Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We are the 99 percent

Occupy Our Homes Victory in Atlanta

Posted 10 years ago on Dec. 20, 2011, 1:53 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

<img style="margin-right:0.7em" src=//i.imgur.com/ri90A.jpg" alt="Walmart" align="left" />

On Tuesday December 20th State Senator Vincent Fort, Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient and Dean of the civil rights movement Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, civil rights leader Joe Beasley, and other members of the Occupy Atlanta family will be present at Brigitte Walker's house at 2607 South Hills Dr. Riverdale, GA at 11am to announce a major development not only for the local Atlanta Occupations, but for the "Occupy Our Homes" movement across the country.

Brigitte Walker is a former Army Staff Sergeant and decorated Iraq War veteran. When she was medically discharged in 2007, her income was cut in half. Since then she has struggled not only with her wounds received in service to her country, but also with paying her mortgage. Occupy Atlanta finds this situation outrageous and hopes her story will bring light to the many other similar stories unfolding across America.

Banks have been found, over and over again, to be breaking laws while they take our homes. We’ve got a new kind of bank robber – banks robbing our homes. Americans across the country are standing up. We’re defending our homes. We’ve decided to stand up and fight for what’s ours.

More Background:

In late November, Brigitte Walker, a decorated Iraq War veteran received another foreclosure notice. Brigitte had unsuccessfully tried to modify her loan with Chase Bank since she medically retired from the army as a result of combat related injuries in 2007. Her home was set to be sold on the Fulton County Courthouse steps on January 3rd, whether she was in it or not. Instead of making holiday plans or putting up a Christmas tree, Brigitte and her girlfriend Ajai were worried about losing their home. On a whim, Brigitte sent an email to Georgia state senator Vincent Fort, who set up a meeting with Occupy Atlanta. On December 6, after leaving the very same auction where Brigitte’s home was to be sold the following month, we started occupying her home.

The sad reality is that countless families in Georgia have their homes auctioned off at county court houses every month. Many believe that homes auctioned on the court house steps are unoccupied. This is not true; Occupy Atlanta has seen multiple families begging auctioneers not to sell their homes. For many, this auction is the last nail in the coffin of their American dream, their home. Let’s not get it twisted, the auctioning of occupied foreclosed homes in Georgia is nasty business.

In Georgia, the foreclosure process can begin after just one missed payment. The lender then sets a sale date for that home to be auctioned off, and publishes the sale notice in the county paper. They are only required to give the homeowner 30 days’ notice, and there is no requirement that the homeowner receives the notice, only that it is sent. If the sale goes through, there is no right of redemption in Georgia, meaning there is no way for a homeowner to reclaim their home. Disrupting the auction of a home literally gives a family one more month of housing, and in some cases one more chance to save their home.

A six to nine month moratorium on evictions and foreclosures would allow time for bank inflated home values to be re-assessed to realistic payable levels. The banks’ irresponsible practices played a huge role in our current crisis. In their time of need we bailed them out. Now it’s their turn to do the right thing, to stop holding our economy hostage.

After two press conferences on her lawn, a national call in day, and direct action on Chase Bank, Occupy Atlanta did what Brigitte Walker couldn’t do in years, get a loan modification. If it weren’t for Occupy Atlanta and Brigitte Walker’s willingness to resist Chase Banks she would have had her American Dream auctioned off on the Fulton county court house steps. Instead Brigitte Walker and her family can breathe easy knowing they can continue to live the American dream of home ownership.

Winning Brigitte’s home is a win for the people. It should be a call for Georgians to fight for their homes, and fight for their neighbors’ homes. Let’s not forget, we outnumber the bank executives.

Here's video of the original press conference at Brigitte Walker's home with Occupy Atlanta:

Check out more at http://occupyourhomes.org



Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by juanainez (27) 10 years ago

Time to squat the millions of empty homes that are in limbo in the highly manipulated foreclosure pipeline.

Tons of homes empty, home prices still high above what the avg incomes can support... meanwhile homelessness is on the rise, disposable income of workers going down.

Just ask yourself: for whom is this system working?

Boomers were squatting homes in the 70s even though rents and home prices were super low and their economic prospects much better. Why on earth are Gen X and Gen Y so law-abiding, so scared? so afraid? If the system doesn't work, let's change it!

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 10 years ago

hear hear. Occupy!


if a small neighborhood can chase away 9 police cars, just amagine what a huge growing Occupy Movement can achieve:)

Change the system! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YftlB3AxBws

yours s struggleforfreedom

[-] 2 points by demcapitalist (977) 10 years ago

I know a few people who ended up with NYC apartments by taking them over in the 1970's. It's a good move !


[-] 6 points by guiztar (4) 10 years ago

Everyone born on this planet has an equal ownwership of it, a piece of paper can not effect this, ha ha!!! Nobody can own the Earth, only a cretin would claim this, can you own your mother? Everyone has a right to a space to live and grow just like any animal, a right to build a shelter, a right to make or gather food, a right to be. What does profit mean, something out of nothing, it's absurd, a really dumb idea, swap like for like, what is debt? These are all ridiculously ideas based on scared thinking of a few really sick animals, it's time to stop asking permission to exist, we already have unlimited rights and power, stop giving these away. Now simply ignore the neanderthals and just get on and evolve, BE a new society, what are we waiting for? When you know what you don't want, you know what you do want, America is still 75% wilderness, let's go start something better, we already own all land by birth, we have the technology, we are the smart people, the next step in evolution, we have the perfect place, lets just start over. We can dig up the wall street brigade as fossils in the future and laugh.....

[-] 4 points by juanainez (27) 10 years ago

"Everyone born on this planet has an equal ownwership of it, a piece of paper can not effect this, ha ha!!! Nobody can own the Earth, only a cretin would claim this"

Unfortunately the 1% that has the 99% owns 70% OF THIS COUNTRY! Cretins? Sure! But we are even more stupid given our lack of willingness to address the issue of asset ownership inequality.

Those are the 1% to redistribute from (not the top 1% wage-earners, those tend to be more meritocratic and also way poorer than the top 1% of net worth, in avg +80% is not meritocratic but inherited). Let's bring the trust fund babies down!!!

[-] 0 points by ompb3 (3) 10 years ago

"Asset ownership inequality"--I love it! If you want more of this country, you'll have to buy it, just like everyone else does. But whatever you do, DON'T, I REPEAT DON'T, GET A LOAN TO DO IT!!!!! (because then you'll be supporting the eeeeevil banks)!

[-] 2 points by juanainez (27) 10 years ago

"Asset ownership inequality"--I love it! If you want more of this country, you'll have to buy it, just like everyone else does.

Boomers bought their assets for pennies, then voted so that it would be government policy to inflate asset prices including housing. Sorry to break it to boomers and older ones (who own 80%+ of this country) but GenX and GenY are pretty broke and can offer just a couple of bananas for your assets. Maybe the elderly will take the bananas if the entitlements collapse. We'll see.

[-] 0 points by joewealthyhahaa (2) 10 years ago

"boomers bot their assets for pennies"? really? no single comment represents your ignorance better than this one. you complete total fool.

[-] 2 points by juanainez (27) 10 years ago

"boomers bot their assets for pennies"? really? no single comment represents your ignorance better than this one. you complete total fool.

just compare home prices in the 70s and 80s with respect to incomes and how high home prices are now for GenX and GenY. i'm afraid you are the total fool.

[-] 3 points by LoveYourEnemy (3) 10 years ago

You are correct in your statements regarding ownership and your wish for the rights of everyone being able to build a shelter and grow food where-ever they are living will inevitably come true. I just cannot tell you when, but I suspect well within 5 years.

Jakob Lorber wrote about this, but you may have trouble finding the specific reference in the 20 odd books he wrote.

[-] 2 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

Are you aware that more and more of our wilderness is being sold off to Wall Street Banksters - the most avid buyer is Goldman Sachs. The Wilderness you speak of is all government controlled. A few years back I did a cross country motorcycle trip with a friend and was heartbroken to see almost all the land behind fences and oh so painfully few wild animals.

[-] 1 points by ompb3 (3) 10 years ago

Guiztar, you are a weird dude. Maybe lay off the dope a bit, eh?

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 10 years ago

Let us know when you move to the wilderness. Oh wait, there is no internet in the wilderness.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 10 years ago


[-] 4 points by sinead (474) 10 years ago

I don't understand why, if they are willing to sell it at a sheriff's auction, which usually results in either a very low sale amount or no sale at all, why the banks are so unwilling to do mortgage adjustments and allow the people who actually have a vested interest in the home to keep it.

[-] 4 points by yarichin (269) 10 years ago

Homeless Americans are obedient Americans. A man with a home is allowed to keep a gun in it. A homeless man with a gun is a criminal for having his gun in a public place. SIMPLE

[-] 2 points by sinead (474) 10 years ago

Right, ALL home owners own guns, therefore the banks are conspiring with whoever to foreclose on as many people as possible so they can arrest those homeowners when they leave their house with their guns......

I think you need to try again.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

I don't own a gun.

Just thought I'd throw that out there. :)

I'm also not even close to defaulting on my mortgage... but that's besides the point, I guess.

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 10 years ago

That is a simplistic view of what I said, but it is correct in the context of what was written. What I meant was that most Americans thought that our country would be invaded by foreigners with tanks. In reality we were invaded by foreign banks. They will not come to our homes demanding our guns. They will make us so poor that we sell them at half price to feed our kids. They have done it and continue to do it.

[-] 2 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago


[-] 1 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

This is a copy of my earlier post on this isssue. I learned this information from many different sources.

"Most of the owners of peoples mortgages are foreign investors who want their money back. The other part is that most of the Banks who issued these mortgages also own the mortgage servicing and foreclosure corporations and they make money when they foreclose. So for the Banks it is more profitable to foreclose than to negotiate with the homeowners. It is only when OWS draw media attention with their occupation of a forclosure property that for PR reasons the Banks become willing to negotiate. To have this spread to more threatened homeowners people need to mobilize locally and participate in the occupation process."

Goldman Sachs started a national network of it's own subprime subsidiaries when subprime mortgages became legal and actively marketed them all over the country simply to sell them as derivatives. This is the main reason why they did not care to do due diligence on the borrowers, since they were issuing these loans to package them as derivatives for speculative investing.

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 10 years ago

While that may be true it doesn't but it doesn't explain why the banks that are not foreign owned do the same thing.... Even Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are refusing to do loan modifications and that is supported by our government.

