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

Americans Re-Occupy Their Homes

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 6, 2011, 9:38 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

Today, Americans stood up and said, "We have a right to shelter. No one can take that right from us." Today we re-occupied our homes.

In East New York, Brooklyn - a foreclosed home is being reclaimed today by a local homeless family. #OWS, along with local neighbors and community groups, has pledged to stay with the family and defend them from eviction. Kendall Jacklman from Picture The Homeless spoke to the housing crisis ongoing in New York City, saying, "There is enough housing in this city to shut down the Department of Homeless Services and offer everyone decent, affordable housing based on our real wages."

We own our homes - a callous bank that split ownership of our homes into hundreds of parts, redistributing them across the world under false ratings does not own our homes. Banks are able to restructure settlements constantly - we are not - they receive billions of dollars enabling them to stay afloat for long enough to steal our homes. Do not let them.

Across the nation occupiers along with community groups shut down foreclosure auctions and reclaimed homes for families displaced by the global economic crisis. Two homes in Atlanta were re-occupied. In Oakland, foreclosure auctions were disrupted at the county courthouse - more than a dozen homes were saved.

We stand in solidarity with homeowners across the country and the world whose homes are in the process of being stolen by faceless conglomerations motivated only by profit. We are the 99%. We will not let our homes be stolen.



Read the Rules
[-] 15 points by forOWS (161) 12 years ago

The system is corrupt. Support OWS for real change in the world. The greedy money changers have cornered the markets on everything that people need to survive. Housing. Healthcare. Jobs. Farms. This has to end. We CAN change the world.

[-] 8 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 12 years ago

And like you, I hope OW keeps on keeping on.

[-] 3 points by OkupieAll (29) 12 years ago

I agree with this movement, but how about we start collecting donated coats for some of these. It's going to get cold out soon.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

hey - shit for brains - your best post yet

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

Why such a degrading term?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

sorry - the reply was for alouis - not sure why it ended up where it did - maybe i am shit for brains also - alpuis is a dope that has been posting nonsense

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 12 years ago

I don't represent OW.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

no shit

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

What system do you support?


[-] 1 points by SayNO2GovInc (99) 12 years ago

It is up to us, we are like frogs in a pot that has been on the stove for 10 years. OWS is GREAT... WE have the attention.. So what are we waiting for? This info should motivate the most apathetic, heck, it will probably wake up the dead, CRITICAL WAKE UP CALL FOLKS: 'Hacking Freedom for Fascism' http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2011/12/hacking-freedom-for-fascism.html

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

If this system is corrupt, my question to you is what system do you support.




[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 12 years ago

We can, and we will!


yours s struggleforfreedom

..oh, btw,

happy birthday Noam Chomsky :)


[-] -1 points by TheNewMovement (46) 12 years ago

May it be his last...

[-] -1 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

The last time I was in school, many many many years ago, we were told that what we need is air, water, food, heat, clothing, shelter and medical care. Everything else is a want. Every normal person above a certain age has to earn through work the things they want. No one has the right to receive anything they want or need. Being a parasite is not a right, in more clearer terms, no one has the right to make another live for their sake, period.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

"Being a parasite is not a right, in more clearer terms, no one has the right to make another live for their sake, period."

That's exactly right. So do you agree that the Wall St. thugs, corporations, etc. should stop receiving welfare from THE PEOPLE???


[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

No person, company or country should receive any US tax money, period. No bail outs, loans or straight out giveaways etc, should happen using US tax money, period. I am hardcore opposed to any kind of welfare, period. I noticed you did not call politicians thugs, they are the ones in control of the confiscated money. Was it an over sight on your part? If I had my way, the 16TH Amendment would be repealed and the USA would be back on the gold standard, ASAP. And lastly, all fees, licenses, permits etc would be repealed, that way the citizens would be more in control and more powerful and the politicians would be a whole lot weaker.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

I didn't purposely forget politicians. They receive welfare as well. I agree with some of your points but not all. I believe that people who truly need help (not those who are lazy and are capable of working but refuse to) should get it when needed. Not wanting to help another person because of materialism (hunger for money and things) is pretty damn sad to me.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

Welfare will never ever be my philosophy. I do advocate for someone seeking help from churches, charities, friends, families, co-workers and neighbors. Now that also means the seeker shall not be allowed to use threats and or intimidation to receive it. And the seeker should be made to work off the donations, if they physically can. Those people "who are lazy"....have no dignity, no self respect and do not want a better life. As so far as a person "not wanting to help [others]" for what ever reason maybe "pretty damn sad" , and I would agree with you, but it is there right to be that way, but in turn, that person should not expect help when they need it themselves.

[-] 1 points by iEarnThings (13) 12 years ago

What do you mean by "work off the donations?"

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

This is what I mean; many many years ago, a person receiving a direct donation would (do it alone or help to) clean that donor's property, wash their clothes, baby sit etc. In other words there would be an exchange. That was the norm before the government welfare/parasite system got started. When it was done indirectly, that donor would not receive any labor for the donation, but that person seeking help from a church, charity etc would do the work for that institution. Again that person would earn that donation and not become a parasite, that would leave that person with some pride and self respect.

[-] 1 points by iEarnThings (13) 12 years ago

I'm totally against welfare. I was raised not to ask the question, "can I have some money?" but "how can I earn some money?" What a difference it is! I'm assuming when you say donation you mean that a somewhat large quantity of money is given because I don't mind lending a few bucks to my friend and telling them not to worry about paying me back. It seems like human instinct to repay someone though, so more times then none they repay me some other way without me asking. So I see what you are saying. There are circumstances though where repayment may not be possible.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

There are people who have real handicaps: mental illness; physical handicaps; intellectual limitations; illnesses; and combinations of these. A lot of (the fairly small amount) we spend on welfare goes to people whose ability to earn is poor to non-existent. A large percentage goes to the elderly poor in nursing homes. It isn't as if we can take people with dementia and get them jobs.

It is easy to talk about "lazy", and a few people are. However, the inability to get in gear is a little-understood symptom of a number of types of mental illness. I am using the word inability because their ability is, again, limited to non-existent. It is an invisible disability, as a hearing loss is, only worse.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

When "repayment may not be possible", the persons involved must come to an agreement.

[-] 1 points by iEarnThings (13) 12 years ago

and the agreement could be that repayment is not necessary, correct?

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by iEarnThings (13) 12 years ago

I guess my point is not every act of charity has to be repaid

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

I get your point.....

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

I completely disagree that people should have to work off their donations or whatever when they are truly in need. This is a very materialistic view, and I despise materialism to the core. There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone getting help in some form when they truly need it. It doesn't have to do with money, either. My view is to pay things forward.... if you need a favor/help, then you should receive it. In turn, when others need a favor/help, give it to them when you are able to.

Should I have to work off the favor/help that a neighbor gives me when my car breaks down, if that neighbor fixes it for me? People thinking that those who receive some kind of help should work it off just drive materialism and slavery even more.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

I am not shocked to read that you "completely disagree" with having self respect and pride, a welfare advocate will always support a welfare state. To denounce an even exchange of work for receiving something not earned has always been the hallmark of welfare advocates for a long long time. Leech advocates have always misused the compassion of the producers/donors to reach into the pockets to steal more money. And when I read or hear that its not about the money, its really about the money. You say "materialism" or "materialistic", I say its the results of a free market system which allows an individual the right to obtain what ever that person buys without violating someone else's rights, period. Who are you or anyone else to decide how much that person should or should not own? Who gave you the power? Now about your car breaking down, if your neighbor doesn't want anything for helping you, and that's a good thing, that's on him, if he does, he should tell you up front. And lastly to slavery, slavery will always be deemed evil to me, it is forced labor, it violates individual rights, materialism doesn't.

[-] 1 points by entitycs (1) 12 years ago

Please allow me to attempt to spark a connection seemingly not being made inside of your brain currently.

You value self respect and pride. You dislike leeching off of other people's hard work. You said the free market violate's no one's rights, period. You dislike the idea of someone having the power to decide what others can and cannot own. Also you are opposed to slavery.

Evidently you are either very good at hiding the truth from yourself, or you are blind to the means of wealth and production.

It is extremely difficult to argue against your logic because it is so argumentative against itself... but I'll try to make some of these connections happen for you by asking you some simple questions.

First, how does one take pride in knowing that they do in one year, more work than 32 hard working men will do in their lifetimes? I mean, that's almost an "unbelievable" amount of work / worth. You didn't mention humility, self control or non-douchebaggery as values, so perhaps you would believe yourself to be that productive were you to know anything about how to accumulate large amounts of money from hard working (or not) people. If so, congratulations have defied science, physics, and the word of God (in how unequally awesome your anatomy, wisdom, and enormous contribution to the good of society are compared to what the rest of God's children are capable of - perhaps we should see if there really isn't a supreme Human subspecies to which you belong).

Second question: materialism doesn't violate individual rights because as individual human beings we don't have the right to decide what becomes of our planet's resources. Only businesses should have that right - Correct?

Last question. Which race is superior - and which races should this superior race allow the 'right' to reproduce - and if not by war and genocide, would it be okay to just keep the other races poor and unhealthy while the superior race has 5 or more children per couple while in the meantime demonizing every poor mother? Which race? (Here is your opportunity to ignore the obvious issues and use this question as a scapegoat/wedge)


[-] -3 points by CapitalistPiggy (2) from Cincinnati, OH 12 years ago

Who exactly are the greedy money changers again? The banks? The CEOs? The stockholders? I own stock. Does that make me a greedy money changer? Also, a guy wanted to buy a house that he didn't have the money for up-front, so he signed a mortgage. Does that make him a greedy money changer?

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

No, a guy buying a house he could not afford is not the problem. If you worked in a retail store and some one said, " I have no money or credit cards, but i'd like you to give me a three piece suit, and I'll pay you back when I can." Would you give it to him?

[-] 2 points by charnipar123 (122) 12 years ago

Yes. If he needed it to find work I would do that. It is called helping people in times of need.

[-] 1 points by hattiecat2 (17) 12 years ago

what if he is lying and is not looking for a job, maybe he is scamming you? would you still give him the suit?

[-] 2 points by charnipar123 (122) 12 years ago

What if he isn't? Anyway, maybe I would just take a chance.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

well, that sounds hunky dory, but what happens if he/she never finds a job because the bankers/politicians fubared the economy? you would be out of the cost of a suit. or say he/she lied to you, did not want a job, but instead took the suit to a pawn shop and bought booze with the money he acquired from the pawn shop. just making a point and am not questioning your compassion. we probably would not be in this mess if more people were like you.

[-] 2 points by Victoria13 (8) from Thomasville, NC 12 years ago

OMG Where do you find a pawn shop that buys suits? LMAO

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

I never looked but if you have a thousand dollar suit you want to sell me, I'll gladly take it off your hands for a C note.

[-] 1 points by Victoria13 (8) from Thomasville, NC 12 years ago

I would never be insane enough to own something that frivolous. That is many people's problem. They spend money on useless shit.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

i was just making a point. i'd never where an American noose either. (tie)

[-] 1 points by charnipar123 (122) 12 years ago

You are a sweetheart. You just made my day.

[-] 2 points by YourConscience (7) 12 years ago

"Who exactly are the greedy money changers again?" The banks, The CEOs, The stockholders... you already know the answer.

I own stock. Does that make me a greedy money changer? That depends on which stock you own. If you own for example "Corrections Corporation of America", it's in your intrest that the crime rates go up. That would make you a greedy money changer who wants to get rich regardless the consequences.

[-] 0 points by charnipar123 (122) 12 years ago

'Corrections Corp. of America' a good stock. Here in California a new law is being enacted to put violent offenders in local jails die to over crowding. Crime rates are awful here and offenders are let out on early release.

[-] 0 points by technoviking (484) 12 years ago

i bought wilshire 5000 and i believe i am an owner of nearly all of america's public corporations.

i shall now proceed to take over the world out of apathetic greed.... from my middle-of-nowhere class apartment.

[-] 9 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

This is one cause I can get behind.

The banks were bailed out. The banks in turn should be working with people to restructure loans so families can stay in thier homes. Even if they can only pay $10 per month until they are back on their feet.

[-] 1 points by Restorefreedomtoall1776 (272) from Bayonne, NJ 12 years ago

Great news! I love it! I've been saying for years that this movement to occupy houses stolen from the people should spread across America. There are 2 foreclosed (stolen ) empty houses across the street from my own home. I look forward to Homecoming Occupy Parties at each one.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

Just curious,

Were the houses across the street from you really "stolen" or did the people living there stop paying the mortgage?

[-] 0 points by Restorefreedomtoall1776 (272) from Bayonne, NJ 12 years ago

With all due respect, of course, I am on the side of homeless mothers, fathers and their children, but not the souless vultures of Wall Street, who have stolen not only many of our homes, but even our nation and its government.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

With all due respect, I was not asking what "side" you are on.

You did not answer my question. Did the people living the street from you stop paying the mortgage?

I only ask because there are programs to avoid forclosure including:

  1. Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP)
  2. Principal Reduction Alternative (PRA)
  3. Home Affordable Unemployment Program (UP)
  4. Emergency Homeowners’ Loan Program (EHLP)

Read more here : http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/avoiding_foreclosure

[-] 1 points by Restorefreedomtoall1776 (272) from Bayonne, NJ 12 years ago

"Let them eat cake" became the rallying cry of the French Revolution. Of course, cake was unavailable to the hungry masses, as was the bread they needed. However unfairly, the quote was attributed to deposed Queen Marie Antoinette who lost her head on the guillotine. Your 4 "remedies" for home foreclosures are equally as meaningless as was that non-existent "cake".

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

When you borrow more than $100,000 so you can live in a home you are expected to pay that money back. You sign a contract agreeing to pay that money back usually over a period of 30 years. When you stop making payments for several months the lender will send you letters warning of a foreclosure process. It can take more than a year to complete that process. When you are under water, you can use one of those programs I mentioned and those ore only 4 of 12 offered by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. There are also other options.

It is disingenuous to say that the houses were stolen from your neighbors when there are so many options. They did not pay cash for those homes. In many cases they pu tlittle or no money down. You cannot steal something from somone when they don't own it. If you have a mortgage you do not own your home. If you want to own it you have to pay cash.

The French revolution has nothing to do with people taking responsibilty for their own situation.

[-] 1 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

The banks should not have been bailed out. When do you go after the politicians for giving them our tax money, and when do the cowards go after the politicians that take private property through tax liens.

[-] 1 points by nkp (33) 12 years ago

well said creswell

no one gets bailouts, if they can't survive on their own (corporations) they are a drain to the economy the way it is and throwing around money won't help

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

Right on NKP, let the free market prevail.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 12 years ago

I think his point was: the banks WERE bailed out. Right or wrong (and I agree it shouldn't have happened) it's already done. Because of this fact, they should be bending over backwards to keep people in their homes.

Also agree that we should be going after the politicians (and the federal reserve as they are guiltier than anyone in all this bailout nonsense) for bailing them out in the 1st place.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

Okay, lets go with that angle, those banks were threaten by state and federal politicians to accept people who did not have the where with all to purchase an outhouse let alone a regular house. Walking into a Realtor's office without a lawyer and signing a adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) contract made no scents at all. Now those same people are begging for help. They knew their limits. The banks were victims of political correctness, of being called racist etc. And don't get me started on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Dodd/Frank etc. Allow me to leave you with this notion (and I am sure you already know this) politicians create programs, pass laws, to help their friends and supporters, which in turn gets them re-elected.

[-] 1 points by independentmind (227) 12 years ago

Yes. Which is why we should come at the politicians with both barrels. THEY wrote the laws to make this legal. They can un-do them just them same. Until then, the banks play under the same rules they have been and there is nothing we can do about it.

The banks got their "forgiveness" for making bad loans. I am one of the people who applied for a loan at that time, I did a little more research than most did, apparently, because I walked in knowing what I was capable of taking on and said "NO" to even a penny more... however, those loan officers are shiesty... they painted quite a deceptive (and tempting) picture while I sat at their desk. It was their job to convince people to take loans they can't afford out on houses that were worth a fraction of their mortgage.

And that, more than anything, is the problem. If nothing else, the banks should refinance these loans at the real market value of these homes. No "loan forgiveness", just fairness. Let these people take out new mortgages based on the actual value of their properties. Yes, they end up balking on a portion of their original mortgage, but are still, in my opinion, fiscally responsible and what's more, able to remain in their homes. The banks still get their money (and mine, but we'll ignore the bailouts for now) and the homeowners keep a roof over their family's head.

If a person can't (or won't) refinance, then they look at bankruptcy and foreclosure... but the homes that can be saved should.

The banks got a second chance when capitalism, by definition, says they shouldn't have. Why shouldn't the same opportunity be extended to those they knowingly took advantage of?



[-] 7 points by bkoatz (14) 12 years ago

It's the faceless banks foreclosing on the faceless people that makes this such a common and such a sad tale. The more we can do to bring attention to the actual suffering of real Americans, the better it will be for all of us. When one citizen unjustly loses their home, we all unjustly lose our homes. Solidarity forever.

[-] 1 points by murderkingz (56) 12 years ago

here here!

[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

These five largest criminal enterprise banks now have faces. In fact they have been sued by the Attorney General of Massachusetts, Martha Coakley, for operating multi-organization felonious operations. Please read this Complaint with reference to the federal R.I.C.O. (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statute:

  • www.mass.gov/ago/docs/press/ag-complaint-national-banks.pdf

BOSTON – Five national banks have been sued in connection with their roles in allegedly pursuing illegal foreclosures on properties in Massachusetts as well as deceptive loan servicing, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced today. The lawsuit was filed today in Suffolk Superior Court against Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citi, and GMAC. It also names Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (“MERS”) and its parent, MERSCORP Inc., as defendants.

“The single most important thing we can do to return to a healthy economy is to address this foreclosure crisis,” said AG Coakley. “Our suit alleges that the banks have charted a destructive path by cutting corners and rushing to foreclose on homeowners without following the rule of law. Our action today seeks real accountability for the banks illegal behavior and real relief for homeowners.”

In the complaint pdf format of Complaint Against 5 National Banks , the Attorney General alleges these five entities engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Massachusetts’ law by:

  • Pervasive use of fraudulent documentation in the foreclosure process, including so-called “robo-signing”;
  • Foreclosing without holding the actual mortgage (“Ibanez” violations);
  • Corrupting Massachusetts’ land recording system through the use of MERS;
  • Failing to uphold loan modification promises to Massachusetts homeowners.


This reads like what the United States Attorneys should have been filing - plus reference to interstate connections and mail frauds and R.I.C.O. - for at least the last two years. The management teams of these banks have already generated 12,570,000 foreclosures in their efforts to generate paper profits for their firms (based on fraudulent overvaluation of these empty houses) and big bonuses that are paid with real money. That's 12,570,000 foreclosures over the most recent five years versus the normal rate of 4,500,000 foreclosures for this period at 900,000 a year.

They are thieves.

Is that K.I.S.S. enough ? Even a lawyer or a career politician could understand it. And a hearty "Thank God !" for Martha Coakley. She is the ballsiest public servant in America.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Now we are getting some information about what is going on. Thanks for the information, Vets74.

[-] -1 points by CapitalistPiggy (2) from Cincinnati, OH 12 years ago

What about when a guy JUSTLY loses his home, but says it was unjust? Should we still offer our solidarity to him?

[-] 3 points by YourConscience (7) 12 years ago

Do we let someone who is proud to call himself a 'capitalist pig' to judge who is justly or unjustly evicted?

[-] 1 points by dalton (111) 12 years ago

yes...if he evicts juslt...it does not matter

a rose is a rose no matter what you call it

justly evicted is justly evicted no matter who does the evicting

[-] 1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 12 years ago

you're calling yourself my conscience but clearly you are not so at least he is honest from the start...

[-] 1 points by YourConscience (7) 12 years ago

Although Socrates—who was the main character in most of Plato's dialogues—was a genuine historical figure, it is commonly understood that in later dialogues Plato used the character of Socrates to give voice to his own philosophical views.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Yeah - way to go, forget the question (message) and spend all of your time chasing and killing the messenger.

Are you volunteering to take CapitalistPiggy's role as judge??

[-] 2 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Indeed, in normal times some 900,000 families a year fall on hard times through sickness, failed businesses, floods/tornadoes/hurricanes and other calamities. An absolute majority of these 900,000 normal foreclosures result from the costs of providing health care for terminal and severe chronic care diseases.

"JUSTLY loses his home" is a tough concept where a thinker lacks evidence. In Germany or Scandinavia or Sweden or France, you will see a different approach to these problems.

[-] 6 points by Justice4all (133) 12 years ago

The United States of America is dead. The rights that we were all supposed to have been born with do not exist and have not for some time. Those involved with the Occupy movement by acting peacefully but have had their rights violated by doing nothing more than acting on those rights, having had them squashed by a system owned and controlled by the ruling class. For those who have stood up to tyranny have shown they are the true kings of this world and are leaders in every sense of the word!! But money will always control the system and that is never going to change unfortunately. People should always stand up to tyrants and the villain mindset that controls this country and the world--but, the dream that was supposed to be America does not exist as it has shown from its true essence these past few months by the actions of the controllers over the controllees. So, since we know where the United States really is done as the country it was supposed to be, I guess the next question is where do we go from here?

[-] 9 points by Ubuntu (34) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

I agree except money will not always control the system. The Occupy Movement in essence proves this. The people will do what they need to do eventually regardless. The monetary system is consentual. It was built as a false religion and it depends entirely upon belief. When the people no longer believe it loses all its power. What we are seeing now is the grueling process from belief to disbelief.

[-] 2 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Money, sure thing. But crime is the core of this mess.

$7.3-trillion between bogus subprime mortgages, prime mortgages, bribery-driven phony-"AAA" CDO (Consumer Debt Obligation) bonds, and the fraudulent use of the term "synthetic ownership" to disguise underlying CDS (Credit Default Swap) unsecured-insurance casino-bet scams.

They are thieves.

Same thing could happen in any economic system. There's never a shortage of sociopaths. It's just harder to control with capitalism.

