Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We kick the ass of the ruling class

Mr. Auctioneer! New Yorkers Call for Moratorium on Foreclosures. Organizing for Occupation and Occupy Wall Street visit the courts!

Posted 3 years ago on Oct. 13, 2011, 2:13 a.m. EST by anonymous

New Yorkers will gather outside the Kings County Supreme Court on Thursday, October 13 at 3 pm to raise awareness of the foreclosure auctions that take place there each week.

Every week in New York City, in all five boroughs, homes are put up for auction and sale. Speculators purchase homes at discounted rates and flip them. Banks buy back homes to balance their books, evicting the homeowners and letting the homes lie vacant.

Wall Street is the cause of this systematic displacement of New Yorkers. Wall Street bankers turned mortgages into “securitized instruments” and sold them for profit. Their greed demanded the creation of more and more mortgage-backed securities. Without blinking, they used predatory loans to lure homeowners into mortgages with impossible—and unseen—interest rates.

Occupy Wall Street and Organizing for Occupation (the group that led the eviction blockade at Mary Lee Ward’s Bed-Stuy home on August 19, 2011) have teamed up to raise awareness about the weekly auctions and to hold Wall Street accountable for the foreclosure crisis!

OCCUPY WALL STREET and ORGANIZING FOR OCCUPATION calls for an IMMEDIATE MORATORIUM ON ALL FORECLOSURES IN NEW YORK STATE until loans are made fair and sustainable!

Thursday, October 13, 2011, at 2:30 pm Kings County Supreme Court, 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn Rally in Columbus Park (next to Borough Hall) 2/3 and 4/5 to Borough Hall, N/R to Court Street, A/C/F to Jay Street

Organizing for Occupation web site: http://www.o4onyc.org

220 Comments

220 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by abmebratu (349) from Washington, DC 3 years ago

Wouldn't it have great if our government bailed out people in foreclosure instead of the criminals on Wall Street. This would have kept people in their house, stabilized home value, allowed banks to receive loan payments form borrowers, and it would have made people confidant in their government.................How come this never happened??

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

"Wouldn't it have great if our government bailed out people in foreclosure instead of the criminals on Wall Street."

For that to happen we have to take the wealth and power from the non-elected finacial elites, who OWN government http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN2Q6sdh6Bg

"How come this never happened??" Because the financial elites own government. The poeple of america, and the world for that matter, must take back everything the superwealthy have stolen thru bailouts and expliotation and create a society where the people have more say in the affairs that affect them, in other words - more DEMOCRACY - democratic workplaces, democratic communities and so on.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

Agreed

[-] 1 points by wirewilly (3) 3 years ago

True direct daily Democracy is the legal solution giving our citizens the legal position of nation owners plus direct daily rulers and controlers over money,business and govt.

The Capitalist puppet-masters and representative govt must be outlawed from existing,this combination is nothing more than a "kleptocracy".

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

agreed

[-] 1 points by rarara (27) 3 years ago

No, the "financial elite" does not "own the government." Obama himself says, he believes that economic growth in the US relies on a strong financial sector. The US state has supported the financial sector especially since the 1970s, when its previous form of accumulation (Fordism) was in crisis (ie. shrinking profits). That is to say, the state encourages the financial sector. But just like the other sections of the economy, "economic growth" is not the same as the improvement of the living standards of the population. Only 1% of the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis has gone to wages, and almost none to the creation of jobs. It has gone to corporate profits, not just limited to the financial sector either.

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

A strong financial sector is a good thing, but having IT corrupting our government and our democracy is not. And if you don'r think greed in our finanacial sector is corrupting our country and government, rara, then you must be living in lala land. We lost our manufacturing base (jobs) due to high corporate profit (greed).

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

No, the "financial elite" does not "own the government."

Yes they do.

"Obama himself says, he believes that economic growth in the US relies on a strong financial sector."

