It also realizes a vision supported by progressives since Theodore Roosevelt in 1916 and establishe d or reestablis hed in Germany and Japan during our occupation s there.
Federal minimum wage and SCHIP?
The history of US federal minimum wage is a SCANDAL. It doesn't begin to keep up with inflation or raise people up out of poverty. That is the point of minimum wage -- So that people don't live in poverty. And the incrementa
There is nothing that Republican
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
In 1977, two Boeing 747s collided on an airstrip in the Canary Islands. According to accident investigators, those who survived the initial blast in one plane had time to escape before a fire consumed the wreckage. But eyewitness es reported that many remained in their seat looking perfectly content—as if nothing was wrong.
Not surprisingly, dozens of these dazed victims were burned to death, and the episode became a reminder of the so-called normalcy bias—a cognitive phenomenon whereby many who are faced with imminent disaster instantly convince themselves that everything is normal and that they don’t have to modify their behavior.
[...]
There are two clever features of the deal, but neither look intended to benefit ordinary citizens. One is that the deal throws some funding at chronically cash stressed mortgage counselors . They are thus certain to voice approval of the pact. The other is (per the FT story) the deal’s “most favored nations clause” is designed to reduce the bargaining leverage of any AGs that go their own way. It means that any servicer will have the incentive to fight hard against giving any state a better deal because it will automagica lly trigger improved terms across the states that signed on to the Federal deal. But this may have interestin g perverse effects, since banks that refuse to settle with breakaway AGs will ultimately have damages awarded by a court. That means longer and most costly fights by the states, but in most cases, ultimately bigger awards (frankly, the fact set is so bad that all the state AGs need to do is focus on fairly conservati ve legal theories to have good odds of scoring big wins).
[...]
Obama to Use Pension Funds of Ordinary Americans to Pay for Bank Mortgage “Settlemen
[...]KEEP READING
[T]he bulk of the supposed settlement would come not in actual monies paid by the banks (the cash portion has been rumored at under $5 billion) but in credits given for mortgage modifications for principal modificati ons. There are numerous reasons why that stinks. The biggest is that servicers will be able to count modifying first mortgages that were securitize d toward the total. Since one of the cardinal rules of finance is to use other people’s money rather than your own, this provision virtually guarantees that investor-o wned mortgages will be the ones to be restructur ed.
Why is this a bad idea?
The banks are NOT required to write down the second mortgages that they have on their books. This reverses the contractual hierarchy that junior lien-holde rs take losses before senior lenders. So this deal amounts to a transfer from pension funds and other fixed income investors to the banks, at the Administra tion’s instigatio n.
Another reason the modification provision is poorly structured is that the banks are given a dollar target to hit. That means they will focus on modifying the biggest mortgages. So help will go to a comparativ ely small number of grossly overhoused borrowers, no doubt reinforcin g the “profligat e borrower” meme.
But those criticisms assume two other things: that the program is actually implemented.
The experience with past consent decrees in the mortgage space is that the servicers get a legal get out of jail free card, a release, and do not hold up their end of the deal. Similarly, we’ve seen bank executives swear in front of Congress in late 2010 that they had stopped robosigning, which turned out to be a brazen lie. So here, odds favor that servicers will pretty much do nothing except perhaps be given credit for mortgage modificati ons they would have made anyhow.