Btw: I'm not discounting the current structural business/technology/employment economic problems pointed out by Joseph Stiglitz and others. Loss of manufacturing jobs now is exactly parallel to the loss of agricultural jobs during the 1920s and 1930s that ushered in the Great Depression.

We needed to redirect investment to education and infrastructure 10- maybe 15-years ago to smooth out the impacts. Instead we went to war in 2002 and continue to waste the most of a trillion dollars a year on military toys. Vanity Fair for January has a perfect short-column on this situation.

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

yes the "beliefs" are to brutalise us!

[-] 4 points by proudofOKC (361) 12 years ago


[-] 2 points by mpage2 (5) from Oakland, CA 12 years ago

Sorry but I respectfully disagree. The United States of America is not dead. It will never be dead along as their are Real Americans like you and everyone thats pissed of. By participating in Occupy you are actually doing something very American. What however is dying is CAPITALIST AMERICA, we real Americans will go somewhere but believe me we will go United.

[-] 2 points by Justice4all (133) 12 years ago

I really hope your right mpage2! Hopefully capitalism can die, but we'd have to get those who serve the power (cops and politicians) to turn their backs on it in large large numbers. As long as they are surviving making a salary. Doing so by turning their backs on the people they are suppose to serve and serving those who currently run this dreadful system. They have paid off our politicians and give those in uniform (police) the power to destroy our rights in plain site, as more or less to say--Really now, what can you do about it? Screw your constitution it counts for nothing! For we are in charge here! To be honest mpage2 all I see everyday in the world is tyrrany and fascism and the weight that is being pur on average peoples shoulders grinding them into shells of their true selves. But I think we can all pretty much sense that--which tells me America or at least the one that was supposed to have been created for all has been vaporized into oblivion. But I hope your opinion weighs in truth far more than mine--guess as each day passes we will know where things stand.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

Since you hope "capitalism [dies]", what system do you favor.

[-] 1 points by Justice4all (133) 12 years ago

Socialism for our monetary system (thats where I hope capitalism dies and is never seen again.) But, we keep our basic God given rights. So whatever word for that system is that would be ideal in my opinion for the benefit of the larger majority of this country. I dont believe we are here to serve or be served by money--eventually because greed ultimately will dominate that society, and a ruling elite will take over the whole thing will turn man against man for survival fighting for the scraps left over by those who have accumulated everything. If money is shared fairly and evenly I feel a much better world will allow us to progress, and that can only be done in a spirit sense. Money never will allow for man to progress the way we were supposed to and thats in that spiritual sense, not in a materialistic sense. When people of lesser means fight over a $2 waffle iron on sale for Black Friday, I dont feel that shows a way in which we as human beings are put here for, but it has been in the system thats been created. We all have to take a step back and see what we have done and begin again. If we dont that financial gap will continue to erode our society even further and that continuation of "want" that is based in an emptiness in ourselves will grow even further and we eventually will destroy ourselves because of it.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

I kind of knew that your answer would be of a Socialistic nature. The idea that "money [should be] shared fairly and evenly", reveals that your life in general sucks, and so does your "career/job". I believe I have a God given right to keep the fruits of my labor, and it should not be taken, not by you, a politician or anyone else, period. Ayn Rand was correct, jealousy and envy is the problem. People who are lazy, who have low self esteem, who can not obtain wealth, property etc, believe they should have it handed to them. Please inform me who shall be the one to pass out the confiscated money/property, you, a politician, a dictator, who. Those people "fighting over a $2 waffle iron" have a "lesser means" in brain cells, self respect and dignity, period. If we had a pure free market system (world wide), with a gold standard (using silver too), repealing all taxes, fees, permits, licenses and business regulation, we would not have as many problems as we have now. And lastly, there must be an unwavering support for individual rights, private property rights and the rule of law.

[-] 1 points by Justice4all (133) 12 years ago

When you say God given right to keep what is yours I sure hope your not a believer in Christ who spoke very clearly against the pursuit of money, wealth and power of any kind. But, if you are its just a typical hypocritacally conservative mindest who uses God and Christ as an excuse to poison mens souls rather than do as the true nature of God states which is to give all that you have to the poor, and render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and to God the things that are Gods. Anyone who believes in a self consumption of money in life has turned their back on God and decency, any acts of church going or even saying they have a personal belief in God is for show. As they serve something that has been given a value by man, (money), and nothing more than that. If this system dies it will be because those who put wealth above their fellow man will make money valueless. If those who the wealthy despise (the poor and middle class) who make the system run decide to turn their backs on it then money has no more value that a plain piece of paper. To that aspect as well, if as a whole people in general realized that all money is created out of debt and really has no value this system would be dead forever! To me Ayn Rand had possibly the most evil poisoned type of mindset that exists! As for my job, its something I enjoy and make decent money, but I dont chase it and give what I can after my bills to those who need it more. All the average person needs is shelter, food, clothing, heat --just the basics any more than that is absolutly absurd!! If it were decided or up to me I would be taxed more if it helped my fellow man who is lesser than me and needs it more than me in a heartbeat! The uprisings that are being seen throughout the world--not just the occupy wall street movement have begun to understand that they have been sold a false bill of goods. That not all those who do the right things and work hard always make it. Thats just a way for the system to keep most of society in line to say just hang in there keep working hard and eventually it will pay off. Most people are wising up to that being untrue and they are slaves to a lie! I honestly dont believe that the Occupy movement the way it is will work (and thats too bad). Ultimately because of human nature the more frustrated groups become and the more their basic human rights are being trampled and spit on will eventually lead to a much worse situation for all! My hope is that those who are well to do begin to not only give a much higher portion of their wages in taxes to rebuild the lower and middle classes, that they should on their own give even more than that! They will still be rich after the fact and have the homes, and cars and luxury items that truly fullfills them (As we know it sure isnt their fellow man), otherwise history and human nature will take this current system and puke it into oblivion! Personally I would like to believe that the conservative mindset is smarter than that and can see that those who dont remember the past are condemed to repeat it, however when they can never consume themselves enough with money and materialistic things in life that really shouldnt matter at all, the roof will cave in on all of us, because we have put materialism and money above the human condition and our fellow man. In the end monetary socialism may be the thing that saves America. Or the overall consumption of a small percentage will bring the whole system to its knees! For those who have much now, just open your eyes to the world around you and peoples frustrations--and the energy that it takes for people to occupy spaces for months on end and not want to leave. Be a presence all over the airwaves, organize protest marches etc. etc. etc. The amount of time and overall energies that takes is staggering and awe inspiring! For people to feel that way about a system they know is rigged speaks volumes! If the wealthy dont think the world can change because of what they have themselves created--all that takes is time and frustration. Study the past, it may do you some good. And in the end allow this world you adore to survive.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

I will keep my response really really short. It is up to you to pay more in taxes, all you have to do is write a big check to the government, don't talk the talk, walk the walk. Man, your post is filled with jealousy and envy. And I might add, contradictions and assumptions.

[-] 1 points by Justice4all (133) 12 years ago

At least I havnt sold my soul, destoyed my fellow man and have my integrity. Guess not having a conscience is what allows those who believe as you do to go through life with blinders on while so many suffer. Dont worry though once those at the very top destroy each level of wealth from bottom up, its only a matter of time til its your turn. (All this system is is a pyramid scheme) Ultimately this system will take all that you love (money and materialism). This movement is a warning to even those of you who think you cant be touched by the top levels of greed. When that day comes ask yourself which side you wish you had vested with. Because you have had many warnings by those who now know what this system is, and its ultimate need to ruin lives--those who have awaken from the trance are trying to save others--even those like yourself.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

So you are not going to walk the walk, that's what I thought, all talk and no action. Just to remind you, these are your own words; "if it were...... up to me I would be taxed more"........Where is your "integrity" now, your "conscience"?

[-] 0 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

name the countries you have visited besides the US.

[-] 1 points by Justice4all (133) 12 years ago

Ive been to Canada and Mexico


[-] 5 points by Bystander (41) from Sissonville, WV 12 years ago

Thank you OWS for standing up for ordinary people!!!

[-] 5 points by randart (498) 12 years ago

It appears that this is the only thing we can do to stand up for our rights. There are no defenders of the poorer people in this society so we have to stand together against those who want to see people cold and starving in the streets.

[-] 3 points by nichole (525) 12 years ago

Community building is truly revolutionary, especially here in America where human relations have been severed due to economic strain.

[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Light a candle for Martha Coakley. St. Michael in a skirt.

[-] 0 points by CapitalistPiggy (2) from Cincinnati, OH 12 years ago

Do you honestly think there is some guy sitting in the crystal tower of some bank laughing at the poor and starving? Is he wringing his hands maniacally and going "MWAAAA HAHAHAHAHA" as well?

You can't say NO ONE is defending the poor. The laws defend them every day. A system of laws backed by a moral populace that does in fact care for its fellow man.

[-] 5 points by randart (498) 12 years ago

I think there is a system set in place that only sees numbers and not people's lives. I see banks being caught basically stealing homes from people who are not even in default and from veterans. Individuals at the banks can sit back and say they had no idea but someone wrote those rules somewhere in the banking system. So, I suppose in some way there are people who are sitting back with a smile on their face when the bonus checks come rolling in and the executive "compensation" is beyond any realistic need.

As for the "laws" that protect the poor. It seems to me that these are being whittled away by lobbyists for the banking institutions. Why else would there be such income disparity?

[-] 1 points by dalton (111) 12 years ago

if the house is foreclosed on even when not in default then the home owner has RECOURSE!

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Do you have specific evidence to support your claim that "...homes from people who are not even in default". This seems to be a very serious claim and one that evidence illegal action. What are you doing to make this breaking of the law public information and turning it over to the proper authorities for resolution.

If this claim is unfounded - you do not have a leg to stand on for any action that you or anyone else wishes to take in the matter - and you yourself would be guilty of the very thing that you are accusing someone else of.

[-] 1 points by randart (498) 12 years ago

It has been on the news many times. It appears that most of the top banks are guilty of it. BofA, Citi, Chase. It is easy enough to do a search on google for illegal foreclosures by banks. Do a search on banks taking veteran's homes too and see what comes up. Make your own decisions on the facts.

[-] 2 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 12 years ago

You are partly correct when you say no one is defending the poor. The laws that were put in place are no longer working for the middle.working class and poor. So along comes OWS. The are the poor,the middle/working class and YES ,They, We,are now defending the poor.

[-] 1 points by Joe4more (165) from Cranston, RI 12 years ago


[-] 4 points by ows999 (19) 12 years ago

The 99% Converge on Capitol Hill December 5-9


Join thousands of 99%-ers who are coming to Washington, DC during the first week of December to take back the Capitol from corporate control.

We can have a real impact as Congress deliberates the extension of unemployment insurance benefits for more than 5 million people and other important budget and tax measures.

It’s time for the 99% to be a visible, peaceful presence on Capitol Hill. By day we’ll show up at Congressional hearings and K Street lobbyists’ offices, and by night we’ll crash in church auditoriums, union halls, and in tents and sleeping bags.

Our goal is to remind Congress to represent all Americans—not just the richest 1%.

[-] 3 points by robtsum (3) 12 years ago

How can I get support to re-occupy my apt. it was fraudulently taken from me while I was out of state for medical reasons. - robert - 213.219.4085 - robtsum@gmail.com

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 12 years ago

I agree totally and completely with this strategy. It will be effective in exposing another important discussion which we need to have in America.

[-] 3 points by Econome (20) 12 years ago

This is exactly what needs to happen across this country.

There are entire communities of homeowners that have been displaced as their former neighborhoods lie vacant and decaying. This benefits no one. Take them back.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

So you support stealing, right.

[-] 3 points by Edy020 (3) 12 years ago

In 2009 I applied for a home loan modification from Bank of America. They requested tons of paperwork, which I dutifully faxed to them. I called to make sure they had all the paperwork. I was told that everything was there, and I should wait for an answer on my loan. Several months passed and I called BOA to find out what was taking so long, and I was told my modification request was under review. I asked if I should make a payment because my mortgage was falling way behind, and I was told that I should not make a payment because it would stop the modification process. I waited. Six months later I called again, and was told the same thing. I did not pay my mortgage for 19 months waiting on BOA to modify my loan. After 19 months I received a Fed Ex letter from the bank stating that my loan had not been approved for modification because they did not have all the required paperwork from me. WHAT? I called BOA, and explained what had happened and I was told that I was now behind over $14,000 and they wanted it all. I explained that now I was unemployeed, and that I had acted on their instructions. The lady told me that I should have disregarded the instructions and sent in some payments. WHAT? I asked them if I could file for the Obama save our homes modification, and they told me that since I had lost my job, and unemployment does not count as income, I would have to either pay up or move out. I went to an attorney who says that they are very aware that BOA is doing this to many homeowners. I can't believe that their failure to act is going to cost me my home. I have my life savings invested in this place. I have since found out that BOA has done the same thing to four more homeowners right here in my neighborhood. They ask you for a ton of paperwork, and then when you can no longer rescue your home because they have told you to wait, they tell you that you did not send in all the paperwork required. They have totally acted in bad faith. How do they get away with this? If you want to be technical about it, I already paid off my mortgage by giving the banks their bailout money. Didn't the bailout money go to cover bad mortgages? I am confused. I am also mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. I am now in a standoff with BOA. Oh, but wait, I just got a letter from them today saying that my loan was now sold to another company. WHAT? I guess the other company will act quicker in removing us from our homes. I can think of no other reason why they would have taken on the bad loans. I believe that BOA, or whoever handles my mortgage now should refinance my loan reflecting today's market value, and interest rates. Give us a chance to stay in our homes because you will not like it when you are faced with millions of us living on the street. Then you will see true civil unrest.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Fuckers. My boss had huge problems with BOA on re-financing his house. His original mortgage was with BOA, so he thought it would be easier to re-fi through them, since they have all his info, paperwork, etc. Well, little did he know that he'd have to resubmit the SAME paperwork and info THREE MORE TIMES, because those at BOA are incompetent. He went through hell to get his re-fi done, and it took 3 months. This happened this past summer. I think they did it on purpose to make him pay the higher rate for those 3 months.

FUCK BOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by murderkingz (56) 12 years ago

wow...gotta love that red tape!

[-] 1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 12 years ago

For the 19 months you didn't pay your mortgage, did you put that money away to eventually pay toward your refinanced mortgage?

[-] 3 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 12 years ago

Let them eat cake.

Restore child sweatshops so we can compete with China.


Wages for the 1% continue to skyrocket, even in this dismal economy.

Yet the important thing is to preserve tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires because they are "helping the economy."

Yeah, right!

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

I worked at BofA for almost a year as a temp right as they we're merging with Countrywide. my main job was to sort out the collateral documents from the loans as they came in. Some of these loans we're so huge - they we're like six inches of paper; it was ridiculous. The whole process was chaotic. I don't want to elaborate a whole lot, but trust me when I say they barely had a clue what documents they needed to hold onto. I've never witnessed such incompetency from management at any job I've had before.

[-] 3 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 12 years ago

As much as I support the need to put pressure on the banks and to put an end to predatory lending, I do support the efforts to occupy foreclosed houses. But I can't also help but think that we are not doing enough. Is it always best to place people back into the traditional home setting? Instead, we could opt to create community land trusts or housing cooperatives for some of these people. Not to force it on them, but see if they would rather desire that approach. It is less of a burden in the long run for those involved.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

I have thought about this idea quite a lot lately.... people co-owning land and building sustainable housing for several people.

[-] 3 points by PlisskenMacReady (3) from Queens, NY 12 years ago

I suggest people who doubt the extent of fraud involved in the housing crisis begin looking into the depth of corruption that's been involved in all of it. Many have written about it over the years, particularly since 2007.

For example--servicers were pushing people into foreclosures because it was a profitable motivation for the people overseeing home loans. Late fees, in particular, became a strong source of revenue for them, with no regard to the people the loans were made to.

For more depth and a good to place to start, see the following interview with Yves Smith, hosted by Paul Jay of The Real News Network, which explained the situation back in December 2010:


This situation is complex. Be careful levying all the blame on those foreclosed--the banks have pushed these loans onto everyone, they helped give loans to people they knew could not afford it, and the real estate market that promised to turn your home into an investment turned it into an unsustainable engine of debt for many of us.

But all of this strikes at a fundamental question that I think we should all consider.

Should shelter be a commodity? Should it be something to be sold on the open market, excluding those without the capital to enter the market? Should they just be cast into the streets to survive by whatever means they can find? Is this a society we would want to live in.

No, that is not the actions of a good or functioning society. We recognize shelter as a basic human need. To deprive anyone of that is a crime, and to make it into a commodity that can be hoarded by a few at the expense of many is as unjust as all the other economic crimes we have witnessed in our society.

Making people homeless only exacerbates a bad situation, turning otherwise productive citizens into an outcast and forgotten people. Look at all those homeless and poor that showed up at OWS; there was no other place for them. Our government provides them with nothing; the market excludes them for their lack of capital. There was nowhere for them. How do you recover from that? Should we be surprised if crime shoots up? If urban decay accelerates? If communities shatter and disintegrate?

Look at the situation we're in. With every 1/6 or 1/5 people in this country unemployed, there is no work for them. No jobs are being created. This isn't just a situation of some people not wanting to work--there is no work for those people. Its drying up. Financial institutions are hoarding their wealth or sending it around the globe. Our government has done nothing for us, and the market is abandoning us because sees no monetary reward for taking action.

What about all those public employees we cast out? College students graduation? Soldiers returning from oversees? This isn't just a few bad apples--it a system that cannot function, that cannot deliver goods to a majority of people.

Everyone deserves a shelter. No one deserves to be cast into the streets to scrounge through trash or live out of cars or under bridges or in subways or to be a burden upon their loved ones.

We begin with defending those who are seeing their homes taken from them. And then we help all of us. We figure out a new way of organizing our housing system, to democratize it, and to make access to shelter a right, not a whim of a market that favors a few over the many, of the 1% over the 99%.

What Occupy is doing is moral act. This is what helping others is all about.

We have it in our power to begin the world over again. With a government that has abandoned us, and a market the excludes us, what we have left is each other. In solidarity, we will find the strength to overcome adversity, the will to create a new society, and the hope for a better tomorrow.

We are the 99%.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

There is some truth that I see in your post, however, your statement that "our government provides them with nothing" is not reflected in the amount of income tax that I pay or the string of low rent housing around town. Someone is providing that "nothing". The recent 2008, recession is not a problem that can be solved overnight, especially with the overwhelming number of ill prepared citizens in this country. If you do a little checking, I think that you find that not only did individuals overspend in an upswing for houses, but also for things to put in that house, for cars to look good out front, etc etc. The reason for losing a home may have as much to do with the excessive spending for other things in addition to the home. Once in that position, where you are gambling with your (usually) largest investment of your lifetime and then piling on credit card and short term debt to boot - may people are bound to lose something. I suspect that if you have the figures before you for the average person that is in foreclosure, that is not the only financial problem that the are facing and not the only notice they are getting in the mail that day (Visa, MC, Macy's, Sears, Discover, etc, etc). Once a person is in that deep with no recourse to personal savings, etc, any recession (even relatively minor) is going to create havoc with some people.

[-] 3 points by BTKcongress (149) 12 years ago

Did not the banks (by lending) tacitly confirm to the homeowner that 1) the homes were worth the appraised value, and 2) the borrower could afford the loan???

Both premises turned out to be FALSE.

[-] 3 points by mpage2 (5) from Oakland, CA 12 years ago

UHHM If any of you are confused about this I recommend watching the Inside Job so you can listen to Matt Damon explain how banks gave out loans that they knew people WOULD NOT be able to pay, and would foreclose, and how by different entity's betting/buying on CDO's n CDS's so they would profit when people would get foreclosed onto

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago


[-] 3 points by kleeneth (3) 12 years ago

New York had a broad-based mortgage moratorium law in the 1930s. It required that some part of the amount owed be paid (interest or amortization--not sure which). It saved my grandfather who had put all his retirement money into several heavily mortgaged income properties. It also kept him from having to evict tenants who could not pay the rent. It is time to revisit laws like these which were enacted in over half the states.

[-] 3 points by Thisisthetime (200) from Kahlotus, WA 12 years ago

The U.S. Taxpayers were Forced to "RE-FINANCE" the Banks and Corporations for TRILLIONS of Dollars. Why didn't we FORECLOSE on the Banks and Corporations? Fair-ness.

[-] 2 points by BreadLandPeace (359) 12 years ago

I can't tell you enough how happy I am to see this development, it makes me cry to see the video with the boy and the Brooklyn family. And feel a swell of inspiration to see and hear the crowd chanting. And to see the yellow "Occupied" tape! The newspaper coverage in NYC was very good, very sympathetic. This is one of the most powerful actions OWS can take, to fight the evictions and foreclosures happening all over the country. And the problem isn't going away. It's so moving to see the real people OWS affected in such a big way. These are actions that educate, mobilize the 99%, and are bringing immediate results. This movement is already incredibly powerful. Please keep up this focus, it is saving people as we speak. THANK YOU AGAIN SO MUCH!!!

[-] 2 points by woody59 (5) 12 years ago

Brave Souls, I am thinking of you as I sit in my simple but comfortable home. I am so inspired by the creativity in this action and will do what I can to help. Yesterday we learned that our community warming shelter is closing. I will get behind that effort to keep it open and find other housing solutions here where I live. You keep me inspired OWS! We got a road ahead of us but I love that so many people are putting on their walking shoes.

[-] 2 points by Namesmeansnothing (3) 12 years ago

I don't understand all the people saying "Well, you shouldn't buy a home you can't afford!"

What about all the bailouts to these banks? Shouldn't THEY be paid back eventually? It was with tax payer (ie the same people who are getting the mortages from the banks in the first place) money. How can they foreclose when the American people already paid them off with their bailout money?

Apparently only the rest of us have to pay, but not the banks!

