Arianna On "Countdown," Discusses How Dem Senators Screwed Homeowners

Arianna appeared on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" Friday night to talk about why a number of Senate Democrats voted against legislation aimed at stemming foreclosures Thursday. Arianna read a list of the names of the Democratic Senators who voted against the bill and called on President Obama and Harry Reid to take a firmer stand against the influence of the banks who opposed the legislation.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Comments

[laxdado2]

You have to know if you can afford a house or not, regardless of what a "professional" tells you. I shouldnd have to pay for other peoples irresponsibility.

[writerjohnny]

With all due respect - both my wife and I had good jobs when we bought our home in September 2006 with 25% down. The economy went in the tank and both of us got laid off. We used our savings to make mortgage payments until that was gone. When we finally found new jobs Countrywide offered a modification where we ended up owing more than when we started and at $500 more per month. Even if we wanted to sell now the home that was worth $240,000 when we bought it is now worth $150,000 so we'd still owe the mortgage company about $40,000. Please explain how we were being irresponsible.

[stargazer13]

us too same story ! sorry good luck much love to you and your wife !

I my self have learned I want a more simple life .

the stress of it all ! who needs it

[Lorianne]

Even if you were not being irresponsible, how is it the fault of the taxpayers to pay your mortgage?

Also, did you have a second mortgage? Did you have savings for a rainy day (like losing jobs, illness etc.)?

[k1k2lee]

You don't understand how this works. This is not a freebie and doesn't put anything on you. This applies only to mortgages written pre 2009 so there is no risk to heighten prices in the future. And this type of debt repayment/­restructur­e (NOT elimination) is already very common and routine for Chapt. 11 (for big businesses) and Chapt. 13 (for wealthy people) and was simply being extended to Chapt. 7 that applies to middle class people. The banks aren't opposed to the Chapt. 11 & 13 procedures because that helps the banks and their rich officers to assist them when their reckless actions (or economic issues out of their control) get them in trouble. All this did was extend the same negotiating tool to average home owners. Shouldn't the rules apply equally to ALL income brackets? Are you advocating a two tier system for how the law should work - one law for rich people and another one for the rest of us?

[martialgir]

Kik2lee,

Actually, the proposed legislation was a bit different than what you are indicating. As it stands, not everyone in a chapter 13 is wealthy. The change in legislation in 2005, however, created a means test based on median income for the state you are in. For example, in virginia, for a family of two, if your income is over approximately $53k per year, you cannot file a chapter 7 liquidation. I would hardly say that a family of 2 making $55k per year is wealthy. Also, you do not have to lose your house in a chapter 7. If your payments are up to date, you can keep your home and car if you reaffirm those debts as long as the equity in both do not exceed certain thresholds. That is not a problem for most people in this market as most do not have equity.

A chapter 13 is a reorganization of debt which will allow any delinquent mortgage payments to be recalculated and paid back over either a 3 year or 5 year repayment plan through the courts. Any unsecured debts, including second mortgages that are basically unsecured because the first mortgage balance exceeds the balance of the first are paid off, through the plan as low as 5 cents on the dollar.

The proposed legislation would have allowed the balance of a first mortgage on a primary residence to be crammed down in a chapter 13. Chapter 7 rules would not have changed.

[martialgir]

Also, you can file a chapter 13 reorganization regardless of income.

[Beard]

But it's OK for taxpayers to pay for the irresponsibilities of bankers? I personallly don't understand that logic. Maybe that is because it is illogical!

[Lorianne]

Lots of us were against the bailouts from DAY ONE.

Two wrongs don't make a right

[LorettaSingbiel]

You're paying for the FVCKING BANKS' IRRESPONSIBILITY !!!!!!!!!

[Artemis34]

You should be more worried about not having to pay for the irresponsibility of the banks that surely had all the risk data at their fingertips and should have known better.

I doubt if I gave you a test about what he legal language in a mortgage means that you could pass. Most rely on the advice of professionals.

