Foreclosure Fraud? Obama Looks Forward

October 23, 2010

FDIC Called On to Put Bank of America Into Receivership

KEY: “The banks that are foreclosing on fraudulently originated mortgages frequently cannot produce legitimate documents. . . .   Now, only fraud will let them take the homes.  Many of the required documents do not exist, and those that do exist would provide proof of the fraud that was involved in loan origination, securitization, and marketing.”

It’s the ENRON Dominoes: They need to repossess – in order to cover the Total Fraud – and to keep the Fraudulent Cycle/Accounting going.

Foreclose on the Foreclosure Frauds?
(No Chance with President Obama.)

“HUD reviewed the ‘paperwork’ problem to see whether it threatened the banks – not the homeowners who were the victims of foreclosure fraud.”  “[T]he Justice Department has not convicted a single senior officer of the large nonprime lenders who directed, committed, and profited enormously from the frauds.”  “Note the language: ‘mistakes,’ ‘errors,’ ‘processes’ (following the initial use of ‘paperwork’).  No mention of ‘fraud,’ ‘felony,’ ‘criminal investigations,’ or ‘prosecutions’ for the tens of thousands of felonies that representatives of the entities foreclosing on homes have admitted that they committed.”

In short/general: What about War Crimes, torture, and worldwide fraud as perpetuated from the Oval Office?  [T]he administration is focused on ensuring future compliance, rather than on looking back.”

But, aside from particular invasions, the torture (like the other War Crimes) was purposely directed and authorized under manipulated veils – documented memos written after-the-fact, for example – as a means to achieve political goals.  Remember the Nuremberg Principles?  “[W]e have not found any evidence at this point of systemic issues in the underlying legal or other documents that have been reviewed.”

There is a volume of undeniable proof!  How could you be so acquiescent?  Don’t you understand that these repercussions will reverberate throughout history – that others will take the abuses as a model?  “When the word ‘systematic’ or ‘systemic’ is used in this context, [we are] not saying that there couldn’t be significant real problems that affect real people in a very, very real way.”

Aside from the utter lunacy and hypocrisy of those responses (which, again, undoubtedly leave us open to escalating future ramifications), will you at least do something to counter the resulting fascist state of our economy?  “This is not a problem for [us] to fix.  This is a problem for the banks and servicers to fix.  They can fix it as fast as they feel like it.”

Too Pig to Jail? Exactly.

Update (2012):And instead of really, at the heart of this, being about accountability and punishment it seems like frankly a political whitewash during an election year.  So it makes the Department of Justice look good.  It makes the attorneys general look good.  The banks are happy because they are going to get all the credit for this settlement while receiving money from the taxpayers.  Really the only big losers are the taxpayers and, of course, the homeowners.”

(“It wasn’t just one individual or two or three individuals, it was branches of individuals, it was regions of individuals.”)

Individual Mandates Bootstrap the Homeless

Obama Put Social Security On The Table

Bookmark and Share


Neocon Worldviews Secede from Unions

September 13, 2010

Newt Gingrich: Obama May Hold ‘Kenyan, Anti-Colonial’ Worldview: [Alert: Code language for a “rebellious ni**er” follows.]  “What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?”

President Obama and his PR team did “con” the public during the last campaign – thus criticizing and lambasting what has taken place since then is appropriate, within warranted dissent and protest.  But, this level of endless “pals around with terrorists” counter-campaigning from the far-right represents the lowest level of gutter slime.  Obviously, the republicans are so mad in their quest to return to power (a power Obama has given them anyway by means of appeasement, and by being a Blue Dog champion) that they will never stop their talking points propaganda charade/parade – no matter what it takes.

The following related headlines (and a link) further represent how far they are (ACTually) willing to go in fomenting hysteria:

GOP Members Were Pushing Me To Advocate ‘Civil Uprising’

Rick Perry Won’t Give Up On Secession / Texas Secession Now

Another fair and balanced summary: (It would be “authentically dishonest” to summarize them, and their goals, in any other way.)
“I think [they] worked very hard at being [people] who [are] [immoral], [unreasonable], [extreme], [rigidly polar], transparent, [and] accommodating [to fellow neocons, regardless of offense] – [all] of which [is] true.”  “In the [Pravda] tradition, [they were just] being the [people] [their puppet masters] needed [them] to be in order to achieve the position[s] [they] needed to achieve.”

