[Wisconsin] Scott Walker Taking 25.6 Million From Foreclosure Victims

[TruthMonster]

On February 9th, Scott Walker scored one for the state budget... at the expense of foreclosure victims.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:

But of a $31.6 million payment coming directly to the state government, most of that money - $25.6 million - will go to help close a budget shortfall revealed in newly released state projections. Van Hollen, whose office said he has the legal authority over the money, made the decision in consultation with Walker.

This does not appear to be an illegal use of the money.

The article goes on to say:

Payment to the state of approximately $31.6 million... may be used for future law enforcement efforts, additional relief to borrowers, civil penalties, funding of foreclosure relief programs and compensation to the state for its losses from the crisis.

So the list of potential uses does state that the money can be used for compensation to the state for its losses. This is the reasoning Walker is clinging to for taking this money. However, it also says the money can be used to help the borrowers affected by the foreclosure crisis.

So Scott Walker's budget projections were wrong, and now he needs more money. The first time around, he fixed his budget by taking more from working class public sector employees. Now he's balancing his budget on the backs of foreclosure victims. At least he's consistent?
It appears that Walker would rather shore up that state budget that he is so proud of

 

[MaggieD]

On February 9th, Scott Walker scored one for the state budget... at the expense of foreclosure victims.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:

This does not appear to be an illegal use of the money.

The article goes on to say:

So the list of potential uses does state that the money can be used for compensation to the state for its losses. This is the reasoning Walker is clinging to for taking this money. However, it also says the money can be used to help the borrowers affected by the foreclosure crisis.

So Scott Walker's budget projections were wrong, and now he needs more money. The first time around, he fixed his budget by taking more from working class public sector employees. Now he's balancing his budget on the backs of foreclosure victims. At least he's consistent?
It appears that Walker would rather shore up that state budget that he is so proud of

Well, if you want to look at it that way . . . but I don't. Putting that money towards the state budget deficit helps every single taxpayer in the state. Foreclosure "victims?" They get 12-14 months rent free anyway.

 

[Renae]

Victims? You make it sound like they were just randomly given notice they were out of their homes. If you cannot afford something, and you take out a loan for it anyway... how are YOU a victim? Aside of your own stupid.

 

[danarhea]

Victims? You make it sound like they were just randomly given notice they were out of their homes. If you cannot afford something, and you take out a loan for it anyway... how are YOU a victim? Aside of your own stupid.

You call someone stupid? Where the hell do I begin? Let's start with number 1.

1) Banks steered people towards higher interest loans that they could not afford, and falsified income statements, while assuring the borrowers that they could afford these loans. Yes, the borrowers took out loans they couldn't afford, based on FRAUD BY THE BANKS. Yet you have the audacity to claim it's the borrowers' fault? The Federal Reserve itself says you are full of BS. Here is the FED's cease and desist order against Wells Fargo Bank, which is one of many that was engaging in fraudulent practices.

2) Banks also hid charges that homeowners should never had been charged. What's worse, veterans who served our nation were not supposed to be charged for certain items, but the banks charged those illegal fees anyways, hiding those fees without telling the borrowers our the VA and / or FHA what they were doing. But, according to you, this is somehow the soldiers' fault. How patriotic of you.

3) The banks played dirty tricks on borrowers, who refinanced their homes at a lower rate. The old mortgages, which were supposed to have been paid off under the refinancing plans, mysteriously resurrected themselves, and the borrowers, thinking that the old loans had been paid off, found themselves being foreclosed upon.

4) And the foreclosure process itself? Was done by falsifying documents, and perpetrating fraud on the borrowers, as well as the public.

Here

And here

And here.

There are literally hundreds of thousands more links out there documenting this FRAUD by the banks and mortgage companies.

5) How widespread is the problem? Last month, a register of deeds in Massachusetts sent almost 32,000 fraudulent documents to the state Attorney General. In his complaint against the banks, he stated that the big banks had acted as a criminal enterprise, and is seeking criminal charges against them.

