Welcome to “under the bus,” environmentalists and eco-conscious Eaarth citizens. We gays have decorated it quite festively, and our Latino and other immigrant communities have added their own touches as well. We’ve all been thrown under here, sacrificed to the highest goal: Obama’s re-election.
|By: Teddy Partridge Tuesday August 30, 2011 3:35 pm|
|By: David Dayen Wednesday January 5, 2011 4:00 pm|
I’ve given my reasons for why I think the investors and executives at Bank of America are being a little too enraptured about the deal they struck with the GSEs on put-backs based on representation and warranty claims. But it’s important to look at what they are saying, because it does offer some insight.
Bank of America said today that the $2.8 billion dollar settlement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “was a necessary step” in the housing recovery. Think about what that means. It says to the country that the fraudulent reports of underwriting standards to investors, in this case, represented a real threat to the viability of the US residential housing market, the largest market in the world. Joe Weisenthal says this is the admission of a back-door bailout; I’m not sure about that. But it does say that the repurchase threat represented a systemic risk, and reaching at a settlement at pennies on the dollar reduces that risk. And the party that handed out the settlement is a government-sponsored entity.
|By: Teddy Partridge Saturday November 27, 2010 3:30 pm|
If your staff’s communications omit mention of the bank you supposedly want “saved” how can you be charged with trying to save the bank?
|By: emptywheel Sunday November 21, 2010 8:05 am|
Yves Smith has a post laying out one of the most troublesome aspects of the response to the revelation of foreclosure fraud. As she explains, to conduct an “independent review” of its PR-servicing “review” of its own servicing practices, GMAC picked the lawfirm that has been in charge of its national counsel on servicing issues.
|By: David Dayen Friday November 19, 2010 4:45 pm|
Yesterday, Maxine Waters chaired the House Financial Services Committee hearing on foreclosure fraud, and very effectively called out both the regulators who have stood mute in the midst of this crisis, and the big bank servicers who have been actively harmful to their customers. A day later, her hearing with the House Ethics Committee was postponed indefinitely, due to the “discovery” of new documents in the case.
|By: David Dayen Friday October 15, 2010 5:15 pm|
I’m so old I can remember back to when Republicans were tarred with the “culture of corruption” label. I think it was back in 2006. Multiple members either resigned or were defeated after a spate of ethics violations involving sex and money. Four years later, many Republicans who were in office and lost their seats in the wave elections of 2006 and 2008 have returned in a favorable political environment to reclaim their positions. It was inevitable that at least one of them would be enmeshed in the same corruption and ethics scandals of the recent GOP past.
Charlie Bass, a former Congressman who lost his seat to Paul Hodes in 2006, is back to challenge for the open seat against progressive Ann McLane Kuster. Polls have shown the race close, but Bass is in position to return to Congress. There’s only one problem: he would almost immediately face the Ethics Committee.
|By: David Dayen Monday August 2, 2010 5:15 pm|
Basically, we have a he said/she said situation here in regards to Rep. Maxine Water’s ethics charges, though the evidence militates in favor of Waters. And it’s important to remember that the “he said” in this case is, among others, Porter Goss.
|By: David Dayen Sunday August 1, 2010 7:30 am|
You don’t have to carry a torch for Maxine Waters to know that her case is wholly different than the case of Charlie Rangel’s, and that they’re being placed together because of coincidental timing and skin color.
|By: Jane Hamsher Friday December 11, 2009 8:35 am|
Congress Daily is reporting that Reid is going to file “simultaneous cloture motions” on a package of bills, none of which he appears to have the votes for. Bart Stupak is saying they’re talking about throwing it in the omnibus bill, and beating members into passing it with “voting against the troops.”
|By: Jane Hamsher Thursday December 10, 2009 7:15 pm|
If your progressive Democratic member of Congress decides to support the corporatist agenda and vote for a health care bill that makes the insurance companies say “we won,” they probably need to be challenged.
If you’d like to volunteer to be a part the effort to recruit a “Medicare for All” candidate in your district, sign up here.