP.

    The notes are not NEW notes, the notes are not notes at all, HARP/HAMP tries to get borrowers to sign to modify the debt — as if it was a valid mortgage with a valid note.

    HARP/HAMP is a continuation of the Fraud — not the original source.

    The subprime refinances were already modifications of default debt — but, no one was ever told.

    HARP/HAMP just allows borrowers to modify the default debt — AGAIN.

    Refer to the TARP Oversight Panel November 2010 report — footnote 35 — “Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”

    Mortgages were not validly discharged/cancelled by a subprime refinance.

    The mortgage, as GSE charge-off, remains with the subprime refinance only serving as modification to the (false) default debt.

    Were the subprime refinances presented as a valid mortgage to the borrowers??? YES.

    But, this was false and fraudulent.

    They were NOT valid mortgages, as the mortgage remained intact — only by servicer advance —not by the borrower refinance.

    And, the servicer “modifies” the original “note”, by the subprime refinance, on behalf of an identified creditor/”investor” – mortgage remains.

    Borrower remains in default status with GSE.

    Does a valid UCC negotiable note exist by the subprime refinance??

    Of course not, the prior mortgage was never validly discharged, and although the servicer advances, the borrower is NOT recorded as paying.

    In effect, the actual borrower on the subprime refinance is —- THE SERVICER — (on behalf of the actual debt buyer creditor/”Investor”).

    HARP/HAMP just continues to “modify” the false default — HAH — if you are LUCKY (not really LUCKY).

    Yes– Corridor Agreements exist — and are buried reference in Registration Statements (S-3), and Prospectus.

    Possibly not even referred to at all. And, certainly not filed as viewable with the SEC. .

    Correspondent brokers and bankers, YES, made a bundle on the deals — irrelevant to the borrower — except they paid for in the form of higher interest rates on the modified debt — called a subprime refinance. .

    All subprime loans (falsely called refinances) were sold to one of the big banks.

    Only the big banks had contracts with GSEs.

    The banks then securitized (passed-through cash flows — that is all securitzation is) — to security investors.

    The very structure of the REMIC subprime was to provide credit enhancement to generate AAA ratings.

    But, the Prospectus said otherwise, the Prospectus clearly states how the certificates to “risky” loan contained in the REMIC are sold TO THE SECURITY UNDERWRITERS — who do NOT report financial statements to the IRS — their parent corporation does.

    Further, securitization must involve removable of receivables from the corporation’s balance sheet.

    By transferring the pass-through to off-balance sheets, the corporation was able to avoid reporting that the loans they “securitized” were not actually loans with valid receivables, in fact, they were collection rights to default debt, by which the corporation could only report the cash received as income — not receivables.

    BINGO — invalid securitizations — and, that is why the subprime REMICs collapsed…”

  18. Better of dumping names in a hat and hold a lottery. Both Romney and Obama will work the agenda and play cover up . They will continue to say “Homeowners bought too much house”. Neither of these Ass holes will tell the truth and address the real issues. Wall Street and the Banksters belong in jail. Netiher Romney nor Obama get my vote. Both are a joke.

  19. Write in your vote on election day.
    Write in anyone you want. This article suggests to write in Ron Paul.

    Democrat or Republican….there is no choice. They work for the same people.

    I agree. If the president is not stopping foreclosures…well, then you know he’s not working for the people.

    He can sign Executive Orders all day long, though. Did you notice that?

  20. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund … Annual Financial Reports

  21. SC,

    What’s IMRF? And what report are you referring to?

  22. Looking at IMRF statement ……. 2011 Annual Financial Report. Its Not Good! 2012 is expected to be worse and I suspect 2013 will be devastating. Nothing is going to change it …. but Prosecutions would restore Faith that we are going in the right direction. Can You Hear Us Now Obama?

  23. More on that subject from Huffington Post. It doesn’t get anymore mainstream than that…

    Stop fretting over the next president and look at the big picture.

  24. Oh… and if, indeed, it is being played at IMF level, Obama, Romney, Stein or anyone else will make little no difference. The BRICS countries recently obtained a much larger stake at IMF and the US no longer have that much influence on the outcome…

  25. What’s most interesting about this article is that:
    1) Debt forgiveness has, indeed, been ongoing toward Asian and African countries. IMF recently forgave billions to Ethiopia, Guinea, Sub-Sahara, Sudan and other countries, such as Myanmar in Asia. So, it is not incorrect to state that things are in the works, of which very few people are privy. Ireland recently also obtained debt forgiveness from IMF.