[-] 1 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

Do you have some links or more info on why Freddie & Fannie are refusing to do loan mods?

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 10 years ago

No sorry I don't. One of the homes that OWS occupied in Southgate MI (It was highlighted on this web site) the owners had applied for a mortgage modification with the bank that wrote their mortgage. It was then sold to Freddie Mac and they would do the loan modification,.

[-] 4 points by JohnWa (513) 10 years ago

Banks are predators and need to be caged with all teeth extracted.


[-] -1 points by Jehovah (113) 10 years ago

That would be "bankers", not banks, my son.

[-] 3 points by JohnWa (513) 10 years ago

Agreed but bankers who are anonymous and drive global cartels use Banks as their instrument for wealth aggregation and power to control.

Theoretical models of banks being benign instruments facilitating social and trade and community interaction have consistently been usurped by a more aggressive destructive roles

. Thanks for the "my son" , it lights my day and strips away more years than I care to admit.

Occupy has a great mixture of minds and is more than youngsters as my great grandkids may testify.

[-] 3 points by BreadLandPeace (359) 10 years ago

Thank you everyone, it's an amazing and revolutionary victory! A victory for one is a victory for all.

Go, Occupy Wall Street!

[-] 1 points by TheEqualizer (42) 10 years ago

its not quite a victory yet. but your point is understood. keep the fight going.

[-] 3 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 10 years ago
  • I live in Georgia, and I recently became aware of another sharp business practice used by banks.

  • About five years ago the bank gave my sister-in-law a short-term property loan that had a balloon payment at the end.

  • She has made every single payment. On time.

  • Now the loan is about to expire, and she is considering bankruptcy because the bank and the other banks in the small town of Richmond Hill Georgia won't renew the loans because they are not "owner occupied."

  • This seems like an unfair and sharp business practice.

  • They seem to only want to foreclose on the property.

  • If they were not going to give a new loan on the balloon payment, then they shouldn't have gotten her into this situation in the first place.

  • There needs to be a law that forces a bank to provide financing for the balloon payment if the original loan was satisfied in every respect.

  • This is just rotten business.

[-] 1 points by pleasequitbanningme (4) 10 years ago

Here's an idea- maybe she shouldn't have agreed to a loan with a balloon payment if she had no intention of making that payment.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 10 years ago

Um.... did you miss the part about her income being cut in half by the very country that she served and got injured while serving????

For fuck's sake, you people can't really be this dumb and heartless.... or are you????

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 10 years ago

For fuck's sake, are people so retarded that they never EVER think something unplanned will happen? How dumb are you is the better question?

[-] 1 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 10 years ago

No, people don't think. I know people who took ballon payment loans. Their plan, live in the house for 4-5 years, sell it, make a big profit with the way the market was growing. I even ask them one time what happened if the market went down, or they couldn't sell the house. They had no concern that was going to happen. Heck, even my sister-in-law and her husband didn't think. They took a $40K second mortgage to remodel their kitchen. Just the kitchen. Now, she has had something happen and is out on disability. They are struggling. The payment on the second mortgage alone is $1900 a month. The problem now days is the no one plans for the future or the unexpected. Even my own kids don't understand why we don't do some things, or they cannot have this, etc. We budget, we plan, we don't go charging thousands of dollars on credit cards just so we can have stuff. Years ago, I had a single mother ask if my toddler had a pair of Baby Reebok's. I told her I didn't pay $100 for me a pair of tennis shoes, much less a child that couldn't walk. She said I guess that is why you have more money than me, you don't care if your child is "in style".

I am of the Gen X, and I think many other of my generations have been living for today, and not planning for the future.

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 10 years ago

Maybe some of them will learn from their own bad choices and the bad choices of others around them. Blaming someone else is no way to live.

It really isn't that complicated. Borrowed money needs to be paid back. LIfe's complicated, things can some up that might make repayment tougher. I swear with this current generation, it's start over.

[-] 0 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 10 years ago
  • Duh, why didn't I think of that?

  • Because it is standard business practice to refinance at the end of a loan with a balloon payment.

  • Most people don't have a huge lump sum.

  • They take their chances and either get a new loan with a lower rate, or a higher rate. They generally don't think that if they've been a good customer with no delinquent payments during the entire term of the loan that the bank would try to squeeze them out of the property by denying them a new loan on the balloon balance. That's almost fraud!!!

  • You seem to be an apologist for the banking and loan industries.
[-] 1 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 10 years ago

I am on my third mortgage in my adult lifetime. I have never taken any adjustable rate or balloon mortgage. To me, the uncertainty is just plain stupid to take out a mortgage like this unless you know upfront you would be able to pay it.

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 10 years ago
  • Good for you.

  • However, when a bank makes a loan with a balloon payment due at the end, and the loan customer played by the rules and never missed a payment, then it seems like the banking industry has an obligation to give a loan that will allow that customer to amortize the balloon payment over time.

  • Otherwise the banks are simply trying to scam the public in order to foreclose on the home. . . which seems to be the case here.

[-] 1 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 10 years ago

Why take a loan out that you know has a balloon payment in the first place? Anyone I know who has done this has done it to get a payment for a house that they really couldn't afford to begin with. There are people who successfully make these balloon payments. When you sign a contract, you are expected to live up to the wording of the contract. That is the purpose. Not want to change the rules when they don't suit you.

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 10 years ago
  • You are clearly being an apologist for the banking industry.

  • You also have little knowledge about historical banking practices.

  • Typically, a person takes a loan with a balloon payment because (a) they know that the home will sell before the balloon is due, or (b) the person taking out the loan expects that interest rates will drop and they can refinance at a lower rate when the balloon is due, or (c) some other mitigating factor like the knowledge that a rich aunt is dying and they will inherit money to pay off the balloon.

  • Giving someone a balloon loan and then not being willing to refinance at a later time, even though they made all payments on time and have good credit is simply the banks way of taking advantage of vulnerable client.

  • But banks have used many many sharp practices, and they have gotten worse over the last decade.

  • Thus the need to reinstate Glass-Steagall Act.

  • Thus the need to fully implement the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

  • Thus the need to clean up Wall Street.

[-] 1 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 10 years ago

Nope. Never worked for the banks, nor do I have any family that works for the banks. I just know I always take a fixed loan so there are no "surprises". This way if something happens like losing a job, or other financial hardships, I know what my payment will always be. Your third bullet is exactly one of my points. Buying a house figuring it will sell before the payment is due is just plain STUPID in my opinion.

I am just tired of hearing people say it's the banks fault, it's the banks fault, etc. When clearly most people never read the documents they sign. A perfect example of this was proved by an online game company in England. Part of their online terms was the users agreed that they were selling their soul to the company. 88% of people accepted the terms. Those that declined received a monetary credit for a purchase for reading the terms. The company later emailed all individuals to tell them what they did and release any claim to their soul. People just don't read the contracts they sign. To me, this makes them the blame just as much as anyone. Sorry, no sympathy here!


[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 10 years ago
  • They're saying it's the bank's fault because . . . it's the bank's fault.

  • Duhhh!

[-] 3 points by Skyeskye1 (49) 10 years ago

Thank you Occupy Atlanta for helping your fellow citizens. If the banks and our corrupt government can follow the rules why should anyone else? What makes them better than us? Again Thank You Occupy!!!

[-] 3 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

Amen! The 1% became the 1% because the 99% trusted them to abide by the social contract. Today the crimes of the 1% are all legal. The 1% spare no money to make sure take over our Legislature to legislate their criminal theft of everyones wealth into a legally sanctified process.

[-] 2 points by 99PercentFriendly (31) 10 years ago

The 99 percent of average Americans who paid for bailing the banks out are now facing the cruel reality of capitalism where money and financial interests are put above all and the people are trained to think that showing compassion is a sign of weakness.


[-] 2 points by Stormborn (2) 10 years ago

No matter who wins this coming presidential election the big picture, the platform that no one ever talks about but is what all other platforms are sitting on will remain the same, and only the window dressing will change. Education will still be on the chopping block, our manufacturing will still be done over seas, the rich will still get richer off the sweat and backs of the poor and middle class, we will still be moving towards a world government, banking system, prison system, curacy, courts system (which we already have), and military. Wait isn't the world military called the UN "peace keepers"? Unless we stand up for our individual inalienable rights, our freedoms, our social identity, our sovereignty, our cultural...OUR CONSTITUTION!

We are giving our freedoms away to those that are enslaving us out of fear that their actions have manipulated, through careful planing and many years, and are continuing to do so because of the ignorance that is running rampant throughout the world from a lack of education, and the constant focus on what divides us rather than what commonalities we posses.

We are this generation's voice, we are our family's voice, our neighborhood's voice, our cities voice, out state's voice, our country's voice, our world's voice, and our voice must ring out from every mountain with purple majesty, to those amber waves of gold! From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters where these same people poisoned our way of life, and are continuing to do so; profiteering from our limited resources while compensating next to nothing in return.

Are we second class citizens? Are we less than human? Aren't we suppose to have a right to a decent well rounded education? Aren't our streets suppose to be safe? Aren't our schools suppose to be well funded? Are we living in a third world nation? When do the rest of us, the 99.9% of us get our piece of the American dream? When do we get to see the bountiful fruits of our forefather's labors? Our whole nation is our inherited wealth, and while we all carry the burden of our national dept a very few benefit greatly from the misuse of our wealth that landed our nation in such a pragmatic state before Obama even took office.

Are you still willing to turn a blind eye to the the truth? Or are you willing to stand up and scream "We want our Country back"! We want our nation out of the hands of big business, and back into the hands of the stock holder, of the union worker, of the laborer, of the doctors, of the young man on the front line, of the policeman in the streets fighting a war we can't win because we still refuse to remove the value on the illicit items that fuel such hatred and violence.

We are the voice of our world use it or be reduced to nothing but the base that holds up the pyramid scheme waiting for the alms for the poor to drip down on our heads, thanking God for the crumbs from our master's tables! Are we nothing? Or are we HUMAN!?! And as being HUMAN afforded our inalienable rights that our forefather's fought for, and the evolution of their ancient enemies are taking away from us from a lack of interest in anything more than what's on TV, how can I make that dollar bill, where is my next screw coming from, when is that new game coming out, how can I get that high again, that new item, the next big thing designed to distract us from what has happened to our once great nation!

No half measures, no compromise so our enemies can regroup and attempt to put our citizenry asleep again as they will do if we do not cut them out root and all! For freedom's sake, for our children's sake, for our world's sake. for the sake of our conscience, for the sake of our souls! Let our voice be heard!