Single Payer Falls 2 Votes Short In California Senate
Four Democrats Sit Out Critical Vote
When California
Yesterday, however, four Democrats sat out the critical vote, leaving the bill short 2 votes of the 21 votes needed for passage. 19 Democrats voted yes, 15 Republican
SB 810 can be brought up again under “Reconside
Single Payer Now is urging that pressure be put on the 4 Democrats who didn't vote:
The following 4 Senators abstained from even casting a vote on this extremely important piece of legislatio
Senator Alex Padilla (Pacoima/L
Email: Senator.Pa
Phone: (916) 651‑4020
Senator Juan Vargas (San Diego area)
Email: Juan.Varga
Phone: (916) 651‑4040
Senator Michael Rubio (Fresno/Ba
Email: Michael.Ru
Phone: (916) 651‑4016
Senator Rod Wright (Los Angeles area)
Email: Senator.Wr
Phone: (916) 651‑4025
Check here to see if you are represente
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
But there's more, and that 'more' is why there is no such thing as "mitigatin
At the very root of our problems are Constituti
As president, you've got to really want the US to work, to exist, to not exploit the loopholes in the Constituti
Bush exploited the weakness in the Constituti
Bush wasn't the first to create Constituti
The situation might have been remedied had Obama come into office investigat
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Here's the problem with that: It's not an either/or propositio
Obama could have done it all, and with a narrative that addresses our real situation, fixes our problems, in a 99 percent-wa
The real shame of this is that Obama could have been a transcende
The job creation possibilit
The 'job creation' reform that survived was billions spent on the Patriot Act-like invasion of citizens' privacy and the outsourcin
The SinglePaye
With single payer universal health care, there would be more treatment shifted to non-physic
It's true that if universal health coverage were to become an official reality, we'd need to expand training programs for both MDs & non-MD providers to insure there were enough to go around, but in the long run it would mean cheaper and more effective service, along with job creation.
These are all good things, but Obama chose the dark side. The CORPORATE side.
There is no question that investigat
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
A NewtGingri
When you refuse to impeach BushCheney because "Republica
When you refuse to prosecute neocons who lied to Congress so that they could attack Iraq because _____?
When you don't uphold the laws of the land, when you don't drive discredite
You can't go forward unless and until you've looked back, assessed and corrected what went wrong.
What has become crystal clear is that Obama and the DLC-Democr
We're in a brand new era, a new phase, where the game plan for ending the US is evident for anyone to see. And it begins and ends with the rule of law. By refusing to investigat
BushCo broke federal US laws; the rule of law applies to all Americans, elected officials, too. Elected officials especially
The UnitedStat
When we no longer trust in the process, when we no longer trust that the selection process by which our elected representa
For a president of the UnitedStat
Not prosecutin
How any Democrat defends that is beyond my understand
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Conservati
Prosecutin
How To Prosecute George W. Bush
Jonathan Turley: "Condi Rice Confessed to Conspiracy to Commit War Crimes"
John Dean: "Condi Just Confessed to Conspiracy to Commit War Crimes"
Waterboard
Jonathan Turley on the DoJ's ethics report about the Bush's administra
Conservati
Conservati
Reagan Administra
Congressme
Cheney Admits War Crimes While Media Yawns & Obama Turns Other Cheek
Chemical Weapons Use By US Military In Iraq Is A War Crime
The definition of a crime now is "If you're breaking the law, if you're a member of the 'Establish
That shouldn't sit well with anyone who thinks of himself as a Constituti
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
What, specifical
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
When Obama wants something, he's shown he can go all R0ve-like, relentless
Obama's in the Oval Office (and now his wife) to mellow-tal
Obama is the grifter leading off the second half of the con game, which is to squeeze the rest of the dimes from the poor & middle classes. It began with part 2 of Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 (high-pric
If you haven't seen this, you might find it enlighteni
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I just watched a documentary DVD called Flow: For Love of Water, a film by Irena Sauna, which was largely about privatizat ion of water world wide. It showed how those twin institutio ns of global villainy, The World Bank and the IMF, have driven the process.
One piece of dialogue struck me as telling, spoken by one of the privatizing executives : "We have to force them to pay to teach them that they have to pay so they'll learn to want to pay."
They apparently believe that those who can't pay are wholly to blame for their financially deficient condition and, being unable (and/or unwilling) to pay, they are unworthy of survival. Only people glad to pay can be allowed to continue to exist. They hold these beliefs with such a total unshakable well defended certitude that even if you take them and show them live and in person how terrible harm is being done through lack of access to potable water, they will scoff and reassert the correctnes s of their way of thinking. That, dear hearts, is the mentality we're up against. There is no chance people who are like that will see the light and change the error of their ways.