This was just a way for the banks to rip off the lower middle class while the gravy train was running, then just seize the asset. A con game plain an simple. People had confidence in their banks and were conned.

You are probably white male middle class and your banker would not propose bad loans to you, so you think they are not that bad. But this hurts all of us, the bail out, the falling home prices... And there are so many studies that confirm the benefit to the entire community of home ownership.­..

Too bad you can't see all this.

[murphy80]

this is just one more example of the Harry Reid way of sell out the taxpayer

and feed the banksters.­..........­..........­.speak softly and sell down the river.

[NedFlanders19]

There are two sets of rules in this country although we are led to believe that there is only one set. One can see it with the bailout of the bankers with no consequences for their actions and through allowing the former administration to literally get away with murder with no consequences.

The banks, corporations and government are all in bed together and making the majority of regular people support them while sticking a knife in our collective backs.

We have capitalism without ethics, which is basically organized economic anarchy for those playing with the big boys. Even worse, we are socializing the risks of the big boys while being told that socialism goes against what this country stands for. When it works for the big players it is a necessary part of keeping their system going. When it would actually benefit the masses, it is fought tooth and nail and called every name in the book. What those in charge don't realize is that when the middle class is strong they thrive even more, and when the middle class gets the short end of the stick like now, that it will come back and bite the big boys in the ass. Unfortunately, things are so enmeshed that many regular people will be brought down as well - so far its only the tip of the iceberg. This is what a country gets when greed overshadows basic humanness.

[RedneckDem]

Good post. We need another Contract for America, where protecting the worker while conducting business in an ethical and moral way is the norm.

[Artemis34]

Not only no negative consequences for the bankers but positive consequences like continued huge salaries, bonuses and perks for wrecking the company and the country!

Quite a double standard. Can't give American taxpayers a ray of hope when they are in dire straights, but REWARD the crooked b@stards that brought us here!

[Beard]

I believe the time has come for a worker/consumer boycott. If we refuse to participate in the market place by withholding our discretionary spending we could put real pressure on the ruling class to take our needs into serious consideration. If we don't purchase anything but necessities it would put serious pressure on these financial entitiles that are currently pulling our strings. Just a thought,as it seems hopeless to count on our elected officials to put our interest first.

[Suzeeq]

I agree, we need to re-group, we need to remember that if we can't pay our taxes and if the banks can't syphon interest off us, and if we don't give politician's our vote - they will not exist, but the people always will.

[Suzeeq]

well said. this decision of the goverments part will bite them on the butt. we have all been playing along with this inflated, unrealstic, unsubstainable economy. let it fall and let it keep falling until we find honesty, integrity and humanness again.

[Lorianne]

Agreed. It's going to be painful for everyone, but we cannot continue to prop up an unsustainable system.

[Spesabsquemetu]

Interesting note, is that most of the infamous PRO-HOMELESSNESS TWELVE, apparently are also currently "untouchable".

All received massive donations from pacs representing the financial industry.
In effect, the infamous PRO-HOMELESSNESS TWELVE voted to represent BANKS, rather than represent the interests of the American people.

Almost all appear to currently be untouchable concerning their term in office. Accident, or interesting coincidence?

WASHINGTON DEMOCRAT SENATORS WHO SAY YES TO HOMELESSNESS IN AMERICA, BY DENYING HOME OWNERS FORECLOSURE PROTECTIONS:

Landrieu – re-elected 2008
Lincoln - re-elected 2004
Nelson - re-elected 2006
Pryor – re-elected 2008
Specter – re-elected 2004
Tester – elected 2006
***Rockefeller – didn’t vote – re-elected 2008
Baucus – re-elected 2008
Bennet – appointed 2009
Byrd – re-elected 2006
Carper – re-elected 2006
Dorgan – re-elected 2004
Johnson – re-elected 2008

[stargazer13]

when we lose our home I am going to live at there house with them

in fact let all the newly homeless people go live with these elected officials

[Zenfull]

