Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12544 Followers
NewsMeBack
6467 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
I think I am upnorthgirl
1610 Followers
johnnysoftwareFeb 10, 2012
Wait, banks and related institutions ripped off individuals and he created a settlement where he put the compensation due to individuals into an institution?
cosmicsurferFeb 10, 2012
once a sleazy owned corporatist, always a sleazy owned corporatist until he is hit over the head with an epiphany...(in his case, I hope it is a hard epiphany)
abdulnFeb 11, 2012
"Wait, banks and related institutions ripped off individuals and he created a settlement where he put the compensation due to individuals into an institution"
Perhaps you don't understand what the settlement is about... The goverment extorted 25B from a bunch of banks for a paperwork signature issue while trying to foreclose on people who haven't paid on their home-loans for a year-plus, and the banks had to pay each of them a couple thousand dollars.
Note the home "owners" receive no penalty for living rent free in a house they promised to pay for, but hey banks have no rights.
And yes, I agree that it's BS that the government, when it extorts money out of anyone pays itself before it pays the victims... But hey, according to Obama, the goverments money is for helping the people... I guess it's okay in the end.
Sarcasm off, there were many who have been victims of the banks mistakenly forclosing on their homes, and those situations should be addressed. However, many more (like 1000x) of these "victimes" have been taking advantage of the banks by not paying rent, knowing they would not be foreclosed upon. Many have done it because they don't have jobs which is really unfortunate... Many have also done it just becase they can, which makes them evil.
The banks are getting nailed here on a technicality, which is fine in a karmic sense because I'm sure most if not all the banks have screwed over many-a-customer on technicalities. However, in the realistic sense, there is no justice here for anybody, this settlement is greedy governments extorting money from greedy businesses, on behalf of greedy individuals. And swirling around in the matrix of all these greedy basterds are a small percentage of victims who will still be screwed when all is said and done.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mortventFeb 11, 2012
It's called theft.
It's the same as a manager taking the settlement for a worker's claim and depositing it in the bank to cover his mismanagement at a company. they would be locked up in a heart beat.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
DiggPiggletFeb 11, 2012
FTA: "Out of the $140 million share of the settlement, $31.6 million was allocated to his State." to avert a budget shortfall.
How is 23% a majority of the settlement?
antarctica7Feb 11, 2012
FTA: "Out of the $140 million share of the settlement, $31.6 million was allocated to his State — the majority is going promptly to help Walker’s state budget shortfall: $25.6 million."
You left out the last part of your quote. 25.6 million is the majority of the 31.6 million in settlement money the state received.
DiggPiggletFeb 11, 2012
Ok. I see that now. Seems like money that goes into the state budget helps everyone. How is that bad? He inherited most of the shortfall anyway.
raggsat98Feb 13, 2012
oh, you can't make the "inherited the budget" argument. Walker is Republican and in order to fit the narative that R's are evil, this just won't do.
Besides Obama has a patent on that excuse.
barackalypseFeb 11, 2012
Wow, to hear a progressive blog admit that money in the State budget shorts its citizens is nothing short of revolutionary. I agree completely, we should eliminate as much of the budget as possible to let the citizens keep the money.
peppermintpigFeb 11, 2012
No, we need more money pixies and economic fairies to cover the shortfall. Obviously if the government is spending so much on wars and other programs then these programs can and should get their fair share. lol
dauntless1Feb 11, 2012
No more stupid than saying "We have a budget shortfall. Time to DECREASE our income.".