In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation’s worst financial crisis since the Great Depression
“I didn’t know Brooksley Born,” says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of President Clinton’s powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. “I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonab
Born’s battle behind closed doors was epic, Kirk finds. The members of the President’
“I walk into Brooksley’
Greenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivative
Now, with many of the same men who shut down Born in key positions in the Obama administra
“It’ll happen again if we don’t take the appropriat
http://www
This week's news - Obama Considerin
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
California AG Harris Turned Down a Guaranteed 60% of the Foreclosur
Somebody really wants this foreclosure fraud settlement to go through. So much so that California was offered a sum to participat e in the settlement sure to piss off the other 49 AGs across the country. Only California was guaranteed earmarked funds from the settlement . Earlier we heard they would get $8 billion out of the $25 billion pot, or 32% of the total (Californi a has roughly 10% of the population ). Now, Shahien Nasiripour says they were in line for $15 billion, or a whopping 60%.
"California, home to the largest US property market, spurned an offer of roughly $15bn in lower monthly mortgage payments and reduced loan balances for its residents in talks to settle allegation s of mortgage-r elated misdeeds by leading US banks.
Bank of America had guaranteed California borrowers would receive $8bn in mortgage aid, while Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase committed at least $5bn to the state’s distressed homeowners, according to people familiar with the matter, who declined to give exact figures.
California would have received more than half of about $25bn of aid that would be available to borrowers in a nationwide deal under discussion to settle allegations that banks illegally seized homes using faulty documentat ion.
Deal terms, sent to state attorneys-general late last week after nearly a year of talks between the banks and various states and federal agencies, did not include guaranteed minimums for any other states, people familiar with the matter said. Various state officials said they were unaware of the California offer."
I suppose this could be disinformation designed to anger the other AGs and pressure California ’s Kamala Harris to accept the deal when the terms are actually not as clear-cut. But this shows two things: one, how desperate federal regulators are to get California into the deal, and two, how inadequate the overall deal is, even to the state of which it’s tilted so far in favor.
[...]
I often try to figure out ways to convince people that private prisons are not in the best interest of anyone but executives of private prison companies. There are plenty of others out there like myself, trying to work with elected officials and concerned citizens to convince our legislators that continuall y giving billions of dollars to an industry whose very survival depends on locking up an ever-incre asing segment of our population is morally reprehensi ble, and bad business to boot. But unfortunat ely, much of that activism seems for naught, as the anti-priva tization movement's resources and political relationsh ips pale in comparison to the influence built up by the privateers .
Take for example BroderickJohnson, lobbyist extraordin aire who was paid more than $1 million to lobby to get TARP passed on behalf of the major financial institutio ns that destroyed our economy. He's also worked for such socially conscious organizati ons as TalxCorp (which helps employers challenge unemployme nt claims), Comcast, and the GEO Group. Johnson also happens to be a senior adviser to Obama, whose immigratio n policies have been, if not an expansion, at least the continuati on of the compassion ate and sensible policies of his esteemed predecesso r.
So Obama's got a former GEO Group lobbyist working as a senior adviser. He also appointed a former employee of the GEO Group and CCA, Stacia Hylton, as director of the US Marshal's Service, a federal agency in control of millions of dollars worth of private prison contracts. So it should come as no surprise that the GEO Group was awarded a contract in excess of $235 million to house immigration detainees, despite decades of evidence proving the company can't operate a prison efficientl y and that it seems incapable of treating its wards with basic human decency.
There really are few benefits to the US from the Keystone XL project.
The oil derived would go on the world market, and wouldn't have any effect on the price of oil to us. Global oil interests would get the benefits - Tar Sands' developmen
The project would be constructe
Much of the tar sands oil would be refined in Port Arthur, Texas, where the refinery is half-owned by Saudi Aramco, the state-owne
Then there's the environmen
But what's more is that we would get stuck holding the bag on the inevitable spills despoiling the Ogallala Aquifer. About 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies this aquifer system, which yields about 30 percent of the nation's ground water used for irrigation
In addition, the aquifer system provides drinking water to 82 percent of the people who live within the aquifer boundary (it covers an area of approximat
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
FYI, there's rarely a majority in Congress to pass anything at all until a campaign has been mounted to sell it.