Chuck Norris: “What does it take to get Gina and I off our ranch in Texas.  An act of Congress?  No Way.  What it takes is God or Glenn Beck.”  Glenn Beck: “You can’t convince me that the founding fathers wouldn’t allow you to secede.”  And, let’s not forget: Palin Pals Around with Secessionists:

Bookmark and Share


Re: Obama Not Demanding Public Option

October 19, 2009

Re: Obama Not Demanding Public Option

A New York Times editorial, “The Public Plan, Continued,” stated that “All versions of the legislation would require these people to spend specified percentages of their income toward the premium and a government tax credit would then pay the rest.”  Let us correlate these facts with previous assertions: “White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said . . . that President Obama would be unwilling to sign a health care bill that raised taxes on those making under $250,000.  But Gibbs would not draw a similar line in the sand when it came a bill that lacked a public insurance option.  ‘The president … believes we should have choice and competition for people entering the private insurance market. . . .’”  As written earlier, for people below the median income who do not currently have coverage, being “Mandated” into buying an insurance policy without a 100% subsidy – and, basing the difference on forced spending of 10% or more of income – it will be the same as having their Taxes Raised, considerably.  During these times, where 10% of the population is unemployed, and wages along with hours are getting slashed, how many of us would be drastically affected by a new requirement (do it or get fined) that we spend 10% of income on a bill we did not have before?  Consider the FICA tax rate: 7.65% (1.45% = Medicare) for employees and 15.30% for the self-employed.  Along with the upcoming “Mandate” to buy policies from (as of now) Private insurers, wouldn’t it only be logical to add 10% to each of the latter figures – since we will have to spend that much of our income before receiving any subsidies?  As a result, might citizens react in outrage at new required “deductions” from earnings of 17.65% and 25.30% – as if the promise of no new taxes for those making less than $250,000 was a blatant lie?  Final questions: The Social Security portion maxes out at $106,800 of earnings.  Does that mean a Health Care CEO grossing $10 million has the same SS tax weight as one grossing $106,800?  If so, wouldn’t the scenario be as repulsive as it is regressive?  Also, remember speeches promoting a changing of those terms as a means to solve so many disparities and shortfalls?  Of course.  But, that was before millions had a realization of getting “punked.”  “Without (at least) a Public Option, there will be No Choice or Competition (and the insurance companies will have the biggest ongoing celebration they ever imagined).”  Again, “With these types of ‘solutions,’ one could swear to God that we are the middle of the last administration (and former majority).”

Bookmark and Share


Re: Memo Confirms White House Big Pharma Deal

August 13, 2009

Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma

“It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government’s leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada — and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.”  Why am I not shocked?  “Obama is walking a tightrope here.  He wants to keep PhRMA from opposing the bill. . . .”

Keep PhRMA from opposing the bill?”  Oh yeah, we wouldn’t want to have a bill that PhRMA opposed – not with a Majority in Congress – and, a President who was going to champion Change through Reform.  Instead, PhRMA is investing $150 million for a media blitz – in Favor.  After step-by-step revelations of this variety, how much REFORM should rational people expect?  This is the same “appeasement” mentality which has kept the disgraceful republicans empowered, as evidenced by their ongoing and concerted campaigns, polluted with the escalation of the most scandalous (“Death Panel,” “Nazi”) and vociferous Lies.  It leaves us (Progressives, commoners) trapped in a (worsening) status quo- while the other sides continue notching victories, though outnumbered 70% to 30%.  Seeking bipartisan support and consensus can be valuable in bringing together ideas toward solving certain problems.  It is in how far one (or a group) goes with that aim in mind that the original goals may evolve from advancement to insignificance, from welcoming to intrusive.  Leaders who propose major revisions regarding a cause are also expected to teach, from a solid, sustainable viewpoint – while being able to discern the quality of shared lessons.  If only unreasonable or regressive alternatives are offered as replies from an audience that is shut off from learning, or unyielding to progress, a leader with conviction will not give in and diminish the results of the revisal to such a level that a skeleton remains of an initial objective.  Moreover, in an adversarial debate, if one side is mollified to such a degree that the other loses its core, the adversary does not become an ally – since it triumphs at the giver’s overwhelming expense.

