Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
Inside the fed
Notice the I's and not we or nation.


MR. RUSSERT: Are we heading towards a recession?
MR. GREENSPAN: We're heading towards a slowdown. Whether that actually leads to a
recession is dependent on things we can't forecast at this moment. My own guess is the odds are
less than 50-50 that we're heading to a recession. But there is no question we've got significant
pressure on home prices, which are expected to move down quite--could conceivably get
considerably lower. And that will curtail the net housing wealth of the American household.
And history tells us that causes some weakness. It's too soon to call this one way or the other,
frankly.
MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned housing. There's been a lot of debate about your role with the
so-called housing bubble, your whole role in terms of subprime interest rates for housing. This is
how Conde Nast, the--Portfolio, wrote about it, John Cassidy. He said this: "In 2004, as the
subprime boom was cranking up, Greenspan advised homeowners to switch from fixed-rate
mortgages to adjustable-rate loans." "April" of "2005" at "a speech that probably now haunts
him, he said, `Innovation has brought about a multitude of new products, such as subprime loans
and niche credit programs for immigrants. Such developments are representative of the market
responses that have driven the financial services industry throughout the history of our country.
Where, once, more-marginal applicants would simply have been denied credit, lenders are now
Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, September 23, 2007
BURRELLE'S INFORMATION SERVICES / (202)419-1859 / (800)456-2877
12
able to quite efficiently judge the risks posed by individual applicants and to price that risk
appropriately.'" Are you responsible for this bursting of the housing bubble?
MR. GREENSPAN: No. Shall I explain? First of all, I did make a speech in February of 2004
in which I explained a fairly interesting analysis by the Federal Reserve staff which said that
there were a lot of, a lot of home buyers who would do far better were they to take adjustable-rate
mortgages, because they weren't going to live in the home long enough and the price they were
paying to get the fixed-rate mortgage was exceptionally high. Now this, incidentally, was not
subprime, this was prime adjustable rates. A week later I shows up--show up at the Economic
Club of New York, and, with a thousand people asking me all sorts of questions--I shouldn't put
a thousand, a thousand people there and a couple people asking me questions, the question that
came up right at the top, "Are you, in this--in this day, disparaging the 30-year mortgage?"
Because the issue was that vs. adjustable rate. And I said, "No, on the contrary. When I take out
a mortgage, I take out a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage." I was referring to a special, small category
of people. But it had nothing to do with subprime.
But with the whole housing boom, we're dealing with a world problem. More than two dozen,
two dozen nations are experiencing exactly what we are experiencing. In fact, our housing price
boom is less than the average, and this is very clear--this very clearly calls for a global
explanation, not for an individual explanation of what central banks do. And, indeed, central
banks around the world have largely lost their power to affect long-term mortgage rates because
it's global forces which are pushing it, and we proved it. We tried to raise the rate in 2004 and
we failed. We tried again in 2005 and we failed. And so it's very clear to me that central banks,
ourselves, the Federal Reserve, included, had very little control over the extent of that boom.
MR. RUSSERT: Another comment in your book has caused a lot of debate, and here it is: "I
am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq
war is largely about oil." You were asked about that on the "Today" program, and this is how you
answered.
(Videotape, "Today")
MR. GREENSPAN: I was expressing my view. Saddam Hussein was obviously seeking to get
a chokehold on the Straits of Hormuz, where about 18 million barrels a day flow from the Middle
East to the industrial world. Had he been able to get ahold of a nuclear weapon and indeed move
through Kuwait and into Saudi Arabia and control the Straits of Hormuz, it would've caused
chaos.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: What evidence was there that Saddam Hussein had acquired or was trying to
acquire a nuclear weapon, or was trying to get a chokehold on the Straits of Hormuz?
MR. GREENSPAN: There was no evidence he had a nuclear weapon because, my judgment is,
he would've expressed that he had it and that would've created a real problem. You have to
watch that man over 30 years. First of all, let me just say that it's very clear, if there were no oil
under the sands of Iraq, he would never have gotten the wherewithal, the resources to effectively
threaten his neighbors and essentially potentially threaten the rest of the world through a global
Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, September 23, 2007
BURRELLE'S INFORMATION SERVICES / (202)419-1859 / (800)456-2877
13
shortage of oil, which he could've done. The evidence I have is I watched him, one, come up
against Iran but moving on Kuwait, threatening Saudi Arabia. And what his actions, as I
observed them year after year, conclude, led me to conclude, he was clearly trying to get control
of Middle East oil. Now, the thought of him in control of Middle East oil and then, with his
resources, being able to buy a nuclear device, I found scary. And, indeed, having him out of
power was critical to me. Whether he was deposed by internal means or by war or anything was
less important to me than he left.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the United States should take pre-emptive military action
against people who could disrupt our economy?
MR. GREENSPAN: I think that is a very significant moral problem which we all confront, and,
indeed, we had that in spades during the Cold War when there was this major debate which went
on about, you know, if you see a missile coming at you, before you can know whether it is really
going to create a problem, do you launch a retaliatory attack? For a democratic society, for one
in which civil liberties are so critical to us and individual freedoms, the thought of pre-emptive
war is anathema. And yet people have to consider what would we do? And I don't know the
answer to that. I don't know of anyone who really has an effectively scripted answer to that.
Quote 0 0
arkygirl
What they NEVER mention about Saddam....the original deal made with OPEC required that oil be traded only with American dollars...ALWAYS AND FOREVER. Saddam was attempting to trade oil for Euros. Iran is now doing the same thing...trying to dump dollars for Euros and other more stable currencies...and again the dogs of war are howling for blood.