    2) The idea has tossed around since 2008 and, recently, it appears to be gaining a lot of traction everywhere.

    3) It is hitting MSM (although I wouldn’t place the Telegraph at the same level as Le Monde, Die Welt or Pravda…)

    I believe it will be a necessary step in order to reset the clocks, eliminate fiat money and start anew, probably on a global level, with a solid currency. We’ll see…

    IMF’s Epic Plan to Conjure Away Debt
    and Dethrone Bankers

    IMF’s epic plan to conjure away debt and dethrone bankers
    So there is a magic wand after all. A revolutionary paper by the International Monetary Fund claims that one could eliminate the net public debt of the US at a stroke, and by implication do the same for Britain, Germany, Italy, or Japan.

    By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard 2:31PM BST
    21 Oct 2012

    One could slash private debt by 100% of GDP, boost growth, stabilize prices, and dethrone bankers all at the same time. It could be done cleanly and painlessly, by legislative command, far more quickly than anybody imagined.

    The conjuring trick is to replace our system of private bank-created money — roughly 97% of the money supply — with state-created money. We return to the historical norm, before Charles II placed control of the money supply in private hands with the English Free Coinage Act of 1666.

    Specifically, it means an assault on “fractional reserve banking”. If lenders are forced to put up 100% reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exorbitant privilege of creating money out of thin air.

    The nation regains sovereign control over the money supply. There are no more banks runs, and fewer boom-bust credit cycles. Accounting legerdemain will do the rest. That at least is the argument.

    Some readers may already have seen the IMF study, by Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof, which came out in August and has begun to acquire a cult following around the world.

    Entitled “The Chicago Plan Revisited”, it revives the scheme first put forward by professors Henry Simons and Irving Fisher in 1936 during the ferment of creative thinking in the late Depression.

    Irving Fisher thought credit cycles led to an unhealthy concentration of wealth. He saw it with his own eyes in the early 1930s as creditors foreclosed on destitute farmers, seizing their land or buying it for a pittance at the bottom of the cycle.

    The farmers found a way of defending themselves in the end. They muscled together at “one dollar auctions”, buying each other’s property back for almost nothing. Any carpet-bagger who tried to bid higher was beaten to a pulp.

    Benes and Kumhof argue that credit-cycle trauma – caused by private money creation – dates deep into history and lies at the root of debt jubilees in the ancient religions of Mesopotian and the Middle East.

    Harvest cycles led to systemic defaults thousands of years ago, with forfeiture of collateral, and concentration of wealth in the hands of lenders. These episodes were not just caused by weather, as long thought. They were amplified by the effects of credit.

    The Athenian leader Solon implemented the first known Chicago Plan/New Deal in 599 BC to relieve farmers in hock to oligarchs enjoying private coinage. He cancelled debts, restituted lands seized by creditors, set floor-prices for commodities (much like Franklin Roosevelt), and consciously flooded the money supply with state-issued “debt-free” coinage.

    The Romans sent a delegation to study Solon’s reforms 150 years later and copied the ideas, setting up their own fiat money system under Lex Aternia [latin for “eternal law” -AK] in 454 BC.

    It is a myth – innocently propagated by the great Adam Smith – that money developed as a commodity-based or gold-linked means of exchange. Gold was always highly valued, but that is another story. Metal-lovers often conflate the two issues.

    Anthropological studies show that social fiat currencies began with the dawn of time. The Spartans banned gold coins, replacing them with iron disks of little intrinsic value. The early Romans used bronze tablets. Their worth was entirely determined by law – a doctrine made explicit by Aristotle in his Ethics – like the dollar, the euro, or sterling today.

    Some argue that Rome began to lose its solidarity spirit when it allowed an oligarchy to develop a private silver-based coinage during the Punic Wars. Money slipped control of the Senate. You could call it Rome’s shadow banking system. Evidence suggests that it became a machine for elite wealth accumulation.

    Unchallenged sovereign or Papal control over currencies persisted through the Middle Ages until England broke the mould in 1666. Benes and Kumhof say this was the start of the boom-bust era.

    One might equally say that this opened the way to England’s agricultural revolution in the early 18th Century, the industrial revolution soon after, and the greatest economic and technological leap ever seen. But let us not quibble.