Greg Palast: “The Big Pharma kingpins did not actually agree to cut their prices.  Their promise with Obama is something a little oilier: they apparently promised that, over ten years, they will reduce the amount at which they would otherwise raise drug prices.  Got that?  In other words, the Obama deal locks in a doubling of drug costs. . . .”

No confrontation.  No hard-fought battles.  No standing up, regardless of outcome.  No glory.  (We have seen the same scenario with respect to Wall Street (repealing the “Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?”), unchallenged Machiavellian bankruptcy laws, nothing immediate in credit card legislation (or even capped rates), torture as “policy” differences, various other war crimes overlooked, nationalized propaganda campaigns deemed legal, etc.)  We were sold on a warrior for change.  What did we get when it came to fighting for what was promised?  Yes, he still gives soaring speeches.  However, there will be no “Red Badge of Courage” given – if all the proletariat are left bleeding in the trenches, without ever seeing their leader elevated – beyond words.

No Reform.  No Single-Payer.  No (Meaningful) Public Option.  No 100% Subsidies (for those under the median income).  No Price Controls.  Then, Take Out The Mandate That We All Have To Buy a Policy.  PERIOD.

Update: “The Obama administration sent signals on Sunday that it has backed away from its once-firm vision of a government organization to provide for the nation’s 50 million uninsured and is now open to using nonprofit cooperatives instead.  Kathleen Sebelius . . . said on Sunday morning that an additional government insurer is ‘not the essential element’ of the administration’s plan to overhaul the country’s health care system.”  “The health care industry prefers that format. . . .”  Of course they do, “cooperatives would not have as much sway over the prices Americans pay . . . !”  A “Robust Public Option” was an element our president and Majority in Congress supposedly would not back down from.  “The majority gives, gives in, and gives away – until there’s nothing left” – Except a Mandate for Us to Buy Policies.  We are about to be delivered, defenseless, right into their anticipating hands.

Bookmark and Share


Big Pharma & Health Insurance Corporations Salivate

August 10, 2009

The reality of corporate mentality, and control: During the campaign, Obama proclaimed, “We will break the stranglehold that a few big drug and insurance companies have on the health care market. . . . “ Multitudes followed/believed in his progressive pledges.  Then, we get this: Drug price negotiations with Big Pharma?  “They’re off limits, as is reimportation of cheaper drugs from Canada.”  Who set the terms?  Our President?  Congress? : “Ken Johnson, PhRMA’s senior vice president: ‘with respect to health care reform, the line in the sand for us was price control.'” “There were reports that Obama had promised to oppose any congressional attempt to exact further money from the massive pharmaceutical industry, which would include allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prices or import cheaper drugs from Canada.”  “Senators are free to push for drug-price negotiations or reimportation, but they may have to do so without administration support.”  The latter makes a Threat clear, as well as Obama’s primary stance on whose “line[s] in the sand” he will fight for.

Here is the present (talking points) mantra: “shared goals” and “access” (which adds to the previous outrage of “affordable”).  Ken Johnson (PhRMA): “All of the questions about what was in the agreement distract from our shared goal of making sure everyone has access to health care coverage.” It is purely corporate salivation, upon guarantees of fulfillment.  The enemies (those who were supposed to be aggressively reformed because of their longstanding abuse) are now looking forward – as grinning allies.  This truth directly corresponds with the following, as an answer: “(The) administration’s multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals and pharmaceutical companies have been made in private, and the results were announced after the fact.” “Both industries promised Obama cost savings in return for an expanded base of insured patients.”  That would be US, the base – expanded (into their unreformed monopolies) – by compulsion.