The finacial elites will of course support people that share their values, and therfore it is the individuals who have these values that make into office. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HvGy2gY0eM

[-] 1 points by FuManchu (619) 3 years ago

Why should it go for creating jobs? They are able to make this profit with the people they have so why hire more? They are not in th business to create jobs.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

Thanks for the standard response. The real answer is that they (and everyone else) should want to create jobs because we're trying to have a society here. The benefits extending from the creation of a healthy society greatly exceed anything you can directly buy with money. When the economic situation reaches a point where competition is severely limited, and the competitors are unwilling to increase their number of employees so that it maximally benefits everyone, we've got a problem. Since the idea that profits trump everything else and that no one has a responsibility to help anyone else (let alone a responsibility actually to avoid undertaking actions that drastically reduce their chances of helping themselves) is an idea that has had a shelf-life of only about 30 years, and is held by the smallest fraction of the world's population, we should assume it's a form of sociopathology.

Let's put this syllogistically:

If an action is good to do, and one can do it, then one should do it.

Employers who have reaped great personal profit have the capital available to expand their work force, and it is good to undertake action to expand the work force.

Employers who have reaped great personal profit should expand their work force.

[-] 1 points by FuManchu (619) 3 years ago

Jobs cannot be artificially created. That makes no sense for a business. Why not just call it charity? If there is demand for goods they will hire.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

Odd. Admittedly, I don't endorse the one-sidedness of the people I'm about to invoke, but... What I mentioned is the basic fact that underlies supply-siders' claims (the reason they're fundamentally wrong is that they think it's the only fact relevant to deciding on macroeconomic policy, when it's really far down the list of relevant facts): reducing external expenses in the short term will lead to a hiring spree that will produce the incomes to buy products manufactured. Hiring is not an external expense since hiring decisions are fully within the control of a company, and almost every company #OWS is complaining about has at its disposal the capital available to increase hiring. (The only reason anyone is complaining is that that money is being saved for no greater purpose than personal wealth, and, demonstrably, the unwillingness on the part of larger corporations to hire at reasonable wages is the reason everyone is demanding radical responses.)

And, to answer your question, I would be happy to call it charity. "Charity" used to mean something significant - the love ("caritas") that members of a community have for each other. It would be fucking great if we could get a little charity around here.

[-] 1 points by FuManchu (619) 3 years ago

Yes it is an internal decision but they wont hire more just because they can afford to. You are talking about philosophical issues like caring for other human beings, which I support but thats not how businesses are run. Do you really want to work at a place where you know you were hired just so they could give back to the society? People want to feel like they contribute. The way to increase employment is to create new industries. Not ask companies to hire more just because they have money.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

I was saying that the one doesn't exclude the other; that was my basic point about producing income that will be used to purchase. In general, any supposition about procedure also includes suppositions about "philosophy." But, if you're asking my own opinion, I don't really care if the production of livelihoods is done by independent companies or some public body, just as long as it gets done.

[-] 1 points by abmebratu (349) from Washington, DC 3 years ago

agree 100% bro.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

We must really rise up on October 15 so we can end this madness. The struggle might be long, but we must never give up The Revolution starts NOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gks09FkTx00

[-] 1 points by PierpontLuv (38) 3 years ago

Maybe because people are not entitled to stay in houses they could not afford from the beginning. Maybe that's it.

[-] 1 points by FalconFour (5) from Fresno, CA 3 years ago

So what you're saying is, people are not entitled to stay in houses? No, wait, ^h^h^h^h^h^h... homes? ^h^h... shelter? At all? You realize that housing (apartments, houses, you name it) are ALL uniformly insanely expensive, right? Look at the numbers and not the relative pricing: $875 a MONTH is a completely absurd price to pay to have a place to live. That rolls out to $10,500 a YEAR, just to rest one's head at night! Housing is completely insane, thanks to the types of loans that don't just lend-money-and-pay-it-back, but actually end up being, effectively, "we'll give you this house, and you just give us free money" in paying the interest on those loans and never actually paying off the house itself. Being able to "pay off" a home or auto loan is so rare, it actually achieves a certain level of respect among people: "wow, you actually paid that off? Great job!". That's insanity. The point of a loan is to be able to pay it off. With the state of employment versus the cost of property, it would take many years for an entire CITY to generate the income needed to pay off a new multi-billion-dollar residential development "site". That was paid for with loans to the development company. Loans generated on the backs of interest paid by other home mortgages. That themselves are only paying interest. Loop continues, ad infinitum. So what were you saying about "afford" again?

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

That's telling 'em! Great post.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

Totally true. If people are making a measly $30,000-$40,000 (before taxes), $10,500 is a very significant portion of that income.