6) The banks also used companies known as foreclosure mills, which fabricated false documents, which they used to foreclose on homeowners. The investors who purchased one foreclosure mill came clean when they realized that they had been duped into purchasing a criminal enterprise. And yes, the banks not only knew of the practices, but in most cases were complicit in the illegal acts themselves.

7) And sometimes, homeowners did not even see foreclosure coming, because they had not even been notified, until they were told that their home had been sold, and it was time for them to get out.. Here in Houston, a lack of notification in a court proceeding done without the defendant's knowledge is known as "sewer service".

What is the pattern here? It begins with the banks, and it ends with the banks. The lenders at the banks have degrees in banking. They know what homeowners can and can't afford. The homeowners, in many cases, are not that savvy. They are factory workers, construction workers, restaurant workers, and other non-monetary trades, who don't know economics. It is up to the banks to separate those who can afford a loan from those who cant. After all, that's what they went to school for, and got their degrees in. Instead, they lied to the homeowners, convincing them that they could afford what they couldn't. They also falsified income statements and other paperwork in order to push their loans through, and make the bank money. In addition, they threw in hidden charges, which the homeowners had no idea existed until they had to begin paying them. The banks especially screwed most of our soldiers and vets who were buying their first home. Then, when the loans began to go underwater, they falsified documents in order to make illegal evictions. Throughout the process, the banks were acting as a criminal enterprise.

But, according to you, it's all the homeowners' faults. You know, there is a difference between free markets and criminal markets. There is also is a difference between supporting free markets and supporting an ongoing criminal enterprise.

After reading what you posted, there is no way I would ever buy a used car from you. I don't want to be offered a deal I can't refuse. For all I know, you might be working for John Gotti. LOL.

 

[rocket88]

Victims? You make it sound like they were just randomly given notice they were out of their homes. If you cannot afford something, and you take out a loan for it anyway... how are YOU a victim? Aside of your own stupid.

We all know bankers weren't exactly honest on some of these loans. They went out and sold these loans with an intensity that rivals Vince Lombardi. How many times did you get a telemarketer from a fly by night mortgage company call you to try to get you to refinance? If I had a dollar for every one of those phone calls I got, I wouldn't have a mortgage anymore because I could have paid it off.

The foreclosures continue to drag the entire economy down. Most middle-income people have most of their personal net worth tied up in their house. When the value of their house sinks like it has for most of us, they feel poorer. When they feel poorer, they spend less, and the economy takes a dive.

Walker's actions will basically guarantee that that cycle continues in Wisconsin. And he'll blame the unions for it.

 

[TruthMonster]

Well, if you want to look at it that way . . . but I don't. Putting that money towards the state budget deficit helps every single taxpayer in the state. Foreclosure "victims?" They get 12-14 months rent free anyway.

Thank you for pointing this out. I suppose I left out an adjective. I should have clearly stated "erroneous foreclosure victims"

The people I am referring to, and the people the settlement money WAS intended for, are victims of the robo-signing scandal.

Wikipedia:

In spring 2010 news stories begin to emerge detailing erroneous foreclosures and evictions, including banks variously foreclosing on homes which were paid for without a mortgage, accidentally foreclosing on the wrong home, and providing fraudulent documentation in courts.

So they are indeed victims, and they did not receive 12-14 months of free rent.

 

[MOrion]

On February 9th, Scott Walker scored one for the state budget... at the expense of foreclosure victims.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:



This does not appear to be an illegal use of the money.

The article goes on to say:



So the list of potential uses does state that the money can be used for compensation to the state for its losses. This is the reasoning Walker is clinging to for taking this money. However, it also says the money can be used to help the borrowers affected by the foreclosure crisis.

So Scott Walker's budget projections were wrong, and now he needs more money. The first time around, he fixed his budget by taking more from working class public sector employees. Now he's balancing his budget on the backs of foreclosure victims. At least he's consistent?
It appears that Walker would rather shore up that state budget that he is so proud of

So just because he could use that money to bail out foreclosure victims, and isn't, he's running the state "on the backs of foreclosure victims?"