D1gst1llsuxFeb 11, 2012
I can hardly wait til this f**ktard is brought down by either the FBI probe or recall, it is only a matter of time.
barackalypseFeb 11, 2012
Quaking in his boots I'm sure:
"Wisconsin's Walker leads possible recall opponents: poll"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/25/us-wisconsin-walker-idUSTRE80O2B520120125
Face it, a fair number of people in Wisconsin are just taxpayers who have no interest in playing partisan games, they just want to keep as much of the money they earn as possible.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
upnorthgirlFeb 10, 2012
So...let's take more money from the people who really need it more than a lot of others. Way to go, Walker. And don't forget these folks will remember how you treated them come recall election time
anomaly100Feb 10, 2012Submitter
He wants the State's budget to look good - by using money that should be allocated to aid troubled homeowners.
cosmicsurferFeb 10, 2012
He wants those ebil democrats to have no "legal residence"
barackalypseFeb 10, 2012
$31.6 million in a State with 5.6 million people amounts to less than $6 per person.
anomaly100Feb 11, 2012Submitter
Not everyone has a foreclosure problem or were done over by the banks sleazy tactics.
Good try at spinning though!
yurmutha412Feb 11, 2012
The article is spinning it, 140 million is going to the state and Walker is using 25 million of the first direct payment. I don't agree with it, but I don't like an out an out lie on the title of an article. As he said, the majority will go to the beneficiaries. It should all go to them, however. I don't think anyone should have the right to divert it for other purposes. It was granted by the courts and they specified how it was to be distributed. This also happened with the tobacco settlement and it ends up disappearing.
barackalypseFeb 10, 2012
So you would have preferred he sent out checks and then made $31.6 million in spending cuts to the State budget? Or would you have preferred he sent out checks and then implemented $31.6 million in tax increases? Or some combination of the above?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
michrechFeb 11, 2012
25.6 Million, according to the article. Much of that of his own doing (if the news coverage of all the tax breaks he and his party instituted shortly after taking majority power are at all correct)...
auditortuxFeb 11, 2012
How about we go case by case and determine which of those homeowners actually deserve the money? You know, the ones who got a responsible loan (not a 5/1 adjustable, not those who did not document income, not those that borrowed 100%, etc) and give them the money.
miklkitFeb 11, 2012
Banks used to be trusted institutions. When the banks offered those deals many people trusted the banks to not rip them off. I have talked to people who looked at the contract and thought it looked bad, but said "Well, the bank must see something that I don't." and went along with it.
When I bought my house they were pushing that "creative financing" and not even mentioning a straight rate mortgage. The didn't mention the balloon payments at all.
The banks deserve their punishment and those people deserve their money, not walker.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
auditortuxFeb 11, 2012
"I have talked to people who looked at the contract and thought it looked bad, but said "Well, the bank must see something that I don't." and went along with it. "
Frankly, those people you've talked to are idiots. They signed a loan that they thought was bad because they figured "well, if the bank is offering it, it must be good." That's like complaining that a car salesman sold you too expensive of a car - sure, you wanted that small sedan, but the Corvette was so pretty and he had such a smooth voice...
It takes two to make a contract. Did the bank disclose everything in the documentation? Yep (otherwise its an entire different issue that this is addressing). Either they did read, they didn't understand, or they didn't care. Until we understand that these people are both perpetrators AND victims, we're never getting anywhere. And in a way, banks are too, although they were that gleeful drunkard who doesn't want to think what the hangover is going to feel like in the morning...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Feb 11, 2012
"Frankly, those people you've talked to are idiots. "
Which doesn't change the fact that in this country, getting conned does not make you liable to pay for that con.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
abdulnFeb 11, 2012
Well, if Obama can take money out of our wallets for goverment, and that is considered good for the people, then Walker should get the same credit. Government is good, right?
Let's get real here, this is the way all governments in the US work. When the government extorts fines on behalf of the people, they always keep the money once justice is served. They people are left to fend for themselves, and frankly the government makes sure as part of the settlement deal that the victim's can't sue to get.... To quote the President favorite phrase.... "Their fair-share".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rockyoumonkeysFeb 10, 2012
Walker's decided to do as much damage as possible before he's booted from office. Guy's going for a world record.
vectorbFeb 11, 2012
He just knows his career is dead and is giving the double middle fingers to everyone in the state on his way out.