[-] 0 points by joewealthyhahaa (2) 10 years ago

what a rambling mindless mess you write. you want to be heard? Than go work for it. Instead of trying to live off "the bountiful fruits of your forefather's labor," make a plan and work and live off the fruits of your OWN labor. Quit crying, make a plan, and get working. You sicken me.

[-] 2 points by pleasequitbanningme (4) 10 years ago

There was a claim of illegality in the dealing with this house. Can someone please tell me how Chase broke the law? It seems to me they followed the law, unfair as it is.

[-] 2 points by burke7 (8) 10 years ago

outstanding and well done! respect to the max- brendan

[-] 2 points by Anachronism (225) 10 years ago

A disregard for private property. I love it. So long, Capitalism - don't let the historical door hit you in the ass

[-] 2 points by nardo1224 (1) from Marietta, GA 10 years ago

Congratulations Occupy Atlanta, the fruits of your labor are beginning to blossom. Keep it up and continue to show the world there is another way!

[-] 2 points by MoodDaddy (25) 10 years ago

Good for you guys standing up for this individual.

She should also seek some help from Wounded Warior Project. It is my understanding that they help out in these situations. They also help wounded veterans find a carreer.


[-] 2 points by All4One (1) 10 years ago

Why is Occupy Atlanta only "occupying" for African Americans? There are other races in Atlanta that are equally needful of help. Why the prejudice?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Is prejudice really the correct term you were looking for?

I only ask as it seems to be an habitually misused term.

Prejudice: To pre-judge. to draw a conclusion before hearing the facts. etc.

[-] 0 points by ombp2 (12) 10 years ago

Right, I take issue with the word "prejudice" too. It's been wrongly equated with "racism". In truth, our personal survival depends on prejudice. If we're prejudiced, that means that we have learned from the past. This is a little off-track maybe, but good to remember from time to time.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Yes pre judging is not in itself objectionable, unless lack of consideration for the facts leads to "poor judgment" poor decision making.

Consider ( perhaps a poor example but an example all the same ). OK you are at the store buying food do you buy a particular brand because you always do or do you try a different brand that is .50 cents cheaper? Many people would choose to buy their regular brand regardless of the difference in price, some would even go stop at another store to get their usual brand if it was sold out at their 1st stop. Most people will not try something different even if the difference is only the brand name, unless they need to save the .50 cents.

[-] 2 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 10 years ago

A truly heartwarming story.

[-] 1 points by TheEqualizer (42) 10 years ago

I think the wise thing to do if it is absolutely inevitable that your are going to have your home taken away from you is to completely destroy it while it still belongs to you. You cannot get into trouble for destroying your own home. Completely destroy the house from the ground up the day before they come to remove you. Then all the bank gets back is a worthless pile of junk.


[-] 2 points by i8jomomma (80) 10 years ago

that is a good idea.............let them have a pile of junk if they want it so bad

[-] 1 points by Mystic (1) 10 years ago

This is so Awesome!
Possession is 9/10's of the law! Once someone has stayed at a residence more than 1 night it is very hard to evict them! Take back your homes! Reoccupy Homes! Fuck the banks! OWS is beyond Amazing!!! Overthrow.government! Taxes.whole system is b.s. Keep giving money to other countries when AMERICANS are homeless and starving!!! WTF???? Obama just sent a huge financial aid package to Israel! The biggest America has ever given to another country! WTF??? Government/Obama needs.major Overhaul!!

[-] 1 points by TheEqualizer (42) 10 years ago

Yeah, no kidding, right. I don't think there is anything wrong with helping others. But we are treating our own people like garbage while we help others all over the world first, and that is just WRONG. We are one of the wealthiest nations in the world too. But not wealthy enough to take care of our own?

[-] 1 points by nina (1) 10 years ago

Tengo 3 anos desempleada, con un problema se salud severo y me negaron el "dissability", perdi mi casa, mi negocio, jamas cobre seguro de desempleo, y mi sueno americano se rompio en mil pedazos. Somos la mayoria, sufriendo las consecuencias de las acciones de los ladrones de cuello blanco. Basta Ya!

[-] 1 points by MockingjayFly (14) from Owaneco, IL 10 years ago

Occupy! Occupy! Onward fearless soldiers of change!

[-] 1 points by notedejesenganar (1) 10 years ago

"Americans across the country are standing up. We’re defending our homes."

should read: "People all over the world are standing up. We're defending our homes."

Spanish activists are actively protesting foreclosure violence. I'm sure there are many more examples, but this one I have seen with my own eyes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB6PdKI8ySE

[-] 1 points by Getarealjob (1) 10 years ago

HOME OWNERSHIP IS NOT THE AMERICAN DREAM. When will you people get a clue to quit living outside your means! It is sad they want to sell her home, but why not get atlanta city council or the georgia senate to change the laws.YOu can't be too angry when the company is abiding by the laws the lawmakers the people voted for put in place. I myself used to be poor, But I worked hard and moved up in the ranks of my company and bought the stuff I have. YOu lot sicken me with this give me give me and I am entitled crap. The movement has become a free for all and it is no different than looters or people trying to gain on the backs of others. I rent a home. I have been kicked out of my home before, and I never once thought hey let me reoccupy a home that is not mine or I did not pay for. IT IS CALLED STEALING. Time to squat juanainez? If I came home and found people occupying my residence I would do everything in my power to ensure that they ended up buried underneath something, either dirt or a gravestone DO you even know what that includes? Squatting includes me being in your home eating your food and pissing in your loo and YOU CAN NOT DO A THING ABOUT IT!. You have to get the law (which most of you morons hate) to kick me out which I can fight you for. YOu want to occupy, and squat? What is your response when those you steal from decide to take it back. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO STEAL!!!! Take it to the court!. Juanainez and demcapitalist What have you taken back, what have you stole under the guise of taking it back or are you just preaching from the sideline. If you do not like your job, get a new one, if you can not afford the house. DON"T BUY IT!!

[-] 1 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 10 years ago

Amen. Wonder how long they will live there if the electricity gets cut by the legal owner, bank, etc. Whoever holds the deed\lean has the right to cut the power, water, etc.

This movement has basically become a free for all. They claim to be peaceful, yet across the county they are doing un-peaceful things. In Denver, they interrupted a prayer vigil: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19589870 Just to heckle the mayor. Was that called for? There are other reports around the country. Yeah, this is some peaceful protest. Sorry, I have no respect for the movement. To me, it is just a bunch of people who think it is OK to just take what they want because life have been unjust to them. Like I tell my kids all the time when they say I am not being fair. "Life's not fair, get used to it. The world is a dangerous, unjust place". Heck, Micheal Moore has been on talk shows, news, etc talking about this mess and supporting it like he is one of them. Yet, he is one of the richest people and would be in the 1%. To me, he is hypocritical, yet they don't turn on him.

[-] 1 points by nograve (23) 10 years ago

The same thing happened to my mother and father in a different state. It was a small town and there was no one to fight for them-- And they send their warmest regards to those of you in Atlanta, as do I, for doing the people's work. Especially in a country that barely tolerates homosexuality, it's wonderful to see these women and their family able to remain in the home that they have worked so hard for because of the general outcry of everyone. We're together, even when we're apart.

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhahaa (2) 10 years ago

Its sad what happened to Sergeant Walker, but whats the message here? as longs as you have a story to tell (and many of us do) then its ok to default on your mortgage or other debt? The system will go right down the toilet if we collectively behave that way. The target in Walker's case should be the government and the military that abandoned a wounded vet, not the commercial sector or banks that cant function or exist if people are allowed to ignore contracts and obligations. Another example of a misguided and ignorant action by idiots within OWS.

[-] 1 points by oobladee86 (0) 10 years ago

Congrats to Occupy Atlanta and Brigitte Walker for forcing the bank to grant her her legal right to renegotiate her loan. Occupy Everywhere! We are legion.

[-] 1 points by DonQuixot (231) 10 years ago

Well done, in Spain activists are also stopping foreclosures. Before we can change the world we have to change its ruler-dictator, the US.

[-] 1 points by nighttalker (57) from New York, NY 10 years ago

PROSECUTE THE ATLANTA VA LOAN GUARANTEE OFFICER! THE CALLING OF OUR TIME! Unsealed Complaint | Wells Fargo, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, GMAC Mortgage, Atlanta VA Loan Guarantee Office Engaged in “A Brazen Scheme to Defraud Our Nation’s Veterans! ATLANTA VA OFFICE OF LOAN GUARANTEE A CRIME SCENE? THE CALLING OF OUR TIME!: PROSECUTE THE ATLANTA VA LOAN GUARANTEE OFFICER! “This is a massive fraud on the American taxpayers and American veterans,” James E. Butler Jr., one of the lawyers bringing the suit, said Tuesday. Tens of thousands of the VA loans have gone into default or resulted in foreclosures, resulting in “massive damages” to the U.S. government, the suit alleges. The faulty loans will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, with the costs rising as more VA loans go into default, according to the suit. Purge the boil of its puss! PROSECUTE THE ATLANTA VA LOAN GUARANTEE OFFICER! RICO! http://4closurefraud.org/2011/10/05/unsealed-complaint-wells-fargo-bank-of-america-j-p-morgan-chase-and-gmac-mortgage-engaged-in-a-brazen-scheme-to-defraud-our-nations-veterans/

[-] 1 points by Stormcrow (11) 10 years ago

I never heard of a "boomer" squatting. Do you have more details about it?

[-] 1 points by Thisisthetime (200) from Kahlotus, WA 10 years ago

Thank you Occupy Wall Street for keeping up the good work. Fair-ness.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 10 years ago

This is such bullshit. She gets injured while "fighting" for her country, and her country cuts her income in half for that sacrifice. FUCK the government AND the military AND banks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by i8jomomma (80) 10 years ago

ha ha ...........FUCK THE GOVERNMENT...........YOU DON'T REALLY MEAN THAT........you like it when the government taxes the shit out of us.........goes on vacation..........comes back and tells us the country is going bankrupt cause they are running out of ways to steal more of the money we worked for and earned

[-] 1 points by Dreski (10) 10 years ago

First Things First America Occupy Your Hearts Occupy Your families we will Reoccupy the Congress We The People Human Interest Before Special interest Occupy Kalamazoo will Occupy Homes IN Need Of The Peoples Help God Bless America True Change Is Here!!!!