Cuz you know, he could be spending the entire state budget on it . . . as could every other governor in the Union for that matter. Are they also taking advantage of these poor people???

 

[Renae]

You call someone stupid? Where the hell do I begin? Let's start with number 1.

1) Banks steered people towards higher interest loans that they could not afford, and falsified income statements, while assuring the borrowers that they could afford these loans. Yes, the borrowers took out loans they couldn't afford, based on FRAUD BY THE BANKS. Yet you have the audacity to claim it's the borrowers' fault? The Federal Reserve itself says you are full of BS. Here is the FED's cease and desist order against Wells Fargo Bank, which is one of many that was engaging in fraudulent practices.

2) Banks also hid charges that homeowners should never had been charged. What's worse, veterans who served our nation were not supposed to be charged for certain items, but the banks charged those illegal fees anyways, hiding those fees without telling the borrowers our the VA and / or FHA what they were doing. But, according to you, this is somehow the soldiers' fault. How patriotic of you.

3) The banks played dirty tricks on borrowers, who refinanced their homes at a lower rate. The old mortgages, which were supposed to have been paid off under the refinancing plans, mysteriously resurrected themselves, and the borrowers, thinking that the old loans had been paid off, found themselves being foreclosed upon.

4) And the foreclosure process itself? Was done by falsifying documents, and perpetrating fraud on the borrowers, as well as the public.

Here

And here

And here.

There are literally hundreds of thousands more links out there documenting this FRAUD by the banks and mortgage companies.

5) How widespread is the problem? Last month, a register of deeds in Massachusetts sent almost 32,000 fraudulent documents to the state Attorney General. In his complaint against the banks, he stated that the big banks had acted as a criminal enterprise, and is seeking criminal charges against them.

6) The banks also used companies known as foreclosure mills, which fabricated false documents, which they used to foreclose on homeowners. The investors who purchased one foreclosure mill came clean when they realized that they had been duped into purchasing a criminal enterprise. And yes, the banks not only knew of the practices, but in most cases were complicit in the illegal acts themselves.

7) And sometimes, homeowners did not even see foreclosure coming, because they had not even been notified, until they were told that their home had been sold, and it was time for them to get out.. Here in Houston, a lack of notification in a court proceeding done without the defendant's knowledge is known as "sewer service".

What is the pattern here? It begins with the banks, and it ends with the banks. The lenders at the banks have degrees in banking. They know what homeowners can and can't afford. The homeowners, in many cases, are not that savvy. They are factory workers, construction workers, restaurant workers, and other non-monetary trades, who don't know economics. It is up to the banks to separate those who can afford a loan from those who cant. After all, that's what they went to school for, and got their degrees in. Instead, they lied to the homeowners, convincing them that they could afford what they couldn't. They also falsified income statements and other paperwork in order to push their loans through, and make the bank money. In addition, they threw in hidden charges, which the homeowners had no idea existed until they had to begin paying them. The banks especially screwed most of our soldiers and vets who were buying their first home. Then, when the loans began to go underwater, they falsified documents in order to make illegal evictions. Throughout the process, the banks were acting as a criminal enterprise.

But, according to you, it's all the homeowners' faults. You know, there is a difference between free markets and criminal markets. There is also is a difference between supporting free markets and supporting an ongoing criminal enterprise.

After reading what you posted, there is no way I would ever buy a used car from you. I don't want to be offered a deal I can't refuse. For all I know, you might be working for John Gotti. LOL.

I'm sorry, did you write something? It's all emotional and stuff.

Something about people being suckered into affording things they couldn't afford, so it's not their fault so everyone else should pay for their failure to be responsible...

 

[Renae]

We all know bankers weren't exactly honest on some of these loans. They went out and sold these loans with an intensity that rivals Vince Lombardi. How many times did you get a telemarketer from a fly by night mortgage company call you to try to get you to refinance? If I had a dollar for every one of those phone calls I got, I wouldn't have a mortgage anymore because I could have paid it off.