[-] 1 points by FalconFour (5) from Fresno, CA 3 years ago

And think of it this way: I make about $14,400 annually as an IT guy (blame the part-time and just-graduated-a-year-ago, although it's STILL on the "seriously?" poor side), and I live in that $875/month apartment just so I have a place to live where my shit won't get stolen. I split it with a high school friend I've got as a roommate, and that still works out to $5,280/year after tax, or about $6,000/year roughly adjusted for pre-tax income. Just to have a place to sleep at night and function as a human being. So, about that "American Dream" thing. ;)

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

I recently bought a house, because buying a decently-priced house in my area right now is much cheaper than renting. It's hard to find anything below $1,000 a month, unless you want to live in an apartment or a shit hole where your things get stolen, as you said, and I'm done with the apartment living bullshit (I'm 40 years old). Apartments in this area are about the same as buying my house anyway. My house payment is $850 a month, and I don't have to listen to people making all kinds of noise all day and night long, and I get to do with it what I want. It's so much more enjoyable. And I will gain equity (hopefully, if the economy ever gets better).

[-] 1 points by FalconFour (5) from Fresno, CA 3 years ago

But, thanks to lending practices and housing/property prices, you'll probably have to dedicate yourself to that house for some 20... 30... 40 more years if you ever dream of paying more than just interest to the bank... I'm 25, and I just couldn't stand the notion of buying a house on a loan that pays 75-90% of my payments directly into the bank's pocket, only 10-25% going to the actual price of the house, and pretty much never having a possibility of paying it back. I'm getting a taste for that in my student loan payments as it is (about $225 a month), but I couldn't stand to dedicate myself to a single house like that. At least with an apartment I know I can move whenever the lease is up and I get sick of the place, and don't have to try selling the place to someone. It might be a better deal, but I think I'd lose a bit of my soul with the mortgage... :/

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

The bank I got the mortgage from put me through hell to get it. I make plenty of money, I have good credit and a good credit score, don't have debt other than my mortgage, don't use credit cards, etc.... and getting that mortgage was by far one of the worst experiences of my life. The banks went from being frivolous to being the complete opposite.

I will be joining a local credit union by next week, and I will refinance through that credit union as soon as I can.

My mortgage is a 30-year mortgage. I plan to pay extra each year to pay it off in 10-15 years.... as long as I'm able to. I only wanted a 15-year mortgage, but it didn't work out that way.

I understand how you feel about buying houses. I felt the exact same way before. If I didn't think I could pay it off much sooner, I may not have done it. If I can refinance through a credit union, at least the banks won't be getting anymore of my money. And I figured that I'd be paying rent forever, with no end to it, and I may as well get some equity built up.

I thought the same way before.... that if I rent, I can leave when the lease is up and don't have to worry about selling a house. I felt it was the right time for me to buy when I did (I pondered it for quite a few years), and right now, I'm OK with being here. If I can refinance through a credit union, I will be way more satisfied. Wish I would've thought about that when I decided to buy.

You are young, and if you decide to buy a house later, you have plenty of time. I felt the exact same way at your age.... didn't want to be tied down with owning a house. Do it only when your intuition tells you it's the right time.

I also had student loans that I finally paid off. My payments also were about $225 a month. It's pathetic that people in the USA have to go into debt to get a higher education in order to make themselves more marketable. Those who are against the movement bitch about unemployed people, yet they think it's OK that people go into debt to get a higher education in hopes of having a good career from it. Hypocritical assholes.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

I feel for you. That's pathetic pay, even for part-time. Even if you are entry level, you should make more than that. And some assholes can't see why the rest of us are so pissed. A lot of wages are poverty-level, but we're supposed to be happy with that (especially when people have degrees and still are paid poverty-level wages)?

Almost half your income is going toward rent.