    The original authors of the Chicago Plan were responding to the Great Depression. They believed it was possible to prevent the social havoc caused by wild swings from boom to bust, and to do so without crimping economic dynamism.

    The benign side-effect of their proposals would be a switch from national debt to national surplus, as if by magic. “Because under the Chicago Plan banks have to borrow reserves from the treasury to fully back liabilities, the government acquires a very large asset vis-à-vis banks. Our analysis finds that the government is left with a much lower, in fact negative, net debt burden.”

    The IMF paper says total liabilities of the US financial system – including shadow banking – are about 200% of GDP. The new reserve rule would create a windfall. This would be used for a “potentially a very large, buy-back of private debt”, perhaps 100% of GDP.

    While Washington would issue much more fiat money, this would not be redeemable. It would be an equity of the commonwealth, not debt.

    The key of the Chicago Plan was to separate the “monetary and credit functions” of the banking system. “The quantity of money and the quantity of credit would become completely independent of each other.”
    Private lenders would no longer be able to create new deposits “ex nihilo”. New bank credit would have to be financed by retained earnings.

    “The control of credit growth would become much more straightforward because banks would no longer be able, as they are today, to generate their own funding, deposits, in the act of lending, an extraordinary privilege that is not enjoyed by any other type of business,” says the IMF paper.

    “Rather, banks would become what many erroneously believe them to be today, pure intermediaries that depend on obtaining outside funding before being able to lend.”

    The US Federal Reserve would take real control over the money supply for the first time, making it easier to manage inflation. [The author overlooks the fact the Federal Reserve is a private bank and the very source of inflation! -AK] It was precisely for this reason that Milton Friedman called for 100% reserve backing in 1967. Even the great free marketeer implicitly favoured a clamp-down on private money.

    The switch would engender a 10% boost to long-arm economic output. “None of these benefits come at the expense of diminishing the core useful functions of a private financial system.”

    Simons and Fisher were flying blind in the 1930s. They lacked the modern instruments needed to crunch the numbers, so the IMF team has now done it for them — using the `DSGE’ stochastic model now de rigueur in high economics, loved and hated in equal measure.

    The finding is startling. Simons and Fisher understated their claims. It is perhaps possible to confront the banking plutocracy head without endangering the economy.

    Benes and Kumhof make large claims. They leave me baffled, to be honest. Readers who want the technical details can make their own judgement by studying the text here.

    The IMF duo have supporters. Professor Richard Werner from Southampton University – who coined the term quantitative easing (QE) in the 1990s — testified to Britain’s Vickers Commission that a switch to state-money would have major welfare gains. He was backed by the campaign group Positive Money and the New Economics Foundation.

    The theory also has strong critics. Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research says banks are in a sense already being forced to increase reserves by EU rules, Basel III rules, and gold-plated variants in the UK. The effect has been to choke lending to the private sector.

    He argues that is the chief reason why the world economy remains stuck in near-slump, and why central banks are having to cushion the shock with QE.

    “If you enacted this plan, it would devastate bank profits and cause a massive deflationary disaster. There would have to do `QE squared’ to offset it,” he said.

    The result would be a huge shift in bank balance sheets from private lending to government securities. This happened during World War Two, but that was the anomalous cost of defeating Fascism.

    To do this on a permanent basis in peace-time would be to change in the nature of western capitalism. “People wouldn’t be able to get money from banks. There would be huge damage to the efficiency of the economy,” he said.

    Arguably, it would smother freedom and enthrone a Leviathan state. It might be even more irksome in the long run than rule by bankers. [The bankers run the governments now! How could it be worse? -AK]

    Personally, I am a long way from reaching an conclusion in this extraordinary debate. Let it run, and let us all fight until we flush out the arguments.

  26. What about the millions who are making payments on underwater mortgages? Neil is not taking those numbers into account

  27. well thats why exactly Obama should have taken on the banks…..he didnt, he actually said what they did wasnt criminal…..he deserves his fate…..he let the people down….perhaps he feared his llife would be in danger, i dont know …..i do know his action and his words were pathetic

  28. This is a Good and Accurate article … but you failed to mention that those in Congress not doing Enough and Holding Things Up are in the 1% and they Profiting from it, getting richer and richer as we speak. They would sustain huge losses and probably Criminaly liability for their actions. But they are up there Covering their on Asses! Trying to Change laws and Backdate them. Proud to be an Independent Voter who votes on the Issues and not on the Party Name.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: