Today’s edition of What Atrios Said:
If Citi doesn’t own the mortgage then the woman doesn’t owe them any money. If Citi doesn’t own the mortgage then it isn’t the case that “perhaps” they shouldn’t foreclose on her, it’s the case that they have no legal right to foreclosure. Citi can’t just take possesion of a house, or decide someone owes them money, just because they say so.
And, yes, maybe one day Fannie will get around to a foreclosure process, but Citi cannot just assert control of the mortgage and the property on their say so.
[…] the [conventional wisdom] just seems to be “well, she deserves to lose her house so it doesn’t really matter who takes it from her.”
That this whole thing is so utterly small-c conservative just makes it all the more deadly to the GOP and their Tea Klan enablers. I mean it’s fundamental property rights, and a partial reason for the founding of the nation in the first place. It’s a political hydrogen bomb to use against the anti-modification crowd, which, not coincidentally is made up of the GOP establishment (but would be an issue that quite conveniently rends them from the arms of their anti-bank Tea Klanners) and the Blue Dogs that Rahm, back in his DCCC years, so lovingly forced down our throats without ever bothering to ensure they’d, you know, vote with leadership on key initiatives.
This is why you will never hear a Democratic candidate utter so much as a peep about it. It’s just too goddamned explosive. Wouldn’t want to get all shrill in a way that would make a few Blue Dogs uncomfortable, now would we? Once the GOP wins every available seat in the House and Senate, I’m sure they’ll be ready to work with the President on serious policy initiatives. And we certainly don’t want to irritate them prior to that coming to pass. Right?
Lemkin 