[-] 1 points by FalconFour (5) from Fresno, CA 3 years ago

Yeah, it's poverty-level shit. But my position was created when I came to the company as an intern, and I came here to help reign in their out-of-control outsourced IT. The bigger problem is in these hyper-greedy consultant companies. True story: about 2 years ago, before I got here, the servers crashed. The "preferred" IT guy, working as a "doesn't have an incentive to rip the company off" sort of "cross-company consultant", got 80% of the work done in a weekend, but wanted to save some time and offload 20% of the work onto the "expensive" guy with a business interest. THAT guy took the same amount of time to complete 20% of the work as the first guy took to do 80%, and charged some $17,000 for the weekend of work - and NEVER SET FOOT inside the office (did it all remotely through systems the first IT guy set up). Now that, my friend, is what I see as the core of corruption. "Charge as much as we can get away with". Well, fortunately, he's not anymore - inspired by #OWS, I'm pushing REALLY hard to get that guy shitcanned and gutted from our company - policy still has him in control of our office firewall, charging hundreds of dollars to fix mistakes he made in setting it up. Pure greed. As a result, the company doesn't have a budget to pay me what I'm worth.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

Wow... that's complete bullshit. My company also hires consultants. I'm not sure what for, but they make a shitload of money. They used to have a consultant here who has a house in Hawaii and in Colorado, and he was here only here and there.... making shitloads. Meanwhile, they could've paid a full-time employee less for being here 100% of the time. Must be nice to own two houses.... one in Hawaii!!!

I've worked in other companies that had consultants, and they make soooooooo much money and do none of the actual work. They just tell everyone else what to do. This was in the auto industry. I saw so much waste happening in marketing companies and consulting firms for the auto industry..... no wonder cars are so damn expensive.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

And banks and mortgage companies aren't entitled to give out loans that they know people can't pay for..... even when they figured out a scheme to make a profit from it.

[-] 1 points by PierpontLuv (38) 3 years ago

Talk to your friends Barney Frank and Chris Dodd about that one.

[-] 1 points by IndenturedNation (118) 3 years ago

I remember reading the news in 2006 and 2007, watching the whole foreclosure crisis develop and wondering the same thing, Why not help those people who just started defaulting. The idea was discussed as I recall, and there seemed to be a consensus at the time that bailing out the few borrowers that had just started defaulting would not be fair to the rest of us. I also remember thinking that it would be better for all of us than the alternative, which happened in 2008 and 2009. I was shocked to find out that the banks who had established the loans and sold them to others had made sure that they would be paid if the loans defaulted, and that this was why they would destroy their loan assets that would still be worth vastly more than they could get for the homes by foreclosing instead of renegotiating the loans.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

Remember Pres. Obama set up a program for the banks to renegotiate the foreclosed loans with homeowners who were in jepordy of defaulting. The banks refused to do it.

[-] 1 points by IndenturedNation (118) 3 years ago

The banks set up the loans to fail, then got paid multiple times on that, because they got paid to set-up the loans, they got paid to service the loans, they got paid when they sold the loans, they got paid when the loans defaulted, then they got paid yet again when they resold the homes. Of course they did not want or need TARP. TARP was forced on them and they repaid it promptly to get out of it. TARP was a cover to make it look like the banks needed help when really they were screwing everybody.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

I totally agree with. Ive written about your quote in many of post and my blogs. There is a fact that Pres. Obama did set up the program for homeowners and banks to refinance their loans. A friend of my family was one of the few who refinanced his loan so his house wouldn't be foreclosed,but 95.9% were denied for the facts you mentioned.

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

Just like the Egyptian people who gathered to Occupy Tahrir Sq. to revolt against the corrupt system headed by president Mubarak, the American people gathered to Occupy Wall St. to revolt against the corrupt system headed by the financial sector.

[-] 2 points by Carrie (2) 3 years ago

Errrr.....correct me if I'm wrong but didn't these people sign the paperwork. I keep thinking the people who are crying for a reduced mortgage are the very same people who outbid me for that house. I don't have a mortgage because I looked at a bad deal and said no way. So now you want the house and the lower price I could have easily paid. This is where you start spitting the support away from you. There were more prudent out there than you realize and we've been waiting for the logjam to finally break. Truthfully I wish the housing bubble never started in the first place. But why as taxpayers should the prudent pay for others' stupidity via the loss write-offs? I was with your cause completely but now I'll turn my back. If you want the rich to take responsiblity for what they've done the 99% have to do the same.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

You're not undestanding this movement.Its not just about housing(a basic human need) It is about mortgage fruad that was created by wallstreet. Its about the government being HIJACKED by the banks,wallstreet and the elities!

Its about rising prices at the supermarket and transportation!

