On days like this, I join my friend Chris Bowers in feeling a certain sense of despondency about how much can be accomplished just by electing more and better Democrats. We didn’t just do poorly on the Cramdown Amendment, we got our clock cleaned. We could see this coming in last night’s press conference when Obama said he had been most humbled so far in the White House by his inability to control the banks.
OBAMA: Humbled by the — humbled by the fact that the presidency is extraordinarily powerful but we are just part of a much broader tapestry of American life. And there are a lot of different power centers, and so I can’t just press a button and suddenly have the bankers do exactly what I want, or turn on a switch and suddenly Congress falls in line. And so what you do is to make your best arguments, listen hard to what other people have to say, and coax folks in the right direction.
On the campaign trail, Obama said he wanted Cramdown. In the Oval Office, he has to deal with twelve Democrats that put campaign contributions from the mortgage lending industry ahead of their own struggling constituents who are losing their homes.
I was concerned that I didn’t see more visible effort from the White House to fight for Cramdown, but now I know why. No Republicans supported it. Even a united Democratic Caucus could not have passed the amendment. So, the administration let members vote however they wanted to. And now we know who the real cowards are.
But we shouldn’t allow ourselves to get discouraged. These were votes taken by senators that knew the amendment couldn’t pass. If the amendment had had the support of even one Republican, every Democratic vote against would have been the decisive vote against. In that case, the White House might have whipped this vote. Even without any Republican support, if Al Franken had been seated as a U.S. Senator, every Democratic vote against would have been the decisive vote against. While it’s true that some Democrats actually enjoy putting on kneepads and bowing down to do the mortgage lenders favors, most of them are simply acting out of fear and a desire not to needlessly alienate powerful potential adversaries.
We can still turn these defeats into victories as long as we increase our numbers and we have the support of the President of the United States.
the problem is, we’ve achieved MORE Democrats without achieving BETTER. Arlen Specter for example isn’t any kind of Democrat at all (or as you said so well yesterday, “our unprincipled hack”).
Not true.
The Democrats we just elected:
Mark Warner: Y
Mark Begich: Y
Jeanne Shaheen: Y
Mark Udall: Y
Tom Udall: Y
Kay Hagan: Y
Even among the class of ’06, only Jon Tester fucked us.
We’ve done well.
who are the shitheels who voted against this legislation?
You keep on this BooMan. Keep up on this issue.
I’m a lifetime leftist and all that, but I am having a hard time getting behind the hate for the defeat of this bill.
Why is the defeat so bad? Why should we reward people for buying in a bad market? Should we start paying people money for buying stocks that decline in value?
Ack…I must be missing something, but in all the rants I’ve read, I’ve never seen a good reason why we should bail out homeowners who made real bad decisions.
Admittedly, if y’all want to chip in to buy me a home, I will sing a different tune. :>)
I can understand where you’re coming from, but if someone else hits hard times, and there’s help available to them, it doesn’t hurt me for them to get that help. Why should banks be able to make nonconforming loans that they knew were bad (I’m thinking Countrywide), but made with the thought that they’d sell them off to another lender before anyone knew how unqualified the borrower was for what they’d agreed to? And what about people who are getting laid off as a result of the economic collapse? Will it help the situation any for them to lose their home because the job market is so tight?
Especially since cramdown already exists for people with mortgages on their vacation homes and fancy boats…we’re talking about people who want to keep the home they live in full-time, and these are often NOT McMansions. My understanding was that this bill had a sunset clause anyway, so it would have helped people through the hard times we’re going through, rather than being a guarantee against declining home prices in the future.
Just my $0.02.
Thanks CG. I appreciate your response. Of course, I do have sympathy for some of these cases. Helping out homeowners who lost jobs, for example. I can totally get behind that. I can also see restructuring some of the loans that were grossly unfair and based on predatory lending. Was this bill meant for those purposes? If so, then I can see the necessity of it. However, if it would force lenders to reduce the value of the loans to fit the current housing prices, then, I’m not so sure.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around this one, so thanks for the honest response. It helps.
P.S.: I do understand these are not McMansion loans. In fact, California is pissed because the bill doesn’t go far enough with respect to our home prices, which were averaging over $650K at the height of the bubble.
Problem with your take: not everyone in trouble bought a McMansion with no money down, no income, etc. you might want to stop listening to Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. and do a little homework.
there’s definite evidence of predatory/corrupt mortgage companies being a large part of the problem here. but of course the “new” administration is letting this fall thru the cracks as well.
bottom line: the white collar criminals get away with it again.. but we’re going to punish their victims; punish them and accuse them of wrongdoing, being stupid, etc.
you’re apparently OK with that.
weak.
This response does not help so much. Being an asshole never wins the hearts and minds of others.
is the actual problem here.
stop spewing “facts” from drug Limbaugh and the rest and do some homework.
don’t ask me to believe the mortgage disaster is ALL to blame on poor people. I know better.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/1/726761/-Durbin-A-Poor-Substitute-for-Emanuel
Believe it or not, occasionally people are new to an issue that you understand thoroughly. Generally, I have found it to be a better approach to point them in the right direction than to berate them.