They have proven these banks LIED about how much money they lost. They proven these banks have foreclosed on homes that have NO money problems. They are just trying to get every lick of money they can, and it seems everyone who still has a job would rather ignore that they, too, could be homeless very soon with fraudalent banking practices!

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago


[-] 2 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 12 years ago

Homes are not a commodity,they are a basic human necessaity! Florida Community Organizers have been moving people into empty houses and turning them into homes for 2 years. The movement has finally hit the greater N.E. Horrrahhh!

[-] 0 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

necessity? there are lots of people who live their entire life w/o a home.....hardly a necessity.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 12 years ago

ahhh,how fourtionate you are.

[-] 2 points by Victoria13 (8) from Thomasville, NC 12 years ago

For those that felt they were cheated in the loan process, you know you did not have to buy at home at the top end of the budget that the bank set forth for you. I went for a loan that was about $40,000 less than what they allotted me because I knew that I would struggle to pay it if one of us lost our jobs. Unfortunately both of us did.

Due diligence. You should always research and read the fine print especially when it involves one of the biggest purchases of your life. I took a class at my local community college on how to become a Real Estate broker so I would know everything from the inside out before making a commitment like that. As I stated in a previous person's post, some colleges make you take a test before you can even take out a student loan. Maybe banks should start doing that with mortgages to ensure that the purchasers fully understands what they are signing onto.

I too would love a bail out myself but I know that sitting in a tent all day on some sidewalk is not going to be effective. Instead I am back in college earning yet another degree in another field hoping to get a better paying job. You must be self driven to make it in life. It is no one else's fault but your own if you are not. Quit whining and take action in the form of becoming more educated and employable. Sure jobs are going to China and what have you, but do you really want to work in a sweat shop environment. If not quit complaining and stop buying cheap bullshit from Walmart. They will quit buying it if it just sits on the shelf. Demand that companies carry stuff that is American made so more jobs will be created. Do you seriously need that Snuggie made in Taiwan? Or that bird figurine from China? NO! We are our own worst enemy. Remember that when you are Christmas shopping. Go to small mom and pop stores on Main Street in your hometown. Sure it may cost 10% more but the return will be great when more people are able to find jobs here.

[-] 1 points by angelhugs (12) from Durant, OK 12 years ago

I agree with you Victoria and I would guess that the majority of the 99% would as well. Hard work and responsibility for ones own actions should be enough to ensure yourself at least a decent living. I too got an education and a good job, just like I was suppose to. I also took far less for a home loan then what the Bank approved me for. I was also thinking of "what if's" before I signed the dotted line. In fact I was shocked when I told my loan guy that I couldn't afford that large loan and he looked straight in my face and said "that's ok", it seemed as if he was pressuring me into accepting that amount and appeared to be disappointed when I refused to put myself that far in debt. Like being responsible with my money was somehow going to affect him poorly. However I have to disagree with this statement...."but do you really want to work in a sweat shop environment". I come from a very long line of factory workers. I was the first on either side of my family to get a college degree. My family has never looked down on or refused to work hard to feed their families. I do not believe there isn't one job any honest American wouldn't do to feed and shelter their loved ones. But unfortunately most of the factories have been moved to other countries. What is my family to do now? Go back to school? They have....guess what?... now they are competing with you and I for our jobs. Bush was wrong with his "no child gets left behind" campaign. Someone's child will have to work in a factory if we want our products to be American made. I remember the pride I saw in my family when they provided such basic products to their fellow Americans all the while feeding their own children. Your also right about the fact that we need to let Americans know....Stop buying stuff you don't need! Especially those things that aren't made right here at home. However I would suggest you have just a little more understanding or compassion for your fellow man. I don't know if you've ever taken a Marketing or Business Psych type class but you should. It's amazing at how easy it is to convince "people" that they NEED this useless junk. The major thing that has been causing this problem is Cable TV! So perhaps my grand dad was right all along....he refused to own one of those "evil" contraptions. We shouldn't be criticizing each other for the poor decisions we've made in the past. We've all done things we wished we hadn't later on. Instead we should encourage our neighbors/family/friends to TURN OFF YOUR TV and spend time with your family....only then will we all see what REALLY matters!

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Excellent - Excellent - Excellent

At the point where we give up our personal responsibility and morality in any area of our life, that is the point where someone or something will move in to take control.

THAT is how freedoms are truly lost. Our freedoms are lost from WITHIN whether you are talking about America as a country or your family, your business, your school, or yourself.

[-] 2 points by ineptcongress (648) 12 years ago

well done OWS!! I support you! Wish I lived near a larger group. We need bold moves, like this, in times like this to get through the Great Depression Part II.

F the banks,,, so what if they don't get paid back....?? they'd lay off their employees and shareholders would suffer. the same employees who had a hand, directly or indirectly, into cajoling the public into accepting too large a home loan... they encouraged outrageous use of leverage,,, took their large bonuses (I know originators who made $250k 2003-2007), and left scraps for most people.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNot (23) 12 years ago

Now you're doing something. How about protesting outside Barney Frank's and Chris Dodd's homes. The two scumbags who started this mess. They both belong in jail.

[-] 2 points by Lmurguia7 (57) 12 years ago

BRAVISSIMO !!! We ARE our brothers' "helper" !

[-] 2 points by squarerootofzero (81) 12 years ago

Foreclosure is a symptom of a much larger problem.

[-] 2 points by sinead (474) 12 years ago

" In Oakland, foreclosure auctions were disrupted at the county courthouse - more than a dozen homes were saved."

I hope someone will follow up with a report that will tell us if these homes were actually "saved" or was this just a one day reprieve.

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

From the Mortgage Bankers Association of America in 2007


"Mortgage fraud is a large and growing problem and warrants significant attention. The mortgage lending industry has lost billions of dollars as a result of fraud, and the sum is believed to have risen steadily in recent years. Though the lender is the direct victim of mortgage fraud, fraud harms honest homeowners and homebuyers as well, through increased housing costs. Schemes that involve artificially inflated appraisals, for example, drive up property tax assessments and foreclosures resulting from fraud depress surrounding home prices. Clearly steps need to be taken to make the prosecution and prevention of mortgage fraud more effective. To date, however, there has been little agreement on which steps need to be taken."

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

According to the FBI web site:


"These scams hit us right where we live.

From foreclosure frauds to subprime shenanigans, mortgage fraud is a growing crime threat that is hurting homeowners, businesses, and the national economy. We have developed new ways to detect and combat mortgage fraud, including collecting and analyzing data to spot emerging trends and patterns. And we are using the full array of investigative techniques to find and stop criminals before the fact, rather than after the damage has been done."

Business Week this week reports:

Calif., Nevada team up in mortgage fraud probes http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9RF7UN00.htm

"The attorneys general in California and Nevada are partnering in investigations into the mortgage meltdown that crippled both states.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris and her Nevada counterpart Catherine Cortez Masto said Tuesday they will combine resources and share information about mortgage fraud probes each have launched.

Nevada has the nation's highest foreclosure rate while California ranks second."

Reports posted on the United States Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network http://www.fincen.gov/mortgagefraud.html

Third Quarter Reports of Mortgage Fraud Up Slightly (01/06/2011) HTML | PDF
Mortgage Fraud Suspicious Activity Reports Rise (12/14/2010) HTML | PDF
Department of Justice/FBI Los Angeles Field Office News Release: Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force Holds Mortgage Fraud Summit in Los Angeles (9/30/2010) HTML Only
FinCEN Reports Suspicious Activity Related to Mortgage Fraud in 2009 HTML | PDF
FinCEN Analysis: Foreclosure Rescue Scam Reports Increase (06/17/2010) HTML | PDF
FinCEN Warns Lenders to Guard Against Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Fraud Schemes (04/27/2010) HTML | PDF
Department of Justice News Release: Attorney General Holder, Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force Announce New Funding Distribution for Enforcement Efforts at Mortgage Fraud Summit in Phoenix (03/25/2010) HTML Only
Department of Justice News Release: Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force Hosts Mortgage Fraud Summit in Miami (02/24/2010) HTML Only
FinCEN Issues Mortgage Loan Fraud Update; Warns of Foreclosure Rescue Scam Techniques (02/18/2010) HTML | PDF
FinCEN Report Shows Connection With Mortgage Fraud and Other Financial Crime (03/16/2009) HTML | PDF
FinCEN Mortgage Fraud Report � Growth in Mortgage Repurchases Increases Fraud Detection (02/25/2009) HTML | PDF
FinCEN Releases Updated Mortgage Fraud Report (04/03/2008) HTML | PDF
FinCEN Assessment Reveals Suspected Mortgage Loan Fraud Continues to Rise (11/03/2006) HTML | PDF
[-] 2 points by Edwin (47) from Anseong-si, Gyeonggi-do 12 years ago

Hurray. Great stuff. Let's show those fuckers.

[-] 2 points by ObamaIsrael (0) 12 years ago

More illegal laws broken by Occupy. Breaking and entering borded up homes. Wow, you just keep breaking the law!!!!!!!...

[-] 3 points by connellykm (6) from Conway, AR 12 years ago

"Breaking the law" is kind of the point. I believe these laws are wrong, created not in the interest of the people they are supposed to serve, but the corporations that keep the politicians in power. (I also recognize it's a little more complicated than this.) The government supported the banks, not the people. I hope that breaking the law will bring the problems to the government's attention (better yet -- to the attention of the vast majority of the public so that we ourselves can do something about it -- see Thomas Hobbes, John Locke -- a civil society first, government second, when the gov't ceases to protect its people from the State of Nature, it should be replaced.)

I don't think that the breaking and entering homes should be legal. I think that the current system of banks taking homes from people that just lost their jobs because of the economy tanking only for the homes to sit empty is a bit unreasonable.

See "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau -- an American writer of the mid1800s. He did not pay a poll tax; he did not think his tax dollars should go to a government that supported slavery.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

I'll keep my 5 questions short. Do you support the "current system of " politicians "taking homes from people" through tax liens? Can you guess why OWS has not protested those actions (and never ever will) . Do you support repealing the 16TH Amendment? Should the USA be back on the gold standard? And lastly, Why do you think the OWS gang supports socialism?

[-] 0 points by ObamaIsrael (0) 12 years ago


[-] 0 points by connellykm (6) from Conway, AR 12 years ago

I like you.

[-] 0 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

you said "I think that the current system of banks taking homes from people that just lost their jobs because of the economy tanking only for the homes to sit empty is a bit unreasonable".

very simply, do you own a home....or a car?

[-] 2 points by connellykm (6) from Conway, AR 12 years ago

I don't own either, actually. I live in an apartment and ride a bike, but, please, don't let that get in the way of you were going to say.

[-] 1 points by Joe4more (165) from Cranston, RI 12 years ago

Better to run around with signs of our president in witch doctor garb; pics of Obama w/ hitler mustache; tasteless jokes about monkeys, watermelon; attacks on the First Lady, etc..... THIS IS THE TEA PARTY PLATFORM: WE HATE OBAMA. OWS is an idea, a vision of a better America for all not just the 1%. You forgot they (ows'ers) need a shower. Stay tuned to Rushbo for tomorrows talking points.

[-] 2 points by RomCath (24) 12 years ago

Merveilleuse Amérique!

[-] 2 points by BOA (10) 12 years ago

When banks have strokes politicians steal money so that they can get better - then they laugh and call their victims greedy. :O

[-] 2 points by SuzannahBeTroy (28) 12 years ago

http://mayorbloombergkingofnewyork.blogspot.com/2011/12/occupy-wall-street-occupies-empty-homes.html Wow the NY Post actually covered it and the reporter has a British accent. Maybe Rupert Murdoch and his editors were busying doing “work” to prevent hacking scandal from being investigated here in NYC. Congrats.

[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

OWS versus Murdoch Scandal.

For the World Championship of Headline Grabbing. 15 rounds at 3 minutes per. Introduced by Michael Buffer !!

Yes, indeed.

"Let's get ready to rumble!"

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 12 years ago

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


Share, circulate, educate, inspire.

[-] 1 points by neilr (8) 12 years ago

An alternate way to deal with foreclosure and give the banks the finger - bulldoze your place to the ground. Doesn't help homeless families, but as a last resort: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqb6ZIXoX2w&feature=share

[-] 1 points by leelee (2) 12 years ago

Our family went to Riverside together this morning for the ticket I was arrested with on Sep 8, 2011, to defend the charges of “trespassing” in my own home. The owner’s name is still on me as I have signed nothing release the title yet. It is unbelievable such thing is happening in America. 8-9 am our family with children wants to stay together in court room. The “Police officer” Medrano at department 21 badge # 1874 was mad, and order our family that “only one stay, I give you 15 second to get out!” we did not move. “By what law?” my wife asked, he run to the wall and tear off a paper very roughly like fighting in a battle to try to intimidated us, leaving residual tape on the wall. It was writing on a board something “no eating, drinking, and no children under the age of 18……” It may have “court rules” against the Constitution. I asked him: “do you like learn some Constitution?” “I do not care!” he screamed facing about 40 people in court and some clerks. My son Joe questioned him, “do you have oath of office?” he did not answer, but said “I have said 15 second, time is ticking” we sat and did not move. The hero image of Rosa Parks came to my mind at the very moment, and all people in the court room and by the entrance watching. It seems that no one is breathing at the very moment, the air was frozen. Mr. Medrano started to run to my side, very close to me and about to touch me, ordering us, “You get out from this building, get out of my court!” I was shocked and I remember that Sam and I was a companion with our friend Helen to make a complaint against a Lady Deputy in the Riverside Police Department. Helen complained the lady deputy said the same word, “get out of my court.” She then slammed Helen’s back. I am astonished that I can hear the exactly same word again in my trial! I stood up and said, “You have said that this is your court, right?” The sheriff said nothing. I speak to all people in and out of the door of the court room, “my name is Ken Meng, and everybody heard that he said this is his court. Not a court for the people. Sir, I need you name and your badge #.” “You go out then I will give to you.” I point him to about 50 people waiting outside of the door and that he had said “this is his court”. Mr. Medrano suddenly turned around and run back to the court. I chased him into the court and order him, “you give me your name and badge#!” he was afraid and then gave it to me.

[-] 1 points by shaheen (5) 12 years ago

The world has enough to satisfy needs but not the greeds. I support OWS. I think similar action should start in other parts of the world. Long live OWS. In solidarity

[-] 1 points by articulo14vip (1) 12 years ago

En Argentina hay miles de familias que atraviesan por situaciones similares. Las causas de nuestra crisis habitacional y las historias particulares de cada familia pueden diferir, pero en la base está la lógica del capital, es decir, la lógica que imponen los capitalistas y el mismo Estado. Desde hace un par de años venimos filmando y recopilando videos contando éstas historias, si quieren pueden buscarlas en http://articulo14vip.wordpress.com. Saludos, y sigamos luchando!!

PD: Traduzcan los videos así difundimos a través de medios de comunicación alternativos!

[-] 1 points by hbtotl (0) 12 years ago

I am so sick of hearing this. I bought my house a few months before the housing market tanked. I paid almost 250,000 for it. My house payment is almost 2,000 a month. So what do I do? I work two full time jobs. I am married with two kids as well. So should I stop paying for my home and should the bank just "give it to me" like that woman said in the above video. WTF?!!!!? You people also fail to understand the go

[-] 1 points by randart (498) 12 years ago

We should take back closed factories too. Why should people be out of work if there is a facility where people can be productive? A number of companies are trying to break the unions all around the country, not because they are not surviving as companies but because they want to show more profits on the books. We should use Eminent Domain as a tool to keep communities whole and healthy. Take away the companies that are being abusive, convert them to employee owned operations, make them non-profit businesses and any profits made in excess of paying fair wages, infrastructure expenses, etc., should be rolled back into the community.

Let's begin taking it ALL back.

[-] 1 points by Antifist1 (10) 12 years ago

This is not a cause, people should learn how to deal with a little pain and figure out away to stand up and take ace of yourself

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 12 years ago

Food for thought.

Eminent Domain and "THE PEOPLE"


[-] 1 points by harry2 (113) 12 years ago

This is the source of the nationwide disaster! Shut down banks and have them proof who really lost in the man made bubble. People deserve a place to live in. And should demand refund of here lost equity.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 12 years ago
[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 12 years ago

This is good. But we need a much better way to fight back. It doesn't have to be this hard once we are organized and unified.

JOIN THE REVOLUTION Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM We don’t have to live like this. "Spread the News"

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 12 years ago

we don't OWN anything, Govt has made sure of that, But WE have the Right to have the USE of EVERYTHING that is available as long as there is no other occupant or claimant RESIDENT in a property. Trust Law is the way to fight & win. THEY take the BENEFICIARY position in the trust, & give use the right to use & occupy. We have to learn to declare ourselves beneficiary in a court, & keep the judge in the position of trustee, whereby any claim made against a human should be paid by the one bringing the case, ie, the prosecutor (executor) That is Law..

[-] 1 points by OWSMusic (57) 12 years ago

A song for the banksters on Wall Street... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FM3KR9dEOk

[-] 1 points by SayNO2GovInc (99) 12 years ago

VIRAL PLEASE - WE MUST STOP THIS TREASONOUS BILL!!!!! The Time IS NOW, Else the Time IS NEVER!!! http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2011/12/proof-obama-will-sign-ndaa-1031-citizen.html

[-] 1 points by Victoria13 (8) from Thomasville, NC 12 years ago

I can get past the fact that the whole family is wearing what appears to be expensive urban wear. Maybe it was given to them. Hell I might even be able to get over the fact that in one shot the kids were playing with a cell phone and I myself, a 27 year old, hard working adult can not afford one. Maybe someone was letting them play with it. I can NOT get over the fact that they committed several felonies in order to occupy a home that was not theirs EVER. I could almost understand if they were the original owners and lost it to foreclosure but they were not. I also can NOT get over the fact that they have been homeless for 10 years but have two small children. Why did they have kids when they themselves had no where to live? There is free birth control provided by most local governments including NYC. Also something called not having sex! I am loosing my home to foreclosure but I do not feel that I am entitled to take it back. I went on maturity leave and they did not give my position back once I was healed. At the same time my husband lost his job. Instead of fighting it, we just moved out. It is not the banks fault we could not find jobs that paid enough to keep it. Are you guys going to come to NC and help me reclaim my home? Probably not!

[-] 1 points by mlawlerrenonv (1) from Reno, NV 12 years ago

I disagree with these types of practices. They are too small to have a real impact and all they do is cause a negative perspective. Instead, I argue that January should be No Mortgage Month -- if every American did not pay their mortgage, but instead used their mortgage payment for some other purpose (funding start ups or business expansion). The banks would have to listen. The way that you create change in a democratic capitalist society is with your dollars. If you believe that banks should renegotiate loans, then give them a financial reason to do so. Then pay into a trust account until the banks renegotiate. Most mortgages have an arbitration clause, but you can't get to the arbitration until you are in default. So America needs to go into default together and force the banks to look at interest rates and loan payments. Not to lower the amount that you owe, but restructure them to 45 year fixed interest loans.

[-] 1 points by SayNO2GovInc (99) 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by billbux (35) 12 years ago

Hot Nuuz - Occupy San Francisco dismantled - http://www.nuuzit.com/newsitem/eqsXHSEkC4g

[-] 1 points by billbux (35) 12 years ago

We are beta testing a new system that allows anonymous geo-tagged messages.

We would love for you to try it and give us feedback – you can find us at:



Thank you!

[-] 1 points by kamilaforfreedom (1) 12 years ago

Please READ and vote. the National Defense Authorization Act bill passed 11/15/2011. About the bill: I looked up the bill and I call your attention to sec. 1031 & 1032

1031 Authorizes the Military to Detain Terrorists, except Americans " ... AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be 11 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to 12 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident 13 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are 14 captured or arrested in the United States. ... 1032 Requires the Military to Detain Terrorists, except Americans

... The require- 11 ment to detain a person in military custody under 12 this section does not extend to citizens of the United 13 States.

But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 12 years ago

They can evict protestors but they cannot evict an idea.

Evil is evil regardless of whether it is "legal"

America reached a tipping point in 2011 and the grass roots citizens in every state, red and blue, said ENOUGH.




[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 12 years ago

News Flash!... Bo Biden ( Joe's Son) has now just crawled up to the Soap box .. " I am here to help those Foreclosed on!".... His Father was the one who authored and got his State to pass a Bill for All Corporate Bus. that Went Bankfupt.. to NOT have to Pay Taxes on that filing. Yet.. any Citizen.. HAS to. So, When all those Business and Sub prime Mortgage companies went BK.. They Went to Delaware to have their day in court.. and payedout NADA.. Zip in taxes.. behind or not.. they got forgiven.. and All their investors who lost everything, including the foreclosed on .. STILL had to pay Taxes! .... Tell Bo.. a Day late and a TAX Dollar Short!


[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Even if what you're saying is true, how are the actions of his dad his fault..... simply because they are blood related? Shit, under that assumption, I'd be guilty of a LOT because of what my dad has done.

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 12 years ago

Try this on for 'intelligence size'..

Bush: Prescott.. ( founder of the Carlyle Group ) George Sr. ( CIA, VP..then Prez./ Bush.. Geo. Jr. ( Prez) Think that the Acorn falls Too FAR from the tree.. or that The Tree Didnt Get the Acorn their Position.. which will ALWAYS Be right Under the Tree?!

.. Grow up.

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 12 years ago

What i tried to educate you about is that in politics.. One Hand Washes the other.. and when it's it's Family Involved, One Hand will sacrifice for the other.. as Beau will have to see 'Dad' sacrifice his position of being FOR Corporate Business alliance.. and it could lose OBamba the Election!.. Unless JOE Bows out.

The 'Son' becomes the Redemption, and moves on into leadership.

I live in Fl. and Tried to Vote Jeb out. What has happened now is Florida is no different than if Huey P. Long were Running the Show.. Florida is THAT Corrupt!


[-] 1 points by Rich1 (13) 12 years ago

Maybe this is the wrong understanding, correct me if i'm wrong. But you guys are fighting to tax the rich correct? The only problem with that is that there are simply not enough. You say tax the rich they just get money handed to them. If Obama and his administration decide to go along with this idea, not only with the rich be taxed more but YOU will be taxed more.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 12 years ago

You left out the best part!