[-] 1 points by ompb3 (3) 10 years ago

Because you capitalized every word, your comment becomes even more profound! I'm totally feeling the slogan vibe, brother!

[-] 1 points by John9664 (1) from Charlotte, NC 10 years ago

I am glad that Miss Walker was able to save her home. Has anyone suggested to her that she pursue a benefits claim thru the Veterans Administration. The Military does not automatically transfer medical records to the V A. She can obtain her medical records from the National Personel Records Center 9700 Page Boulevard St. Louis, Missouri, 63132. I would suggest contacting the Georgia Department of Veterans Affairs. She should ask the contact information of her local Service Officer. Veterans are also allowed to hire lawyers now to help them with claims. She can pursue a disability Claim with the Social Security as well. Although the VFW, American Legion, D A V and some other private groups have service officers, personally, I would recommend the Georgia Department of Veterans Affairs. The American Legion posts I had contact with were more interested in making money with bingo games, hall rentals, getting drunk and parading around with those funny looking caps, than actually helping a down and out veteran. I hope I helped, Best Regards, Merry Christmas, and Good Night Chesty Puller where ever you are. Peace Out, B B

[-] 1 points by Dreski (10) 10 years ago

Human Interest Before Special Interest

[-] 1 points by Dreski (10) 10 years ago

Occupy Your family First things First Occupy Your Hearts America

[-] 1 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 10 years ago

Occupy Xmas! http://occupyxmas.net

[-] 1 points by ompb3 (3) 10 years ago

Let's let Jesus occupy Christmas. He alone fills the void in men's hearts!

[-] 1 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 10 years ago

Jesus helps those who help themselves...Occupy!

[-] 1 points by Stormcrow (11) 10 years ago

So if a person squats on a property that is vacant who pays the taxes?

[-] 1 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 10 years ago

Yes, who pays the taxes? How do they keep the water and power turned on? You have to prove you are the owner. Plus, in a lot of cities, they are starting to just bulldoze these vacant homes. If the banks are still the legal owners, how are you stopping that? You mention a small neighborhood turned back the police, but what happens if they send in the military next (ie National Guard)? Many situations, that is the next move.


[-] 1 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

Alcatraz rules and regulations

  1. PRIVILEGES. You are entitled to food, clothing, shelter and medical attention. Anything else that you get is a privilege. You earn your privileges by conducting yourself properly. "Good Standing" is a term applied to inmates who have a good conduct record and a good work record and who are not undergoing disciplinary restrictions.


[-] 1 points by Joe4more (165) from Cranston, RI 10 years ago

We need more attention from the MSM. I wish OWS would also spend time organizing, intercity, across the country, toward solidifying a message which will attract candidates to replace all the bums presently residing in congress!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

A seriously good alternative ending. But how about the rest of the homeowners that are in similar circumstances for varying reasons. Where is their support? Where is their help? It is nice to hear about individual survival stories. But when does it become a matter of policy? When will it become a requirement? That all should be treated in this manner in stead of isolated cases that get fortunate attention. When does doing the right thing to do become standard operational procedure?

Share this post. Ask why only the few are saved, why only the few get consideration. This is a huge problem and its not getting better. More places are operating like the Cleveland tear-down, then are getting the responsible and realistic renegotiation.

I twittered this post.

Please share with others and ask why renegotiation is not required, is not standard practice.

[-] 3 points by AJx315 (16) from New York, NY 10 years ago

I agree with you %100 but its also important that the wins such as these ones get the attention and the press because now there's a precedent set. Now more people can fight for their homes knowing that she got hers back. So here's to hoping for more loan adjustments and more people back where they belong IN their own homes.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Good point.

Please share with others.

If we can not get good/fair media coverage, we need to try to make up for it.

[-] 1 points by i8jomomma (80) 10 years ago

i lost my job and everything i worked for and earned.........now they are trying to take my home...........i tried every which way to try and get someone to help but everyone i come in contact with is more useless than the next..........now it is time to gab a gun or destroy everything in sight and let the bank have a pile of junk by the time i get threw with it if they want so bad and are unwilling to help..........fuck the police and this useless corrupt government............

[-] 1 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

Most of the owners of peoples mortgages are foreign investors who want their money back. The other part is that most of the Banks who issued these mortgages also own the mortgage servicing and foreclosure corporations and they make money when they foreclose. So for the Banks it is more profitable to foreclose than to negotiate with the homeowners. It is only when OWS draw media attention with their occupation of a forclosure property that for PR reasons the Banks become willing to negotiate. To have this spread to more threatened homeowners people need to mobilize locally and participate in the occupation process.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago


I just don't seem to be able to understand how it is profitable to issue a mortgage that is going to fail. Then foreclose on the property rather than make some accommodations that will allow the home buyer to continue making payments. Then after kicking out the only persons who were interested in that property even at the artificially inflated price. The Bank then walks away from the property rather than trying to resell it. Where is the profit in that? They lost the mortgage and then threw away the property.

Unless they figure that they made their money with the bailout. But that wouldn't make sense as the properties that the Banks are walking away from now have failed after the bailout. Unless of coarse they are banking (pun intended) on another bailout or worse a series of them.

[-] 3 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

The banks don't own anyones house. They issue a mortgage and then turn around and sell it to investors in the form of derivatives. It was the Derivatives market that crashed the financial system . What the banks make their money on is collecting and processing the mortgage payments. When the homeowner falls behind on their payments the Banks proceeds with foreclosure because they do not own the house. This is merely a money making service that they are providing to the investor. So they make their money in the servicing fees that they charge the homeowner and investor. This is why President Obama's mortgage modification program offered the Banks an incentive of $1,000 per mortgage modification. Clearly the big banks are making more than this per foreclosure.

Unlike the big banks, Wells Fargo, etc., the small community banks and credit unions usually do not sell the mortgages that they fund and these smaller banks are mostly willing to negotiate and modify the term so that the home owner can retain their house.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Thanks for the information.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 10 years ago

The loan modification plan of Obama's only helped 894,000 homeowners instead of the 7 - 9 million it was supposed to help.

This helping homeowners stop the auction of their homes is something that I support OWS in....not the squatting in vacant homes, but the stopping of people being evicted and foreclosed upon.

[-] 2 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

An empty and vacant house rapidly deteriorates and becomes a blight in the neighborhood. There is a massive shortage of affordable housing in our country and thus we have millions of homeless people. The banks could offer the vacant homes for an affordable rental fee so that families and individuals can have a place to live until they can get back on their feet. There are thousands of seniors and military veterans among the homeless population. Everyone is deserving of a place to call home. It is next to impossible for homeless people to restore their life. Without an address homeless individuals will not be hired for any job.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 10 years ago

Agreed, the banks should be negotiating affordable rent. To not do so is inviting squatting which doesn't make squatting "right", just a consequence of the situation.

[-] 1 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

What is also important is that having the empty houses occupied turns them into rental property and thus coerces the owner investors to pay the property taxes due- something they are not doing to date. Main reason why all local governments where foreclosures are high are loosing massive tax revenue.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 10 years ago

I know that BoA is one of the despised banks for this movement, but I learned yesterday about their new pilot program to help underwater homeowners. A friend is using this pilot program - The homeowner is allowed to remain in the home without making loan payments but must put the house "on the market" at the appraised value - which the bank pays for. They have four months to sell the house or a deed in lieu is drawn up - either way, the homeowner gets a certain amount of money upon their leaving the house. This way, they can pay for the move and/or security deposit for the rental of a home they can afford. My friend is buying one such home and found out that a loan is available for those who buy these homes when they may be "in need of repair" (if these folks can't afford their mortgage payments - they certainly can't afford to maintain the home - we learned all of this (the pilot program/the special loan) by going to the Home Inspection with our friend). If this "pilot program" succeeds in Florida, it will be offered nationwide in 2012....this is a step in the right direction....at least in my opinion.

[-] 1 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

By how much did they reduce the cost of the house versus the mortgage on it?

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 10 years ago

The last "sold" price was $240,000 two years ago - it appraised three months ago at $150,000 putting the homeowners underwater on their mortgage (how much depends on what they put down on the home when they purchased it). When the Homeowners entered the pilot program, the appraisal was paid for by BoA. The "list price" for the home is that $150,000 and is non-negotiable.

It must sell by the 4 month anniversary of the homeowners entering the pilot program - if it doesn't, a deed in lieu goes to the bank and the homeowner gets a small sum of money; if it sells, the homeowner walks with a somewhat larger sum of money. Either way, they are not forcibly evicted and they leave with something in their pocket. And the house has a chance of not standing vacant and the homeowners have a reason to continue to maintain it to the best of their ability until they either sell or give deed to the bank.

[-] 1 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

Sounds like a workable solution. Why did BoA not simply modify the mortgage to the $150,000 for the last owners?

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 10 years ago

That I cannot answer, but I would assume that it is because they were in default as well as underwater.

[-] 1 points by marga (82) 10 years ago

OWS this is good news. Just thought I let you all know people are at work from behind the scenes everywhere. Here is just one of the latest that came to my attention. http://lucas2012infos.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/david-wilcock-the-trillion-dollar-lawsuit-that-could-end-financial-tyranny-part-ii-history-lesson-19-december-2011/ Just thought I share this with you all. Some people working hard stop all the B.S. they been feeding us If our government can have secrets, so can we. Turn around is fair play. They make up rules as they go, so can we. Our government is totally out of control and making us look stupid. Our whole society is totally dysfunctional and its plain to see our government doesn't give a damn about us. The real criminal walk and our kids are in jail for pity stuff. This B.S. got to go.

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 10 years ago

I will tell you a story that happened in my hometown. I wish I could give names of people and towns without revealing my origins, but too much detail would reveal more about me than I am willing to share. A few years back a man in my home town built a barn out of scrap telephone poles. There was no electricity or concrete used, no plumbing, the building was made of scrap wood in the middle of nowhere. The owner had inherited an original 80 acre patented title to his land. This title was alloidal, meaning it recognized no higher authority over the land than the owner, and this was a title issued by the united States of America prior to the existence of the UNITED STATES INC. After the construction a county tax appraiser came to the property with no warrant and attempted to appraise the building. The owner asked for a warrant. When no warrant was shown, the owner chambered a round on his semi-automatic AK-47 and began counting backwards from 10. The tax man left. The county then tried to appraise his land from the public road. They claimed this building added $50,000 to the value of the land and demanded taxes be paid. He refused. He and his family had a title on the land from before the civil war and had never paid taxes on it. Included in the wording of the title were words to the effect that the land would never be subject to any tax. Your home is your castle it has always been the American Way. If you will defend nothing else with force, defend your home. The right of the people to be secure in their person, papers, houses and effects shall not be violated F@CK anyone who says they own your house. You live in it, you OWN it.