With the exception of Dorgan, Lincoln, Bennet and Spector, these Senators were elected by the American people (Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans) during elections which overwhelmingly rejected the Bush administration policies, big business abuses, and "politics as usual". Dick Durbin spoke for us average Americans when he said that the Senators on that floor were the American people's only advocates because we don't have lobbyist money to buy a Senator's vote. I am mad as hell that these guys don't get it. I agree with Arianna that it's time that Barack brought these guys into a private meeting with him and he exerted as much pressure as possible on these obstinate, self-centered politicians. Their "no" vote can only be construed as a pander to the banking industry for years of financial favors. I now believe that ethics reform is a much higher priority now that I see the political blockade that is keeping important legislation from being passed. Democrats have the numbers to pass important change in Washington, but it's clear they lack the political will to go against the lobbyists who are bankrolling them.

[Spesabsquemetu]

Perhaps the infamous 12 democrat senators who voted in support of banks and saying "yes" to homelessness in America, could learn something about ethics from Arianna and Keith, and standards they apply as journalists serving the PUBLIC'S INTERESTS:

Source: RTNDA
PREAMBLE

Professional electronic journalists should operate as trustees of the public, seek the truth, report it fairly and with integrity and independence, and stand accountable for their actions.

PUBLIC TRUST: Professional electronic journalists should recognize that their first obligation is to the public.

Professional electronic journalists should:

* Understand that any commitment other than service to the public undermines trust and credibility.
* Recognize that service in the public interest creates an obligation to reflect the diversity of the community and guard against oversimplification of issues or events.
* Provide a full range of information to enable the public to make enlightened decisions.
* Fight to ensure that the public's business is conducted in public.

TRUTH: Professional electronic journalists should pursue truth aggressively and present the news accurately, in context, and as completely as possible.

Professional electronic journalists should:

* Continuously seek the truth.

Perhaps the United States Senate needs a preamble identifying its duties and who they are serve, because the recent vote of the PRO-HOMELESSNESS TWELVE, suggests their service is to their multi-million dollar financial industry pay as you play donors, who in effect, are purchasing the public's right to be represented, and dissolving it with the help of our 12 democrat US Senators.

[Soulsurfer]

The banksters really don't think we deserve to be prosperous. The senators don't think we deserve to be represented, since we don't contribute to their "campaign war chest". Its all about the money.

[cdnnewsjunky]

It seems one of your main problems is that you don't have a political party that is left of the democrats. That would keep the democrats honest and left of centre.

In Canada the three main political parties are Conservative, Liberal, and socialist (Democratic). Now when the liberal party starts to swing to close to centre then any ground left of centre abandoned by the Liberal's is claimed by the Democratic party. This is ground that the Liberals do not want to give up, so that keeps them left of centre in most cases.

[E-MU]

Interesting point you raise: In Doris Kearns Goodwin's book "No Ordinary Times", she explained how FDR and Wendell Wilkie once talked of forming a Liberal Party that would join moderate and liberal Dems and GOPers while forcing the formation of a Conservative party for the conservative southern Dems and rock ribbed New England Gop. Never came to be, obviously - multiple parties dont' work here for some reason.

I think that's a good thing. Two big parties require lots of internal party compromises even before the bigger intra party compromises create policy. All the balancing acts are infuriating and frustrating but it keeps the country - over time - on an even keel.

[cdnnewsjunky]

Thanks for your input. Your right about the comprimise, our two main parties Conservative, Liberal have both moderates and extemeists and comprimise is an ongoing thing, but it's the threat of the third party waiting in the wings that pretty well ensures that compromise in the Conservative party still leads to a right of centre policy and compromise in the Liberal part leads to a left of centre policy.