It was about oil, but may not have been for the immediately obvious reasons. The Straits of Hormuz is a non-issue because it would have been very easy to run Saddam out of there and take control of the strait. That is the "official government propaganda line".

BUT, if oil begins to be traded in other currencies it would have a substantial detrimental effect on the dollar. It is, always has been, about the money...who has it, how to move it around and who will ultimately get it.

If Greenspan truly believes that the war is about a small piece of easily controlled real estate, he is a much bigger fool than even I ever thought. My feeling is that old fossil Al knows the truth and always has...but to utter it could mean a sudden regrettable death from a silly accident or convenient plane or car crash. Or a sudden heart attack.....

Oh, I finally found my tin foil hat....putting it on now...for sure.

Quote 0 0
 
This might sound silly, But I think the war is a way to divert attention from 2 things.
 
The first thing is this  sub prime mortgage servicing mess. and Second thing is to cause such outrageous fuel cost that we will be forced to chance from Oil to Green fuel.  
 
Quote 0 0
 
The BIG question here is, Who  are the players in the other Nations?
Ameriquest, Litton, Fairbanks, EMC,Wells Fargo?
 
 
[QUOTE  But with the whole housing boom, we're dealing with a world problem. More than two dozen,
two dozen nations are experiencing exactly what we are experiencing. In fact, our housing price
boom is less than the average, and this is very clear--this very clearly calls for a global   QUOTE]

Quote 0 0
arkygirl
If you research this I believe that the scam will all be traceable to the central banks used by the different countries. And, yes, it is worldwide.

The bit players are not that important in the grand scheme. They are important to us because they are playing roulette with our homes and lives. They could not do what they have done without complicity of governments and central banks.

Tin foil hat back on again....

Quote 0 0
RIGHT AGAIN ARKY GIRL,

It is about control of the value of the currency....the world works because of oil and oil alone...it doesn't have to be based on oil...but, that is the  infrastructure we have established...if, we had done in the 70's what Brazil had done...we would have established the infrastructure necessary to produce GREEN FUEL, ethanol, from crops grown here in the U.S.

But, that is not what we did....we let big oil do a couple of things that eventually finds us in the predicament that we're faced with....while our do nothing Congresses let our country's wealth be taken by big oil and camel riding royalty. We did this in several ways.