And when a president and his political party are swept into power to deliver affordable
Obama took single payer (Medicare For All) off the table, because if the goal is to get affordable quality medical care for all then everything else pales in comparison
In February 2010, when proponents of a public option were finally making some headway between the time that the House passed its version of healthcare reform and the time that the Senate passed its version (and it's important to remember that Obama never pressured Blue Dogs or Joe Lieberman, never used the power of the White House and never took to the buIIy puIpit to advocate for a public option), Obama held a 'make it or break it bipartisan summit' at the WhiteHouse which was gamed to prevent public option proponents from getting real reform, (affordabl
The summit was gamed to let insurance companies retain their lock on the path to getting healthcare
Whether it's Republican
Insurance adds NOTHING to the medical model. The insurance industry is the 'Don Fanucci' (Godfather
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Republican
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
When it serves something that the DLC-contro
Harry Reid has had no problem forcing the GOP to actually filibuster when it's something that the DLC wants and perceives it needs. For example, when Democrats needed unemployme
Democrats could even have changed the supermajor
But Democrats put off their critics for not forcing the Republican
They didn't.
There's not just one way (or even two or three) for Democrats to get bills passed without Republican votes.
But Obama and the DLC-contro
Obama and Company are there to do the work of the transnatio
Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people. They don't want to do it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Democrats didn't need Republican
But Democrats didn't do that.
Democrats also have refused to exercise the discretion that Rule 22 allows: Making Republican
Rule 22 gives the SenateMajo
The DLC-contro
So Obama reaches out for Republican
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama never pressured BenNelson (or BlancheLin
The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. They didn't.
Reid could've actually forced Republican
The Progressiv
Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after HowardDean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the Progressiv
There is nothing that Lieberman (or Nelson or Lincoln) is doing that Obama hasn't ordered. Obama and the DLC-Democr
And the proof of this is that (since you mention Nelson), when Obama needed Nelson re: StupakAmen
There could be 100 "progressi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Candidate Obama was all over the place, depending on who was talking to at any given time and what day it was in the campaign, which primaries were done with and who he didn't need to woo anymore.
Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton. He convinced centrists that he was a centrist. He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist. But guess what?
"Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat"
Blue Dog = (might as well be registered as a) Republican
During the campaign, Obama supported "healthcar
But for the record, Obama actually did campaign on single payer, universal health care. In addition to the now infamous video clip from 2003 -http://www
See the part where he says he has a plan to "cover everyone'? That's called "universal coverage". Just in case that confuses you, there's even a graphic in the ad that says "The Obama Plan - UNIVERSAL coverage for all Americans"
Here's another reference where Obama campaigned on public option - http://cam
Candidate Obama was against and/or for everything
Obama was for single payer universal health care (unconditi
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to prevent more progressiv
Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv
Republican
Republican
Republican
By the way, by getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed.
Citizens have little enough of a Constituti
Obama and the DNC could have cut off support to any Blue Dogs, cut money, cut committee assignment
This is exactly the bunch that Obama and the puppet-mas
Reform isn't on the agenda of either party.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Ditto for the head of his NationalEconomicCoun cil. Although appointing LarrySumme rs might have been a bit of a stretch, despite his yeoman work in destroying financial regulation —thus enriching his old boss RobertRubi n and helping cause the Crash of 2008—McCai n could easily have found a JackKemp-l ike Republican “supply-si der” who would have duplicated Summers’ signal achievemen t of expanding the deficit to the highest level since 1950 (though perhaps with a slightly higher percentage of tax cuts than the Obama stimulus). The economy would have continued to sputter along, with growth rates and joblessnes s levels little different from today’s, and possibly even worse.
But McCain’s election would have produced a major political difference: It would have increased Democratic clout in the House and Senate.
McCain would probably have approved a failed troop surge in Afghanistan, engaged in worldwide extrajudic ial assassinat ion, destabiliz ed nuclear-ar med Pakistan, failed to bring Israel’s BenjaminNe tanyahu to the negotiatin g table, expanded prosecutio n of whistle-bl owers, sought to expand executive branch power, failed to close Guantanamo , failed to act on climate change, pushed both nuclear energy and opened new areas to domestic oil drilling, failed to reform the financial sector enough to prevent another financial catastroph e, supported an extension of the BushTaxCuts for the rich, presided over a growing divide between rich and poor, and failed to lower the jobless rate.