10000lakesFeb 11, 2012
f**k Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker! His days are numbered!!!
skywiseFeb 11, 2012
f**k United States President Barack Obama! His days are numbered!!!
kareemachanFeb 11, 2012
Only in your kool-aided mind.
ageofmasteryFeb 11, 2012
Yes they are, he'll be gone after his second term.
xeromusFeb 11, 2012
Why am I not surprised?
bettverbotenFeb 11, 2012
FACTS: from here
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/walker-shouldnt-squander-mortgage-settlement-funds-fg4511b-139129604.html
The $140 million is coming to Wisconsin as part of a 50-state settlement with the country's five largest mortgage servicers that were accused of foreclosure abuses, fraud and unacceptable mortgage servicing practices. A $31.6 million chunk of that will go directly to state government. Walker intends to use $25.6 million of that discretionary money to plug the budget hole.
So is $140 million total... $25.6 million = majority of mortgage settlement funds?
I realize FON has it's own reality but ..."majority" LOL @ FON
AND just for the record no one can force you to sign a mortgage paper that is above and beyond your ability to pay.
For anyone not understanding this...because this settlement has been completed there is going to be an onslaught of foreclosures now. Banks were just waiting for this to be done so they can reclaim their properties.
The US government, Barney Frank & his gang are the responsible parties for creating these bogus programs & forcing the banks to implement them.
Nice twist Obama has put on things huh?
anomaly100Feb 11, 2012Submitter
Hi Crazy lady!
"Out of the $140 million share of the settlement, $31.6 million was allocated to his State — the majority is going promptly to help Walker’s state budget shortfall: $25.6 million."
Bye Crazy Lady!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bettverbotenFeb 11, 2012
You can't read or comprehend very well. I think you need a new hobby. LOL
So you think the total pay out for ALL states is $140 million?
No honey...that is the Wisconsin allocation.
Now let's take look @ the link below at the 25 Billion settlement shall we.
http://www.embargozone.com/2012/02/09/breaking-down-the-nationwide-foreclosure-settlement-in-one-infographic/
AND
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/my-money/2012/02/10/homeowners-receive-25-billion-settlement-but-is-it-enough
Your FON article is completely and totally WRONG.
How interesting....I'm the crazy one?
mikelistFeb 11, 2012
okay, the numbers are wrong but your assertion that lenders werre forced to make bad loans is similarly incorrect. when we refinanced our home several years ago, the loan agent tried to get us to raise the value and take a cash payout based on that increase. it was tempting, but we didn't go for it. the only force in play was the higher commission he would have gotten.
Don_KeedixFeb 11, 2012
Crazy Lady?
Pot, kettle, black, much?
barackalypseFeb 10, 2012
What, you would have preferred he send out checks to some homeowners and then made budget cuts to balance the budget? Wait, no, you're progressives, you would have preferred he sent checks out to some homeowners who made poor choices that left them with mortgage trouble and raised taxes on everyone else, thus redistributing income.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smpaisnutrientsFeb 11, 2012
Oh f**k off. They are getting settlement checks because the banks LOST a case PROVING they f**ked people over. They didnt make bad decisions, the banks ABUSED their power and they are being penalized for the it. Walker is TAKING that settlement money to pay for his mismanaged state budget. How you can even begin to defend that is unthinkable. Oh wait no, you're a POS 'conservative' so thats about par for the course.
drich255Feb 11, 2012
If you want to start counting nickels and dimes, lets talk about some of the recent green energy projects. Or how federal spending has increased 20% since 2008.
