Tort Reform
Mar 24th, 2008 at 12:46 pm by Chris
You know, it strikes me that the best way to really restore sanity and a measure of stability to the mortgage industry is to ensure that the people most harmed by predatory lending practices, who were on the receiving end of extraordinary dubious financial advice which has, in many cases, cost them not only their home, but also their credit rating and future viability in the job market, is to bar them from seeking remedy in the the courts.
Oh, shit. What am I saying? That’s not what I think at all. Must be the after effects of those weird Republican drugs I was taking over the weekend that always make me think the stupidest, cruelest shit imaginable is really, fundamentally awesome. Well, at least we don’t have to worry about Democrats proposing that sort of nonsense.
What’s that you say? Oh, shit.
Oh well, an Oligarchy isn’t the worst thing ever. Is it? And at least nobody thinks that we should appoint clueless old nutters like Greenspan and Rubin, who not only failed to foresee the impending mortgage crisis, but used their positions of power to actively cheer on the disaster, to some sort of an emergency working group to help stem the tide of foreclosures.
What? I’m still wrong? Fuck, I’m going back to bed. Wake me up when my unitard and coveralls arrive.
Update - please see this correction.
Well, you can do it out in the open like this (and let me tell you before you jump down Clinton’s throat, there’s only so many ways you can slice the foreclosure shit sandwich) - or you can help push all class-action suits from the states to the notoriously less-friendly federal courts (which is what Obama already did). The Republicans aka Wall Street did the happy dance over that one, too.
I keep telling you: They’re both politicians. They’re both in hock to special interests. What part don’t you get?
They’re both in hock to special interests. What part don’t you get?
What a bullshit and insulting comment Susie. Whatever. Keep talking to me like I’m a moron if you feel like it.
I’m sorry if I insulted you, Chris. I didn’t mean to. I just don’t understand why you’re surprised, honestly. They’ve both taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from Wall St. and lobbyists of all stripes. The system’s corrupt up to its eyeballs.
Although I wish primary elections were about getting the best possible person for the job, they’re not. They’re about accepting tradeoffs and so far, I see very little that doesn’t apply to both candidates.
Your mileage may vary.
I don’t believe I’ve expressed any surprise. Ever. I’ve perhaps said things along the lines of “I wish I was surprised” and that’s what I was trying to do here without using those exact words. Now if I didn’t communicate that properly, and I’m more than willing to accept that I didn’t, it’s a writing problem rather than a problem of nativity. I take it as an insult because you know me and know how I think about these things.
“…to ensure that the people most harmed by predatory lending practices, who were on the receiving end of extraordinary dubious financial advice which has…”
How do we distinguish between the predatory lenders and the predatory borrowers who knew they had no intention of paying off the house, or knew they couldn’t afford the mortgage to begin with, or lied about their income and assets to secure the mortgage?
There are lots of foxes in the hen house and they aren’t all wearing the same uniform.
Good points whitebeard. I certainly don’t have a prescription for this, but I think that one way that we distinguish between, what you term, predatory borrowers and those who were taken advantage of, and might have a case to make that the culpability for their situation is not theirs alone, is that we don’t bar them from access to the courts. We allow those decisions to be made by the courts based on the merits. Now obviously, the chances for success in that endeavor are likely slim. There is also a chance that those who have been gaming the system all along will stand the best chance of continuing to game the system via the courts. Nevertheless, I think it’s always best to err on the side of the individual and to not limit access to the courts.
Far from being surprised, these types of continuing ideological battles are going to fought for the rest of time. Just because we elect a Dem majority and a Dem to the White House, we won’t change a generation’s worth of conservative mantra internalized by a huge segment of the population (including, btw, Democrats). While I agree that money buys access and support, we need to keep in mind that many people, not just these ‘politicians,’ actually believe the economic dogma that corporations deserve protection from people. As progressives it should be common sense that the fight will not end with Obama/Cinton and a Democratic supermajority in Congress. They will not automatically do the ‘right’ thing.
As Digby pointed out recently, “we should never blindly trust our leaders’ (mostly manufactured) “characters” . . . You can’t depend on powerful people’s good intentions.”