Police who escorted the marchers through Brooklyn stopped when the marchers arrived at the home and remained a distance away as the celebration of the “liberation” of the foreclosed home began.

What happened? The idea in this video might just work after all? Occupy Wall St giving Cops a Teach-in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGAKq6Cnnu0

[-] 1 points by OWSMusic (57) 12 years ago

A song for the banksters on Wall Street... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FM3KR9dEOk

[-] 1 points by MariaCitizen (3) 12 years ago

Occupy the CASH FLOW!!!

If you look around the primary beneficiaries of the people's work are the banksters, all cash flow first goes to pay rent and mortgages. The banks are not lending, thus they are not recycling the cash into the economy. By not recycling the cash the banks are creating an excruciating slow economic contraction where they are literally killing you and me by slow death.

Stop paying your rent, stop paying your mortgage and bring the banks to their needs, if you then serve in jury duty nullify the eviction law.

[-] 1 points by windchimp (2) from Remsenburg-Speonk, NY 12 years ago

all homeowners should rebel & stop paying their mortgages!billions of dollars went to bail out the banks now bail out the homeowners who lost jobs & cant pay!

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

why would I want to stop paying my mortgage? I like my home and the payment is fair.

I'm guessing you have neither a home or a mortgage.

[-] 1 points by eldave1 (35) 12 years ago

If we want to decrease the amount of foreclosures -we need to demand a national cap on mortgage rates - today!!!!!!


[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

rates have never been lower and the FC's are still happening. I think you have missed the root cause.

[-] 1 points by eldave1 (35) 12 years ago

Nope - sure the rates are as low as they have ever been - but folks can't get to them - that is why the foreclosures are happening. Read this


Basically, folks can't get to the new rates because they are underwater equity wise and can't qualify - but they could afford to pay the mortgage

[-] 1 points by SuzannahBeTroy (28) 12 years ago

I posted link earlier direct to NY Post with their video coverage of this moving work by you that some how slipped past Murdoch and his editors who’s goal is to slime OWS. I also always try to clue you in on massive crime NYC gov you may or may not know like this... http://mayorbloombergkingofnewyork.blogspot.com/2011/12/ny-post-josh-margolin-exclusive-after.html it is a lot of work to learn about this and it is the largest white collar crimes ever -- SAIC military ECTP Northrup Grumman military fyi and MTA just hired another firm to replace SAIC since we got SAIC banned NY State and City gov contracts....stay tuned...please learn and next week join me in front of Rudin sales offices for luxury condos in what was St. Vincent's

[-] 1 points by hopiakuta (11) from Desert Hot Springs, CA 12 years ago
[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

taking people's homes is basically the SUPPRESSION OF WOMEN. it is firmly established that the best way to look after the environment is to give ownership of the land and forest to the women. but it is the FRAUDULENT PROPERTY RIGHTS instituted by the freemasons/knights templar that is the base of the fascist tyrnny we live under. so instead of the women investing LOVE IN THE LAND they invest their money in land, in OUR HOMELAND while it is the FASCIST DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY that illegally organises a national police force against the OCCUPY MOVEMENT OF HUMANITY. so we must OCCUPY THE LAND and tear up their BS property rights! so we must exclude all external organisations which suppress women by excluding them from leadership such as the christian church which brutalises us and our children with their psycho reliving of the crucifixion and talking to their imaginary friend! they support the status quo on property rights!

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 12 years ago

Remember there is a Biblical code against women and property rights that the right-wing won't let go of. It is also why women have lower wages. (A Walmart manager said women do not get promotions because men are the biblical breadwinners.)


" ...in a patriarchal culture in which women function primarily as daughters, wives, and mothers of particular men, women have virtually no property rights. Unmarried women inherit from their fathers only if they have no brothers; and, in such cases, they must subsequently marry within their father's clan to prevent the dispersal of tribal property among outsiders (Numbers 36:2‑12). [This was the case with the daughters of Zelophehad, who successfully petitioned Moses and God for their father's inheritance.]

Queen Esther Widows do not inherit from their husbands at all, but are dependent on their sons or the generosity of other heirs. According to the practice of levirate marriage, childless widows are the legal responsibility of their husband's oldest brother (Deuteronomy 25:5‑10)." http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Gender_and_Feminism/Traditional_Views/Biblical.shtml

"Christian Patriotism is the result of the confluence of the far- right tax resistance movement, regressive Populism, and Identity doctrine. The Christian Patriot branch of white supremacy traces its explosive growth back to the rise of William Potter Gale's Posse Comitatus, a virulently anti-Semitic paramilitary movement which began operating publicly in 1968. Founded on the principle of all-out resistance to federal authority -- which has marked all white supremacy since the rise of the Ku Klux Klan at the end of the Civil War -- the Posse carries the notion of anti-federalism to new extremes. Most racist politics has its legal and philosophical roots in the "property rights" and "states rights" clauses in the Constitution. These sections of the Constitution were a compromise necessary to enlist the cooperation of the slave-holding states in replacing the unworkable Articles of Confederation with the federal Constitution. The exaltation of the rights of property over the rights of people is a common denominator of the entire right wing of American politics." http://www.albionmonitor.com/freemen/ci-roots.html

Labor must be worth something, not just riches gained from owning land. If you are a white Christian male, I can see why you want property owners to rule over others. Makes it so you don't have to lift a finger, women are kept subservient, you sit on all the "money", and therefore define what labor is worth.

[-] 2 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

excellent! Genesis 2v24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave his wife: and they shall be one flesh." this means a man shall leave his fathers land and go to live on the wife's land. by not following this verse the woman leaves her family and follows the man as is the practise in this fascist society. this started so that the women would follow the man to his place of work. so the women were suppressed and denied ownership of the land. moving a woman from her birth home is still causing immense distress: to the woman who loses her grounding and her emotional support and to the man who is expected to work for the slave masters to pay for a home for his wife and family and replace her family's emotional support. this is expecting too much from a man leading to the breakdown of marriages through this unrealistic expectation. see also my video on youtube "neanderthal woman modern man."

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 12 years ago

I will check the video. Please see my topic here that no one has responded to yet: http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/real-reason-why-libertarians-love-property-rights-/

[-] 1 points by hattiecat2 (17) 12 years ago

ok calm down and have another bong hit.

[-] 2 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

we have all been brutalised by their BS. we are being brutalised by their AO police. cannabis is the tree of life, our holy communion. their alcohol communion is a chemical lobotomy. the end of cannabis prohibition is the RAPTURE. the warrior fights against the forces which oppress him.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

Anti-Christian, anti-private property rights and blame the men all in one paragraph. But no anti-Islam/Muslim, no anti-Orthodox Judaism, no naming of names, funny how cowards stay inconsistent.

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

Ras Tafari is the True Christ "they shall flee from before his face!" jesus is the antichrist. christians are a bunch of psychos reliving the crucifixion, pretending they're eating dead flesh and talking toto their imaginary friend. only a bullied dumbass would believe in a virgin birth, resurrection after crucifixion and walking on water. child protection will destroy christianity just as surely as womens liberation will destroy islam. both religions are BS. worse is the division of mankind into the meaningless christian muslim war. i am not anti private property! its the PROPERTY RIGHTS SYSTEM which must be replaced. it was created by the freemasons giving the land to the 1% they are the BIG LANDOWNERS. israel is an american colony. judaism is based on a lie: abraham was going to kill isaac because isaac was the son of the pharoah. prescott bush and george herbert walker started WW2 by financing hitler's german economic miracle and building his war machine. george herbert walker bush started the war on terror with a FAKE terrorist attack. now we have FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago


[-] 0 points by CapitalistPiggy (2) from Cincinnati, OH 12 years ago

What? I don't even know where to start with responding to you. Firmly established, how? You need to go read John Locke. Property is sacrosanct. Be it real estate or manufactured property, if I have it and develope it by my own labor (or love as I presume you mean), what right have you or anyone else got to it?

You're talking about a feudal society here. I have land and build upon it. You see that my improved land is now more valuable than yours. So you come and take it. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Because I guarantee some day you will be having your land taken too. Of course if "love" is all your're investing in it, then maybe not.

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

property is sacrosanct is what the people who have property say. you are receiving stolen goods but it is the owners of vast tracts of our land who have our land. individual housing plots and small businesses will be exempt from the redistribution. the fascist elite, the tyranny oppressing us owns that land. if you support their property rights you are an ENEMY agent and do not have our community in your heart.

[-] 0 points by CapitalistPiggy (2) from Cincinnati, OH 12 years ago

suppression of women, fascist elite, anti christian to boot. What you need is an athiest compound full of female communists, is that right? If you think women can't suppress women you obviously never went to junior high school.

[-] 0 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

Ras Tafari is the True Christ. they shall see his face and his name shall be in their foreheads. christians shall flee from before his face and there be found no place for them. jesus is the antichrist. christians are a bunch of psychos reliving the crucifixion at every church service and talking to their imaginary friend. they are a BAD MENTAL HEALTH influence in our community. in our community we must have ABSOLUTE EQUALITY and balance between the sexes. all male or all female groups create BULLIES and homosexual bullying too. it is the all male tyrannys of freemasons and christians which have bee brutalising us with BS. atheism is another false one life dogma. i am a reincarnating spirit.

[-] 1 points by CapitalistPiggy (2) from Cincinnati, OH 12 years ago

Haile Selassie died thirty-something years ago. Hows that Christ thing working for him? Don't bring up religion, especially if your intent is to offend. You are clearly an irrational person when it comes to debating, I bib you adieu.

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

this is a CHILD PROTECTION ISSUE. the passion of the christ received an 18+ certificate but christians feel free to put VIOLENT IMAGES in our minds. the crucified jew is a RACIST ABOMINATION.

[-] 1 points by kphelps (16) 12 years ago

The Occupy Movement needs to go after the Debt Collection Industry next. They are the Banks and Medical Industry's musclemen that oppress millions of people daily and without warning. Banks and other corporate entities cannot function well without these hooligans working as their top dogs of tyranny. The Collection Agencies buy debts for pennies on the dollar then harass the individual debt ower's with very cruel and humiliating tactics.

[-] 1 points by guero1nd (11) 12 years ago

Right to shelter? I agree we should help each other out through charities, but isn't saying that we have a right to shelter a little much? We are blessed to live in the US where there are plenty of homeless shelters. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world. Making homes a right will deteriorate this.

[-] 3 points by biodynamic21 (3) 12 years ago

in much of Europe there is a "right" to shelter and the controls and protections on foreclosures, housing loans and rent are more strict. Most governments support families/individuals who can't afford their rent, so that no family must sleep on the street. In Germany, for example, there are very few homeless people, because of such a program. If you ask Germans from the wealthy executives to average people, they all agree on such mutual support. The US has one of the highest standards of living, but it's also the most unequal, so a smaller majority enjoys those standards. As an expatriate living in Germany, who is from California, it's quite shocking to see the amount of homeless and marginalized people in the US when I visit. Austrian, German and Swiss cities dominate the highest standards in the world and they share this idea of right to shelter. The US is significantly lower. http://www.mercer.com/articles/quality-of-living-survey-report-2011

[-] 2 points by guero1nd (11) 12 years ago

Nice post. I have to go to work, but I look forward to continuing this conversation. In the meantime I have a couple of questions. Are you saying that a house should be a government provided right to all of its citizens? If so, what incentive would there be to work for this home? Who would decide how to distribute the land and how the houses would be built?

I think you'll probably say that you are in favor for getting people who lost their homes (due to the economy or unfortunate situations having to do with their health) back into their homes. If this is the case, would homes be provided for those who almost were able to purchase a house prior to 2008 or prior to becoming ill?

I like the way you think, I just don't understand how something like this could be sustainable.

[-] 1 points by BTKcongress (149) 12 years ago

"mutual support" is a concept utterly lacking in america. this is an "eat what you kill" society, where we refuse to share what we've killed. The mindset is base and vile, as opposed to civilized and humane. And it's a root problem.

[-] 2 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

If you research these shelters, you'll discover that they aren't as plentiful as the need for them. Most have to turn people away because they run out of room. And isn't the fact that we have so many homeless shelters raising any red flags with you? Saying - something's got to be wrong if so many people can't afford something as simple as a roof over their head?

[-] 0 points by guero1nd (11) 12 years ago

Is your comment implying that shelter should be provided to all and if so...who decides what shelter is provided and to who? May I have a house on the beach please?

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

I'm saying there's so many people homeless that the shelters cannot provide for them.

I'm saying there's something wrong with a country where a person can work full time, and not be able to even afford temporary housing.

And I'm saying there's something wrong with us as a culture if we think that this is in any way acceptable.

[-] 1 points by guero1nd (11) 12 years ago

And a resolution would be?

[-] 0 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

The banks working with people to stay in their homes instead of foreclosing. If they get their money in the end - does it matter if it takes a few months more when these are ten, twenty, thirty YEAR plans? They aren't getting the money all at once anyhow. If these houses are empty, they aren't getting money at all.

Making temporary housing more affordable. (In many cities apartment prices now rival houses.)

Universal Living Wage, rather than a Federal Minimum. Based on area, not a national average. That will ensure that areas with lower cost of living are not forced to overpay workers, while companies that want to run businesses in big cities are required to pay their workers enough to survive.

[-] 0 points by guero1nd (11) 12 years ago

I respectfully disagree. Universal living wage would hurt the unemployed more than it would benefit them. People expect everything without sacrifice. My mother came from a sweatshop and assisted her 8 siblings through school. Was it glamorous?...no but it put food on the table and she made something of herself. I can't afford a house and I have a daughter on the way. The healthcare costs are crazy and my benefits were cut this year. But my family will make it through....it's not governments responsibility to pick up my tab.....that's would not be a fair system. I agree that today's situation is difficult and I do my part to do charity work, but this is my (people's) option...not governments role. That's my humble opinion

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

I respect your disagreement since you were polite about it, but I remain in disagreement.

I don't want handouts, have worked my entire adult life, and have never taken a cent from the government. But what a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the money being earned by these low wage workers today can't earn for them what it did the workers in the past. Everyone wants to make that comparison, but the truth is they're earning less - while the company's make more than ever.

A Universal Living Wage doesn't come from the government, it's just a law to force the company's to do what's right. And they can afford to do it, without cuts and without raising pricing, They just don't want to because they don't want to sacrifice even the small amount of profits it would take (And, trust me, I've seen the numbers - it is a small amount of those profits.)

Nobody (or very few that I've spoken to) wants the government or company's to put there employees on easy street. Food and housing are a staple of survival. It ain't easy street by a long shot, and if someone needs more, they still have to work harder to get there. But asking people to be homeless and starving while working a steady job is completely unethical, unmoral, and something to be ashamed of as a people. Not proud of.

[-] 1 points by guero1nd (11) 12 years ago

My opinion is that if you are against business practices, boycott the business...don't work for them don't purchase their products. I find it immoral to push views on how to do business by not allowing truck drivers to do their voluntary jobs. No one is forced to purchase from or work for a company.

Businesses have the right to decide how much to pay employees. Potential employers have the right to chose to work for a company at wages offered. Consumers have the right to chose what they purchase. Government shouldn't have a say in these matters, in my humble opinion.

[-] 0 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

The reason the government got involved is the same reasons unions were originally formed. Because the businesses took advantage of the situations to exploit their employees. And that's what's happening again.

The problem for the employees is there is no choice involved. If you know you can survive on $10 an hour, want to work for $15 an hour, but accept a job for $13 an hour - that's an option. That's choosing to work for the wages offer. If you have no job, have no food, need $10 an hour to put a roof over your head and have food, and the employer says "I'll only hire you for $7", are you going to say no? I'd say then that people can indeed be "forced" to work for a company.

Everyone gets a job to get money - whether it's to survive or because you want to do more than survive. That includes someone who starts a business. But when you start a business, whether you like it or not, you have taken on a burden the average person doesn't. How you treat, and pay, your employees effects far more than just you. If you know you cannot run your business without these people, how do you justify paying them less than it takes to survive in the area in which you have chosen to do business?

The only reason I'm asking for government involvement is because the businesses have proven to be incapable of this sort of ethical practice. Instead they have chosen their profits over any sense of morale obligation. There's nothing wrong with making money. But making money on someone else's suffering? That is wrong.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

There is something completely wrong when a person has to pay taxes on their own property. If we had the gold standard back, if the 16TH amendment was repealed, and all fees, licenses and permits were eliminated, a "person [working] full time" would be able to afford a house. And all of the business regulations should be repealed too..

[-] 1 points by billbux (35) 12 years ago

We are beta testing a new system that allows anonymous geo-tagged messages.

We would love for you to try it and give us feedback – you can find us at:



Thank you!

[-] 1 points by OWSMusic (57) 12 years ago

A song for the banksters on Wall Street... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FM3KR9dEOk

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

It's only "their" house if THEY pay for it.


[-] 0 points by newearthorder (295) 12 years ago

Why don't we petition the Congress to write a bill that says that anyone who has a mortgage would add an emergency clause to it. This would be for if the mortgagee had suddenly experienced a financial difficulty. All the home owner would have to do is invoke the 'Emergency Clause' and the payments would be reduced to half for the following 24 months.

To make this up the bank would be allowed to add one year at the end of the mortgage. If a home-owner can't get their stuff together under these circumstances they probably shouldn't have even tried to get the loan in the first place.


[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 12 years ago

How come that homeless kid has a smartphone?

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Pay as you go plans offer versions of "smartphones". Cost maybe $100 bucks depending on the plan and phone, and include minute plans/free minutes with them. I have people mistake my $50 pay-as-you-go phone for a blackberry all the time. There's also the question of how long they've had the phone, or if they are with a company and were allowed to upgrade for a cheaper price, etc.

Unless you can prove to me that this phone is genuinely one of the expensive versions, and that it was bought after they got into financial trouble and lost their home, your question is moot.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

It's a lot cheaper and easier to buy a Smart Phone than it is to buy a house or to pay high rent. That is a really bad comparison.

That's the same as asking, "How can you own clothing when you can't afford to buy a car?" What's the difference between owning a Smart Phone vs. owning clothing?

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 12 years ago

That's easy. you don't need a smartphone. If you come back with how necessary a phone is in today's world, I would say once again - you don't need a smartphone. If you can afford a smartphone and the data planes that come with it, then you have your spending priorities mixed up.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

You need a cell phone if you don't have a home but want a job.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Clothes aren't a necessity, either.... unless you are trying not to get hypothermia if it's cold out.... but for the most part, clothes are not a necessity. You won't die without them if you're not in cold temperatures.

[-] 0 points by simplesimon (121) 12 years ago

No wonder Michigan is broke. It is a vast, cold wasteland devoid of intelligent thought. It's where idiots go to die in the cold because they don't wear clothes.

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 12 years ago

Really? You actually believe what you just posted? I'm going to talk to my dog. I believe i will get a more intelligent response.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

You're right. He's a troll. His posts are never constructive.

[-] 0 points by theCheat (85) 12 years ago

What next? Perhaps occupy repossessed vehicles because we have a right to mobility? How about occupy cell phone companies, after all communication is a right. Hey OWS, why do you continue to pay the cell bills? What should happen if you stop paying your bills?

[-] 0 points by darkhound (66) 12 years ago

Stupid. If you can't afford a home, don't buy one.

[-] 1 points by windchimp (2) from Remsenburg-Speonk, NY 12 years ago

he could now he cant u idiot.

[-] 0 points by bcvagabonds (11) 12 years ago

The Occupy Movement has made a huge error of assumption when it comes to the inclusion of all people in its 99%. We are the 95% (NOT 99%). The remaining 5% is 1 part rich/elite and 4 PARTS PARAMILITARY. The "brotherhood of the blue" is there to protect the 1% and control the 95%. They will never support this movement, as to do so would risk their own elite status that insulates them from corruption, injustice and poverty.

[-] 0 points by poopsmith (-3) 12 years ago

up next: occupy repossessed vehicles. people have a right to be mobile.

[-] 0 points by hattiecat2 (17) 12 years ago

can you occupy my macy's card!

[-] 0 points by theCheat (85) 12 years ago

Next up: Repossessed cars, boats, motor homes, airplanes, atv's. Just because there is a legal document for a lien agains the item it should not be legal to just take it.


[-] 0 points by iEarnThings (13) 12 years ago

"we have a right to shelter"? Once you enter onto someone else's property you are what we call trespassing. If you go onto someone's farm and eat from his field can you cry out, "we have a right to food"? Your shelter doesn't have to be a foreclosed home. I understand that there are illegal foreclosures but that is what the court system is for. If it is truly illegal, the court will set it straight when you bring the crime to its attention. Do people realize you have to earn things? self-entitlement seems to be in every slogan I hear by the "99%"

[-] 0 points by kingscairn (0) 12 years ago

Sorry comrade, you don't have, nor does anyone else, "a right to shelter" or anything else for that matter...You are afforded the right, under the Constitution, to acquire ' stuff' ' by obtaining it (now this is going to hurt the sensibilities of one of your stature) "LEGALLY" as in utilising the (and you'll probably get one of Chris Mathews' shivers down your leg) "FREE EDUCATION" you got k-12, then proceeding with more education or going straight to (oops, now the shiver goes away) "WORK" so you can save, invest and (oops, sorry again) "BUY" a car, some drugs or even a house .... You have little eaters and big eaters - you get out of it what you put in it - that's it !

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

Shelter is a human right.

Food, water, clothing, shelter. Basic human rights. EVERY person on this planet should have access to these basic needs. Why is it, in this modern age where quite a few people own multiple mansions, cars, etc. that we can't provide the basics to everyone?

It is not fair, and it needs to change NOW. And don't give me any BS about those people working harder than anyone else. Sitting behind a desk using a computer is not nearly as hard work as getting oneself burned with fryer grease, carrying huge loads to and from trucks, fishing, or any of the manufacturing jobs that the 1% considers "less worthy."

