Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The new costs were funded by Medicare cuts and other provisions in the HCR package, not by general expectations about the economy. I had no idea you were so confused about this, but it explains a lot.

This is so stupid it deserves a second reply. Medicare costs money. A lot of the money budgeted to be part of it won't be there because assumed tax revenues are dropping precipitously. Even with the cuts, a deficit remains.

How do we fill that in? Cazart! Medicare has to borrow!

And you don't even have a fucking argument to what I said before about doubling effect of more subsidized people going on the rolls and coming off the "contributor" rolls.

You are again talking out your fucking ass. Every time you get pinned it's the same shit. You reply with something cryptic that's actually a non-response. Now that I've cited that disingenuous device, you'll shift and offer some copious pile of bullshit still failing to address what I've written, then top it off with some smug pronouncement about how little I understand.

Money ain't there. Spending is, and it's now getting bigger. Cuts were based on estimates of cash on hand. They no longer bridge the gap they were supposed to. Telling me over and over "It's paid for by cuts!" (which isn't even true, but I'll leave alone here) isn't a response. Rather than repeating the same statement and admitting your powers of analysis are for shit on this, you'd do much better to simply not respond.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He likes the idea of fiscal responsibility, but not enough to actually vote for the more fiscally responsible party if the other party is promising to lower his taxes.

To be fair, they have a very good track record on actually doing so.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think Sebby has been very clear that he will vote for the party that will lower his taxes. He likes the idea of fiscal responsibility, but not enough to actually vote for the more fiscally responsible party if the other party is promising to lower his taxes.

In that way (if only that way), he is a typical Republican.

I have actually voted for a Democrat for President. But that's a side issue...

If Democrats hiked my taxes a bit while offering a decent fiscal plan to cut SS, Medicare and defense, I would vote for them. My calculation is always, "Is the present money I keep likely to be worth more than the money I can make over time voting for the non-tax cutting party?"

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Too bad Hank won't know who Sidd was responding to.

He claims to have me on ignore. Yet he responds. To every post. Some twice.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think Sebby has been very clear that he will vote for the party that will lower his taxes. He likes the idea of fiscal responsibility, but not enough to actually vote for the more fiscally responsible party if the other party is promising to lower his taxes.

In that way (if only that way), he is a typical Republican.

That may be the case -- and that (my not knowing Sebby's voting record) was the only reason for my qualifier.

But I disagree with the view that a real confrontation over real spending issues would be futile. The only thing that could get me to vote for an R right now would be if one would be clear and honest about spending cuts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is so stupid it deserves a second reply. Medicare costs money. A lot of the money budgeted to be part of it won't be there because assumed tax revenues are dropping precipitously. Even with the cuts, a deficit remains.

How do we fill that in? Cazart! Medicare has to borrow!

And you don't even have a fucking argument to what I said before about doubling effect of more subsidized people going on the rolls and coming off the "contributor" rolls.

You are again talking out your fucking ass. Every time you get pinned it's the same shit. You reply with something cryptic that's actually a non-response. Now that I've cited that disingenuous device, you'll shift and offer some copious pile of bullshit still failing to address what I've written, then top it off with some smug pronouncement about how little I understand.

Money ain't there. Spending is, and it's now getting bigger. Cuts were based on estimates of cash on hand. They no longer bridge the gap they were supposed to. Telling me over and over "It's paid for by cuts!" (which isn't even true, but I'll leave alone here) isn't a response. Rather than repeating the same statement and admitting your powers of analysis are for shit on this, you'd do much better to simply not respond.

See my response to your other post. You are comparing the world we're in to a fantasy dreamland, where prepubescent girls cavort with unicorns, waiters in tails bring you cupcakes and champagne, and Congress was going to make massive cuts in Medicare just to balance the budget.

The cuts in HCR were designed to pay for HCR. They more than do that. All you are saying is that in other respects the economy has gotten worse and so we have less money. True. True, but completely irrelevant, except in your fantasy world. Have another cupcake.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

That may be the case -- and that (my not knowing Sebby's voting record) was the only reason for my qualifier.

But I disagree with the view that a real confrontation over real spending issues would be futile. The only thing that could get me to vote for an R right now would be if one would be clear and honest about spending cuts.

I have voted for fiscally responsible Republicans in the past, and would do so again if the rest of the party weren't so batshit crazy. (Vote for a fiscally responsible Republican now, and you're empowering the congressional leadership of a party that is devoted to fiscal irresponsibility.)