[stargazer13]

Power To The People

down with banks and there cozy little friends on capital hill

[stargazer13]

looks like the American people need a lobby !!!

it,s not enough that the American people vote for and pay these jerks with our tax dollars plus give them the best health care and retirement benefits that money can buy !!

we also need to form a lobby

I SAY IN THE FALL FIRE THEM ALL republican democrat any and all who voted for the banks and against the American people

these elected officials have once again sold us down the river for a few million bucks from there banker friends

while million ,s of americans lose there jobs health and homes is treasonous in my book !!

we the people are sick of you selling us out and were taking names because we now want you to be unemployed come reelection time maybe your banker friends will give you a job because the american people will not !!!!

[Ma Ratl]

Unfortunately there are only 3 of those senators up for reelection in 2010...4 will be up in 2012 and the other 5 not until 2014. 6 year terms for senators.
But write their names down now so you can remember to support their opponents when they are up for reelection.
I emailed all of them to let them know I will be supporting their opponents and called them alll republicans,

[Artemis34]

Can Senators be recalled? Do we have to wait for 2010?

[flyers]

What people don't understand is this is the good and bad of having a majority. If you want a majority in the house and senate, you have recruit moderates from states that were won by the other party in the election. The dems have done a nice job of recruiting moderates to win senate seats in Arkansas, Virginia, Montana, Nebraska, but in the same vein, they wont tow the party line and you will lose votes like this. The republicans don't have any moderates anymore, hence they don't have the majority, as they used to suffer the same problems early in Bush's term where Jeffords, Chafee, and Spector would not tow the party line on every vote. This is the way it is guys, moderates will give you that senate majority, but they aren't going to vote 100% with your party everytime.

[fleaba]

I am so sick of banks right now. My husband is a contractor and took a client's check to Wachovia (the bank where the check was drawn) to cash the check so he could pay his crew instead of waiting for the check to clear for three days at his bank. They wanted to charge his $10.00 because he did not have an account at Wachovia. It makes me sick. I hope they all fail and we go to cash. (BTW I know this is unreasonable, but that is how I feel now).

As for the mortgage/bankruptcy reform, what is going to happen is more and more homeless, jobless people on the streets. You know what they say about people who don't have much to lose.

[cheferic]

I requested every 2 weeks for 6 months and Wachovia refused to give me my credit records (because they destroyed them to get rid of evidence of unfair practices)when I needed them for a court case that didn't have anything to do with them ,and it cost me thousands of dollars.Th­is was after they moved to Atlanta to avoid new laws before they moved to wherever they are now to avoid the laws that they passed in Georgia.

The thing I find amazing is that they haven't been busted on the fact that their name is a bad mafia joke -as in "we're gonna ' watch over ya'.
Check it out yourself -they will not give any records from anything that happened in 1993 or `1994-5.

[stargazer13]

I know exactly how you feel about those ridiculous fees !

greedy bankers and there cozy little friends on capital hill

we the people pay there wage give them the best health care not to mention retirement benefits

and this is what they do in return vote against their own people

[neesy08]

Senator Dick Durban was on KO's show Wednesday nite, I think it was. He said that the banks "own" the Dems. This is a farse! They are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

[incredulousnyc]

I'm in love with AH.

[Witchitalineman]

This is the first time I have watched Arianna speak with passionate anger over the bank situation. Great to hear!

[booker52]

I hope the people in these states whose reps voted down this bill vote them out of office next go around. As the for bill that former President Clinton signed that removed regulations from the 20's, this bill was put forth by a retrug, Phi Gramm. Let's just say the general public isn't being proctected by the very people they put into office. Shameful!!!

[LeftCoastLarry]

To all those who want to hang all politicians because of a few blue-dog Democrats, Senator Sanders made a terrific point on the Thom Hartmann radio show yesterday.
He pointed out how far we've come in the last few years. Five years ago, the House, Senate, Executive Branch and the SCOTUS were all controlled by right-wing extremists. Not just Republicans, but the most extreme ideologues in generations.
The pendulum is swinging back to normalcy but there is still a ways to go.
The important thing is to not give up the fight.
We have made a difference.