[-] 0 points by thefutureisnow (223) from Newark, NJ 10 years ago

nice that,s a great story to define the American way , thanks man ,


[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

This is why we are here this is why you are needed.


Share, circulate, educate, inspire.


[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 10 years ago

Do they pay rent or are they staying for free?

[-] 0 points by rickMoss (435) 10 years ago

This is a good but we need a smarter way to fight back.

"WAKE UP PEOPLE!” when you've had enough of this nonsense this is where you go:

Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( Http://www.revolution2.osixs.org ) "Spread the News"

[-] 0 points by revrevrev (7) 10 years ago

How long can you hold on to this? You will be evicted soon. Learn from the Chinese.


[-] 3 points by Meethook (72) 10 years ago

Yes, lay down and take it already. Don't bother fighting for what you believe in. That would be unamerican.



[-] -1 points by thefutureisnow (223) from Newark, NJ 10 years ago

at least they are soldiers who know what the fk they are doing when the man comes , take back your property fkng aye ,

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 10 years ago

That won't end well.

[-] -1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 10 years ago

Doesn't the girlfriend contribute toward the mortgage since she lives in the house too?

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 10 years ago

We don't know how long the girlfriend has been there, if she's found work, and how much she's paying to help with expenses. We do know, from an interview with the disabled vet, that the vet's income has been cut by more than half, and she is still being treated for both her physical injuries (90% disability) and PTSD.

The vet has not yet found employment and so her personal income is disability checks, based on her 22 years of military service. She had been trying to get Chase to modify her mortgage without success. This had been her home since 2004, and she does not want to lose it. http://occupyatlanta.org/2011/12/19/interview-with-brigitte-walker-12-8-11-in-riverdale/#.TvEtz0q7EzU

[-] 2 points by yarichin (269) 10 years ago

Asking Case for help is like asking the Devil for air conditioning.

[-] -2 points by crossfade1024 (-2) 10 years ago

As horrible as it may sound, those who "lose" their homes to the banks lose them for a reason. The banks lose massive amounts of money when a person does not or cannot pay their mortgage. Banks may be seen as evil, but they're really just another type of business which has to make a profit somehow. If a person cannot afford the mortgage on one house, all they have to do is get a house which isn't priced so highly. The houses that are foreclosed are legally the property of the banks and they (as well as the government) have complete rights to evict anyone trespassing on that land.

[-] 1 points by mustbe99 (3) 10 years ago

thats a huge misconception, banks profit either way, say you get a 30 year loan on your house to be and pay it on track for 10 years and then get laid off,

  • the bank has earned 33.33 percent of the loan back plus whatever interest they tacked on
  • then the house forecloses and the bank sells your debt to a debt collection agency and still have ownership of the home to sell for what its really worth. -as far as the bank is concerned (larger banks that is) theyd prefer you to foreclose cause they will get a faster return on their investment. -credit unions and small local banks are different because they dont have the massive reserves of money to simply run through a foreclosure, usually they will try to refinance or work something out.
[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Yeah right losing massive amounts of money. That would explain why the banks are walking away from the foreclosed properties and letting cities tear them down, because they are losing tons of money. Right right. Did you know that the sun is forecast-ed to rise in the West North West tomorrow? Get a grip on reality and the truth.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 10 years ago

No, banks (certain huge banks) were VERY evil during the housing bubble. It is very well documented. It didn't happen by accident or because too many people defaulted.

[-] -2 points by inquisitive (20) 10 years ago

Now that she's "occupying", is she making her mtg. payments? Occupation is the moral equivalent of corporate greed.

[-] 4 points by dealdoctor (148) 10 years ago

Every economic system in the world must bow to nature. The game of Monopoly is only a game and it always ends with one winner. Do you really think it is more important than the kids who play it? Ask their mothers and fathers. People have certain inalienable rights to air, food, shelter. Think deeper. If you were thirsty and had to have water you might call your desire greed but you would be stupid if you did.

[-] 1 points by inquisitive (20) 10 years ago

Even Monopoly has game rules. Do you play according to the rules, or do you cheat?

[-] 1 points by dealdoctor (148) 10 years ago

Yes. (grin)

[-] 3 points by yarichin (269) 10 years ago

Why should any person have to pay another for a necessity of life? If you cannot fly, then your F@CKING feet need to be on the ground somewhere. All people have a RIGHT to a place to live. If you think banks getting more money than they already have stolen from us is the most important thing? The Nazi party also has a website. I suggest you look over there for friends.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 10 years ago

Someone had to pay for the plot of land (like it or not), someone had to pay for the materials used to build that home, someone had to actually do the physical labor required for construction and they also deserve to be paid.

I agree that you shouldn't have to pay for a home if you find some unowned land (good luck) or have land donated to you, you gather the materials for construction yourself, and have a group of friends that will help you build it. If you can work all that out - you should enjoy a happy and rent free life in your log cabin in the woods.

[-] 3 points by yarichin (269) 10 years ago

Who gave person (A) the right to own the land to begin with? At some point in the past the land was taken by force, and passed on by sale or inheritance. If I take your house or right to have a house at gunpoint, and pass it on to another, does that make it right? Land, water, breathable air, and food are rights. If you do not agree, show me a system which allows people to stay alive without them. I will adopt that system without argument.

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 10 years ago

Using your logic, I can walk into anyone's house and move in. They don't have a right to refuse me to live there correct? They don't own the land, so all land is free for anyone to live anywhere. How would that work in the real world?

How did it all begin? If no one has ever had the right to own land, then how was the land taken from someone?

You have a right to food insomuch as you plant it, grow it, and harvest it yourself, on your land. Show me a thriving society where people are just given food as a "right." If I make a sandwich - you don't have a right to come eat it.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 10 years ago

And who forced those who did all those things to do them? Did they do them because they had to for some reason or another? No.... they did them for ONE reason and for ONE reason only.... TO MAKE MONEY.... TO MAKE MONEY FROM PEOPLE BY TELLING THEM THEY HAVE TO PAY TO LIVE ON A CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND.

Who's greedy now? Stop with the "someone had to do all that hard work so that some other person could be given the privilege of living on that land" bullshit.

So, do you think it's right for humans to claim they own a piece of the Earth and to make others work in order to get that piece of Earth?

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 10 years ago

Obviously, we are way to far into the land-owning process to all of the sudden say "all land is free for everyone." But lets just assume that it never happened. How is it that you propose land should be handled? First come, first served? Squatters rights? Please fill in the blanks for me - how does the distribution of land work?

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

Thank you! I have been trying to make this point for days. Good luck to you on this one. It can get pretty ugly.

[-] 2 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

If the entire population agreed that it should be a birthright to own a share of the land and resources of this country to provide each person with self sustainability we would have an answer to all this. Land and vital resources should be the commonwealth of the people, not hoarded and withheld from the many for the profit of the few. Some examples are Ted Turner with over 2 million acres of land and T. Boone Pickins with control of a massive aquifer under Texas so in that drought stricken area he controls who gets water, he insists on being paid money for it and denies it to others unless he gets paid. Without this vital resource a person will begin to die in 3 days. So Pickens has the power of life and death over millions because we allow the hoarding of resources.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 10 years ago

Right on.

[-] 1 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

You might like our website www.the-communal-solution.us

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 10 years ago

Great examples - however, it is still complicated. So, we all agree that everyone gets a piece of land in the US. Who gets to decide where that piece of land is? What if I grow up in Montana, but my assigned piece of land is in Tennessee? Who gets the beach front property and who gets the desert? As far as natural resources go, I guess a patch of land would solve that as well. Each person could plant their own garden and raise food for themselves right?

[-] 1 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

Also, we think that free, self sustaining eco-villages should be established throughout the country. They should be free for use by anybody that wants to live their but with the stipulation that the residents contribute 2-4 hours a day of their personal time to maintain the buildings and food supply. If this was implemented world wide one could potentially travel throughout the world living freely wherever you chose to go with only a contribution to the continuance of the system as your payment for it.

[-] 1 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

Those that bought their homes would likely want to stay there. In suburbs, to fulfill the self-sustaining obligation to society, people would probably develop community gardens. I saw one neighborhood where they knocked down all the backyard fences and worked cooperatively to grow food and create a safe play area for kids. One house was designated as the common house where meals were prepared and shared, etc.

We are working to develop a land base for around 300 people on which we share, in central buildings, a kitchen, dining hall, laundry, library, schools, clinic, business center and organic gardens and farming. We work 2-4 hours a day to maintain it all. After that your day is yours to create an income source that belongs only to you, or to paint, or love your partner, or play, or research, or... whatever your heart desires. www.the-communal-solution.us

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 10 years ago

These are great ideas. They certainly would help to create more peace, compassion, and cooperation instead of fostering greed, corruption, injustice, power and control over others. There are organizations in my area that are doing similar things.... a community garden to teach people how to be more self-sustainable and to help serve the needs of those in poverty.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 10 years ago

I think these are great ideas for people that want to live in these small communities but it does not translate to a grander scale.

[-] 1 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

So, how would you do it? We cannot go on creating massive ecologically destructive suburban mini castles for every person and then try to push that model on the whole world - it isn't sustainable. I think that we need fierce local governments figuring out how to manage these things for their specific circumstances.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 10 years ago

I think it would be fine to set aside small plots of land for communes for people that want to live that way. I personally do not. I don't think the government should dictate that a house can only be 300 square feet per occupant, or that I can only have 1 car for every 3 people, or that the swing set in my back yard can only have 2 swings and they must be made from recycled material.

[-] 1 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

But ethics should dictate these things you object to. Now the government dictates wars, the Patriot Act, and a miriad of other things that we go along with that are far less beneficial to society than minimising our ecological footprint by combining and sharing resources with our neighbors. All over Europe the people have found ways to cause less damage and to economise. We have been for so long sold on the idea of unlimited personal posession that we have all bought this idea hook, line and sinker without any thought to what it costs the environment or the quality of life of future generations.

[-] -1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

Take a breath and calm down.

Yes, shelter is a basic need.

Owning a home is not... and it is certainly not a "right".