The foreclosures continue to drag the entire economy down. Most middle-income people have most of their personal net worth tied up in their house. When the value of their house sinks like it has for most of us, they feel poorer. When they feel poorer, they spend less, and the economy takes a dive.

Walker's actions will basically guarantee that that cycle continues in Wisconsin. And he'll blame the unions for it.

I've owned a home, I went with what I knew I could afford and told the banks, Realtor's and anyone else including my ex to bugger off trying to get me to buy way more then I could afford. Was it a great house? Nope, but it was affordable, even when I I got out the Navy and had a huge income hit.

I remember going to buy my first car, had salesmen just pushing me as HARD as they could at a few dealerships, because I was a young buck Sailor with a guaranteed paycheck. I bought smartly. Had some friends make dumb choices. Whose fault is it really? The one that signs on the bottom line.

What you, Dan and others want to ignore is that while yeah, the banks may not have been the most honest of folks, these people WANTED the houses, and allowed themselves to believe the lies. I have a co-worker, living with mom and dad fighting with his bank (BOA) over his 300k house that he and his wife had. The house is now worth oh... 180k, maybe. They both admit they knew it wasn't worth that, but thought it was worth risk anyway.


LIFE ISN'T FAIR, and YOU are the sole person responsible for not being suckered.

 

[TruthMonster]

So just because he could use that money to bail out foreclosure victims, and isn't, he's running the state "on the backs of foreclosure victims?"

Cuz you know, he could be spending the entire state budget on it . . . as could every other governor in the Union for that matter. Are they also taking advantage of these poor people???

I believe you are using the Straw Man logical fallacy

The arguer invents a caricature of his opponent’s position – a “straw man” – that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds.

No one has proposed spending the entire state budget on the matter.

I am only posing the question of whether or not Scott Walker taking this money and applying it to the state budget as a whole is the right thing to do. This really could be split up into two separate questions:

1) Is it moral thing to do?
I don't think so. The moral thing to do would be for Scott Walker to own up to his mistake in his budget projections, and then make up for the shortfall by finding more efficiencies, cutting spending elsewhere, or looking for more revenue from those that can better afford it.

2) Is it actually the best thing to do for the state of Wisconsin?
I have a very hard time believing that having more homeless people in Wisconsin is good for the state. Homeless people are not generally as productive, nor do they pay as much in taxes as people that have a home. (If there is good evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it)

I think the answer to both of these questions is no.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

But none of this addresses the issue of the deficit:

Did these foreclosures *cost* the state money which *led* to a deficit?
WHY do they need this mass amount to pay down *part* of their deficit?
When they spend it up - what will they do? Will that actually "fix" part of the deficit shortfall?
Are they addressing the many things that led to this deficit issue in an effort to NOT revisit this same deficit problem again?

Sounds to me like the answers are no, no, no, no . . . so they'll take the money: roll it into the state spending for the year - spend it away real quick - still maintain a deficit and still maintain the reasons why they're experiencing a deficit to begin with. In the end: they'll be like credit-card addits who pay down their cards only to charge them back up again.

This won't solve any problems and - instead - it seems to be creating a host of all new ones.

If states take from the government and squander that whic they're given I think it's highly likely that as the years go by the government - certain people - will begin to be less and less likely to support the states in the future.

Just as the citizens who are offended by these actions will be less and less likely to support this decision.

 

[tessaesque]

Wait a second.

From the article:

Van Hollen said Barrett was wrong to focus on the $31.6 million segment going to state government rather than the $140 million going to the state as a whole.

"The overwhelming majority of that $140 million is going to go to Milwaukee, is going to be able to help homeowners who are in trouble in Milwaukee, reimbursing homeowners who were foreclosed upon and shouldn't have been, preventing or remediating blight and creating jobs," Van Hollen said.

So 108.4 million will be going to the people you're accusing Walker of intentionally ignoring for the sake of balancing the budget, while 36.1 million will go to the state budget and will be used in part cover expenses that (surprise, surprise) include helping underwater and struggling homeowners that are at risk of foreclosure.