But if the rest of the electorate were like you and me and Sebby, things would be rather different. There just isn't support for fiscal responsibility, and that's why we don't get it. Faced with a choice between a candidate who promises to do the responsible thing, and one who says you can have your cupcakes and eat them too, most voters pick the latter.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Quoted since Hank has you on ignore.

The trick there is sidd claims to be thinking. I smell a rat. It would have been more believable if he'd written: "my instructed beliefs tell me to disagree with all of this."

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I think I disagree with everything in this post.

New board mottoe?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

link:

MA Supreme Court Deals Banks a Major Blow on Foreclosure Fraud, in the Ibanez Case
By: David Dayen Friday January 7, 2011 8:08 am

In a major ruling in the Massachusetts Supreme Court today, US Bank and Wells Fargo lost the “Ibanez case,” meaning that they don’t have standing to foreclose due to improper mortgage assignment. The ruling is likely to send shock waves through the entire judicial system, and seriously raise the stakes on foreclosure fraud. Bank stocks are plummeting at this hour.

Tracy Alloway of the Financial Times has a very good explainer of the case.

In late 2005, Antonio Ibanez gets a $103,500 adjustable-rate mortgage loan on a Springfield, Massachusetts property from Rose Mortgage Inc. Rose then sells the loan to Option One Mortgage Co., which then passes it to Lehman Brothers Bank, which then sends it to Lehman Brothers Holdings. Lehman Bros Holdings then sends it to its Structured Asset Securities Corp. to be pooled with other loans and assigned to US Bank, acting as trustee for Structured Asset Securities Corp. Mortgage Loan Trust 2006Z.

In other words, the Ibanez mortgage gets pooled and securitised into a typical run-of-the-mill subprime Residential Mortgage-Backed Security (RMBS) [...]

At some point in the foreclosure process, there’s doubt about whether the Boston Globe advertisements (as opposed to say, a Springfield-based paper) satisfy foreclosure notice requirements in the state of Massachusetts.

The two trustee banks go to the Massachusetts Land Court in the fall of 2008 to debate this — when suddenly, Massachusetts Land Court Judge Keith C. Long orders US Bank and Wells Fargo to prove they had the right to foreclose in the first place.

Here’s what happens next:

The Land Court then proceeded to find that (1) neither Appellant had a valid assignment of mortgage at the time of publication of the notices or at the time of the foreclosure sale, (2) the foreclosure notices failed to identify the “holder” of the mortgage, and (3) the notices were deficient under Mass. Gen. L. ch. 244, 5 14. [A592-93]. Put another way, the Land Court held that Appellants lacked authority as assignees to conduct the subject: foreclosures.

The notice requirements are a bit of a sideshow. The point here is that the mortgage assignment and the securitization process was improper. US Bank and Wells Fargo did not have possession of the mortgage note, and thus did not have the standing to foreclose. In addition, they put the endorsement in blank, without naming the entity to which they were assigning the mortgage. This violated Massachusetts law, according to the original judge in the case, and now the MA Supreme Court agreed.

And as we know, this is more the norm than otherwise. But this is one of the first major cases, decided by a state Supreme Court, that affirms that a lack of securitization standards means that the bank who thinks they have the power to foreclose on a delinquent borrower actually does not.

If this ruling gets applied far and wide, you’re basically going to have a situation where most securitized mortgages in the country cannot be foreclosed upon. It depends on state law and the associated rulings, but you can see the Ibanez case being used as precedent.

UPDATE: This is from the concurring opinion from the state Supreme Court:

I concur fully in the opinion of the court, and write separately only to underscore that what is surprising about these cases is not the statement of principles articulated by the court regarding title law and the law of foreclosure in Massachusetts, but rather the utter carelessness with which the plaintiff banks documented the titles to their assets. There is no dispute that the mortgagors of the properties in question had defaulted on their obligations, and that the mortgaged properties were subject to foreclosure. Before commencing such an action, however, the holder of an assigned mortgage needs to take care to ensure that his legal paperwork is in order. Although there was no apparent actual unfairness here to the mortgagors, that is not the point. Foreclosure is a powerful act with significant consequences, and Massachusetts law has always required that it proceed strictly in accord with the statutes that govern it. As the opinion of the court notes, such strict compliance is necessary because Massachusetts is both a title theory State and allows for extrajudicial foreclosure.

The banks are screwed if this precedent holds.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

See my response to your other post. You are comparing the world we're in to a fantasy dreamland, where prepubescent girls cavort with unicorns, waiters in tails bring you cupcakes and champagne, and Congress was going to make massive cuts in Medicare just to balance the budget.