Members of the Rockefeller, Rothschild, and Walton families will never have to lift a finger in their entire lives, yet they "deserve" all of this wealth while so many Americans have to fight tooth-and-nail for basic needs?

[-] 0 points by hattiecat2 (17) 12 years ago

Why cant they provide for themselves? What is wrong with fighting tooth and nail, didn't the rockerfeller seniors work tooth and nail? Why do you Deserve anything? Just for being alive?????

Why does anyone need to provide for others. We are given access to 12 years of free education, freedom to start a business,any hundreds of ways to make a success of the opportunities this country provides. you need to earn the level you want to achieve. no one is going to provide you with the lifestyle ou want you have to earn it.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

First off, that education isn't free. Its free for kids to use, but their parents have been paying taxes to support it for many years. And its not like this education is a gift from above either: teachers are having wages slashed or being laid off, technology in these buildings is woefully out-of-date, and our kids aren't even ready for the real world once they leave the system. Education in this country needs an overhaul because its not working. Right now its NOT providing the return on investment that we put into it.

Second: Yes, we do have a human obligation to take care of each other. We aren't savage beasts. We are better than that.

I'm not asking for handouts. I'm asking for basic human necessities: Food, water, clothing, shelter. Beyond that if people want to buy iPods and fancy cars and nice meals out, then that's their perogative to work for those things. Something is fundamentally wrong with our species if we can justify people driving around in Jaguars and Bentleys while so many of us are fighting to have food on the table. Everyone needs the basics. After that, let capitalism and competition decide who can get the luxuries that they want.

I doubt the early Rockefellers worked harder than anyone else in their time. It seems that most of the obscene wealth in this country was gained through timing and luck. You work hard to put yourself in a position to get lucky, but you still have to be at the right place & time for the real success to occur.

How many MySpace clones were online (and struggling) before Mark Zuckerman came along? Do you know how many fast food chains competed with McDonalds in the early days? What would have happened if Bill Gates never stumbled upon the kids that he bought DOS from? Did you know that Pepsi was almost bought out by the Coca-Cola Bottling Company? Did the people at Pepsi work harder than the people at RC Cola to become the main competitor to Coke, or were they just lucky that they weren't bought out in those early days? Who knows how many fountain beverage manufacturers were/are not so lucky.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

Government teachers work 10 months out of the year and receive 12 months pay, along with huge pensions, benefits etc. I believe there should not be any government schools, period. And those same gov't teachers support oppressing home schoolers. You can believe that you have an "human obligation to [others]" but I do not and you can not speak for others either. You are loaded with contradictions, "[you're] not asking for handouts" and turn right around and ask for "basic human necessities". how about earning those items. There is nothing wrong with anyone "driving......Jaguars and Bentley's [around], if they earn it it's their right. You, like the others who support a welfare state are filled with career and financial inadequacies, low self esteem and are straight out jealous of someone else's success.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

My mother is a school teacher. She works her ass off, earned National Board, tenure, and other advancements, yet because of the retarded budgets in this state she and all of her coworkers received no pay raises. The wages have been frozen for years. Many teachers here were laid off. Many teachers' wages were cut. These teachers are barely getting by for doing such an important social service. HOW DARE YOU!

"how about earning those items."

How about giving people the means to earn those items? Where are the jobs? Should everyone who isn't a Computer Programmer move to India? Oh wait, those jobs are moving to India too!

Yes I support basic human necessities for everyone. I more "pro-life" than all of you greedy jerks. Don't be a hypocrite and claim that you are "pro-life/anti-abortion" and then not give a shit once the person is born.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 12 years ago

As I saw posted somewhere, the elite need those kids born from broken homes to become their minimum wage slaves.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

Exactly. Not all of us are dealt the same hand in life. Some of were born holding a royal flush (Rothschilds and Waltons) while others are lucky to have Ace-high off suit. We have kids growing up in homes filled with drugs and booze while the parents try to cope with their issues. Then we give the kids shitty public education so that these kids can't even think for themselves. We promote a myth that these kids "must" go to college to even have a shot at a decent life so then we saddle them with so much student loan debt that they are forced to work for decades to pay anything off. The final nail in the coffin is that between all of the jobs being moved to China and India and all of the people who are currently in the job market, we can't even promise jobs to college graduates anymore!

So we have a large population of educated jobless, debt-ridden young adults with nowhere to go and nothing they can do to fix their situation. When you do everything right and STILL get screwed, something isn't right.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

I don't care if your mother is a government school teacher, the union she belongs too, as I stated earlier, harass and advocate for the oppression of home schooled children. The politicians have no business dictating or regulating educational standards. If the gov't teachers "are barely getting by", then the next smart move would be to change career, period. You stated that those gov't workers are "doing...an important social service", bull, their only mission is to advance the gov't's propaganda, that's all. I am informing you that one of the worst things this country did was to put politicians in charge of education. Hitler did, Stalin did it, Mugabe did it Castro did it and so on. Socialist, such as yourself, always advocate for "giving people the means to"... what ever. The better way would be to get politicians out of the way of learning, period. As so far as the jobs, here are my free market solutions to more jobs. 1) bring back the gold standard. 2) repeal the 16TH amendment. 3) repeal all business regulations, fees, permits and licenses. 4) support individual rights. 5) defend private property rights. And I will end with this short line from the Declaration of Independence; ...[a] right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[-] 0 points by iEarnThings (13) 12 years ago

I wasn't born to provide for you. Sorry to tell you the bad news.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

Then you are no better than an ape. Some of us evolved to be compassionate about our fellow men and women.

Too bad you're happy with just a cage and bananas.

[-] 0 points by iEarnThings (13) 12 years ago

Ha! Get off your high horse. I never said I wasn't compassionate for others, I said I wasn't born to provide for you. Get over yourself and grow up.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

If you were compassionate for others then you wouldn't hold such a selfish viewpoint.

Life is about more than you and your needs. Stop being greedy and help those in need.

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

who is the last person you helped in a significant way and what did you do? I'm all about compassion but IME those who ask it of others as you are often are not fulfilling their own demands. I trust you are different.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

It doesn't matter what I do. You are using a common tactic in order to attack my arguments instead of responding to my viewpoint. You hope to weaken my view by implying that I have to have done something personally.

"We should protest X" "Then why don't you go out there and hold a sign?"

"Scientology is corrupt. I have the proof from 'x'" "How do you REALLY know if you didn't pay them and take services?"

"The working conditions at meat packing plants are terrible" "You don't know that because you have never worked there."

I understand you. You want life to be about you. All about you. All about how you are going to make yourself a better person no matter who is in the way. Who cares about those other people? They aren't ME. I did everything "right" after all. Those people are lazy/idiots/unlucky/less worthy than ME. Me me me!

To answer your question, I have helped with many food drives, clothes drives, and toy drives. I have donated plenty to groups like Goodwill. I would take in homeless people if I had the space.

[-] 0 points by iEarnThings (13) 12 years ago

You are completely outrageous. You describe compassion like an instinct, which is what animals have. I make a conscious decision to show compassion. And you don't know me. I am not greedy in the least bit, but I choose to not be greedy, I wasn't born that way. Your belief is that you are entitled to my generousity because you were born. You are not entitled to anything. Life responds to deserve, not need. Compassion and generousity are choices. Which humans are born with the ability to make. And by the way "I wasn't born to provide for you" is not a selfish statement. It is a statement of fact. Nowhere in that statement do you see the word "me". So let me repeat myself, get over yourself and grow up.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago



  • devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

  • characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

If you don't care about others, then why are you on this site?

We're going to make change happen, whether you like it or not. We are going to change this country for the better, whether you like it or not. And frankly, I don't give a damn what you or any of the other people think about it.

BTW, its not "your" generosity, its "our" basic human rights. My position is simple: I don't want to see anymore people suffer from homelessness and hunger. We as a nation have the wealth to guarantee that no human in this country can ever go without food. We have more than enough land and buildings to provide every one of these homeless with shelter.

It doesn't matter if they "deserve." This is basic humanity. You and the republican drones have this mentality that a life is not worth feeding if it doesn't work its ass off for 40+ hours a week. I disagree. All humans deserve basic resources for living. It is up to them to work for anything beyond that. If they want iPods, make them earn income to buy iPods. If they want HDTVs, make them work for HDTVs. But don't make them work for shitty food in shitty housing, and then throw them on the streets because they don't "deserve" it. That is elitist bullshit, and it has no place in a humane society.

[-] 0 points by iEarnThings (13) 12 years ago

Stop assuming I don't care about others. Again, you do not know me. My generosity is your basic human right? It sounds like you are telling me what I should do with my things. Absolutely unbelievable. I would like to support the Occupy movement about some things but I'm not sure I can when I read ridiculous statements like my generosity isn't mine at all but your human right. Honestly, do you listen to what you are saying? You must realize self-entitlement is a false notion that only justifies getting something for nothing.


[-] 0 points by Kathryn (1) 12 years ago

Banks don't want your houses, or your cars, or your motorcycle, or anything else used for collateral for a loan. They just want you to pay the loan as agreed. Furthermore, it takes months, sometimes YEARS to foreclose on a property and evict the buyer (notice that I didn't say "owner"). It's not like you miss two house payments and you're on the street.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

I've known people who have "missed two payments and are on the street". So please don't tell me it's not happening when it is.

The people losing their homes want to keep their houses. They want to pay back the loans. They are facing problems in doing it because of job loss, wage cuts, and the bank's raising the rate to above their means. Since the bank's aren't making money on these homes - otherwise they wouldn't be empty - why are they not negotiating with these people instead of throwing them out?

[-] 0 points by CapitalistPiggy (2) from Cincinnati, OH 12 years ago

A right to shelter? Where is that enumerated? Life, liberty and property, I remember, but shelter? I mean, why not throw all of Malsow's Hierarchy of needs in there? A right to love and a right to self actualization too. You can’t ethically stake a claim to property that is not yours. No matter how nice it will make you feel. Every vacant house is now occupied by a homeless family, that’s great, (unless you are the landlord paying a mortgage for the homeless guy). Saying you deserve it more does not make it so. Nor does, saying it was ill-begotten by the current owners make your usurpation of it morally justified. There is a legal process to follow and in this litigious era we live in there is no shortage of lawyers wanting to pinch-hit for you in court (for a modest sum of 30-50% of any judgments won).

The financial system is really quite simple. There are things that I need/want and if I cannot obtain them by my own labor, I must pay to get them. If I can’t pay now, there are people that will allow me to defer the whole sum by paying in installments. If the "little guy" doesn't like paying a mortgage he can always rent. Once upon a time he would have to save $200K to by a house of that price. For a “little guy” that could take 30 years. If he wants a $200,000 house now and only makes $40k/year then he will need to seek help in achieving that. A bank will assist him for a fee (interest). The banks offer convenience for the "little guys" in purchasing large ticket items like houses. They own the house together until he pays back what he owes them. If he can't/won't pay, then he have no business owning/occupying the house. Those are the terms of the loan. And before anyone goes on about predatory lending; if I am going to borrow $200K, I sure as hell better make an informed decision. That responsibility falls to me alone. But no, once again the lawyer comes in to claim the lenders should have known his clients were too stupid/desperate/naive to know what they were getting in to.

[-] 1 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

+1 for renting. Most people get tricked into thinking they "NEED" to buy a house to be happy. Screw being a mortgage slave. Screw paying 100k interest to a bank.

[-] 1 points by ediblescape (235) 12 years ago

White people got their land from natives by force. OWS is getting home from bank by no-violant movement.

[-] 1 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

So theft of private property is totally cool if you say you are doing it as a "no-violant"[SIC] movement?

And I don't see why everybody keeps bringing up the indigenous peoples as if it is a uniquely American thing. Every country that exists today did so through by conquest of other's lands. Asia has a long history of war for land, Africans have constantly had tribal conflict and still are fighting civil wars, and well Europeans colonized the world. The indigenous Americans themselves fought and killed each other for possession of land since before the first Europeans arrived.

[-] 1 points by ediblescape (235) 12 years ago

They all called revolutions to conquest other's lands by forces. OWS is conquesting bank's home by no-violant.

[-] 1 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

Umm...no. A revolution is when people revolt against a government. If a kingdom, country, feudal state decides to attack and absorb a neighbouring kingdom, country, or feudal state, then it is simply an invasion.

This is simply theft of private property based on the idea that one person's wants or needs are more valid than another's rights.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Except for the fact that renting now costs so high in some areas, it's cheaper to go to the predatory lender (banks) to afford housing. Which doesn't make it any easier on those struggling to survive. Plus, if you lose your job, or in some people's cases have any kind of emergency - you're screwed either way.

And most people don't fully understand interest rates, so they don't sign for a fixed one - or sign for something that's only fixed for a certain amount of time. Or the banks tell them they won't loan if they sign for a fixed rate, etc. The banks keep raising the rates, so the family can no longer afford the house even though they originally could.

Why don't people understand interest rates or what they're getting into? Hm, well, why is it that we don't have a required class on financing in our free education? Ask yourself that.

[-] 1 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

I mean I dunno what to tell you. I am publicly school educated and we had to do sections on how interest worked in my first 2 years of high school. It was part of basic algebra class. There were questions about it on the state assessment tests. If you don't understand a contract or the math behind your loan, why would you sign it? There are plenty of lawyers who provide free legal services to their communities. Even assuming there are no lawyers available, if one cannot afford 1-2,000$ to have a lawyer look over their contract then they have no business buying a 150,000$+ house.

As for being cheaper, I still think that's up for grabs. I have had a lot of friends shove their mortgage payment in my face saying "I pay less than you and I am investing!" and the truth is they are wrong.

First, buying a house you live in is NOT an investment. You cannot leverage it, you cannot generate income from it (remember you live in it), and when you want to sell it your gains will be eaten up by the purchase of a new house unless you want to be homeless.

Second, mortgage payment is only the tip of the ice burg of the TCO of a property. As a property owner, you are now liable for the property tax of your home, any homeowners association fees, condo fees, security fees, etc. Then you are liable for the upkeep of your property (repairs, additions, painting, and other routine maintenance). There is also the interest on your mortgage which adds to your expenses. 30 year mortgages can EASILY cost 100,000$+ in interest alone. This is on top of all the normal utilities you are paying (power, water, television, internet, etc).

Then comes the secondary cost of ownership: The fact you are locked into a house for 30 years. Many people have lost their jobs and cannot move to a new place because their homes are underwater. If you cannot sell the house but need to relocate, the mortgage doesn't just vanish. It becomes a chain around the neck of your fiscal health.

So yeah, I pay a little bit more to rent but my costs are flat and upfront. If I need to relocate I can simply activate the diplomatic clause on my lease and follow the job. All of the money I am not spending on interest, upkeep, taxes, etc I can directly invest and grow my money without regard to a particular geographical location. Most importantly, I am debt free.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Interesting, because I know for a fact in my area, none of the high school or college students I've worked with have ever had any financial training at all. So I am glad to know you did.

Frankly, I think it's pathetic that we've fallen so far in society that to trust someone to sell you a house, you have to hire a lawyer. All the same, I know never to sign a contract before reading and understanding the whole thing. (Driven some people crazy in my time because of my insistence on it. But I wasn't getting caught in a bad situation from being too hasty to read things through.) (And, HAs. Don't start me on HAs...)

Some people don't view having a house as being locked into it. They consider the house an important part of their life, and don't plan to relocate. Never bought one myself, even though I've had people tell me time and again I should. And there are fees involved with renting too. Extra fees for a garage, or extra parking space, and pet fees. (I once had a complex quote me a $900 pet deposit, not including monthly fees! No, I did not rent from them.)

Rentals in my area continue to climb - I know a place I once rented from that now charges $1200 for a place I rented for $800. In my opinion, both rent and housing is too high period. Which is adding to the problem.

[-] 1 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

It wasn't so much financial training, but a few questions about interest in sections where the requisite Math was being taught. Still, interest isn't really that hard to sort out if you can do multiplication and addition.

The difference between rental fees and home-owner fees is that a renter can easily move to a lower cost unit as the need. Homes you are stuck with until you sell.

I know not everybody considers a home being "locked down". Those that have their finances in order and want to buy a home to settle down in one area are the people who should be buying homes. Those that are buying to save on monthly rent or in the hopes of turning a profit when they sell are the ones who should come to grips with the idea that renting is not all that bad.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

It's not always so easy to relocate even with a rental. Moving van fees, plus deposits. There was a book I glanced through (wish I'd picked it up now. Lots of good info) which pointed out that the price of deposits in apartment made it hard for some workers to even rent. They couldn't afford the deposit. I experienced an issue with a rental - I had to move twice in the same month, spend a year attempting to settle the matter, and ended up in court over it. It was neither a cheap or fun experience. And the rental party didn't even get a slap on the wrist for it.

I can understand why someone would buy to lower monthly rent. If you had a choice between an apartment for $1000, and an apartment for $700, wouldn't you choose the $700? That's how a lot of people look at buying a home as well. I don't agree, which is why I still rent. If I'm going to buy, it's going to be because I want to settle roots somewhere, not because it's cheaper. Still, if they can afford the payments - who am I to criticize their reasons for buying?

The bottom line is, why should housing - which is a rather essential human need - be set at a price so high that so many cannot afford it? (And by "housing", I also refer to your rentals, not just buying.)


[-] 0 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

The problem here is that when you do not pay your home loan, get evicted, and then re-occupy your house you are actually stealing from the entire 100%. Your loan was made possible because of the deposits others put in the bank. The reserve requirement of the bank lets them keep a small amount of liquidity and loan out the rest. When you don't pay your mortgage, the bank forecloses on the house and then sells it to get back the money it invested in you. If it cannot get the money back, then it impacts the rest of the clients who might need a loan or have deposits at the institution.

Being angry when banks forclose in violation of state, federal, or contract law is GOOD. Being angry that somebody can not pay back their loan and has to repay with the house is unfair.

[-] 1 points by JDub (218) 12 years ago

Incorrect. It is proven in court that the Bank originates none of the actual money from deposits. In fact, a back only has a fraction of its total worth indeposits. Mostly its fictional 1s and 0s.

And the bank is insured for its losses. That's the problem. They took out insurance that basically was gambling on loans,knowing that the borrower had a good chance of defaulting should the interest rate rise.Which it did, bad.

And then they turn around and seize ur house, which u have been paying for, maintaning, and what not, and give you squat in return. What kind of investment is that???

[-] 1 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

Do you have the name of the decision where it was proven? Saying that a fraction of a banks total assets in deposits is redundant. That is what FRACTIONAL reserve banking means.

I give you 100,000$, you deposit it into the bank. The bank then keeps 10,000$ in its vault (the reserve requirement in most US banks is 10%) and then uses the other 90,000$ to invest and make a profit. One of the big ways banks do this is through loans.

Say your original deposit makes up the entire assets of the bank. Young couple with perfect credit and good income asks for a loan for 90,000$. 10 years into repaying the loan, the young couple has no money and defaults on their home loan. If the bank does not foreclose on the house and then sell it, then you are screwed. When you go to the bank to withdraw your 100,000$ the bank would then say "Sorry, we don't have the money". In our system this is prevented by the FDIC which is the lender of last resort to the banks, so you get your 100,000$ back, but then the taxpayer is on the hook for the debt.

[-] 1 points by JDub (218) 12 years ago

of course, your leaving out the fact that the money used for the loan to the couple is not actually originated from the previous loan. That is the problem. And then there is interest. WTF. Why should a bank get 10% interest on a Credit card for an individual with nearly perfect credit history, and yet only return maybe 2% for any account you have with them? They get the money from the fed at 0%. Figure that out.

[-] 1 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

Can you clarify this for me because I don't follow: "of course, your leaving out the fact that the money used for the loan to the couple is not actually originated from the previous loan. That is the problem."

Also interest payouts are wacky. The fed is not loaning at 0%, its near 0%. The safest securities to buy are US Treasury bonds. Since the yield is quite low for them, banks don't make all that much money off them, so they cannot afford to pay high interest to accounts.

Similarly, an individual with perfect credit history is also the least likely to actually pay any credit card interest. Cards like that have 30-60 days interest free, and the 10% is an annual interest rate. They don't make all that much off the good credit individual who pays off all cards within a month or two. The higher interest rates for people with poor credit are there to offset the risk that they will simply just walk. If you know you have a 19% APR then you will be in theory less likely to keep a balance for years.

[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Or... the bank participates in M&A buy-outs and doesn't do a damn thing to push loans out into the economy to generate economic activity.

E.g., 2009-2011.

[-] 0 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

your inhumanity screams out GIVE ME MY POUND OF FLESH! the land was stolen. the money is corrupt. you are an ENEMY agent!

[-] 1 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

Lets pretend you aren't trolling. How is the land "Stolen"? Who stole the land? When a company goes bankrupt they have to liquidate (sell off) their assets (computers, cars, manufacturing equipment) to pay off any outstanding debts. It is the same with individuals. If you take a loan on a house, you entered into a legally binding contract to pay back the money you borrowed. If you cannot pay it back, the bank is obligated to get the money back to protect its assets.

I never even remotely said "GIVE ME MY POUND OF FLESH". I think there are illegal foreclosures and shady practices going on at the moment, and those who have been affected need to be protected. However a foreclosure in and of itself is not immoral. It is a consequence of violating a freely signed contract.

[-] 1 points by BTKcongress (149) 12 years ago

some philosophies maintain that exclusive property rights are, by their very nature, theft from others who may wish to use the property. american law is obviously diametrically opposed to this view, and it probably seems too foreign to grasp.

[-] 1 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

No I understand the philosophies but I don't really buy much into them. If we are all equal, then why is somebody's want for my property more valid than my want to own it? I've been in jurisdictions where there is no actual property ownership (99 year leases etc) and my wife grew up in the USSR. It doesn't seem terribly great.

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

the land was stolen from the native americans and divided up into property rights by the freemason/knights templar. they are the ENEMY. by supporting their "original" property rights you are an ENEMY agent of the fascist elite.

[-] 2 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

I really think you don't get how land ownership works.