This is manufactured outrage. If anything, the fed failed by sending the money directly to the states instead of the people affected...unless, of course...there's more to the story. Like, oh, I dunno...the fact that the state saw a rise in expenses related to these foreclosure that the state had nothing to do with creating.

 

[danarhea]

I'm sorry, did you write something? It's all emotional and stuff.

Something about people being suckered into affording things they couldn't afford, so it's not their fault so everyone else should pay for their failure to be responsible...

Way to avoid addressing the topic. Nothing emotional about this. The FED itself issued cease and desist orders. Oh, that's right. The FED is emotional too. So is the registrar of deeds, referenced above. And so are the soldiers who got screwed by the banks. It's all nothing but emotion.....

Or maybe it's because you can't admit that you are wrong. Is that why you went off on a tangent and avoided responding? Because nothing you posted in your response is related at all to the topic. It's just you accusing me of being emotional. It that how it's going to be? I show fact, and you call names? How about responding to the links I posted which prove what I am asserting? Oh, that's right. That's not how you roll. Right? Pretty dishonest, don't you think?

 

[TruthMonster]

So 108.4 million will be going to the people you're accusing Walker of intentionally ignoring for the sake of balancing the budget, while 36.1 million will go to the state budget and will be used in part cover expenses that (surprise, surprise) include helping underwater and struggling homeowners that are at risk of foreclosure.

This is manufactured outrage. If anything, the fed failed by sending the money directly to the states instead of the people affected...unless, of course...there's more to the story. Like, oh, I dunno...the fact that the state saw a rise in expenses related to these foreclosure that the state had nothing to do with creating.

The executive summary of the settlement states:

The remaining settlement funds, approximately $2.5 billion, will be paid to the participating states.
The funds may be distributed by the attorneys general to foreclosure relief and housing programs,
including housing counseling, legal assistance, foreclosure prevention hotlines, foreclosure
mediation, and community blight remediation. A portion of the funds may also be designated as
civil penalties for the banks robo-signing misconduct.

So the portion that goes to the state of Wisconsin is $36.1 million. Walker is taking $25.6 million of that and putting it directly into the general fund. Over 70% of the money he has control over, he isn't doing anything directly related to helping those affected, nor is it going toward anything that will directly prevent the situation from getting worse. Looking at the language in the settlement, that was clearly the intended use.

And in case anyone cares to keep track, Scott Walker isn't the only governor doing this. As of Feb 13th, there are at least two other states following his lead.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Wait a second.

From the article:



So 108.4 million will be going to the people you're accusing Walker of intentionally ignoring for the sake of balancing the budget, while 36.1 million will go to the state budget and will be used in part cover expenses that (surprise, surprise) include helping underwater and struggling homeowners that are at risk of foreclosure.

This is manufactured outrage. If anything, the fed failed by sending the money directly to the states instead of the people affected...unless, of course...there's more to the story. Like, oh, I dunno...the fact that the state saw a rise in expenses related to these foreclosure that the state had nothing to do with creating.

Hmm...maybe ThruthMonster should have read the whole article before posting the way he did. And perhaps so should all the others that are posting in this thread being all outraged about this.

Good post tessaesque.

 

[Renae]

Hmm...maybe ThruthMonster should have read the whole article before posting the way he did. And perhaps so should all the others that are posting in this thread being all outraged about this.

Good post tessaesque.

Agreed, Tess basically /Thread with her post. Anything else on the subject is just foolish at this point.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I'm glad I live in a state that requires a balanced budget EVER YEAR.

= no deficit.

 

[tessaesque]

The executive summary of the settlement states:



So the portion that goes to the state of Wisconsin is $36.1 million. Walker is taking $25.6 million of that and putting it directly into the general fund. Over 70% of the money he has control over, he isn't doing anything directly related to helping those affected, nor is it going toward anything that will directly prevent the situation from getting worse. Looking at the language in the settlement, that was clearly the intended use.

