Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
The federal government and the nation's largest banks are hammering out final details of what can be a multi billion dollar settlement.
For the so called robo signing foreclosure abuses.
But the banks are pointing the finger at the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau demanding that the big government nightmare of a bureaucracy there.
Give up the right to go after them again.
Once the -- -- the settlement.
Here now to discuss -- -- freedom fighters Fox Business senior correspondent at my colleague Dunston trial Teradata Dell founder and principal of the Teradata Dalglish.
She's a Democrat from New Jersey and what are -- emeritus.
Financial advisor and -- to -- you you know that we'll start with you -- So let me get this straight state attorneys general.
And the federal government as -- so the big banks because they signed documents with the machine.
Rather than signing -- actual -- And the money that's being coughed up beaten by the banks are having done this goes into the coffers of the government.
So who was hard by this machine citing the people that were sued by -- document signed by the machine for the government that the collecting the money.
Product I think part of the problem also is not just -- -- that Robles signature issue the banks also addicted people who work up to date on their foreclosures.
I mean look at taking on those people catch in the course of action against them absolutely the banks have done allowed in these fees are not getting out.
Here here is my complaint -- and I think you I think you could see it.
Government -- in behalf of individuals who have been harmed government winds cases settled bank's core cough up 25 billion.
Government gets -- -- -- not people are actually.
Arm you know -- but the government is milking this as much as the lawyers who started it from the get go yes this has been overblown from the very beginning this was started primarily down in Florida by a bunch of lawyers were looking for a way to do two things one to keep their clients -- their homes for as long as they possibly could and let's face -- a lot of these folks were staying home for people who weren't paying their mortgages.
Secondly they were looking for a way to -- the bank I think they're astonished at the wrong success things -- I.
I mean you know handled thousands of cases I was on the bench and you read documents all the time and there's a signature there at the bottom of the document.
You presume that the person who signature it is actually signed it.
But if there are thousands of pages of documents from the same source what difference does it make if a clerk or an assistant or -- signed the document as long as the document is essentially accurate if so why should the banks be paying for this and why should that money be going to the government.
If this farm ever substance and it's so contradictory here we have these banks being highly irresponsibly that they were doing it because -- -- supported by the government.
They would say hat do you put all these bad -- without the government -- magically turn him into triple -- bonds through Fannie and Freddie.
Which gave it thinks no incentive to lend responsibly here's another -- after the.
Here's where this is a new story today terror and the case is about to settle so you have.
At the 26 state attorneys general in the Justice Department to the five biggest banks the banks each put up five billion they're gonna -- a -- about -- split up the twenty but I believe as the lawyers.
As -- points out what wanna chunk of it.
Now the banks say OK -- so this we've settled we admit we've done wrong.
You can't come after us again for any violations that we already committed that you didn't find.
Stated differently can -- just -- silly -- -- once this is settled it's over with.
I think that the banks should be remain liable that they that they broke the rules in the bottom line is whether this is -- or not the bottom line is the banks broke the world and this is a pattern of behavior -- the -- of the -- -- time -- -- where you -- -- Or bad to instant suggestion that in many of these cases people have not -- their mortgages and they should be foreclosed should they stay in their house just because the bank is the machine to sign that complaint.
Rather than a live human -- -- because the people on their homes they have done something wrong -- give the bank the right to do something wrong.
I always say they just can't throwing the baby out with the -- Certainly there -- misdeeds on the parts of on the part of the bank.
And there were errors in judgment where people were probably thrown around their house is wrong -- to take this as sort of a civil action.
But when -- thousands and thousands and thousands of litigation -- of of defendants is absurd all of these people were not wrong.
I am not a fan of the banks and certainly not a fan of the banks that are that are corporate Cessna took all this a federal bailout money and made a fortune on an even when we found out they were getting money from the Fed.
Well they were taking stimulus money as well but.
If somebody borrowed money from a bank to buy a house that stopped paying the mortgage -- the bank entitled to the house back no matter.
That no matter how for their records or or poor white signed the document is.
You knowingly took a loan you didn't pay in the -- you know I have to give back the property there -- collateral on that -- it doesn't matter that perhaps the bank.
Didn't handle and it's horrible -- the things that they've done.
But if they didn't handle a separate -- properly those are two separate and god.
All right switching -- the federal government is pressuring the states -- ban the use of cell phones and other electronic equipment while driving.
Even if the drivers using a hands free device.
Probably has no laws probably don't work -- fed say distracted driving from cell phones.
Contributed to 3000 deaths last year and cell -- use of the same time increased.
Even as more and more states have banned the practice it's -- to argue that people don't know that this is dangerous 88% according to a recent survey say they get.
They know that it is they are dangerously distracted while using a cell phone and driving.
So the simple minded think new laws will solve the problem.
When it in fact we'll create a new problem eight to radical police state.
Looking to get inside.
Of your car tell me that this isn't gonna work to.
Listen at the -- at the risk of sounding glib but people know that this is a distraction.
He -- will try and stop people from talking while they're driving.
Again not the sound glib but if you really want to address this.
Stop teenagers from driving -- and that's who's doing it I.
I know that you disagree with this proposal and you agree with me on this but how far could the government go I mean.
Isn't it equally as dangerous as cell phone -- to add to to discipline your children in the back -- To get an an argument with your spouse tried to raise the volume where listening to one.
Arianna out of Verdi opera -- -- southwest and it is not the government's job to dictate my behavior if I behave -- an irresponsible manner and it causes harm to another person.
Hoarded their property I am responsible for the consequences of my behavior.
It's dictate what it irresponsible behavior right engaging and.
Why can't the Democrats propose this legislation.
Interpretation -- safety board all of -- Barbara thank.
As I board members were appointed by President Obama are the Democrats in favor putting caps inside our cars Tarek -- I think on the New Jersey Turnpike a -- -- -- -- they're two separate issues here on issue.
Hands free phones were I do agree with you I think that's an overweight at the -- too far because -- they're saying that's a distraction peninsula the radio at slippery slope.
But one issue of text.
-- while driving.
What about my right to be state while I'm driving -- I don't want I don't want the free market to let me down it's yeah I wanna live.
-- -- -- but aside the First Amendment vs no texting argument.
Texting is already illegal in all fifty states while you're driving this is the federal government.
Which has no say under the constitution whatsoever with respect to safe driving.
Telling the state government you better start.
They ending this and you know what will happen if they don't and it that the Fed to hold back -- highway funds to force the states it's bribery to.
And you know it's it's not finding that right now it's not binding and I don't agree with the hands -- snapping.
But it's not -- You know that there's if there's an irony here because the car companies -- which the government bailed out or call providing -- country are now pushing.
Virtual PCs in their car so you can Google you can search the Internet you can look at all sorts of pictures on the Internet is a -- -- -- availability celera's by the same federal government that once -- I think that -- it's funny yet if it's ironic is what -- way to generate revenue taken more weight to generate friend -- it will generate revenue constantly chasing people seventy miles an hour looking and there and seeing them how it's going.
-- -- -- They will put you over the art Hawkins Dunston for a terrorist Abdel intelligible have always a pleasure -- that was very -- to disagree with it to -- Thanks for joining us good good this segment.
Filter by section