I have a house. I am the owner. You get a loan from a bank/family member. You buy house from me. You are now the owner. The bank is the owner of your debt. You for whatever reason cannot pay the mortgage. The bank owns your debt. It goes to court to claim assets in lieu of currency. The bank now takes ownership of your house.

I support the average land/property owner's right to possess what they worked hard and purchased. Where Indigenous Americans come into this I have no idea.

[-] 0 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

the freemasons/knights templar who founded this country built the banking and property rights system. they DID NOT WORK for their money they invented it on the back of their land holdings which they stole from the native americans. so their massive wealth and land ownership is built on those property rights. to get rid of their tyranny we must remove the system of property rights as well as the banking system. we must start a new banking system AND a new system of property rights to build our community.

[-] 1 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

Ok for the sake of sanity, please stop with the conspiracy theories of the "Freemasons and Knights Templar". This has zero to do with anything and it ignores the over 200 years that individual citizens have been able to buy their own private property.

You say you want to blow up the banking system and reclaim private property, but then create a new banking system and new laws on private property? Basically what it sounds like is you want a landowner to lose their property they paid for so that you can have it for yourself, which is selfish, childish, and completely un-American.

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

BS. the wealthy 1% have their money land holdings. we want OUR LAND BACK WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK. it is the banks taking our homes. you are trying to create fear for the honest 99% another INSIDE JOB. another FAKE terrorist alert. you are our ENEMY.

[-] 0 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? According to the Census, almost 70% of American homes are occupied by the owner of the property. 70% of American homes is orders of magnitude higher than the number of people in the 1%. "The 1%" own land just like everybody else, and yes many have land holdings as investment, but I would bet my life savings you could go at this moment and purchase private property without ever meeting anybody from the 1%.

Out of curiosity, who took money from you? How much money was directly taken from you? What land was taken from you? Are you even an Adult? Have you worked a day in your life?

Do you honestly think that being expected to pay back a debt from another individual is stealing?

You seem like the "Inside Job" planted to make the people here so the average person who stumbles on this site will think the movement is full of radical idiots.

[-] 1 points by CapitalistPiggy (2) from Cincinnati, OH 12 years ago

Dude, that is exactly what she wants. To break the whole thing up and give it back to the indians and they get all the improvments made since 1500ad. Like I said before, read John Locke. If you gather acorns on public land, they, by your labor to collect them, become yours. Problem is, now that you have them all collected, some lazy clown saunters over and tries to take them from you on the premise that they are public acorns. This is morally wrong.

[-] 1 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

Yeah...it defies logic to me. It sounds more like greed than equality.

[-] 1 points by hattiecat2 (17) 12 years ago

The land stolen from the American Indians has nothing to do with you. Are you occupying to give the US back to the Indians????

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

no we are OCCUPYING OUR HOMELAND and taking down their fascist hierarchy of property rights which leaves us homeless and their automated businesses so we are left unemployed. we are fighting back against their FASCIST TYRANNY. do you have our community at heart? is there anyone at home in your heart?


[-] 0 points by ediblescape (235) 12 years ago

OWS demants homes.

[-] 1 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

demant eh?

[-] -1 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

No one has the right to free shelter, a person only has the right to pursue shelter, this is not North Korea, Zimbabwe or Cuba. Now if that person earns it through work then God Bless that person, and they do not have a right to take shelter either, unless they live in the for-mention evil countries.

[-] -2 points by fandango (241) 12 years ago

Sorry, if you're not paying your mortgage it isnt "your home". You signed a legal agreement with the bank, they lend you money , you agreed to pay it back. If you don't pay back, it's the banks house.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

Right on Fandango.....

[-] -2 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

It is my belief using facts learned from over the years that when I hear the word "banker", that's code word for "Jew". Blame the Jews for this, blame the Jews for that, etc. I recall hearing the anti-Semitic words from OWS protesters in person, on Fox News and on YouTube. When I start hearing and or reading that OWS are protesting politicians taking private property through tax liens, that's when I'll believe them to be anti big government. Until then, I will continue to view them-OWS-as being consistent Socialist and Anti-Semitic.

[-] 1 points by davidgrmd (5) from Wells, ME 12 years ago

Socialism and anti-semitism are not the issue. Solving political and economic gridlock and helping homeless families is the goal. Let's try not to be divisive and keep our eye on the problem.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

You are lying, socialism cause the problem and anti-Semitism is pointing the finger of blame in the wrong direction. I believe you are part of the problem by not realizing it, unless you are advocating such evil actions. And lastly, the OWS thugs are being "divisive" and cowardly by not going after politicians who confiscate private property through tax liens.

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 12 years ago

You're the one making the antisemitic equation jew=banker. Trust me, that didn't cross my mind: most of the bankers I've dealt with were just as gentile as you probably are. And now that's the funny thing: socialists have written at length against antisemitism when it was still fashionable for twits like you to be antisemitic. And they've regularly pointed out that there were, in fact, jewish and non-jewish bosses and jewish and non-jewish workers.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

You are either a liar or a denier, explain the racist comments I witnessed on YouTube, my local Fox news station and the national Fox News Channel and other sources. Explain it, in fact, I want you to Google the sources and get back with a Jesse Jackson or David Duke type response. I am waiting by my computer.........

[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Please, learn to drink. You'd make a better Irish drunk than a sober paranoid Jew. (The Farrakhan crowd continue to send some Jew-haters to OWS NYC events. They abuse the 1st Amendment.)

[-] 1 points by davidgrmd (5) from Wells, ME 12 years ago

I am not lying. I believe tax liens are placed after people don't pay real estate taxes. I, personally, am not a thug. Peaceful protest can highlight problems such as institutionalized racism and help catalyze the process of political change in times like now when there is gridlock. It is a thoughtful process, different from thuggery.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

If bank foreclosures are wrong, then explain to me why taking someone's property isn't wrong when they can't pay taxes on their own property. I have witnessed OWS thugs trespassing onto private property, damaging it etc. As so far as "peaceful protest", when does throwing bricks, bottles, rocks, looting, burning private property, spitting on police officers etc "peaceful. And lastly, racism, I witness some of the most vile anti-Semitic statements on YouTube ever coming from the OWS gang. When that racism is rejected and ejected then I'll believe you.

[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

The most of "OWS thugs" are outsider provocateurs.

OWS explicitly endorses Dr. King's Nine Principles - the core of nonviolence.

Check out the riot at the Air and Space Museum for an example of Segretti-style dirty tricks. October 8th. Patrick Howley and Mike Stack were the main thugs.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

Some "Jew haters (go) to OWS-NYC events, there are Jew haters inside the OWS camps all over the country, check them out on YouTube.

[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

You've heard of Farrakhan.

Using OWS events to get press attention is typical for that bunch.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

Blame someone else, that's your motto, the OWS protest just allowed the Jew haters to get together that's all. Which the OWS support.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

way to try and discredit. i'm gnostic and religiously open. very few of these people i have spoken with, even have a religious preference.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

You still did not denounce the OWS/Jew haters.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

i'm not here to chase down lunatics. i debate and look for writers that want to get some exposure for their blog.

[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

OWS NYC security routinely had the Farrakhan Jew-haters removed, then applied for and received Restraining Orders banning the individuals from Zuccotti.

Didn't hurt that NYPD ran warrant checks on these loudmouth bigots. Productive efforts.

Your complaint is deficient on the facts.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

That's what you say, I know differently, and you act like Jew haters were only in NYC, please, spare me the misdirection, lies and shameful act.

[-] -3 points by TheNewMovement (46) 12 years ago

You guys haven't went home yet?

Huh, I thought the movement faded after black friday reports of people saying "F OWS" and went shopping...

[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

"You guys haven't went home yet?"

It should be, "You guys haven't GONE home yet?" Learn proper grammar, please.

[-] 1 points by dalton (111) 12 years ago

Must be an out of work english teacher.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Actually, I work full-time and support myself 100%.... and I'm not an English teacher. I just was able to grasp English grammar in elementary and high school..... something that so many Americans have trouble with.

Your comment just shows your ignorance and biased attitude.

[-] 1 points by dalton (111) 12 years ago

Not ignorance or biased. Simple statement as most, read that as not all, but MOST would not comment on bad grammer. It is usually an english teacher.

[-] 0 points by TheNewMovement (46) 12 years ago

But fail to understand the constitution, huh, go figure.

Or is taking from one something they do not choose to give somewhere in there?
Just in case you don't know, it's not.

[-] 0 points by TheNewMovement (46) 12 years ago

get a job please and give up the hipster attitude issues.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago


WENT Can you explain the difference in this lone context please??


[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

fishing for counter arguments is lazy beyond description.


[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

lmfo. you are so completely city. if you want to hide your over education, you will need more than music and television.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 12 years ago

Oh dam! You think I am educated! Sweet Jesus! A guy trying to run a website that loads like shit and has no original stuff thinks I'm educated! Now that I think about it makes a lot of sense to me.

So is it shrimp or mullet there bubba?

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

lol. talk to google about the load times. all of the content is user submitted and original. http://richardkentgates.com is my software. will be releasing this coming spring.

[-] -3 points by Walsh (3) 12 years ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't banks usually foreclose on the homes of people who are unable to pay back a loan that the bank gave them?

I fail to see what is wrong about this.

[-] 8 points by bpmangan (123) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Massachusetts in the past few days began a lawsuit aainst the Big 5 banks for illegal foreclosures. Nevada in October made illegal foreclosures a felony in response to the problems that many of us have seen. They are often done without the proper documentation and without a copy of the original deed.

The complaint isn't as simple as saying that the people living in the home didn't pay back their loan and therefore lost their house. It is more complicated than that and the complaint is more centered on the fact that these banks are often noted for bullying people out of their homes who don't know any better.

[-] 2 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 12 years ago

If you tally up all the bills that people are expected to pay - mortgage, electric, water, property taxes, car payments, car insurance, health insurance - it should not be that hard to understand that a foreclosure is looming.

It is a foreclosure epidemic, not a few foreclosures, likely the result of lay offs, job cut backs, health care cut backs, the slashing of social programs. Banks do not care to take any of this into consideration, using language that most people don't understand and providing high-interest loans for at-risk credit people. It is even worse with the subprime market and the notion of property redlining / reverse redlining.

At a time the Community Reinvestment Act ought to be strengthened, these financial goons are conspiring to either weaken it or eliminate it. Even those charity groups that have helped communities over the years are as corrupt as the financial institutions, e.g. ACORN. When all the legal resources bow to a state of corruption and are thus weakened by economic and political pressures, it must be we the people to take our land back.

[-] 3 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 12 years ago

'Free' Trade sent our jobs overseas yet the politicians just can't seem to remember they are the ones that did this to our economy. Many folks probably would have paid their mortgages on time if they had not lost their job because of the greedy SOBs in DC.

The cost of living has gone through the roof....which might also have something to do with people not able to make their mortgage payments. IT is time we stop blaming the victims and demand an end to 'free' trade (Obama is creating more 'free' trade deals) and demand an end to speculation on our necessities!

Why have grocery costs grown so high? Just normal inflation right? Think again. How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis Goldman Sachs and other bankers are gaming the system, driving the costs of commodities higher and higher with a derivative they made up just for this purpose “the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index”…just to make themselves more money.

Why does it cost so much to fill the gas tank? Must be Peak Oil right?

* How Koch Became An Oil Speculation Powerhouse From Inventing Oil Derivatives To Deregulating The Market – October 6, 1986: First oil derivative is introduced to Wall Street by traders at Koch. Koch Industries executive Lawrence Kitchen devised the “first ever oil-indexed price swap between Koch Industries and Chase Manhattan Bank.

Goldman Sachs now admits that at least $27 of the price of crude oil is a result from reckless speculation rather than market fundamentals of supply and demand. Many experts interviewed by ThinkProgress argue that the figure is far higher, and out of control speculation has doubled the current price of crude oil. “

No matter what you do, right now, every day, Koch and Goldman Sachs are jacking you, just when you go to buy food and gas. We can protest all we want, they don't care, they are still making money.

Ending Speculation should be a major demand of the OWS movement. We have not always had it. There is no purpose other than making the 1% more money at the expense of all of us. There are people starving because of the high cost of food driven to ridiculous levels by these assholes.

Top Ten Ways Americans are Getting Squeezed http://getsmartnews.com/news/243459

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

You are overlooking one very important part of this puzzle - EPA and other environmental action groups are pushing for more and more controls over the businesses and individuals in this country.

  1. A Significant part of the increase in the cost of your food is directly related to the greatest ripoff of late - ethanol production - the use of your food (corn) to produce ethanol to burn in your car. Perhaps your statement would be more accurate as "people starving because of the high cost of food driven by ridiculous levels by these ridiculous environmental plans to wave the world. Really, would you rather take a chance of dying from pollution or hunger???

  2. An increase of $100,000 per natural gas well drilled in the state of New Mexico to contain any possible water spills during the drilling process in closed systems instead of retaining ponds and removal. This great environmental idea has cost that state greatly in the recovery of resources that are plentiful there. The recovery has simply moved to NDakota, Texas, etc. from an area of the country that has had no record of such spills in over 100 years, thus you pay at the meter for something that is not doing any good for anyone.

PS - do not ask Bill Richardson what he thinks of this law - he is a major stockholder in a company that now HAS to process that waste water.

AND, before I get mobbed by the environmentalists, that is a necessary concern that we all face in all areas of our society, but if we are too blind to see the possible ramifications of our actions - we might simply create a great more and more serious problems that we originally intentded to solve.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 12 years ago

I don't get why banks would do this. They end up with the house which they have to maintain and pay taxes on in order to resell it. Most get stuck with these homes.

If one gets a mortgage shouldn't they read the fine print concerning the "what ifs" before they sign on the dotted line? That's their own fault, isn't it? (the purchaser)

Look at this. This person was supposed to help people who are about to lose their homes. Instead.....well.......read the article. Want to bet she won't get anything but a slap on the hand? These families were in crisis and she took advantage of it.


[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

It is well-known that people should take lawyers with them to their closings. This is VERY SAD that lending institutions are THAT corrupt, dishonest, and untrustworthy that people must hire a lawyer in order to not get screwed at the closing. If people accept this as normal, then they also are a part of the problem.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

The fine print is often beyond the ordinary person's reading ability. Most people have not gone to college, and even college grads can't decipher most legalese. They also tend to trust the people "helping" them to get the mortgage, which was a huge error when the mortgage companies were engaged in rampant fraud.

While my lawyer was honest, I got handed a paper I'd never seen at a closing a few years ago. Luckily, it was all on the up-and-up, but that wasn't how it worked for everyone.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 12 years ago

I thought they were supposed to now put everything in "plain language" so everyone can understand? Maybe in their opinion it is plain but for the every day person it isn't. I guess if I can't read it and understand it then I won't sign on the dotted line.

That's basically what that woman did to others in the link I posted. Used her "language" to fool them into signing on that dotted line.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

This is one of the reasons I've been an enthusiastic supporter of the Financial Consumer Protection Agency. It's an important protection, and long overdue.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Probably not so much bullying but more like bungling. The screwup paperwork at the top of the heap is nothing new. I went through the same thing in 1979 when a real estate loan was sold from a local mortgage holder to a bank in Atlanta. For whatever reason, neither source wanted my monthly payments, sent them back and forth, until finally the Atlanta Bank was ready to foreclose.

MY advice - bank as close to home as your can, know who you are banking with, and know that they would probably rather have anything in their bank assets other than YOUR house which the would then have to deal with. (not a good thing for them and even worse in a falling housing market). Just NOT a good thing for the bank.

[-] -1 points by CapitalistPiggy (2) from Cincinnati, OH 12 years ago

You make a compelling arguement. Though I doubt the majority of these forclosures are fraudulant.

[-] 3 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

The vast majority are fraudulent. The contact text referenced in MERS is not the contract text signed by the homebuyers. The "balloon clause" conditions are purely fraudulent - particularly the frauds perpetrated by Countrywide Financial.

  • Pervasive use of fraudulent documentation in the foreclosure process, including so-called “robo-signing”;
  • Foreclosing without holding the actual mortgage (“Ibanez” violations);
  • Corrupting Massachusetts’ land recording system through the use of MERS;
  • Failing to uphold loan modification promises to Massachusetts homeowners.


They are thieves.

12,570,000 foreclosures versus the normal 4,500,000 foreclosures over the past 5 years. A huge percentage of it driven by fraudulent "balloon clause" manipulations, driving up payment demands illegally. In fact the reference interest-rate standards declined rather than rising so that majority of the balloon-clause invocations were made criminally.

Countrywide Financial = "The Sixth Family."

[-] 2 points by charnipar123 (122) 12 years ago

Thank-you for that info. in the face of all the hate directed towards victims of these crimes.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

People continue to say all of this is the fault of those who got the loans, yet they fail to realize that foreclosures TRIPLING has everything to do with the lenders.

[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Fraudulent implementation of the bogus/forged/inaccurately_implemented "balloon" clauses is a huge fraction of this economic barbarism.

Interest rates were jacked up fraudulently.

Btw: the low-income "welfare queen" loans counted up to 6% of the subprime/high-rate mortgages. Hardly significant. And because these CHC loans did have the paperwork done honestly, the buyers were 100% working poor, and the paperwork was processed by a limited number of CHC-eligible banks, these CHC loans are the best-performing segment of the subprime mortgage pool. ("Welfare queen" mortgages, not.)

There's nothing Top Secret about mortgage performance statistics. Unfortunately, none of our friends and family members affiliated with the Tea Party seem to know about it. They also don't seem to know about the fraudulent/forged bogus "ballon" clauses incorporated by reference in the fraudulent MERS entries.

No one, even in the Angelo "Godfather" Mozilo Gang, has been indicted. In 1991-1995 the indictments would have flown out the doors of the USAOs by the hundreds a day.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

This is so sad. Some people can't see the connection between foreclosures tripling and the acts of those lenders and others who were involved. They just make rash opinions based on nothing.

I find it incredibly appalling that people are expected to and encouraged to hire attorneys to take to their closings with them. What does this say about the mortgage industry? Shouldn't we be able to go to a closing and not have to worry about being blindsided? Why is this accepted by so many?

[-] 2 points by charnipar123 (122) 12 years ago

No one is mentioning the appraisers who were in collusion with the banks.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 12 years ago

There has been major systemic fraud and the banks and enablers certainly are behaving as if they have something to hide

Foreclosure fraud whistleblower found dead http://getsmartnews.com/news/288925

[-] 1 points by CapitalistPiggy (2) from Cincinnati, OH 12 years ago

I agree there is plenty of wrongdoing on the part of some banks. But after searching time and time again for something more than a headline, l finally found your article on the whistleblower. It was no homicide. She was about to go to jail and probably took her own life. I'm old enough to remember the Clinton scandals. There was a lot more power at stake then and all the left did was shrug their shoulders everytime a whistleblower end up dead.

[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

"It was no homicide. She was about to go to jail and probably took her own life."

Your opinion doesn't become fact. Is there evidence that she took her own life?

[-] 1 points by CapitalistPiggy (2) from Cincinnati, OH 12 years ago

"Your opinion doesn't become fact." Likewise yours. A dead body does not mean a body killed by another human being. The article said she either died of natural causes or suicide. Did you even read the article?

[-] 0 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 12 years ago

From the article it appears the real perpetrators of the crime have a lot more to lose than this whistleblower.

The Victim Whistleblower Tracy Lawrence faced up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,000

Lawrence came forward earlier this month and blew the whistle on the operation, in which title officers Gary Trafford, 49, of Irvine, Calif., and Geraldine Sheppard, 62, of Santa Ana, Calif. — who worked for a Florida processing company used by most major banks to process repossessions — allegedly forged signatures on tens of thousands of default notices from 2005 to 2008.

Trafford and Sheppard were charged two weeks ago with 606 counts of offering false instruments for recording, false certification on certain instruments and notarization of the signature of a person not in the presence of a notary public.

[-] 1 points by CapitalistPiggy (2) from Cincinnati, OH 12 years ago

Tracy's death does not necessarily get these guys off the hook. You don't use a criminals testimony unless you have corroborating evidence. They are too easily impeached.

[-] 1 points by bpmangan (123) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Even if the majority aren't, there's enough that are that its definitely something worth standing up against, at least to me.

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

They aren't. It's a technical argument vs a real argument of default and non-payment. NONE of these people had the expectation when they signed of just keeping the house if they flaked on repaying the debt. NONE.

[-] 7 points by icfmike (173) 12 years ago

in some cases the loans were given, sold, to unqualified people in an up market, then these loans were 'put together & divided up' and huge profits were taken off the top, then when they went bad, those in the know knew that they would be bad as soon as the market value fell below the loan amt...when lots of loans went bad, the lenders got bailed out...not the homeowner... the loans basically went bad also because of deregulation yrs ago...If your local store sold you an item that they knew would soon have no value ?? isn't that wrong ?????

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

you said - "those in the know knew that they would be bad as soon as the market value fell below the loan amt"

how does the reduced market value make a loan "go bad"?

to answer your question, I don't know of any house that ended up having "no value" but yes, many of the items we buy eventually have no value......and we know this in advance.

[-] 2 points by icfmike (173) 12 years ago

not only a market dive, but the loan requirements were 5% or less down, re agents, loan brokers wrote many inaccurate 1st td's as fast as they could to be resold... it was a planned scam, to occur with w leaving a trap for his successor, he knew it wasn't going to be mccain, and other 'traps' a home, real estate, almost always has some value, but re is supposed to increase...not something that gets used up.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Houses are supposed to appreciate in value if they are maintained and cared for and if something in the area doesn't cause house values to drop (like higher crime or something). Houses aren't like cars and other items.

[-] 1 points by cmoylanc (32) 12 years ago

No, we didn't 'know in advance' that the value of our homes would drop. The banks--Citibank, Citigroup now--knew this and has been found guilty of selling fraudulent investments--except banks, of course, don't have to admit guilt since they are big and powerful... Ordinary people are made to feel to feel wrong, ashamed, inadequate for believing in the so-called American dream. Time to wake up.