And in case anyone cares to keep track, Scott Walker isn't the only governor doing this. As of Feb 13th, there are at least two other states following his lead.

That is not true. They're getting over 108 million in funds, not 36.1. You're distorting the numbers.

 

[haymarket]

This could hurt him in the recall election.

 

[Kal'Stang]

This could hurt him in the recall election.

You mean the lies? I wouldn't doubt it.

 

[rocket88]

I've owned a home, I went with what I knew I could afford and told the banks, Realtor's and anyone else including my ex to bugger off trying to get me to buy way more then I could afford. Was it a great house? Nope, but it was affordable, even when I I got out the Navy and had a huge income hit.

I remember going to buy my first car, had salesmen just pushing me as HARD as they could at a few dealerships, because I was a young buck Sailor with a guaranteed paycheck. I bought smartly. Had some friends make dumb choices. Whose fault is it really? The one that signs on the bottom line.

What you, Dan and others want to ignore is that while yeah, the banks may not have been the most honest of folks, these people WANTED the houses, and allowed themselves to believe the lies. I have a co-worker, living with mom and dad fighting with his bank (BOA) over his 300k house that he and his wife had. The house is now worth oh... 180k, maybe. They both admit they knew it wasn't worth that, but thought it was worth risk anyway.


LIFE ISN'T FAIR, and YOU are the sole person responsible for not being suckered.

I wasn't suckered into buying anything beyond my means. 10 years ago I bought my house for about $130k, have finished a room in the attic and put in new windows. Because the house on the other side of the alley was foreclosed upon, I would now be lucky to get 100k for it. It has nothing to do with me not paying my mortgage, it has nothing to do with me getting in over my head. It has to do with my former neighbors and their bank.

YOU are the sole person responsible for not getting hooked on cocaine either. Does that mean we shouldn't put coke dealers in prison?

 

[rocket88]

You mean the lies? I wouldn't doubt it.

That's okay, he'll have the full throated support of every righty on this board. The same ones who demand honesty and integrity from politicians on the left.

 

[Renae]

I wasn't suckered into buying anything beyond my means. 10 years ago I bought my house for about $130k, have finished a room in the attic and put in new windows. Because the house on the other side of the alley was foreclosed upon, I would now be lucky to get 100k for it. It has nothing to do with me not paying my mortgage, it has nothing to do with me getting in over my head. It has to do with my former neighbors and their bank.

YOU are the sole person responsible for not getting hooked on cocaine either. Does that mean we shouldn't put coke dealers in prison?

Sometimes **** happens too. There is a difference between the housing market in your area nose diving and buying a house you cannot afford on terms that are undoable by you.

 

[rocket88]

Sometimes **** happens too. There is a difference between the housing market in your area nose diving and buying a house you cannot afford on terms that are undoable by you.

But my point was that the foreclosures affect us all. Regardless of whether you are being foreclosed upon, and regardless of if you signed on to a bad loan or not. Walker taking this money to close his budget shortfalls is only going to continue the trend for the homeowners of Wisconsin. He could have taken an easy step toward improving the economy in Wisconsin, but he's not.

 

[TruthMonster]

Hmm...maybe TruthMonster should have read the whole article before posting the way he did. And perhaps so should all the others that are posting in this thread being all outraged about this.

Good post tessaesque.

I read the whole article, and I posed a simple question which no one has yet answered: "whether or not Scott Walker taking this money and applying it to the state budget as a whole is the right thing to do."

There was nothing misleading and I am well informed on the topic. I'm clearly not talking about the other 108.4 million that Walker has no control over. That amount goes directly to those affected and he couldn't take it if he wanted to.

He has control over 31.6 million and he's taking 25.6 million (over 70%). The settlement clearly states several possible uses for the money, all of which are related to the foreclosure crisis, either in the form of further helping those affected or helping to prevent another recurrence. He is not doing either of those, he is rolling it into the general fund.

Their is no outrage. Please don't inflame my words in your mind. I am posing a legitimate question about what is the best purpose of those funds and why?