Its about healthcare for all(another basic need) !

Its about rising unemployment and the underemployed!

Its about the 2008 bailout..the robbery of the peoples money from the US treasury...FOR THE PURPOSE OF BONUES for Greedy ceos!

The 99%take the responsibilty AND the burden on their backs..more so then the 1%

[-] 2 points by jcgiles (2) 3 years ago

While I agree with you that the banks,and corporations in general, should have never received bailout money,i think you're wrong with bailing out people that are losing their homes. It is unfortunate that they are,but if they couldn't afford the loan,they shouldn't have signed the loan. We should have let the Banks fail and we should let people fail as well. Every foreclosure has a different reason,some may be due to stupidity on both sides,job loss,medical bills etc. but there are also people that got a house and work and just say screw it im not paying,should they be bailed out?

[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

And what about the people who have suddenly become unemployed from huge layoffs from corporations that just want to be more greedy?

[-] 2 points by madeinusa (393) 3 years ago

Goldman Sachs are telling their employees to stay away from the park! This is against our first amendment rights!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44876867/Goldman_Sachs_to_Employees_Avoid_Occupy_Wall_Street

[-] 2 points by meskk (17) from Miami, FL 3 years ago

Banks prefer foreclosures over keeping a troubled mortgage.. sure. A cash offer for half or less than what the house was worth is that more attractive to banks. Although, the consequences of more and more foreclosures will continue to make home values sink, further deteriorating the economy is numerous ways.

Trends indicate the jobs issue is not recovering at all, in fact, big banks themselves are laying off tens of thousands of their own employees during the coming months, possibly causing even more foreclosures as many of those won't find work for some time.

So where or when does this end? After the US economy is in peril and winds up with the same GDP as say Haiti? When will government step in and force banks to forgive some of these troubled mortgages? A good answer I keep on sticking with is 3 years ago for obvious reasons.

This here, is the heart of the Wall Street Protests....

"We got sold out and you got bailed out"

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

Take your money and debt away from the banks. We ALL need to do that. Let them fall!!

[-] 1 points by meskk (17) from Miami, FL 3 years ago

Yes!! And stop buying products from those (corrupt) corporations and sleezy retailers. Support your local retailers!

[-] 2 points by marty19702003 (6) 3 years ago

move your money to small local banks! target the worst offenders first!

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

No.... move it to credit unions, where you, a member, is one of the owners.

[-] 2 points by voiceofreasonaz (2) 3 years ago

didnt obama bail out wall street ? where is march on white house ?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

No. Bush is the one who bailed out Wall Street. Obama bailed out GM. Please look things up if you are unsure.

[-] 2 points by Sticktogether (4) 3 years ago

I 100% support occupy wall street and want the wall street criminals bought to justice. I also believe in highly regulated capitalism with high quality socialized health care and education and a limited term welfare system. In other words, we all have to be productive, contributing members of society. However, only people who can afford a fair price on their home with a low interest mortgage should be bailed out. I know some people who bought McMansions on a ridiculously low salaries who could never afford such homes. I know wall street scrams lured them into this fantasy, but c'mon, anyone knows that on 80k a year, you can not afford a 850K house. I am sorry; they should not be bailed out. Helped out with rental housing, yes, but bailed out on a McMansion, no. Meanwhile, my husband and I stayed and saved in our 1000 sq foot rental apartment for many years. If we all believe in responsibility for government, corporations and individuals (and I think we do); then we all need to be held accountable for our actions.

[-] 0 points by jh42 (1) 3 years ago

You should change your username to something like "Stalin" or "Mussolini" Seriously? HIGHLY REGULATED CAPITALISM? SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE? Are you even reading what you're writing? Take a few moments and read the constitution - it's the freedom to work hard and risk that makes this country great, not socialized everything where everyone is equal.

[-] 3 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

No one is advocating that everyone make the same amount of pay for different jobs/careers. What socialists advocate is that government take care of its people where it should and that those things NOT be for-profit businesses... health care, prisons, education, etc.

Learn what socialism is.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

Agreed

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

=)

I've read your posts, and I'm glad you talked about how you worked within the housing industry during the period that lead to the crash. It's good to get perspective from someone who was on the inside who isn't one of the bank/mortgage criminals.

