Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Obama Drops The Veto Hammer On Republican Plans To Gut Wall Street Reform
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/13/obama-drops-veto-hammer-republicans-plans-gut-wall-street-reform.htmlObama Drops The Veto Hammer On Republican Plans To Gut Wall Street Reform
By: Jason Easley
Monday, April, 13th, 2015, 7:28 pm
President Obama threw cold water on Republican plans to gut Wall Street reform and consumer protections by threatening to veto both GOP bills if they should reach his desk.
The White House first threatened to veto a Republican bill that would allow manufactured housing lenders to raise the cost of loans to consumers:
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 650, which would weaken key consumer protections and provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Specifically, the bill would revise the Truth in Lending Act to allow manufactured housing lenders to raise the cost of loans to consumers without triggering existing rules designed to protect consumers from loans they cannot afford to repay. Many borrowers purchasing manufactured homes are among the lowest income and economically vulnerable consumers. H.R. 650 would put these borrowers at significant risk of being subjected to predatory lending and being steered into more expensive loans even when they qualify for lower-cost alternatives. There is no reason to deny these borrowers the consumer protections that they receive today.
Because H.R. 650 would weaken key consumer protections and provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, if the President were presented with H.R. 650, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Because H.R. 650 would weaken key consumer protections and provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, if the President were presented with H.R. 650, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Immediately after the veto threat on H.R. 650 the White House followed up by threatening to veto H.R.685 that would also weaken consumer protections for people who are buying a home:
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 685, which would weaken key consumer protections and provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
A fundamental component of Wall Street Reform is its requirement that lenders, before extending mortgage loans, make reasonable, good faith determinations that mortgage borrowers have the ability to repay the loans. The law provides lenders with protection from liability under this requirement if their loans satisfy certain clear criteria and thus are “Qualified Mortgages.” One of the criteria is that the up-front costs (“points and fees”) not exceed three percent of the total loan amount. During the housing bubble, many lenders front-loaded mortgage loans with points and fees and therefore had less incentive to determine a borrower’s ability to repay. Moreover, excessive, front-loaded points and fees contributed to predatory lending behavior, “steering” borrowers into more expensive mortgage loans.
H.R. 685 would revise the Truth in Lending Act to allow certain charges to be excluded from the definition of points and fees even when the lender or its affiliates receives the fees. By exempting certain fees from the three percent cap, H.R. 685 would allow lenders to increase the cost of loans and still be eligible for “Qualified Mortgage” treatment. This revision risks eroding consumer protections and returning the mortgage market to the days of careless lending focused on short-term profits.
Because H.R. 685 would weaken key consumer protections and provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, if the President were presented with H.R. 685, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
A fundamental component of Wall Street Reform is its requirement that lenders, before extending mortgage loans, make reasonable, good faith determinations that mortgage borrowers have the ability to repay the loans. The law provides lenders with protection from liability under this requirement if their loans satisfy certain clear criteria and thus are “Qualified Mortgages.” One of the criteria is that the up-front costs (“points and fees”) not exceed three percent of the total loan amount. During the housing bubble, many lenders front-loaded mortgage loans with points and fees and therefore had less incentive to determine a borrower’s ability to repay. Moreover, excessive, front-loaded points and fees contributed to predatory lending behavior, “steering” borrowers into more expensive mortgage loans.
H.R. 685 would revise the Truth in Lending Act to allow certain charges to be excluded from the definition of points and fees even when the lender or its affiliates receives the fees. By exempting certain fees from the three percent cap, H.R. 685 would allow lenders to increase the cost of loans and still be eligible for “Qualified Mortgage” treatment. This revision risks eroding consumer protections and returning the mortgage market to the days of careless lending focused on short-term profits.
Because H.R. 685 would weaken key consumer protections and provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, if the President were presented with H.R. 685, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Republicans in Congress are attacking consumer protections in an effort to turn back the clock to the days when Wall Street crashed the U.S. economy. For those who say government doesn’t matter, and that both parties are the same, I suggest that they examine what Republicans are trying to accomplish. President Obama is the only person standing in the way of a Republican agenda that is designed to only serve corporations and the wealthy.