[-] 2 points by icfmike (173) 12 years ago

the banks didn't have to admit guilt because, the regs were mostly non existent and they all made money, except the home owners, the ones that didn't make $ got bailed out...with the homeowners and the rest of the 99's taxes....

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

actually, banks have been held accountable in many cases. I monitored the housing boom during its heyday and there were many warning of the impending bust......but some still bought in that market. It is not surprise that the rate of housing price increases in many areas were going to adjust - do some research and you will see that only those who wanted to bet otherwise were buying. I don't have a problem with people betting on housing prices anymore than the stock market but be willing to understand there can be a downside and make sure you are prepared to take that downside. I say housing is still overpriced in many areas and the government is only attempt to prop up these prices - prices have to crash where the average person can afford an average house. Housing still has risk - banks take risk as well. If obama wants the taxpayer to absorb the risk of those banks and you don't agree with it, then your argument should be with the obama administration.

[-] 2 points by cmoylanc (32) 12 years ago

The banks sold mortgages to people you demonize as the irresponsible many, gullible enough to actually accept what the banks were offering. Meanwhile, through mortgage backed securities, the vast derivatives market, the banks hedged their risk--then saw the bubble they sold, they blew up and up, burst. And they were bailed out by the U.S. government--by Bush, initially, then Obama. So why don't you go back to 'monitoring' Citigroup (you don't mention them for some reason) and Chase and the others. Meanwhile, no one is forgiving loans for the little guy, houses are still being foreclosed on--see the discrepancy, the injustice? little guy gets thrown of his house, bank gets a loan with no interest to keep afloat...

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Houses prices skyrocketed because of builders and other parties. In my area, builders were developing land like crazy.... any land they could get their hands on.... and prices were increasing daily and got out of hand.

I'm not happy that so many people lost their houses, but I'm happy that this stunt came crashing down, because the costs of houses were so outrageous that most people soon wouldn't have been able to afford them.

[-] 1 points by charnipar123 (122) 12 years ago

A judge in the Citibank lawsuit rejected the $325 million settlement offer made to its victims. He wants more money for what they did.

[-] 4 points by charnipar123 (122) 12 years ago

Excuse me if I am wrong. For everybody with a mortgage they cannot afford to pay there is a banker right behind them approving that loan and getting a 4k bonus for doing it.

[-] 4 points by jdjay (34) 12 years ago

A good percentage of the residents of a tent city in New Jersey who have been evicted from their homes had the same attitude you do right now. Most of them were in shock that their safe and secure middle class lifestyles had so quickly transformed into living in a tent in the woods during a cold New Jersey December. Today their main concern is staying warm and staying dry.

1/3 of mortgages in the U.S. are in foreclosure or underwater. This is a systematic problem and not an individual one. Stop blaming the victims. You are scapegoating to preserve your elitists' stance, that's all that you are doing. As are most of the neos. It is not due to individual incompetency but mostly due to systematic elitists' incompetency that people are being thrown out of their homes.

[-] 4 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

It is wrong if (1) they conned the people into a more expensive sub-prime loan when they qualified for a prime loan and/or (2) they falsified legal paperwork to foreclose.

Both of these are well documented as happening at high frequency.

Just to show how messed up the system is, there have been foreclosures against people whose loans were up to date on payment.

Now, there have been foreclosures due to the owners losing jobs from the recession, but one smaller bank in my area has actually worked responsibly with homeowners and has a miniscule foreclosure rate. This has worked to the benefit of all, but does not fit with the fast grab for the fast buck. It does demonstrate how unnecessary many foreclosures are, and that they are driven by the banks' actions rather than homeowner fecklessness.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Builders share part of the blame as well. They were right in there taking advantage of the situation.

[-] 3 points by eldave1 (35) 12 years ago

You're wrong - kind of :)

Banks gave people loans at low introductory interest rates that they could in fact afford (that's why everyone wasn't in foreclosure four years ago. Everyone though that once the period for these low rates expired (normally 3-5 years) they would be able to re-fi to an affordable fixed rate. However, the housing crash ruined that because now no-one could refi because their house value fell below market. Meanwhile - as folks were being evicted because they could not qualify for re-fi loans - banks were getting money for basically free. Ask yourself this - how is that folks who could pay their mortgage in 2007 could no longer pay it in 2008???? - in most cases it was simple because they were unable to re-fi to a reasonable rate: http://wordsofwhizdumb.com/2011/08/mortgaging-our-future-you-can-bank-on.html

[-] 2 points by BTKcongress (149) 12 years ago

remember too: 15 million who lost jobs? or 5 million who took a much lower paying job? they probably can't afford it regardless of refinancing.

[-] 2 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

Isn't that called a gamble? If you took an ARM on a house you are essentially GAMBLING that you can refi lower when that ARM expires. They do offer fixed rate mortgages that are locked in for the life of the loan.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Yes, it's a gamble, but isn't it wrong also that the lending institutions did what they could to pad their pockets during this debacle and made those rates rise incredibly to the point that people no longer could afford them? How is THAT fair?

[-] 2 points by murderkingz (56) 12 years ago

why should anybody have to "gamble" on shelter?? this aint fuckin vegas..my bad..i guess it is

[-] 2 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

NO one is FORCED to gamble on shelter. I have had a fixed rate mortgage, fixed for 30 years. No gamble, no surprises. I currently live in an apartment, I have a lease, no gamble, no surprises.

You gamble when you are buying more house than you can afford with an ARM or balloon mortgage. That's the gamble.

[-] 3 points by bpmangan (123) from New York, NY 12 years ago

If you really want to go that route, everything we do is gambling, and based on assumptions. If your fixed rate ended up being much much higher than those that change, would you not say that you had to stick with it because you gambled that the prices would be more volatile and go up? I'm just pointing out that the word gamble's negative connotation is what you're relying on here when it really doesn't carry much weight.

The point is they were told that they would be able to afford these loans by people working in that field. They trusted them. Their problem was trust. The banks problem was not telling the whole truth. Who is more wrong there?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

And they were told they could easily re-fi, and then they weren't able to.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

When the ink dries, it is the person that signs it that bears the responsibility for their actions. Sorry that sucks for you, but that is the way that it is and the way that it should be. If you read an ARM mortgage it is laid out in black and white what happens at the end of your introductory period.

[-] 2 points by bpmangan (123) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Fair enough. The issue is that when enough people couldn't pay those loans, the banks got bailed out. Because of their size they enjoyed that advantage due to corruption in government. If thats the way things are, then both sides have to be held to that standard and they clearly weren't.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

No argument there.

[-] 3 points by murderkingz (56) 12 years ago

still didnt answer the ?...WHY should anybody have to gamble on shelter?? ..better yet...WHY..is a fuckin ARM/balloon even fuckin legal?? they exist to screw people over a period of time..and since shelter is a fuckin basic human need then YES..we are FORCED to gamble at times and take the deal that sounds good just to get shelter over your head.deperate times,desperate measures

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

some people took ARMS and even no-interest loans and came out smelling like a rose. Are you upset that these people came out "ahead"?

part of the failure of your argument is evidently the belief you have that if someone lost, then someone gained and vice versa. Do you believe in a "win/win"?

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

Who is FORCED to take an ARM? Are there roving gangs with guns forcing people into these mortgages?

[-] 3 points by bpmangan (123) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Roving gangs with guns aren't much more efficient at forcing people to do things than political and financial power.

[-] 1 points by murderkingz (56) 12 years ago

bp summed that up..well put

[-] 3 points by charnipar123 (122) 12 years ago

OKAY so the banks gambled and got bailed out. Why not the buyer?

[-] 3 points by murderkingz (56) 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

obama convinced the majority it was necessary. all democrats I know as well as the media bought into it. Did you?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Bush 43 is the one who signed the bailout into law.

How do we buy into something we can't vote on?

[-] 0 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

Which is why we should have never bailed out the banks. This is why OWS is failing, you don't see the government IS the problem. The bank made these gambles because they were told by Fannie and Freddie that if they went south they were backed.

Read Meltdown by Thomas Woods

[-] 2 points by bpmangan (123) from New York, NY 12 years ago

I would very much disagree that OWS doesn't see that government is failing.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

I hope you are right...the message that comes out from OWS is "Rich people are bad and you need to tax them". That may not be the message OWS is trying to get out...but that is what the public sees.

[-] 1 points by bpmangan (123) from New York, NY 12 years ago

...or at least listenting to the wrong people. If you attend any OWS event you will likely catch that the complaints aren't far from typically libertarian complaints. They tend to argue that the main issue is government bending to the rich and not allowing the average citizen to have much say in the role of government. I'd say from my experiences with OWSthat there are a lot more left-libertarians, and anarchists hoping for a more hands off government than there are communists and socialists hoping for true wealth redistribution.

The argument for taxing the rich is not something that happens because the rich are bad, its something that happens because the rich have more to give. The super-rich tend to pay a lower percent in taxes than the average citizen. Whether arguing for a flat tax, or progressive taxation because the rich can absorb those costs to much smaller effect than the poor, the argument is not usually that the rich are evil. It is that the centralization of power in the hands of both government and business, especially when they hold hands, leads to immense corruption. Something most of my libertarian friends tend to agree with pretty strongly.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

If that's all you get out of it, then you are not listening.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

That's not what I get out of it. I am telling what people who don't come to these forums everyday here. Unfortunately marketing is what drives a movement and OWS' marketing sucks.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Um... that idea they are getting comes from the MSM. Since OWS is a movement and isn't an organization that has a leader, what do you propose?

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

Somehow getting more Media attention, and putting the RIGHT people in front of the media. The problem is that the RIGHT people don't always make the news....

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 12 years ago

Do you contribute that or some of it to people not learning the difference before seeking a mortgage?

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

Absolutely! If you enter into a contract with out knowing what you are signing or how it works, especially with something as important as a house, you are DEFINITELY gambling!

[-] 2 points by charnipar123 (122) 12 years ago

But why did the banks loan the money? No one can answer that. Aren't they the experts?

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

Because they were threaten by state and federal politicians with huge fines, fees, permits or worst yet, loss of their licenses. And I am sure a witch hunt would be in there somewhere.

[-] 0 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

Because they were guaranteed and backed by Fannie and Freddie/ US Government. A bank is not going to make a risky loan that they aren't going to make money on, or at least not lose their asses on

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

"A bank is not going to make a risky loan that they aren't going to make money on, or at least not lose their asses on"

Exactly, but the loans they gave out that were risky DID make them money.... and they knew they would!

[-] 1 points by charnipar123 (122) 12 years ago

So the original bank that loaned the money made $ when they bundled the loans together and sold them off as security backed mortgages. And now they are getting the homes back as well. I need help understanding this. Tell me more!

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

Exactly...and what is a bank's job? To make Money.

The best quote I heard about the mortgage meltdown was:

"Blaming this crisis on greed is like blaming plane crashes on gravity. "

Look I hate that it happened too, but we should have never been put in that situation.

[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

"Exactly...and what is a bank's job? To make Money."

A bank's job is not to take money dishonestly. There is a difference.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

Isn't it then up to the consumer to do research and make sure the institution that they are entrusting their most prized material possession (their wealth) to be honest and forthright?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Isn't it the responsibility of our government to enforce rules to keep businesses from operating dishonestly? Should we have to do research on every frickin' company we do business with to see which is dishonest and which is not? And if people are doing business this way, they should be shut down.... period. Putting the blame on the consumer is bullshit. Why should we have to hire a lawyer in order to get a loan from a lending institution?

You are placing blame on the wrong party and eliminating those who conduct business from being responsible and honest in doing business. That's like saying, "The woman shouldn't have been naked in front of that group of men, if she didn't want to get raped."

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

"Should we have to do research on every frickin' company we do business with to see which is dishonest and which is not? "

THIS line of thought is EXACTLY why we are in the position we are in. YES YES YES is the answer to that question. Since you don't do research on who is honest or not, why don't you hand over your life's savings to me. I will take good care of it for you!

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

Right on again.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 12 years ago

IMHO I think schools need to teach this. Instead of sewing a fabric ball, teach them LIFE skills...give them the tools to learn how to live in this world of contracts for everything........how to read them......how to interpret them. Kids graduate without a clue how to even write a check or balance a check book....all of that.

I'm a hog for having to know what every little things means. I am fortunate. Just wish that somehow people would have that drive before they sign on the dotted line.

[-] 0 points by Victoria13 (8) from Thomasville, NC 12 years ago

I simply took a class at my local community college on how to become a real estate broker. Taught me everything I needed to know about loans and the buying process. People need to take action to learn what the 'fine' print means. I blame no one but myself for loosing my home. I was out of work for 2 months because of surgery but that is not the bank's fault. People that signed onto ARM loans are insane. Fixed rate is always the way to go on any loan. Many colleges make you take a test online and in the case of my school in person as well before you can take out a student loan. Maybe banks should consider doing that with mortgages. If you fail it, no loan. Pass it then you get a new home.

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

xlnt points. However, ARM's can work favorably for some people and situations. But you point is well taken - understand what you are agreeing to. Sorry about the surgery and loss of home.

[-] 0 points by Bambi (359) 12 years ago

What excellent ideas, Victoria! I will keep that in mind and suggest it when people start complaining that "the man" screwed them.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 12 years ago

Right on!!!

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

what you are defining as a gamble is only a gamble if you haven't educated yourself prior to committing to an agreement.

I didn't agree with the bank bailouts but the obama administration convinced the majority that a total collapse would happen if he didn't....did you buy into this? If not, have you petitioned the obama adminstration wrt this?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Obama DID NOT bail out the banks (he voted on it as a Senator). Bush 43 did. Obama bailed out GM. Get it right, please.

[-] 1 points by charnipar123 (122) 12 years ago

Thank-you SwissMiss. You r really helping me to understand.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

You're welcome.

[-] 1 points by murderkingz (56) 12 years ago

i would never invest in a ponzi scheme..ever..i dont own a credit card (by choice) all cash transactions...not everyone is educated on loans and which is best for them..and the PIGS know this..and thats why they take advantage...and why does it take half your fuckin lifetime to purchase a home??? come on, their made of brick and wood..not gold and silver.

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

I know people who have gone into austerity mode for 5 years or less and paid cash for a home. I know others who did all the construction themselves and live mortgage-free. There are options to mortgages. Pls watch the language - TY.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Um.... not everyone is capable of building their own home. And property is very expensive in many areas. Expecting people to build their own homes is ridiculous and fails to address the REAL problems and issues. There is a lot of red tape in building your own home.

I considered it before buying my house in August, but I didn't want to deal with all the red tape and bullshit.

It's funny how building one's own home is so highly regulated with laws, ordinances, zoning laws, etc., but there barely is any regulation in the financing industry. Do you find that odd and unfair?

[-] 2 points by murderkingz (56) 12 years ago

look im a home owner 11yrs and counting.i know how home loans work and operate..doesnt mean my neighbor does or the cat signin a dotted line as we speak does..the moral of the story is moral...companies have to be compassionate..teach folks..not blow sand in their eyes and tell them it was a dust storm..everybody in the US is ready to work and buy things..under OUR terms..uncle sams been f*%#in up way to long

[-] 1 points by eldave1 (35) 12 years ago

I would agree with you completely 10 years ago. But what happened in 2005 was that folks who would have never qualified before were now being qualified for loans in order to increase bank profits AND the rates that the bankers were paying the Fed when they gave you that loan was much higher then they are paying now (basically zero) AND - our taxes went to bail out the banks - they wouldn't even exist to foreclose in the first place had we not bailed them out. So, the real gamblers were the banks when they lent the money - they got bailed - if you want to call the home owners gamblers as well - well then there should be some relief for them too

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

everyone likes ARM's when they work in their favour.........suddently it becomes the banks fault when it doesn't. Do you know why people take ARM's and why banks give them?

[-] 2 points by murderkingz (56) 12 years ago

everyone likes ponzi schemes and slot machines when they work in their favor too(doesn't mean they should exist)......dont give a shit "why" people take arm's...because i know why they do (carrot hanging over donkey's nose)...why do they exist??? not why do banks give them?? (they give them cause they're filthy PIGS lookin under any rock for profits)profits they know they wont be making anyway cause the folks who signed the dotted line dont know what the fuck they just signed

[-] 1 points by hattiecat2 (17) 12 years ago

they exsist because some eople are not morons. You can get into a house with the low interest rate, with low down payment, then refinance when you are in a bit more stable position. If you dont take equity out of your house and take a cruise to hawaii than you wont be in a mess now!

[-] 2 points by murderkingz (56) 12 years ago

oh..one of those people who got all the answers ...lolol...why do nuclear bombs exist then moron?? and dont act like you have an answer to that..there isnt one!

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

just so I understand your experience before I waste too much time, do you or have you ever had a mortgage?

[-] 1 points by murderkingz (56) 12 years ago

30 yr fixed rate of 4.5 signed 11yrs ago

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

4.5 is an excellent rate for that time. historical charts show it to be significantly higher.

so, you believe you made a good decision in light of the ponzi scheme to the point you don't own a CC. What kind of education did you get before signing the line?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

I also have a mortgage but don't have any credit cards and refuse to get any. I bought a house, because I find the alternative (paying rent forever and owning nothing) is worse.

[-] 1 points by eldave1 (35) 12 years ago

First - yes I do. I myself took an ARM decades ago. Had the interest rates got up and my house value down I would have been screwed AND should have been screwed. That was my gamble. If we were in a normal cycle I would 100% agree with you - but we are not in a normal cycle. Let's see - we had banks that would have gone bankrupt had we not intervened with our tax dollars and we had crooks (ala Country-wide, Citi, et al) qualifying folks for home loans that they had no business qualifying them for - we had innocent folks who were paying their mortgages watch their houses go through the bottom because of all the foreclosures around them - long winded way of saying - these are extraordinary times calling for extraordinary measures we took those measures for the banks - there can be some taken for the average joe

[-] 2 points by sinead (474) 12 years ago

Walsh, if you read or listened to the story about the couple in Southgate MI that fell behind when the wife had a stroke and lost her job.... they tried to work with the bank. They applied for a mortgage modification.... they were accepted but after the bank sold the mortgage to Fannie Mae that all went away for some reason.....

Now instead of working with these people so they can remain in the home and pay for it, the bank would rather evict them, foreclose on the home and then turn around and sell it for much less than what the home was purchased for by the original owners.....

Does that make sense to you? This kind of thing is happening all over. What purpose does it serve?

[-] 2 points by VTSupportsYou (108) 12 years ago

Then you haven't done your homework and you haven't been paying attention to the world for the past 12 years. There is plenty of information out there regarding the current financial crisis and the hand the mortgage debacle had it in creating said crisis. It's not hard to Googe, Bing or Yahoo! the information.

I like to stay informed and educated which is why, when my spouse and I started talking about buying our own home we took a class on first time home buying to learn the ins and outs. In that class which was given by our credit union the presenter - herself a loan officer and ex-real estate agent - told us flat out that banks had indeed been offering mortgages to folks they knew would never be able to afford the monthly payments on. Those banks were supposed to lend responsibly and screen applicants appropriately. This was not done.

So while it's true that home buyer should know what they can afford, there is a great responsibility of the lender to ask questions, crunch the numbers, screen the applicant and say "No." It would have been very easy for lenders to suggest to buyers that they maybe consider a modestly price house of 150k over the 300k starter mansion they knew that family couldn't afford. They chose not to do it. That is on them and they should take the blame and assume responsibility. Instead, they got a bailout.

[-] 2 points by capitalismimplosion (33) 12 years ago

our world is about people. we create whatever kind of system we need to move ahead as a civilization.

no one willing to work their share, 40 hours per week or whatever, should be without food, clothing, shelter and health care.

we chose to institute law and order, collect taxes and support progress by assembling a system to maintain all of that. That system has been compromised.

people are now made homeless, even if they are trying to work with whatever the system has to offer, corrupted, our system is now working against us.

banks and many other institutions are only pieces of a system we hoped would help us live as civilized humans. When parts of a system fail, we remove them and replace with better pieces.

no family, no person, should be homeless, not here or anywhere. Banks no longer exist, there is only people.

[-] 2 points by Thisisthetime (200) from Kahlotus, WA 12 years ago

Yes, it is "Legal", but, in Many Cases it is Just Plain Wrong.

[-] 2 points by Restorefreedomtoall1776 (272) from Bayonne, NJ 12 years ago

So you're sitting in your mansion sipping vintage champagne and you have no compassion for people robbed by banksters? The level of your compassion is interesting, to say the least.

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Let's see, someone borrows money, buys a house with it, can't/won't pay back the money, expects to keep the house anyways and the BANK is the thief?

[-] 2 points by GradyOgle (41) from Kent City, MI 12 years ago

Life isn't a game, brother. Capitalism and currency make it a game. These people are real lives and real families and real suffering. And as time goes on the suffering gets worse. This place is home to all.

[-] 2 points by murderkingz (56) 12 years ago

im done being the thimble..and passing go..its time for a change!

[-] 2 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

And they borrowed REAL money, with REAL conditions, assuming REAL responsibility to the people they borrowed the money from. And they did so as a choice. Choices have consequences.

[-] 1 points by GradyOgle (41) from Kent City, MI 12 years ago

Real money? Money was invented to enslave with false incentive. I fear the one's with a mindset that money holds real value are the ones that will ensure our children have no future. Well, I don't fear it, I see it. We're trying to change that. Please, open your heart to true compassion. That's the only way our children will survive. Remember, we don't OWN anything, we borrow it from every single person's child.

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Send me yours. That's about the quickest way possible to call bullshit on the "money" has no vale moonbats.

[-] 2 points by GradyOgle (41) from Kent City, MI 12 years ago

I don't have any, brother. I can't even pay for gas to get home from where I'm sitting, right now. I have to use that money to buy things and own them, when in reality, I don't own them, anyone can take it at any time. Hence, by natural order, it is impossible to own things, besides your mind and body. And now, we have this thing called money that appears between me and material that says I can take orders from another person, get this money from them, and buy things, which, in reality, I do not own. You only own things in this economic game. This change you see here is people don't want to play a game with their lives anymore. Don't stand in our way, brother.