I wasn't aware that there there was this much fiscal concern on Digg. It is encouraging!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 11, 2012
what do green projects have to do with the settlement for bad mortgages?
it's almost like you're trying to deflect attention from the topic by throwing out catch phrases you heard on conservative talk radio.
wait a minute, it's not "almost like that" it is obviously and blatantly that.
savetheseaFeb 11, 2012
this entire thread is nothing but AM radio talk and a sock puppet parade. They seem to be attacking certain articles with veracity today - must be feeling a bit desperate with the 3 clown battling it out for a nomination.
drich255Feb 11, 2012
How dare the AM radio crowd come on to Digg and voice their opinion! Who said they could have freedom of speech?
savetheseaFeb 11, 2012
never said they could not, just tired of hearing the same few talking points repeated over and over.
dauntless1Feb 11, 2012
Oops, you fell for it. He got you off topic. Which he has no intelligent counter for, so it's deflect deflect deflect.
particleman420Feb 11, 2012
mass burying opposing viewpoints in specific articles and spamming unrelated talking points arent what i would say that someone that actually cares about freedom of speech would do.
But saying it has something to do with freedom of speech when it absolutely doesnt is something that some desperate right wing paid shill would do to try and distract attention away from his own stupid off topic comments and deflections after being called out on it, twiceComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drich255Feb 11, 2012
I find my point highly relevant and not a distraction at all. You are complaining about 100 million or so with Gov. Walker. Meanwhile our national debt has increased by trillions in the last 3 years alone. You are focusing at scratches on the skin (which really only affects a single state) and ignoring the hemorrhaging artery (at the national level).
particleman420Feb 11, 2012
right, like i said, it's a distraction from the subject of walker taking federal money meant for other things to fix his f**ked up budget and not something national. you are commenting in the wrong thread and trying to change the subject from what it is about (a scumbag republican) into what you wish it was about, obama. Which is what a RWNJ shill would try to do and try to defend while getting his friends and alt acounts to bury anything that disagrees.
drich255Feb 11, 2012
I follow ZERO people on Digg. I don't urge anyone to digg up or down comments or articles.
drich255Feb 11, 2012
And I have no alt accounts. Not on Digg nor anywhere else.
particleman420Feb 11, 2012
then i guess it's just a coincidence that this article's non-RWNJ comments all have 35+ buries when the average non-DP targeted articles dont get anything close to thatComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drich255Feb 11, 2012
There may be a coordinated effort, I really don't know. I personally am not a part of one.
Mostly the articles that I personally submit go no where. Maybe once or twice has an article that I submitted made it to the top of the news.
Digg is a filtered news source. By voice of the majority of Digg users, the popular news stories rise to the top. Which is fine, as long as people realize that this is a filtered news source. If Digg was a users only news source, then they are trusting in other Digg users to pick what they see as Top News Stories. But that may not be the full picture on all the issues.
kareemachanFeb 11, 2012
Sure sounds like a non sequitur to me.
kasha34Feb 12, 2012
Troubled homeowners. You mean the ones who bought low and took out the "free" equity when prices went up? And spent that money on boats and snowmobiles?
You mean the ones who put down little or nothing? So we reward the spenders and punish the savers? Where do you all think those billions for the settlement comes from?
It comes from the rest of us. Half of Americans own stock. Largely in funds that own bank stock. It's US who's paying the settlement.
Stockholders own the bank. We are the stockholders.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mortventFeb 11, 2012
If the money was a settlement meant to go to individuals, then it should go to them regardless.
Taking it from them to balance the budget is the same as taking a settlement to your store for health concerns over a product. Putting some in the store account to cover shortages due to bad sales, and then maybe spreading the rest out to the employeesComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
devnulldoodFeb 10, 2012
Another half truth story from our friends at Freakoutnation!
You really need to research the rest of the story. I'm not going to bother to explain it because you need to learn it on your own.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
johnnysoftwareFeb 10, 2012
Then don't bother to post a non-informative comment in the first place.
spazattack5000Feb 10, 2012
You mean "This has to be wrong, I know it, I just can't prove it!"
anomaly100Feb 10, 2012Submitter
You're going to go with that? Seriously? It's more like, "This is wrong and I made the false assumption that you would see the obvious."
spazattack5000Feb 11, 2012
I think mine is worse. I think he actually believes what he is saying.
particleman420Feb 11, 2012
if you're not going to bother to explain, why should we bother to give a f**k about your decree that it's a half truth?