Both of the Republican bills are backdoor assaults on consumer protections and the regulations that were put in place after the last Republican president was a friend of Wall Street. Politics does matter. President Obama and Congressional Democrats are standing up to stop Republicans from returning the country to the bad old days of too big to fail.
28 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Warren Buffett's mobile home empire preys on the poor
Billionaire profits at every step, from building to selling to high cost lending
Public Integrity & The Seattle Times
By Daniel Wagner Mike Baker
12:30 am, April 3, 2015 Updated: 8:57 pm, April 6, 2015
[font size=1 color=gray]Kirk and Denise Pitts purchased their mobile home in 1997. They still owe more than $39,000 on the home and land, which were valued at $33,100 in 2013. Here, the Pitts and their son, Caine, stand in front of their home in Knoxville, Tennessee. Daniel Wagner/Center for Public Integrity[/font]
Editor's note: This is a joint investigation of The Center for Public Integrity and The Seattle Times.
Denise Pitts walked into the pawn shop not far from where she bought her mobile home in Knoxville, Tennessee, and offered up her wedding rings for $100. Her marriage wasn’t over, but her husband was battling cancer and, Pitts said, her mortgage company told her the only way to keep a roof over his head would be to sell everything else.
Across the country in Ephrata, Washington, Kirk and Patricia Ackley sat down to close on a new mobile home, only to learn that the annual interest on their loan would be 12.5 percent rather than the 7 percent they said they had been promised. They went ahead because they had spent $11,000, most of their savings, to dig a foundation.
And near Bug Tussle, Alabama, Carol Carroll has been paying down her home for more than a decade but still owes nearly 90 percent of the sale price — and more than twice what the home is worth.
The families’ dealers and lenders went by different names — Luv Homes, Clayton Homes, Vanderbilt, 21st Mortgage. Yet the disastrous loans that threaten them with homelessness or the loss of family land stem from a single company: Clayton Homes, the nation’s biggest homebuilder, which is controlled by its second-richest man — Warren Buffett.
MORE
Billionaire profits at every step, from building to selling to high cost lending
Public Integrity & The Seattle Times
By Daniel Wagner Mike Baker
12:30 am, April 3, 2015 Updated: 8:57 pm, April 6, 2015
[font size=1 color=gray]Kirk and Denise Pitts purchased their mobile home in 1997. They still owe more than $39,000 on the home and land, which were valued at $33,100 in 2013. Here, the Pitts and their son, Caine, stand in front of their home in Knoxville, Tennessee. Daniel Wagner/Center for Public Integrity[/font]
Editor's note: This is a joint investigation of The Center for Public Integrity and The Seattle Times.
Denise Pitts walked into the pawn shop not far from where she bought her mobile home in Knoxville, Tennessee, and offered up her wedding rings for $100. Her marriage wasn’t over, but her husband was battling cancer and, Pitts said, her mortgage company told her the only way to keep a roof over his head would be to sell everything else.
Across the country in Ephrata, Washington, Kirk and Patricia Ackley sat down to close on a new mobile home, only to learn that the annual interest on their loan would be 12.5 percent rather than the 7 percent they said they had been promised. They went ahead because they had spent $11,000, most of their savings, to dig a foundation.
And near Bug Tussle, Alabama, Carol Carroll has been paying down her home for more than a decade but still owes nearly 90 percent of the sale price — and more than twice what the home is worth.
The families’ dealers and lenders went by different names — Luv Homes, Clayton Homes, Vanderbilt, 21st Mortgage. Yet the disastrous loans that threaten them with homelessness or the loss of family land stem from a single company: Clayton Homes, the nation’s biggest homebuilder, which is controlled by its second-richest man — Warren Buffett.
MORE
- Now, and then a little more forgiveness later after he rips some more poor folks off. Rinse, repeat.
Man's a phony, billionaire huckster.
Elizabeth Warren scares him though, so at least there's that:
“I think that she would do better if she was less angry and demonized less,” he responded. “I believe in hate the sin, love the sinner, and I also believe in praising by name and criticizing by category.” http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/03/02/3628454/buffett-warren-angry/
Yeah, I'm sure.
and why the fuck don't the citizens throw them out of office when they only act to protect corporate interests???
hellifiknow 
Good for him
But, I'm sure rMoney would have done the same
Thanks for posting babylonsister
for you