Nothing reveals the true state of American politics today more, however, than the fact that has undertaken all of these actions and, even more significantly, left the Democratic Party far weaker than it would have been had McCain been elected. Few issues are more important than seeing behind the screen of a myth-makin g mass media, and understand ing what this demonstrat es about how power in America really works—and what needs to be done to change it.
I'm an old, OLD liberal Democrat and the "lesser of two evils"-arg
How can you say (and expect to be taken seriously) that Republican
How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters
I don't know how any Democrat can get behind this.
And it's Obama who's put Social Secu
At this point, I'd argue that Obama-Demo
Consider our elections as a business plan where the 'Corporate
If you want to lie the country into war for oil and profiteeri
And after 8 years of Bush-Cheney the American people aren't going to go for another team like that. They're going to want HOPE and CHANGE, with a persona they can believe in and trust. BarackObam
Obama's 'most ardent admirers' just like the packaging better. I'm not talking skin color, although that may be a factor for some of them; I'm talking about how a 'D' after the name is a brand they trust believe and trust in, despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product).
You continue to support Obama-Demo
Why should Obama-Demo
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
This happens to be wrong. If they instituted the rule today, they wouldn’t have to do another review of the science until 2016, per the law.
So consider what we have here. A bunch of enviro groups were ready to sue over ozone standards. The Obama Administra
As a result, the 2008 rules promulgate
The environmen
The ozone rules aren’t a game: the EPA estimated that ozone pollution can trigger all kinds of health problems and lead to the deaths of up to 12,000 Americans annually. The reason the regulation seems so expensive is that you’re talking about complying up from 1997 rules. Of course fixing a 14-year gap will be expensive. It will only get more expensive. And people will die as a result of inaction.
This is a microcosm of many frustratio
About Super Bowl
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama's Capitulati
This delay of ozone regulationKEEP READINGs is an even bigger deal if you consider the context. Brad Plumer has that story.
Basically, what happened is that the Bush Administration dragged its feet on new national ozone standards for years. Under the law, there must be a five-year review. EPA’s review of the science in 2006 showed that the current standards, set in 1997, were woefully inadequate . The Bush Administra tion countered with a new rule in 2008 that was well below the recommenda tion from EPA scientists .
And then…
"Groups such as the American Lung Association quickly filed a lawsuit to stop the Bush rules, which they claimed were too weak and would lead to thousands of unnecessar y deaths and cases of respirator y disease. However, when Obama came into office, the new EPA said it basically agreed with the critics and would issue revised rules by August 2010. At that point, the ALA agreed to hold off on its lawsuit. But August 2010 rolled around. Still no rules. Then October. Then November. Still nothing. Then the EPA said it wanted to go back and look at the science again, just to double-che ck. Sure enough, EPA’s scientific review board said that 60 to 70 parts per billion was the way to go. And EPA administra tor Lisa Jackson announced that the final rules would be more or less in line with the science [...]
So now, today, the White House announced that it’s not going to have any new rules. On a call with reporters, White House officials argued that it doesn’t make sense to put out new rules in 2011 when there’s going to be another scheduled review of the ozone science in 2013."
If you want something more radical, you want him to get a Congress that will work with him.
Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people.
During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. So in 2006, we did.
Nothing changed.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for fighting Bush-Chene
They said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate".
In 2008, we did. We gave them 60 for the Democratic Caucus. And we gave them the White House.
Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in good old raclst America, than ever voted for any other presidenti
And no sooner did Obama get elected than he slammed the brakes on the momentum of his election and a filibuster
His political team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation. If you know anything about politics, you'd know that this is a dead giveaway that the last thing these politician
Mushy-mind
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
#6 - Continue the Insanity, meaning we keep doing the same thing* over and over again hoping for a different outcome.
[* - Same thing = Continue to refuse to believe our own 'lyin' eyes', keep doing what we've been doing for the past 20 years, continue voting for DLC-contro
Clue: There aren't any grown-ups to save us; we're 'it'.]