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Your attitudes and understanding of how reality works might have a lot to do with your economic circumstances. Just sayin'

[-] 1 points by GradyOgle (41) from Kent City, MI 12 years ago

You poor soul. I truly feel sorry for you.

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

valuing money and having compassion are not mutually exclusive. money can in fact effect compassion.........ie, my monetary contributions to global famine efforts does more than I am able to do via other methods.

[-] 1 points by GradyOgle (41) from Kent City, MI 12 years ago

It's a cop-out to true compassion. No emotion needed.

[-] 2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

You're taking away someone's home because they lost their job! That's not fair!

Contracts don't matter when we're talking about people's lives. These families are trying to live. They need roofs over their heads. The banks don't need these empty buildings. Why can't the banks defer the mortgage payments until employment is obtained? Why don't the banks help their customers get jobs so that they can pay their mortgage?

Why is it the family's fault when company X lays off the bread-winner/mortgage-payer? Isn't it the company's fault for sending those jobs to India? Isn't it the company's fault that this person is out of work for whatever reason, and now that family's life is ruined?

Its people like you that make this world a terrible place to live in. Let me kick you out of your home and see how YOU feel, asshole.

[-] 1 points by hattiecat2 (17) 12 years ago

You cant kick me out of my house because I pay my morgage, taxes insurance etc.. I dont buy ipods, go to the movies, out to dinner or concerts. I dont buy things I want becuse i buy things I need. Learn the difference and you wont go bankrupt.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 12 years ago

Credit card companies do it, too, when they sell you their "insurance......should you become unemployed.....we will cover for you".That is NOT TRUE. I know someone who did get that insurance but never apparently read the fine print..........She's now in collections.......Gotta read everything before you sign.

It's not up to the bank to get someone a job. Also don't forget all banks are INSURED so anyone that fails to pay, the BANK has already been paid for that mortgage long before foreclosure has happened. Same thing with credit cards.

Banks always have their backsides covered. We are the fools to turn to banks for help. It sucks.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

So, we are fools to want to buy a home or a car and when we have to get a loan for that house or car..... because the banks are dishonest.... but them being dishonest is somehow OK?

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 12 years ago

who said that?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

You did. You said we are fools for going to banks for loans but don't put the focus on the dishonesty of the banks. THAT is what needs to be addressed.

"Banks always have their backsides covered. We are the fools to turn to banks for help."

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 12 years ago

Oh for crying out bells.

Guess you need everything spelled out for you.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

That's the problem. The banks don't HAVE to do anything. They are purely driven by greed.

If all of these banks were eliminated and replaced with community-run credit unions, this nation would be a better place. I have my money stored at a credit union. Are you still using the services of BoA, Chase, CitiBank, etc.?

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 12 years ago

Nope...I haven't had money in the bank for years. I refuse to give them extra money. HSBC makes you pay $3.00 to cash a check up to $50.00 that is with that bank but if you aren't a customer you get charged. It's $5.00 over $50.00. Nice customer relations isn't it? Makes me real glad I took money out of their bank long ago. What they are forcing you to do is open an account there to avoid the $3.00. I'd rather pay the fee.

Do credit unions protect your money from credit collectors?

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

Where have you decided is the best place to keep your money?

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 12 years ago

Under my mattress :-)

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

They're FDIC insured for up to $100,000 ($250,000 for NCUA members) like any other banking institution.

What's your point about credit collectors?

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 12 years ago

Credit collectors are allowed to freeze one's bank account for a year. Are they allowed to do that with a credit union as well?

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

I don't know. I googled it, but I can't find any conclusive info. I am going to assume "yes" and try not to be in a situation to find out.

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

You want a bait and switch. Great, the home is yours and the debt cancelled if you lose your job. Find a mortgage with those terms up-front. Of course, no one would give you a mortgage like that because lenders aren't that stupid. So, you'd rather lure them in under one set of terms and then drop the other set of terms on them after the fact.

NOTHING surprising is happening. The home is collateral for the loan. That's part of why rates for mortgages are low. So, when you stop paying, the home can be taken and sold for the lender's recovery.

Banks aren't social service organizations. They aren't nannies. How you pay for the loan is YOUR responsibility. If you aren't up to taking on that responsibility, get ready, DON'T TAKE OUT THE LOAN. God, have we entirely become nation of hapless children?

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

"Great, the home is yours and the debt cancelled if you lose your job."

I never said that. What I said is that these banks should defer payments until the persons making the payments have jobs. No debt should be cancelled, but it makes sense for the lenders to have this kind of safety net instead of being draconian about re-claiming the properties. The banks have no use for these empty properties, but the families that are displaced sure did.

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Or, gosh, get ready, people should borrow more responsible amounts and build some savings. Novel, huh? This simple concept was utterly forgotten.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Losing a job or going into debt because of a medical condition is the fault of the mortgagee? How do you feel about those situations and other ones that are out of control of the mortgagee? You never mention any of that but only mention people borrowing what they can't afford to pay back.

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

There's a long road of bad choices that leads to those problems. Losing a home goes many years back. How'd you treat schooling? Divorce? Ever save a dime? Did you buy your home earlier than you should've or did you really have enough down? Home equity line? Did you buy a new car rather than pay down your debts?

Choices matter, whether you can understand it or not. Resilience is driven by choices.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

Its not all the customers' fault. The banks told these people that "X" is what they could afford. The customers listened, took the loans, and now can't pay them back due to job loss or rate adjustments or what-have-you.

And worst of all, while the banks foreclose on anyone who misses a payment or two due to hardship, the banks are the ones who get free money from Uncle Sam when they are in trouble! That doesn't seem fair at all...where were the bailouts for the laid-off homeowners?

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

People who present themselves as grown-ups should have at least some capacity to think for themselves. Apparently, you disagree.

Bailout for "homeowners"? Perhaps you are unaware of the extensive subsidies provided to "homeowners". In addition to tax write-offs, trillions in mortgage debts are backed by the nation's credit. So, taxpayers that don't even have a mortgage are on the hook for mortgages taken out by others. Government also has spent giant sums propping up the market with easy federally backed loans to outright gifts for downpayments. Spare the bank nonsense.

[-] 2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

So the banks should go scott-free for causing the housing crash in 2008? They are not at fault for crashing the market? The system should just stay exactly the same as it is, because in your mind its perfect, right?

Answer these two questions in one sentence each:

  1. What is your end goal from posting on this site?

  2. What is your proposed solution for this financial crisis?

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Banks "caused" the crash? Wow, what a simplistic view of things. Sure, you won't find a borrower for any of those loans. Sure, you won't find a government that pushed and pimped housing right into a bubble. Sure, you won't find fraud at the individual level. Banks haven't gone "scott free". At least look into a little bit, geeez. Look at Bank of America's stock price now and in 2006. Compare. Now try it for Citi. "Scott free"? What the hell are you talking about?

1) A voice of reason among the angry, ignorant, and self-important OWS crowd that claims to be the 99%. 2) Time and allowing markets to clear. A squatter nation of people living in houses they've stopped paying for stalls the housing market. For the markets to move on, they have to clear. The backlog of deadbeats have to be cleared out and market clearing prices have to be found.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

"Banks "caused" the crash? Wow, what a simplistic view of things."

No, it's not. There's plenty of evidence for this.

[-] 2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

So, according to your answers, you 1) are just here to antagonize instead of provide solutions, and 2) think nothing should be done. Either you are wearing some thick rose-colored glasses, or you actually think that your nonsense is going to change anybody's mind here...

Who is your employer?

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

1) Hear to provide balance, to call bullshit, and, with many others, to make it obvious that you aren't the 99%, you're just the 10% that's wanted socialism all along. 2) Letting markets clear IS doing something.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

Socialism isn't a bad word. Sorry to break it to you, but the Republicans are just using word-play and propaganda to dupe you into being cruel to your fellow men.

It looks like you took the "pro-greed" agenda hook, line, and sinker.

2) Tell all of the homeless and unemployed to wait, and see what they think.

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Yeah, it is a bad word. Entitlement states are doomed to failure as borrowed money hits the wall or the people paying for it all leave and produce somewhere else.

What the homeless think? You mean the ones without mental illness or drug dependency? The unemployed? The unemployed that never saved a dime when they were working because they were idiots? You mean the drop-outs or the 20-somethings that got an utterly worthless major that no employer gives a rat's ass about? Unemployment correlates very highly to skills. That means choices, cupcake.

Welfare isn't compassion. It undermines accomplishment and has set off at least as many problems as it's solved. We underwrite dysfunction and, no surprise, we've created more dysfunction.

Smarten up, living off of others is no way to run your life.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

i'd say the bankers caused it out of negligence and idiocracy. i used to think the purposely caused it but that is too simplistic, but to say they had no hand in it is just as simplistic. We are all in this together because we all caused it together. can I get a whup, whup. or do we still just want to blame da big bad guberment.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

No, they caused it on purpose to make shitloads of money. They knew this. It didn't happen out of shear negligence and idiocy.

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Squatting in houses that you've stopped paying for is theft and by gumming up the housing market, is delaying the day when markets clear and is delaying the economic recovery. The foreclosure process for nonpayment is NO SURPRISE to ANYONE.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

well that is called striking 2.0. without protesting then we will still be stuck in the past with silly ideas that are antiquated.

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Like socialism. Squatting in a house you've stopped paying for delays recovery. NO ONE should be surprised the foreclosure follows flaking on your payments. If you change the game so that collateral is contingent, that's fine, but have fun watching what happens to rates and terms for NEW mortgages. Just another tiny little detail that's above the typical OWSer's head.

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

I assume you have a job. Are you letting homeless people stay in your home/apt while you are at work?

[-] 2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

If I owned a bank, and I had a bunch of foreclosed property with few/no buyers, I would let the homeless live in those buildings, sure.

My motivation isn't greed. I would gain infinitely more "value" out of the good that would come from helping the less fortunate than the marginal monetary value that I would gain from keeping that home padlocked. That home is a waste of land and space if its not being used.

You can't take your money with you when you die...

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

then your goal should be to be a bank owner. as a bank owner, are you going to evict the homeless if/when you find a buyer?

I noticed you didn't answer the original question however. ;)

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

I didn't answer your question because you were changing the subject to me instead of the banks. Don't change the subject and I will respond to you.

As a bank owner I would find new shelter for these homeless, maybe by building some with the profits that I gained from interest on these foreclosed homes. This would benefit me too, since I would probably gain a lot of positive press for giving these people homes while I look for buyers on these properties.

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

the reason for asking the question is because it is easy for people to say what others should be doing w/o taking a look at themselves. So what do you do with your home/apt during the day while you are at work?

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

My point doesn't become moot because of individual actions. What I do with my property on my individual income has nothing to do with what a bank (with billions, if not trillions of dollars in funding) should do.

"Why can't the banks defer the mortgage payments until employment is obtained? Why don't the banks help their customers get jobs so that they can pay their mortgage?"

Banks have the power to defer mortgage payments. They are not going to go under by giving more time to the people who need it to get a new job, refinance, etc. It is actually in their best interest to do this on the good will alone. The increased likelihood of creating return customers and gaining customers through word-of-mouth is worth the time spent not receiving payments.

Its not like I'm asking for the debts to be forgiven, but giving people time to pay off their loans is a common-sense win-win situation for everyone involved.

The bank gets the same about of money in the end for the property anyway, so why do they even care who is currently on the mortgage?

Isn't it less work to maintain an existing mortgage than to go to a realtor and pay their agents, pay for that marketing of the property, holding the auctions, etc.?

This is common sense. It seems like it costs more money to foreclose on someone than its worth, between the bad publicity, loss of customer, and expenses related to maintaining and now selling that property.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

"Isn't it less work to maintain an existing mortgage than to go to a realtor and pay their agents, pay for that marketing of the property, holding the auctions, etc.?"

It's also a waste for the banks to be paying taxes on those empty homes.... if they are even required to pay taxes on them.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 12 years ago

There's a person that used to live in town that is a gambler. Never pays utility bills or taxes, mortgage until the final moment. He has gotten away with this for years.

In the past 10 years he has refinanced his house THREE TIMES. He has absolutely ZERO credit yet he gets it refinanced. The house was in foreclosure for three years and he didn't lose it to any bank or mortgage company. Everyone was amazed by this and wondered how he got away with it.

Turns out he would get refinanced by a mortgage company. That company would sell the mortgage to another bank.That bank would sell it to another bank and on and on. It was up to whoever held the final mortgage to find the original mortgager. Turns out that that one closed down and had sold the mortgages to another company and etc etc etc. It took years for them to get the original mortgage so they could finally evict this guy and his family.

Do you know that it was within a few months that he and his family were going to have to leave that he found a mortgage company that REFINANCED his mortgage!! Fortunately he never had his wife's name on the mortgage so when she divorced him she got the house and has become a responsible home owner.

Know how he got away with it? As I said he is a gambler.....so he is charming and can talk anyone into anything. HE was able to talk the mortgage companies to do anything HE wanted them to do.

I guess in this crazy world it isn't always WHO you know but how well you can screw others.

Needless to say he left town because everyone knows what a snake he is....and married this woman.........who did this to others who went to her to save their homes...........Hope she gets 50 yrs..


[-] 2 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Examples of highly skilled manipulators can always be found, no matter what we're talking about.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 12 years ago

The sick thing about them getting caught is that they seldom have to pay the required restitution or spend much time in jail. Meanwhile, the people they harmed are harmed forever.

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 12 years ago

you do realize that many on here would be fine with this as long as a bank was hurt somewhere for being greedy. didn't you agree with capitalismimplosion that no one should go homeless........how about this man?

[-] 2 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

One big part of this is hidden conditions in the texts of the "balloon clauses" of the written mortgages that ended up registered into MERS.

It is not at all uncommon to find language in the purported mortgages that allows the payments to be increased by 2:1 or 3:1.

But that is not what the homeowners signed. The actual signed contracts were tied to market rate standards. Those have fallen, not risen. What is in MERS is not what the homeowners signed. What the homeowners should be paying is not what the banks are demanding.

Understand fraud ?

The fraud, here, is a claim through MERS that "balloon clause" payment increases are justified - where they are not. No way, no how. This is common law fraud. It is dishonest. It is carried out with vast conspiracies involving thousands of "made" banksters. And yes this is similar to the criminal crews of Angelo "Godfather" Mozilo and their generation of bad paper scam-mortgages - rated at 60% to 80% falsified by the security operation in CITI in the 2007 period - for what made Countrywide Financial the "Sixth Family" of American organized crime.

They are thieves.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 12 years ago

That's been my understanding.

[-] 1 points by cmoylanc (32) 12 years ago

Why don't we foreclose on the banks? Oh, they're too big to fail... So, banks are virtuous but the little guy who has the same problem isn't? Where is the logic, or basic sense of fairness, never mind reality...

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Your wrong.

[-] 0 points by Endoftheworldisnear122112 (2) 12 years ago

A newly discovered planet is eerily similar to Earth and is sitting outside Earth's solar system in what seems to be the ideal place for life, except for one hitch. It is a bit too big.

Related stories

Extrasolar planet: 18 new huge alien planets discovered Kepler telescope's astonishing haul: 54 planet-candidates in 'habitable zone' A brilliant launch for NASA's planet-hunting pioneer Topics Sciences Astronomy The planet is smack in the middle of what astronomers call the Goldilocks zone, that hard to find place that is not too hot, not too cold, where water, which is essential for life, does not freeze or boil. And it has a shopping mall-like surface temperature of near 72 degrees, scientists say.

The planet's confirmation was announced Monday by NASA along with other discoveries by its Kepler telescope, which was launched on a planet-hunting mission in 2009.

Space photos of the day: A Blue planet

That is the first planet confirmed in the habitable zone for Kepler, which already had found Earth-like rockyplanets elsewhere. Twice before astronomers have announced a planet found in that zone, but neither has been as promising.

"This is a phenomenal discovery in the course of human history," Geoff Marcy of University of California, Berkeley, one of the pioneers of planet-hunting outside Earth's solar system, said in an email. "This discovery shows that we Homo sapiens are straining our reach into the universe to find planets that remind us of home. We are almost there."

The new planet, named Kepler-22b, has key aspects it shares with Earth. It circles a star that could be the twin of Earth's sun and at just about the same distance. The planet's year of 290 days is even close to Earth's. It probably has water and rock.

The only trouble is the planet's a bit big for life to exist on the surface. The planet is about 2.4 times the size of Earth. It could be more like the gas-and-liquid Neptune with only a rocky core and mostly ocean.

"It's so exciting to imagine the possibilities," said Natalie Batalha, the Kepler deputy science chief.

Floating on that "world completely covered in water" could be like being on an Earth ocean and "it's not beyond the realm of possibility that life could exist in such an ocean," Batalha said in a phone interview.

Kepler cannot find life itself, just where the conditions might be right for it to thrive. And when astronomers look for life elsewhere, they are talking about everything ranging from microbes to advanced intelligence that can be looking back at us.

So far the Kepler telescope has spotted 2,326 candidate planets outside Earth's solar system with 139 of them potentially habitable ones. Even though the confirmed Kepler-22b is a bit big, it is smaller than most of the other candidates. It is closest to Earth in size, temperature and star than either of the two previously announced planets in the zone.

The confirmation of one of two, though, has been disputed. The latest discovery has been confirmed several ways, including by two other telescopes.

This year, a European team of astronomers said they had confirmed another planet in the habitable zone, but that one was hot and barely on the inside edge of the habitable zone.

For Marcy, who is on the Kepler team, the newest planet is a smidgen too large. But, "that smidgen makes all the difference," he said.

Because its size implies that it is closer to Neptune in composition than Earth, "I would bet my telescope that there is no hard, rocky surface to walk on," Marcy said.

Chief Kepler scientist William Borucki said he thinks the planet is somewhere between Earth and gas-and-liquid Neptune, but that it has a lot of rocky material. It is in a size range that scientists do not really know anything about. Measurements next summer may help astronomers have a better idea of its makeup, he said.

[-] 0 points by Kraus (19) 12 years ago

They took out the loan by signing a contract. By contract, if they are unable to pay, the bank will foreclose.


I don't understand the problem.

[-] 4 points by Conserve (4) 12 years ago

Contract law: Frustration - When one or more parties is unable to fulfil their obligation due to unforseen events, such as death or loss of income, that make fulfilment of the contract impossible. Performance - Both parties have completed the guidelines laid out in the contract, the contract is considered fulfilled. Breach - One or more parties refuses to complete one or more parts of the contract. Courts can be brought in, generally in favour of the victim, to pay for damages, but no force can be expected to force the completion of a contract. Agreement - All parties agree that the contract is voided and is acted upon such that it never existed. Operation of Law - When a law becomes in force that alters the formation of a previous contract that contract is considered voided and is treated as if it never existed.

Frustration and Operation of Law are the only things I see in force with most of these forclosures. They are unable to pay back the contract (Frustration) and new laws have made some of these contracts illegal (Operation of Law) I wouldn't be amazed if a court found some or all of these contracts voidable on the request of the mortgagee.

[-] 2 points by Joe4more (165) from Cranston, RI 12 years ago

I tried that argument about the "sanctity" of contracts; apparently, contracts are only valid if they benefit the 1%. My State retirement contract for COLA's was just crumpled up and tossed in the trash bucket. No COLA for me for the next five years. When it comes to the 99%, contracts are negotiable, and often times broken. Hence the OWS protests, and supporters like me who are tired of the 1% constantly having their way! GO OWS, GO UNIONS!

[-] 2 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

Yeah I agree

[-] 1 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Wrong on the facts.

The contracts referenced in MERS are frequently not what the homeowners signed.

This is likely near 100% of it for the 2006-2007-2008 Countrywide Financial contracts. Their MERS registration process was run as a criminal enterprise with the aim of adding bogus "balloon clause" conditions.

They are thieves.

[-] 1 points by DemocraticCredit (37) 12 years ago

since end of Clinton admin.the problem is that there was a perfect storm of deposits into the banking system from petro dollars (tax on every human on the planet - fresh laundered cash) and Chinese USD deposits ( consumption around the world) which allowed the banking system to fractionalize x 10 (safe banking practice) so1 trillionin deposits allwed for 10 trillion to be created.

First off - make WAR and get nation into debt and buy support of military industrial complex . max out personnel credit card debt. create a housing bubble. = massive shoveling of money onto the American people.

The crime is that this once in a lifetime opportunity to direct all this credit to worthy causes such as alternative energy and miilions of real jobs it was spent on fluff that bankers and their finacial delivery entities recieved billions in bonuses for doing a mighty big job off shoveling cash out the door.

The consolidation had to come, when the bankers decided that there should be less shops in the street, and this is expediently done by handing the government one bill, which it pretended to make a fuss about and then rolled over and guranteed to pay with your taxes.

Dont forget that its illegal for a bank to loan deposits, they are a "liability"

As for the little guy, well you were used . You are just a pawn.

[-] 1 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

Actually when you make a deposit to a bank it is considered a loan to the bank redeemable on demand. Banks in the US only need to keep 10% of their deposits liquid. The other 90% are loaned out to other people who deposit it in their bank and the cycle continues.

[-] 1 points by Kathryn (1) 12 years ago

The loan to deposit ratio of US banks is about 79 percent. This does not mean that your deposits to a bank are considered loans. That being said, if there was a "run" on the banks, and cash was depleted, the FDIC is simply required to liquidate cash to account holders "as soon as possible." http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/payment.html

[-] 2 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

No. Fractional Reserve Banking works exactly as I said. By US law, a US bank is only required to keep 10% of its deposits liquid (cash). If a bank wants to keep 50% of its deposits liquid, it is free to do so. When you deposit cash or a check in the bank, you are making a demand deposit. Legally this is a loan to the bank which you can demand repayment at any time. The bank then takes this money and loans it out, buys securities, or whatever to make money. Your interest rate on your bank account is the share of the profits your deposit made.

If banks worked like you think they do, there would never be a reason for a run on a bank, because all of the deposits would be sitting in the vault. There would also be no interest made on money, nor would there be a bank because the bank would have no way to make money (unless it charged high fees for storing the money).