[-] 2 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

So, you promote slavery to corporate wages for the money to provide the necessities a "right"? Why can banks invent money then charge us to buy land that should belong to the commonwealth of the people? Who gave them these powerful rights over the rest of us? If they just made them up for their own benefit then I guess we can as easily make up our rules and rights that don't include bankers.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

Oh for crying out loud with the slavery bit already.

Sure. Make up your own rules. Good luck with that.

Bartering and trading for property has been the way of things for... well... ever. Get over it.

[-] 1 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

Please see below.

[-] 1 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

You missed the point being made by AllOverIt. I understand the statement to say that the rules of our system were written by those who had the most to contniue to accrue undue benefit and share of national wealth for themselves. These rules were made up, created by a group of wealthy men. This means that we the people can create our own rules for the disposition of our nationally created wealth. This does not limit the options to bartering and trading, though it may include them. Those men used their creativity to serve themselves, we the people can use our creativity to restructure and redesign our system that will serve all the people of our country with Justice. We could begin with something as basic as a law that stipulates that every job must pay a living wage and that all employees of every corporation are equal participants in profit sharing. All subsistent wages must be outlawed and % caps be placed on upper management pay including that of CEOs. We can legislate the end of fractional lending and require that banks hold 50% capital reserves on all the money they loan out of invest. These measures alone would begin the restoration of social and economic Justice in our country.

[-] 1 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

Thank you! Although it is my belief that until it is the birthright of every American to a share of the resources needed to make themselves self sustaining we will continue to create systems that ultimately inspire wars for those that MUST hoard resources and thus power.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

I'm having a hard time following you. You speak of American birthrights, but then globalize it in the same sentence.

I can't say I agree it's your birthright to own land, not unless you inherit it from your family. You are perfectly capable of securing housing by alternate methods. You do not need to be the "owner" of your residence to have the same standard of living an "owner" does.

Just because I take pride in my ability to purchase my own little spit of land does not mean I hoard resources. I have opened my home countless times to those in need. I have taken in people and animals alike, when it comes right down to it. There is nothing wrong with the system we have (and have had) now, except for the corruption of the men behind the scenes.

And just where, exactly, do you expect to get all this land you intend to simply give away to all those who have not fulfilled their birthright? Take Time Warner's land. Fine. But it's empty land. There's no shelter there. What good does it really do, as is?

I live in NY and I will not take kindly to someone coming along and deciding the 6million acres of the Adirondacks isn't being utilized the way the Occupiers think it should so it is just given away haphazardly. You've seen what man does to nature, haven't you? It would be devastating.

Perhaps I misunderstand everything you are trying to express. If so, I'm all ears. But I really don't see how this theory is very practical from an implementation standpoint.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 10 years ago

The point is that NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OWN LAND.... no one should be able to control land and keep others from using it. EVERYONE should have a plot of land upon which to survive, be self-sustaining, and to live happily. The concept of a certain few being able to own most of the land, to keep others from using it for survival, and controlling it is absolutely ridiculous and is way outdated and needs to go away. NOW is the time to shift to a higher level of consciousness.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

A certain few owning most of the land?

Where, exactly, is this happening?

There is a lot of land in this country. And a lot of it is owned by people like me. Buying a house, especially these days, is not difficult... if you have been fiscally responsible in the past. Clean credit = very low interest loans for a home. The American Dream is still attainable.

Look. I have no interest in revamping home ownership laws. I see no issue with them. At all. There are much bigger issues to focus on than this.

Keeping people who got burned when the housing bubble burst in their homes is a noble cause.

Creating jobs is a noble cause.

Getting the money out of politics is a noble cause.

Getting Congress seats filled with representatives of the people and not big business is a noble cause.

Building homeless shelters and soup kitchens is a noble cause.

Attacking the homeowners?

Not so much.

[-] 1 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

Thank you for your insights. The works of Henry George are a good clear statement of what is possible and fair. It is my contention that all people of the earth should enjoy a share of land and the resources they need to be self sustaining. That is not to say that we should take your land from you if you are using it fairly and are being self sustaining with it. But I cannot understand your logic that I must be forced into corporate slavery to have income to rent some land, take a loan from a bank and pay interest and thus become slaves to them to and work my whole life for someone else's profit and leasure so that I may have a right to use of land. Are we nuts? Here is America. Here is all the land and resources we need to live. Here are the people that must use land and resources to build shelters, grow food and raise families. The simple solution is to make sure that each person has a share of the land and the resources so they can make a life. Instead, we take it through force, privatize it and then force at gunpoint others to work our land for a little food and minimal shelter with no rights or freedom or hope of a future so that those of us with a propensity to violence and slavery can have better lives. I'm not buying it.

[-] 1 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

To a war veteran it is a right! Especially because she was willing to lay down her life in service to her country! You mean to tell me that this Bank is incapable to refinance her loan so that she can have an affordable mortgage? They sure where capable in taking tax payer dollars and dispossessing 16 million homeowners of their home, most of which are sitting empty now and driving down the value of everybody's home. Most lost their homes because they lost their jobs and where unable to secure a pay in their new job that would enable them to keep up with their payments, others lost their homes because their mortgage terms where usurious and unsustainable. Yet it was the self enriching strategies of the Banks and Wall Street that brought the economy down. What is the price they should pay for the irreparable harm that they have cause more than 30 million Americans? You have no sense of Justice, just justification for your valuing money over people.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

You misunderstand me.

Yes. The banks should absolutely be working double time to keep these people in their homes.

I was not speaking to the homeowners being foreclosed upon because banks are screwing them over in regards to refinance. Not even a little.

My point was, owning a home is not a right. Nothing more. Shelter is a need, which could be argued as a right, quite easily... but ownership? No. It is not. I own my home, my neighbors rent... we both have shelter, but only one of us owns it.

Just because you squat (as the poster above you suggests) does not make you the owner... nor do you have any right to claim as much. Nor should you. That mentality is akin to a 2 year old stealing a toy from another child and claiming "mine!"... it happens, sure... but simply claiming "mine" doesn't make it so.

What was done for this woman is to be commended. Chase bank should be ashamed of itself for all the stories out there just like hers (and there are too many)... but you misunderstood my response completely. I hope I have clarified it some.

[-] 2 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

Thank you, I did misunderstand your point. In addition: Banks who only process and service a mortgage do not necessarily remain the owners of that mortgage. The big Wall Street Banks automatically convert their mortgages into derivative investment vehicles and thus it is groups of investors who are the owners. These banks make their money on the servicing fees including foreclosures. It is the investors that are the ultimate losers when these banks refuse to modify or re-negotiate the loan with the borrower. We have seen how the entire housing market continues to suffer because of the high foreclosure rate and the consequent radical drop in price on foreclosed homes. My issue with the Wall Street Banks is that they are running a rigged racket where they have no risk and the investor and borrower pay the cost of the crash of the derivative market. Big banks have no incentive to modify the loans because they have nothing to loose - no skin in the game.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago


On top of that, the tax dollars that have been funneled into these banks these past few years... well, it should have come with a stipulation that forces their hand to work with these folks on their terms of their mortgages. Its disgusting, really.

[-] 2 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

There is no way it would have come with any stipulations. This is precisely why it is a rigged system: one that places a disproportionate benefit to those who have the most and taking away a disproportionate amount from those who have the least. For the 1% it was the only politically correct move. After all they do own the largest contingent of our government and thus dictate the terms of any arrangement.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

I agree with everything you just said, except this:

I realize that the 1% is more an... idea... than a reality within this movement. But I really do wish there would be another phrase coined for them. First of all, you cannot establish unity with such a blatant division. Second, not all of the 1% are the problem. Just the other day I stumbled across a video on moveon.org where a bunch of very wealthy people (1%-ers) got together and announced they neither want nor need the tax breaks they have been given.

I know this movement is not known for its specificity or anything, but I really would like to see a little clarification on this one. It would help this movement gain support by the thousands. Blanketing the entire 1% as "evil and corrupt" isn't fair... or right.

[-] 1 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

I hear what you are saying! Please consider the damage done to our people and multitude of cities by corporations willfully outsourcing American jobs and keeping their profits overseas while marketing their goods in the US without any tariff. Now the labor they exploit overseas is mostly sweatshop run. Yet they are willing to spend millions of dollars to lobby the government to grant them a tax holiday so that they can bring their money into the country and disperse it to their shareholders. Among them is Apple, Microsoft, GE, and the list goes on. None of these corporations and the majority of millionaires and billionaires give tidily winks for the well-being of the country that enabled them to have the opportunity to create their wealth and gave them , thru heavy US military and CIA intervention all over the world the ability and protection to outsource their jobs. Yes there is a group of millionaires who support Just taxation. They are a handful compared to the rest. If you have a bag of rice that is mostly rotted and among that rice is a small amount of clean rice what would you call that bag of rice?

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

Do you really believe that? You really think it's more a bag full of mostly rotten rice and not just a few bad kernels?

I guess that's why we don't understand each other. Here you are, up to your neck in a movement geared toward humanity... and yet you obviously have very little faith in it.

Rich people like being rich. That's a fact. But not all rich people, nor are most rich people even, are dirty and corrupt. The resistance you find from the wealthy, their uniformity (overall) in opposing this movement is too many times things like this conversation comes up...



Can you not understand their distaste for a movement that claims these things so frequently and openly?

This is why I urge for a clearer statement than just the "1%". There are plenty of wealthy people in this country who agree with aspects of this movement. But when you appear to openly attack them as this movement does...

We will never gain their support. This cannot be a good thing.

[-] 0 points by ombp2 (12) 10 years ago

Don't you understand that the bank is doing a potential home owner a favor by offering a loan? If you don't want to deal with a bank, don't get a loan--just buy with cash, and your problem is solved!

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 10 years ago

Banks are doing potential homeowners favors.... really? How about potential homeowners are doings BANKS favors by offering to take a loan and pay it back with interest, thus making the bank money? What if everyone decided to stop buying homes and stop paying their mortgages and decided to rent. Then what would the banks do?

You people are so skewed in your thinking. It's absolutely ridiculous.

And as we've already established, why does ANYONE have a "right" to own a piece of this planet?????

[-] 0 points by ombp2 (12) 10 years ago

I like your idea. I recommend you refrain from doing banks any more favors. No loans for you! Oh yeah, and make sure there's enough room under your mattress for your cash.

[-] 1 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

Why do banks have this control over the land of America? Why must Americans propitiate to banks to get invented money that the banks did nothing to possess? Why should banks have the right to deny people use of land and the resources they need to be self sustaining?