What happens when millions are out of work, no jobs, no money, no hope. London, Philadelph
"Quickly Brad, there are thousands of lives at stake... Brad any answer..." - Roy Neary, 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind
About Super Bowl
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
#4 - A Third Party Challenge
We're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republican
#5 - The "Oh, F R I C K it, let's get it over with - Vote for Republican
The horse is out of the barn and we should just let the radical right have its way. It's not like Obama and the gutless Dems are going to stop them.KEEP READING
It would be carnage for a few years, people eating other people (though that really only happens in the southern tier of states), old people dying (why are we so eager to keep them alive, anyway?) and cats and dogs living together...
Let it all come crashing down--but let's make sure to kill Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare. These Tea Partiers should be allowed to pay what the market will bear, right?
By the way, while our Tea-Party/Real Men (or whatever those guys who wouldn't pay taxes a few years ago are called) friends talk about how they'd like to keep more of their hard earned money and give less to the idiots who "gave us Vietnam and Iraq," perhaps they'd like to pick up the bill for the grading and paving of the road that leads from their home to their office--ca n't be what, more than $60K a year.
While they're at it, maybe they'd like to cut a check for the police and fire people they'd have to employ to protect their home and valuables from damage. If they could get one guy for another $30K, they'd be lucky. Oh, and then there's that water and waste service, if you've got that.
Really, just let these frickers get what they want.
#3 - Primary Obama
Here are two powerful arguments for challengin
Michael Lerner's very powerful case for primarying Obama.
Ralph Nader's very powerful case for primarying Obama (and no, he's not running again).
Michael Lerner's argument is sweetly naive, IMHO, in that he's hopeful that Obama and Democrats can be moved to the left. I don't think that's true anymore. I think the party and the culture of Washington
Up until a couple of weeks ago I was saying that, to begin with, no one in the Democratic Party would do it. Due to the hierarchic
Liberals/p
The DLC has gotten too powerful, what with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic
As I said, that was up until a couple of weeks ago. Word has it that a challenge is coming, but it's really not a serious one, not intended for anyone to get the nomination from Obama.
So unless Obama drops out (in which case another corporate tool will take his place), the only legitimate challenges to him will come from outside the Democratic Party (Republica
So what's left?
KEEP READING
About Super Bowl
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
With all due respect, you're going to have to stand back and look at this from a different perspectiv
As much as it can be answered, I've answered it here. Once there, click on EXTEND ENTIRE THREAD and read it.
And don't ask me who I would want to run (if Obama's most ardent supporters weren't keeping this broken system in place by continuing to support him).
The fact of our political system is that American voters don't and can't draft candidates for the presidency so it's moot. Candidates have to want it, and will enter the race when they feel it and see an opening. There only is an opening when a 2-term president is leaving office or a sitting president'
Obama's fans continued support of him prevents any opportunit
So what perspectiv
What's keeping this broken system in place.
Money. Lobbyists. Incumbents
Neither of the parties has reform on their agenda. When the system is reformed, when the money is taken out of politics, when switch-bac
About Super Bowl
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I'd sincerely like to know who you're backing.
Is this one of Obama's mistakes?:
Obama Considerin
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Would this be one of Obama's mistakes?:
Attorney General of N.Y. Is Said to Face Pressure on Bank Foreclosur
Obama Administra
Occupy Wall Street To March Against Foreclosur
President Obama is on the brink of cutting a backroom deal that would give bankers broad immunity for illegally throwing tens of thousands of Americans out of their homes. The Administration is pressuring state attorneys general to abandon an ongoing investigat ion into the massive “robo-sign ing” fraud, in exchange for a relatively small payoff by the banks.
Numerous investigations by state and federal authoritie s have demonstrat ed that banks used illegal procedures to make tens of thousands of foreclosur es over the past decade. Rushing to a settlement before the full extent of the fraud is known would be a grave injustice to those who were illegally foreclosed upon and those still struggling to stay in their homes. “This is a clear, moral issue that cuts to the core of why we occupy,” said Max Berger, an Occupy Wall Street participan t helping to plan the event. “Instead of throwing corrupt bankers in jail, the administra tion is pushing to give them a get-out-of jail-free card.
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