AP: “Major insurers will accept a rollback of the industry’s restrictive practices only if they’re guaranteed that all Americans would be covered . . .  a potential financial boon to the industry.” Those who set the terms reap the benefits.  “‘They’ll get a big new market with millions and millions of new customers,’ said Gary Claxton, a health policy expert with the Kaiser Family Foundation.”  New York Times headline: Drug Industry to Run Ads Favoring White House Plan.  Once again, ultimately revealing.  “The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care” plan (sellout).   As previously questioned, “Will the common people be ‘Provided’ for? Or, will they be herded like rebellious cattle into a ‘mandated’ slaughter by way of corporate pens (Policies)?”  From this, the answers, we have firm realization, which is beyond what Frank Rich described as “fear.”  “The larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy.”

Public Options, Single-Payers, and Bootstraps

Health Care Solved! Are You Poor? Sorry

H.R. 676

Bookmark and Share


Health Care Solved! Are You Poor? Sorry.

June 19, 2009

With so many millions of us without health insurance (or even the ability to afford it), something had to give.  Right?  Well, remember all the promises during last year’s campaign?  Solutions!  Solutions!  “Health care for all!”  I, for one, sensed a disaster – for the POOR.  Why?  The stage was being set with proclamations of “mandatory” requirements for citizens to buy Private Policies.

And here it is: House Democrats Unveil Plan For Health Care Overhaul “House Democrats on Friday answered President Obama’s call for a sweeping overhaul of the health care system by putting forward a . . . bill that would require all Americans to obtain health insurance. . . .”

Senators Durbin, Leahy, and Schumer: “We support a Public health insurance option that would foster greater competition in the marketplace.”  Does the word “option” mean we may choose to participate?  Or, will we find ourselves forced into making a choice between only two options?  “This month, Congress is working on new reform legislation that will make quality health care available and affordable for all Americans.”  Multitudes who were looking to you to actually provide health care through a Universal (Single-Payer) system will wonder where you discovered figures somehow making this “affordable,” since, to them, you are about to put so many on the street.  “The whole reason for health insurance in the first place is to spread costs among as large a group of people as possible, so we all pay a reasonable amount for quality health care….”  Again, “a reasonable amount,” – just where and how did you come up with those figures?  How “reasonable” do you think a man or woman grossing $23,000 a year will consider it?  Any chance they, or even husbands and wives grossing $34,000, might prefer health care – as provided – at no cost – as opposed to being required/mandated (like car insurance – where you get fined without it)?  We know the covers, like “for those making under a certain amount, it will be free.”  Yeah, and that’s how it all starts.  Later, the gates widen with a “reasonable/affordable” co-pay – even for the minimum-waged.  Further on, it becomes only rational, within “personal responsibility”: Even they (the poor) should work out payment plans when the time comes to cover those new “deductible” requirements/mandates.

Of our citizens, 63% support a Universal/Medicare-for-All/Single-Payer system.  It’s the Will of the people.  Obama has the presidency – and a majority in Congress.  There are no tactics, or waves, of propaganda that would have arrived in this battle which could not have been overcome.  And still, they did not have their own Will – to stand up.  Instead of fighting (all the way) – primarily for the people, the weak-kneed cohorts cowered (once again) in the face of corporate and politically minor powers.

Can you afford this?  “Not our problem.” Are you at or below the middle class?  “Sorry (bootstraps).”  Are you Poor?  “Again, sorry (get a third job). Furthermore, if you are poor (or, whatever class) and this ‘Mandatory’ Bill is enough to be seen as a death knell (since you absolutely and literally cannot afford another bill), do you think we care?  No.”  Why?  “Because, hey, we’ve solved the health care crisis! Now, everyone will have health care!  Get it?  We are heroes.”  Yes, many millions of us will get it, eventually – as the sounds of those final nails in our coffins are pounded (for our own good).

InNeed-Poor

Update (06/25): “Health Care Reform Bill Price Tag Goes Down.”  How?  “Senate Finance Committee members said they found $400 billion in savings earlier this week, largely by reducing the amount of subsidies for low-income people to buy insurance.”  It’s only the beginning.  Prepare your bootstraps and find those third jobs.

Public Options, Single-Payers, and Bootstraps

FAIR’s PETITION ]

Bookmark and Share