The cuts in HCR were designed to pay for HCR. They more than do that. All you are saying is that in other respects the economy has gotten worse and so we have less money. True. True, but completely irrelevant, except in your fantasy world. Have another cupcake.

This (http://is.gd/kjIO2) makes half my argument. And only a fucking clown (or tribal mind) wouldn't buy this simple logic:

Those of us who oppose PPACA believe, among other things, that the subsidies will cost much more than CBO currently assumes because CBO’s baseline currently assumes a sharp reduction in the unemployment rate. Moreover, as James Capretta and Douglas Holtz-Eakin argue, it seems entirely plausible that many employees will encourage workers to take advantage of the new subsidized exchanges:

Over time, both employers and the labor market are certain to adjust to take advantage of the new subsidy structure. Employers with large numbers of low- and moderate-wage workers are likely to move them into the exchanges, even if it means giving their higher-salaried workers extra wages to compensate for the loss of the tax break for employer-paid premiums. As new businesses are formed, they could organize, in part, with a view toward taking maximum advantage of both the subsidies available in the exchanges and the tax break that remains for those with higher incomes.

The end result would be that enrollment in federally subsidized insurance in the exchanges would likely far exceed the 19 million people that the CBO has estimated. Indeed, the safe assumption is that an additional 35 million workers and their families with incomes below 250 percent of the poverty line — who would clearly be better off in the exchanges as opposed to on job-based coverage — could end up there over time, one way or another.

And when they do, costs will soar. The CBO projects that the premium-assistance program will cost about $450 billion from 2014 to 2019, but that cost would rise to $1.4 trillion if workers and their family members with incomes between 133 percent and 250 percent of the poverty line were to migrate out of their current job-based plans and into the exchanges on Day One. That’s nearly $1 trillion more than the amount advertised by the law’s supporters.

But then, you don't live in the real world. You never have. You academically noodle on this shit, but do I hear anything practical? Nada. Zip. Which is why you buy theoretical projections like fact. God help you if you ever have to run something.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

He claims to have me on ignore. Yet he responds. To every post. Some twice.

Some of my socks have all of you on ignore, and others have no one on ignore. I always run two screens to balance that differential out.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

link:

MA Supreme Court Deals Banks a Major Blow on Foreclosure Fraud, in the Ibanez Case
By: David Dayen Friday January 7, 2011 8:08 am

In a major ruling in the Massachusetts Supreme Court today, US Bank and Wells Fargo lost the “Ibanez case,” meaning that they don’t have standing to foreclose due to improper mortgage assignment. The ruling is likely to send shock waves through the entire judicial system, and seriously raise the stakes on foreclosure fraud. Bank stocks are plummeting at this hour.

Tracy Alloway of the Financial Times has a very good explainer of the case.


The notice requirements are a bit of a sideshow. The point here is that the mortgage assignment and the securitization process was improper. US Bank and Wells Fargo did not have possession of the mortgage note, and thus did not have the standing to foreclose. In addition, they put the endorsement in blank, without naming the entity to which they were assigning the mortgage. This violated Massachusetts law, according to the original judge in the case, and now the MA Supreme Court agreed.

And as we know, this is more the norm than otherwise. But this is one of the first major cases, decided by a state Supreme Court, that affirms that a lack of securitization standards means that the bank who thinks they have the power to foreclose on a delinquent borrower actually does not.

If this ruling gets applied far and wide, you’re basically going to have a situation where most securitized mortgages in the country cannot be foreclosed upon. It depends on state law and the associated rulings, but you can see the Ibanez case being used as precedent.

UPDATE: This is from the concurring opinion from the state Supreme Court:



The banks are screwed if this precedent holds.

Good. Fuck em. Thank g@d for the Massachusetts courts.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I think I disagree with everything in this post.

now if this isn't the board motto . . .

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This (http://is.gd/kjIO2) makes half my argument. And only a fucking clown (or tribal mind) wouldn't buy this simple logic:



But then, you don't live in the real world. You never have. You academically noodle on this shit, but do I hear anything practical? Nada. Zip. Which is why you buy theoretical projections like fact. God help you if you ever have to run something.

When you read Douglas Holtz-Eakin, you should hear "shill for the republican party." Sadly. Didn't used to be that way.

As for the theory that the exchanges will end up being wildly more popular than anticipated, and will end up saving Hank (and other business owners) lots of money in coverage costs, well, we'll see. I'm also not sure that would be a bad thing.