Of course, ymmv.
Thank you. I may be an idiot about this issue, but that is why I asked. I know I am missing something, but I haven’t found the missing piece. Granted, this is not an issue I routinely Google either. I’ve talked to several liberal friends who are equally confused, so I know I am not alone.
I never spewed a single “fact”. I expressed an opinion based on personal experience. Nothing more, nothing less.
I’ve never listened to Limbaugh or Hannity or any other right wing shithead. As I’ve stated, I am a lifelong leftist having a hard time with this issue and this issue alone. I know other leftists disagree, but I am ignorant to their reasons. I was asking for reasons, not slurs.
I’m not blaming anyone for the mortgage disaster, but if push came to shove, I, too, would be more likely be against the lenders. However, I am not so blind that I say “money man bad”, “poor home buyer good”. I want to know some more detail.
People have lost their homes forever. What makes this case different? You seem to think because lenders made knowingly bad loans, that they should be persecuted. But, I think it takes two to tango. I feel sorry for them, but life offers many hard lessons. Buying a car is a nightmare, I can only imagine buying a house.
It may even be equivalent to the elderly that are duped into bad actions by bad people. Should we bail out all of those people too? I think there is an argument that we should. But, I also think there is an argument that we can’t.
I want to hear the left response, not, “The Lenders are scum and we need to get them”, but that “the bill was a responsible response to a major economic problem and here is why…” I guess that was too deep for you.
I guess I would start from the standpoint of looking at who is getting bailed out for their bad decisions. The banks are getting bailed out but the mortgage holders are not.
So, we’re helping people that don’t deserve help already. That bridge has been passed.
But the point of cramdown is to tackle the foreclosure crisis from both ends. By helping some people stay in their homes we stop the cratering of home values and protect vulnerable communities. We also help the banks, ironically, but they want to keep the laws harsh because they don’t want to set a precedent that people can weasel out of what they’ve signed on to pay.
Siding against cramdown is basically siding with banks against those that were victimized by banks, but also helping banks make their long-term problems worse because the idea is to help them get paid, rather than having to foreclose.
“By helping some people stay in their homes we stop the cratering of home values and protect vulnerable communities.”
Thank you, BooMan. That was what I was looking for.
I understand a lot of people were really scammed by seriously bad lending practices, so I completely support regulation of the banking industry. But, I’m not sure I agree with bailing out the people who bought houses they couldn’t afford in the first place. OTOH, I can see helping those who can refinance under extended terms or helping those who are temporarily unemployed. Is that what this bill would do?
“Siding against cramdown is basically siding with banks against those that were victimized by banks, but also helping banks make their long-term problems worse because the idea is to help them get paid, rather than having to foreclose.”
I will never put banks on my favored nation status. :>) I am disgusted with what they did and do. But, I am for more regulation and preventing them from tricking people in the future.
But, then again, allowing everyone to lose their house isn’t going to help matters either. Thanks BooMan. This gives me some food for thought.
but, but… I thought we didn’t NEED repuglican votes to pass important legislation? that’s the belief (obviously mistaken) over on the orange site.
this is a serious wake up call for the starry-eyed, rock star Obama worshippers. the defeat of this legislation by shitheel, corporate ass-kissing democrats is a indicator of what is to come with other badly needed legislation: EFCA, single payer health care, etc.
there’s an easy formula here; the more badly needed the legislation is (by we the little people) the more likely morons like Bayh, and now apparently the new guy Tester, are going to vote against it.
weak.
yes there certainyl IS a difference between what politicians SAY and what they DO.
that much is unchanged.
“we have the support of the President of the United States.”
You mean the president who can’t control the banks?
yep.
“parsing”- why is it that we are the supporters of a party that has the only umbrella that has holes in it? Is it our fate to always find ourselves having our hopes dashed?
I don’t think so. However, I do think that we had better learn quickly that “selectivity” is very important and that in todays world, we MUST educate ourselves to what lies behind the books cover. Those twelve pieces of garbage don’t deserve even a single positive mention on any progressive site. What they do deserve is an openly both barrelled campaign against them. Enough with the specters, testers, and the rest. We have to stop the insanity. And that includes Obama- our presitdent! I cringed as I listened and watched him so carefully parse his words with regard to the right to life pieces of shit. I am pretty fed up with the whole “bipartisan” nonesense.
He has to lead and leading does not mean carefully choosing just the right word!
“enhanced techniques” my ass. It is god damned Torture. It is the right for a womean to decide about EVERYTHING related to her life! It is the need to recognise that homeowners that were lied to to have the ability to work out something with the bankruptcy judge! It is the right of every human being to have access to basic health care!
Stop Parsing!!!
When I listened to the Pres point out that there were some hedgefunders that wouldn’t go along with the chrysler deal, I wanted him to NAME THEM! When the Durbin amendment was voted down, I wanted to hear the Pres call them out by NAME.
It is time!