1) we cut a deal with OPEC nations to trade oil in DOLLARS ....which was done so that we could remain in a relatively high standard of living since the more oil one has at one's disposal means that our industrial engine can give us the goods and services that we need in order for us to maintain our comfortable lifestyles.

2) Saddam Hussein refused to trade in DOLLARS because he saw the way in which the currency traders ultimately controlled the established pattern of high standards of living in the free western world while the oil producing nations were somewhat inhibited from establishing fabulous lifestyles because they were literally the ones with their collective hands on the oil spigot...in terms of a sufficient oil supply. With Saddam's rejection of the dollar for oil agreement ....he doomed himself. Additionally, Mr. Greenspan is somewhat correct inso much as that with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia so closely connected to big oil, to be really effective in overthrowing the stranglehold that the U.S. had on the value of a barrel of oil, Saddam had to additionally control more oil than Iraq had...so he moved militarily on Kuwait with the intention of moving on Saudi too....and ultimately control the Straits of Hormuz. He couldn't overthrow the control the U.S. had on the world without controlling either the supply...or the value....or both.

3) Anyone believing that the weakness in the dollar is based solely on the dollar's value relative to other world currencies or the value of an ounce of gold, platinum or silver had better think again...the value of a dollar is based on control of oil...either by way of the currency that it is traded in or by control of the real estate that produces the oil

4) The value of our dollar is not based any longer on the gold standard as everyone in the know has concluded that no matter what the supply of gold is...it is finite....and gold does not assure us that the living standard that we have all come to expect can be maintained by putting an ounce of gold in our gas tanks....instead we put gasoline in that tank...which is derived from a barrel of oil ....that is traded and defined in terms of the value of the dollar.
By controlling the value of the dollar...we controlled the living standard that we enjoyed in the 80's and 90's.

5) Now we must re-visit the question of whether we want a world bequeathed to our children wherein they must expect the necessary huge military budgets required to control the real estate that produces the oil...or...whether to establish the infrastructure of renewable fuels and energy sources that will drive our industrialized world. And whether we are going to accept a last century solution that gave us 911 and the never ending cycle of Middle Eastern crisis after crisis.

The only viable solution is to abandon the failing model that keeps us on the brink of destruction and poverty and do what Brazil did only a generation ago. We have huge amounts of acreage that are kept out of production by subsidies from our government that could be put into the production of miscanthus grass or sugar beets or other sugar producing crops that can be put in a fermentation vat and converted to useable ethanol.

LETS BE CLEAR HERE...the only individuals pooh-poohing the establishment of a great domestic renewable fuel industry that answers our energy needs year after year are those elected officials that are dependent on the defense industries that produce the weaponry necessary to control the real estate in distant lands and line their political campaign coffers with the oil of politics...dollars.  

Let do the moral thing...lets get out of the scenario of a generation after generation war on terror that the oil men like Bush and Cheney have spun this thing into by telling our elected officials that a new "MANHATTAN PROJECT" to give us a domestic oil program that produces oil solely from domestic sources is the only acceptable candidate worthy of our votes and tax dollars.

Now...I will put my tin foil hat back on and remain quiet for the rest of the day.
Quote 0 0
arkygirl
Can't they even think up a better story this time around?

From: The Iran Plans

"Iran, which now produces nearly four million barrels of oil a day, would not have to cut off production to disrupt the world’s oil markets. It could blockade or mine the Strait of Hormuz, the thirty-four-mile-wide passage through which Middle Eastern oil reaches the Indian Ocean. Nonetheless, the recently retired defense official dismissed the strategic consequences of such actions. He told me that the U.S. Navy could keep shipping open by conducting salvage missions and putting mine- sweepers to work. “It’s impossible to block passage,” he said. The government consultant with ties to the Pentagon also said he believed that the oil problem could be managed, pointing out that the U.S. has enough in its strategic reserves to keep America running for sixty days."

Seymour Hersch in the New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact


Quote 0 0
Write a reply...