[-] 0 points by LoveYourEnemy (3) 10 years ago

Good point. Certainly we cannot really "own" anything. At best we are custodians. Certainly the allocation of resources should be based on NEED above all else. If someone doesn't need a 20 bedroom house then I would say they have no right to it, but if someone does NEED a house and one is available, then they have every right to it, and I would argue that if such a house does not exist (and their need is genuine) then they have a right for the community around them to look after them and all chip in and help build one.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

HUD and Habitat for Humanity are all over this. And the community should donate their efforts when they are able... however... if a person has the means to afford a 20 bedroom house, it is their right to do just that.

Pursuit of happiness is a tricky line in our good ole Constitution. A: it guarantees nothing, only the pursuit of it. B: who is to say what "happiness" is?

[-] 2 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

Only if an individual has acquired their money with harm to none: meaning by honest means ( different than legal means because today most of white collar crime is legitimized by laws dictated by the 1%) and without the exploitation of workers by paying them a subsistence wage rather than a living wage.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

Yes. My point is, your favorite quarterback has the means and right to obtain a 20 bedroom house. And there is nothing wrong with that. And he should not have to fear the masses showing up on his lawn, armed, and demanding his release of what he has earned.

There are a variety of people in the 1%. Addressing the whole group as an unjust and corrupt entity isn't necessarily accurate. And obviously leads to confusion. I stand firm in my belief that said favorite quarterback has every right to peacefully and shamelessly live in his oversized home, if he so chooses... however, blanketed 1% claims imply he does not.

[-] 1 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

First and foremost, no one in their right mind assumes that it is every single individual in the 1% who is dishonest and conniving and out to solely protect their interests. However it is the majority of individuals who feel entitled to special privileges and undue influence due their wealth and status. They are nonetheless a group. As to the quarterback example: The exorbitant salaries that these individuals make are unjust. For their salaries to be so flagrant it means that most americans cannot afford the tickets to see a live game. The cost of tickets to sports events and theaters are priced for high profit and thus excludes millions of people from ever participating in these events.

Individuals with special talents deserve to be rewarded, but so do the individuals who sweep the floors and serves at the concession stands and do the myriad of tasks required to showcase the talent of a select few. None of these individuals earn a living wage. Yet without their time and energy these events would not come about. Yet their contribution is devalued to a point that keeps these workers in a chronic state of poverty and on government food support and medicaid. This is unjust. Every working individual deserves to profit from their work even those with very limited skills. Otherwise we are back to a corporate welfare system were the tax dollar is used to subsidize labor exploitation. SO maybe the quarterback's salary could afford him a 10 bedroom house and all the labor participants a living wage. This would be economic Justice.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

Alright, scratch the quarterback. How about Steve Jobs? He created a product we wanted and the markets set the price. He made millions.

Or do we have a problem with Steve Jobs too?

And just as a point of interest, I know people who work at the Syracuse Dome. They do not, by any stretch, live in poverty. They are well cared for. Decent wages, excellent health insurance, great benes. Some of them raise entire families on a single income. Quite successfully.

So. Yeah. So much for that.

[-] 1 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

This is not the case in our Stadiums in Minnesota. All services are handled by independent subcontractors so the workers have Zero benefits and a subsistence wage. There is also the issue of millions of workers being shed by retail corporations who then outsource their labor needs on an hourly and piece work basis to independent day labor contractors. The workers do the work the corporations need done and the corporation has legally relieved itself of all laws and labor rights responsibilities: No sick days, no paid vacations, no health care coverage. The labor for these corporations is again tax payer subsidized with food support and MedicAid.

I do have an issue with Steve Jobs! Yes he is a creative and smart business man who is extremely disloyal to the country that granted him the opportunity to create his business and products. He made the choice to outsource the production work of all Apple products , except for software. Apple pays no tariff on the products they sell in the US. This is anti-competitive. He knowingly hired the most exploitative sweat shops to produce his goods overseas. The workers in those factories work under hazardous conditions and at a pay that regardless of the hours they work cannot sufficiently provide for themselves and their families. Many committed suicide and after numerous deaths the workers finally received a marginal raise. Now Steve Jobs was fully aware of all of this and did nothing . He lacks a conscience and human dignity that would enable him to recognize the value of what each working individual adds to his ability to do what he does. Jobs was a self-absorbed and self-centered workaholic who saw no value in anyone outside himself. I am not impressed by individuals like Jobs who build their success and wealth by trampling the rights and values of others. A person can be creative and smart but when they use it for self aggrandizement by trampling the value and dignity of others and willingly exploiting the desperate need for work of the impoverished in China this is not an individual who is deserving of respect.

Not much independent thinking in your mind.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

Alright. So it is the entire 1% you take issue with then. You could have just said that when I asked the first time.

Steve Jobs took advantage of the tax breaks and loopholes our policies provide him. The same way I do when I check the "Child Tax Credit" box or fill out the EIC form every February.

Ever heard the expression "You go where the money is?".

Well, believe it or not, its as true for someone making $10/hr as it is for someone making $100. Making buckets money because you come up with the single most amazing products we've ever seen... or because you can stand out on a 100 yard field do something virtually no one else can... shouldn't be a crime in this country. Nor should it be frowned upon. I'm sorry. That mentality is just ridiculous.

Outsourcing jobs, skirting taxes... these should be crimes. Or at least punishable offenses. Apple should have paid more in taxes the moment they shipped jobs overseas.

As far as your judgments about Mr. Jobs personality. I read his biography. The things you speak of... being self centered and a workaholic... well, the latter was true until his dying day, pretty much. But his self centered-ness ended many years ago. As a person, he was a fine model of a human being.

If thinking independently means I have to hate rich people... all of them... and think that everyone in this country who isn't rich is impoverished... even when I see great evidence to the contrary (yes, I know some parts of this country are harder hit than others)... or that janitors deserve the same wages as CEO's (clean, dirty or otherwise)... well... call me a sheep then. Even though I despise the term being used in regard to any human, anywhere, ever.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't think independently. In fact, it would appear to mean the opposite, by definition.

Merry Christmas to you, 1SiriusMagus. Or whatever holiday you'll be observing during this time. I wish the best to you and yours.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 10 years ago

I agree 100%. It's ridiculous how some people try to justify an athlete or a celebrity making millions or a CEO making millions and billions. NO ONE IS SO TALENTED AND PRIVILEGED that they DESERVE that AMOUNT OF GREED when there are millions times more people suffering and struggling to get by.... PERIOD. I don't give a flying fuck what excuse ANYONE gives. It's just plain NOT RIGHT.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

First of all, football players careers, by nature, are very short-lived. Are they overpaid? They probably are. But if you average out what they make in the 5 or 6 good years they really have over their entire life... it's not as gluttonous as you seem to think.

[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 10 years ago

"..... I would argue that if such a house does not exist (and their need is genuine) then they have a right for the community around them to look after them and all chip in and help build one."

Yes... this is what the Amish do and what people in more simplistic societies do. There's no reason why the rest of us can't do this as well.

[-] 0 points by yarichin (269) 10 years ago

Okay lets agree for a moment on your statement, shelter is a right, but not ownership. You say home ownership is not a right? Why can the banks kick you out of one then? Think before you speak. I can stay where I like, as long as I like, if there is no ownership. Is that your position? That is my point. If you can tell me how to fly forever for free then you can charge me for having my feet on the ground. I am open to discord, that is how I learn.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

I've thought long and hard about this subject for quite some time.

What happened to this woman should be a crime and I am glad to see Chase finally received the pressure needed to do the right thing.

But no. Owning a home is not a right. It is a privilege. Plain and simple. Shelter is a need and could easily be argued as a right... and I would support that argument. However, no, just because you are there does not mean you own it. Nor should it. Good Grief.

[-] 2 points by yarichin (269) 10 years ago

So, tell me where I can live without paying you or another? I will go there. I will tell all other people who want to be free to go there too. Why (while, I pay you for land, to put my feet on) don't you pay me for the air you are breathing? I have a F@CKING piece of paper that says I own the AIR. You don't like it? Go die somewhere. Stop breathing! Stop Eating! Stop Standing on the Earth! Stop drinking the water! This is a brainwash you have not even thought about. AIR, WATER, FOOD, AND LAND, are the most basic rights.

[-] 1 points by hattiecat2 (17) 10 years ago

go home to your mother. she may still let you mooch of her tit.

[-] 0 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

No, sir.

Air, water, food are needed for survival. You will surely die without them.

But go ask a homeless person on the streets if you need... NEED... to own land to survive. He will tell you that you do not.

For that matter, there are countless welfare programs paying people's rent with my tax dollars already. You want I should pay more, I assume?

And say, hypothetically, I give you a piece of my land to live on. You have the resources to build your own shelter? I'd wager not. So should people provide the services to build your shelter for free too? How about furnishings? If shelter is a right, surely a bed is as well, yes? And a fridge... and I suspect I should be expected to fill your fridge with my food, too... after all, we've already established food is required for survival.

My goodness what a dream world you live in!

Oh. And as a point of interest, if you would like to continue this debate, I suggest you stop swearing at me and speak to me like a civilized, rational human being. If at all possible. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 10 years ago

Okay forget the swearing. Tell me how to fly forever, and land is off the table as a requirement for survival, and so becomes a non right. I am an atheist but look at the bible for a moment. Debts are to be forgiven every 7 years (still are if you file bankruptcy) . Every 50 years there is supposed to be a Jubilee at which ALL land is to be redistributed. This was put in place to prevent family hoarding of wealth and to prevent KINGS. They may have been superstitious idiots but some of what they came up with had lasting value.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago


You can't claim to be an atheist in one breath and then pick and choose bible passages that work for you in the next.

You would be entertaining if your point of view wasn't so terrifying.

OWNING land is not a requirement for survival. OWNING it. OWNING. OWNING. OWNING.

I'm about done with this. You bore me.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 10 years ago

"You can't claim to be an atheist in one breath and then pick and choose bible passages that work for you in the next."

Why not? People who claim to be religious pick what they want out of the Bible or whatever their religious book is to serve their greed.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

And those people are hypocrites, too....

[-] 1 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

Where are you two going with this? It sounds like you both think land should not be owned but used. Right?

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

Land should be used, yes. Yarichin thinks if you are there, you own it. And said ownership is a natural right. I strongly disagree.

[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 10 years ago

Um.... what I got out of it is that yarichin is saying ownership of land should NOT exist and that ALL PEOPLE have a right to occupy space.... a piece of Earth.... somewhere without some other asshole telling them that they can't be there and that if they want to be there that they have to pay someone for being there.

I guess you missed the sarcastic point of yarichin's point of view.... to say that NO ONE has the right to claim to own land.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

Well. I'm so happy you've shown back up in my world to translate for him then.

You ask me when I am going to change? You are one of the most hostile posters on this forum, dear. Let us not be hypocritical now...

[-] 0 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

Ah, there is the truth of it in that phrase "NEED ... my land to survive." You pretend to be so genteel but you are quite ready to let someone live homeless as if they should be PROUD of the fact when you deny YOUR private resources to ensure another person has a quality of life. THAT is exactly the point; your example of how a landed person can justify the denial of any pursuit of happiness to others for your right to hoard resources. You keep in place the laws that make it illegal for a person to create a home freely on land but support a government that also hoards 30% of this land and is ever seeking more to "protect our treasured landscapes." My treasured landscapes do not include hungry, homeless Americans being held off of hoarded land by government and speculator guns.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

Read what I said. Because that wasn't it.

This debate was not about whether more should be done to get the homeless off the streets. More should be done. We are, theoretically, the richest country in the world... homelessness and hunger should be eradicated without a second thought.

But that's not what this is about. yarichin seems to be of the mind that owning property is a right. And it simply is not. You have no "rights" to own land, not in this country or any other. You have the right to live and living requires shelter... but nowhere, at no time does anyone need to own that shelter.

Yarichin is also of the mind that if he decides he has more right to my land than me and my family does, he can just show up and take it by force.

I, my friend, am not the problem. I am all about solutions. All I am saying is, owning land is by no means a right. It is a privilege. Its something you earn. Not something you are simply entitled to and certainly not something you should take from someone else... a peer... by force.

Let's try to solve the very real problems of national hunger and homelessness and stop quibbling over whether or not I am the problem because I believe, quite rationally, that owning land is neither a right nor a necessity for survival.

[-] 2 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

I agree with everything you say except the line "Its something you earn." I believe the only price for this should be that one makes him or herself self sustaining. I believe that we will end wars if we make the land and its resources the commonwealth of the people. We must end the privatization and hoarding of land and resouces to end war. This is not to say that some one cannot have a permanent land base if it is used to make themself self-sustaining, or it is used cooperatively to make many people self sustaining. The concept that T. Boone Pickins has the ownership and all rights to the water under an aquifer in Texas and may withhold its use from others is criminal. The idea that Ted Turner can hoard over 2 million acres of land yet deny its use to those in need is criminal. This system of exploitive capitalism is what is wrong. It permits the privatization of resources by some for the purpose of driving into some form of slavery others so they might live.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

You have some points I can agree with... and some I think you are a little unrealistic about.

" I believe that we will end wars if we make the land and its resources the commonwealth of the people. We must end the privatization and hoarding of land and resouces to end war."

You go ahead and get Israel on board with this and then get back to me.

I'm not saying it's not a nice idea. It's just unrealistic at this time.

[-] 2 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

So, I have to suck it up and take what bullies dish out, or handle Israel's violent nature on my own... That is your solution?

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

You want the countless other examples of why this is unrealistic? Israel is just one of many, the most blatantly obvious one at that.

I said its a nice idea because it is. And should be something we strive for in the future. I just do not believe this is a realistic approach to today's problems.

Is shut up and deal with bullies, though? No.

Somewhere between the two extremes is a realistic solution.

[-] 2 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

I think that if you work for a weak compromise in this social environment we will fairly rapidly return to the society we now protest with its wars, poverty and greed.

We must be willing to grant freedom to all people and that means freedom to use land and resources to create their own survival. When people are secure in their homes and food supplies and they cannot be bribed into fighting wars because they lack these necessities we will be able to build an economy and a government that serves US.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

To accomplish what you suggest, on a global level, would require world revolution. WWIII, to be exact. You are suggesting turning the "civilized" world, as a whole, upside down. It is very radical and very extreme. And there would be mass bloodshed required to accomplish this.

Which, when it comes right down to it, has been my point all along. It is a nice idea, it really, truly is. For everyone to live freely and securely. For everyone to have what they need to be sustainable and ample opportunity to be successful. To house, feed and clothe everyone in turn. I would love to live in that world. I would do my part to create it (in many senses, I already do... I do what I can, to the extent of my means, when I can... everytime)...

But to actively pursue it on a global level? Getting rid of land ownership, abolishing oil mongers, war mongers, land mongers.... money hoarders?

We would be squashed most violently. Perhaps not by our own government (or perhaps so)... but most definitely by another.

They are stronger than we are, AllOverIt. We do NOT have strength in numbers, when it comes right down to it. I understand your concern for taking a slow-build approach. I really do. Unfortunately, it is the only realistic one at this time.

[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 10 years ago

And why can't we start with OURSELVES????? Your answer and excuse for these ideas being impossible are "go and solve Israel's or whoever's problems"?????

That is pathetic to say the least. Change starts WITH YOURSELF FROM WITHIN and starts when one DECIDES to change. When will you decide to change?

[-] 1 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago

I think I love you SwissMiss.

[-] 1 points by ombp2 (12) 10 years ago

Uhhhhh, home ownership isn't a right (unless you happen to own the house). If you own the house, you have a right to live there. Do you not see the problem with your thinking? Independentmind isn't saying that private property is wrong, silly!

[-] 0 points by yarichin (269) 10 years ago

No, that fool is saying that banks can own homes, and kick you out of them, but home ownership is not a F@CKING right. That is F@CKING stupid. It is either a right or it is not. Banks can produce a piece of paper saying they own it but you cannot? Wake THE F@CK UP! It is just a piece of F@CKING paper.

[-] -1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

Ownership is not a right.

Whoops. Did I say it again???

Oh well. One more time for good measure...


And yes, if you secure a loan for property and default on your loan payments, they can relinquish "your" land.

YOU sign the contract, knowingly and willingly. The bank certainly forces no one's hand here.

There are no tricks. You know the terms, they are very, very simple. You default, they repo. Why is this so hard for you to absorb?

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 10 years ago

My family has been living here for 10,000 years your family arrived 500 years ago. Why is your right to own land, greater than my right to share it with my family?

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago



If I build my son a small house in the back of my land and share my property with him, that's my business.

If you show up with your family (who has NOT been here for 10,000 years, you nut) and demand my land at gun point because of some sick, deep seeded, way off base notion you have that you think you just can... that it's your right to...

well, buddy... I'll burn my house to the ground before I let you have it.

This isn't about "taking" someone else's property. This is about whether or not owning property is a right. And... it's not.

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 10 years ago

I have little 1/8 Native American blood but am using the 10,000 years to make a simple point. Land is and always will be a right since you cannot live without it. If you disagree then fly away and never land.

[-] 3 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

Fine. You need land to live.

You do not need to OWN it.

Get it yet?

Judas Priest.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 10 years ago

It was white man who brought the concept of land ownership to this side of the world. The Native peoples don't believe in Earth ownership at all but have been forced into buying into it by white man.... via being subjected to living on reservations and having to buy into the greed game; otherwise, they'd end up being booted off of Earth.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 10 years ago

Right. And the white man has been bartering and trading for land since the beginning of time, essentially. This debate has nothing to do with Native land rights. Do I think they got a bum deal? Sure. But living in an area swarming with sovereign nation claims, I have mixed opinions on this one... they have ZERO problem kicking people out of their homes in my area. None of these people took land from a Native American. Ever. But for a group of people you claim so boldly do not believe in Earth Ownership... they most certainly think they have more right to POSSESS that land than the family currently residing there. Fact. But I'm off topic...

I really don't see why you're arguing with me, to be honest. Seems like I am on the same page as you are... stating you do not need to own land to have a successful life, to be stable and secure.

You, I believe, enjoy arguing. And you certainly enjoy arguing with me, no matter how scattered your arguments or unrelated your points. Rock on, sister.

[-] 0 points by AllOverIt (100) 10 years ago


[-] 0 points by ombp2 (12) 10 years ago

I'm confused with the both of you two, independentmind and yarichin. Which one of you believes you can own land, and who doesn't? I can answer it for you--you can. And you have a right to kick out any trespasser that comes on your land (but, I'm told, you're not allowed to shoot them--unless it's at night perhaps). And that is all GOOD. Banks can also own property also when they foreclose on property. And that's GOOD too. Do we agree now?

[-] 2 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 10 years ago

Now that is what a greedy bastard would say: Money is more important than human need or disability!

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 10 years ago

I believe she was able to get her loan modified by Chase to an amount she can pay.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

"Inquisitive" pull your head out of your ass. Reread the story if you did not understand it ( or didn't read it ) the 1st time.

[-] 1 points by inquisitive (20) 10 years ago

I think I'll keep it there. It's where I find OWS.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Drop the O in your reply, and I will believe you. I hope your practicing safe WallStreet it would be a shame if you got aids or something for blindly standing up ( I mean bending over ) for the corrupt.

By the way you look pretty comfortable like that. Are you a contortionist? Or does it just get easy with practice?

[-] -3 points by ObamaIsrael (0) 10 years ago

occupy is code word for sqautting nothing more. give it up occupy.

[-] 1 points by mustbe99 (3) 10 years ago

occupy is a peaceful movement comitted to showing the 1% that were here and were not going to tolerate their bourgeoise style of a system, all the philosophical arguments here are great and all but the real issue is that 1% of the population controls 90% of the wealth, and not beacuse they earned but because they worked a flawed system in their favor, and are continuing to work to keep the 99% as far from them as possible. The problem here is the corporations with billions of dollars lobbying our congress of elected officials. where we need to occupy is in the banks, sit in at chase and disrupt bussiness for as long as possible, try to educate the patrons coming in and out, only when you interfere with their dollars and cents will they begin to listen. as much as i would love to burn a few down thats not how were going to do things,

[-] -3 points by dan1984 (108) from Cumberland, MD 10 years ago

It is your patriotic duty to defend your country from the threat of terrorism. You were wounded in combat. We appreciate what you have done for your country. Now piss off.

[-] 2 points by nth (21) 10 years ago

Are you fucking serious? Want a Non-Violent Boot to your head? Son of a bitch.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 10 years ago

And we wonder why we have so many issues to solve... with assholes like dan1984 in existence.

[-] 1 points by mustbe99 (3) 10 years ago

would much rather see a boot of the more violent variety, this gentleman (dan1984) certainly deserves something from the top shelf for a remark like that, salute to all and any who willfully put themselves in harms way for the greatest country in the world,