I also noticed at the time of the housing bubble how crazily home prices were going up and up with no control. It was completely insane, and none of the building companies have been held accountable, either. They are a part of the whole scam and problem as well, and we also need to go after them. I knew it would crash.

[-] 2 points by bdubatdi (11) 3 years ago

Yeah, risk.

The kind of risk that would cause a billionaire criminal to die broke in prison for destroying 20% of our nation's economy. Oh wait, they got trillions to bail them out and took home millions of dollars for screwing everyone.

Do you think before you type, or do you just vomit onto the keyboard?

[-] 1 points by Sticktogether (4) 3 years ago

And you should change your name to "brainwashed". The reason we are in this mess is because all the regulations that were set in motion after the great depression were undone in the last 20-30 years. I don't think everyone should have the same wealth. They should have what they work for, but having a safety net in the form of a public education and health care for those who can not afford it, ensures that children born in poverty have a fair shake and we are not a barbaric society in general. Regulation ensures that greedy thugs can't lie, cheat and steal which is the biggest reason (there are others), the economy is in shambles. They are not working hard, certainly not more than anyone I know. They cheated. Give me a break. Go back to watching Fox.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (274) 2 years ago

You must campaign about stopping people from buying the foreclosed property and declare that those who buy the foreclosed property are the friends of the evil.Furthermore,those who reoccupy ones foreclosed property by force must be declared as the heroes who must be given not only free legal help but also paid to the necessary extent for the losses they incur because of their reoccupying action.Moreover they must insure their houses against the burglary of precious items which are stolen by the thieves sponsored by the government of USA in order to economically oppress us.Please see the validity,applicability and feasibility of the above idea at your place.

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

I completely agree! I didn't realize someone had already made this demand, and hope we can make it a national campaign, BEFORE people get evicted! STOP THE EVICTIONS! STOP THE FORECLOSURES! This demand is in direct opposition to the bailed-out banks.

[-] 1 points by Wingnut (11) 3 years ago

Contraction jobs and real estate prices will not recover until the pipeline of foreclosures is cleared.

What is a fair and sustainable loan? I always thought fairness implied the willing consent of 2 free adults to enter into a contractual agreement. I don't think the banks were using guns to get people to take those mortgages.

Where is the call for individual responsibility? Like don't take out loans you can't afford.

Likebit or not, wall st needed a bail out because main st took billions in loans and walked way.

[-] 1 points by wade231 (9) 3 years ago

I would like to know exactly how you propose to make these changes that you all can't even agree on? Do you think by sitting in some privately owned park and shouting stupid chants will change anything?

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 3 years ago

we need more foreclosures to get rid of bad debt.

[-] 1 points by woodfoe (25) 3 years ago

Here are some interesting articles concerning the legitimacy of foreclosures when the owner of the mortgage note cannot be established as in the case of mortgage backed securities.

http://www.massrealestatelawblog.com/2011/01/07/ibanez-foreclosure-ruling-upheld-an-indictment-of-the-securitized-mortgage-system/

http://loanworkout.org/2008/06/longest-foreclosure-case-in-history-goes-to-the-us-supreme-court/

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/mers.php

[-] 1 points by woodfoe (25) 3 years ago

Here are some interesting articles concerning the legitimacy of foreclosures when the owner of the mortgage note cannot be established as in the case of mortgage backed securities.

http://www.massrealestatelawblog.com/2011/01/07/ibanez-foreclosure-ruling-upheld-an-indictment-of-the-securitized-mortgage-system/

http://loanworkout.org/2008/06/longest-foreclosure-case-in-history-goes-to-the-us-supreme-court/

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/mers.php

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

Just like the Egyptian people who gathered to Occupy Tahrir Sq. to revolt against the corrupt system headed by president Mubarak, the American people gathered to Occupy Wall St. to revolt against the corrupt system headed by the financial sector.

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

Just like the Egyptian people who gathered to Occupy Tahrir Sq. to revolt against the corrupt system headed by president Mubarak, the American people gathered to Occupy Wall St. to revolt against the corrupt system headed by the financial sector.

[-] 1 points by joybasu (23) 3 years ago

power to the 99%! all the wealth of this earth is being accumulated by the 1% and all the power with it. take back the wealth from 1% and the power will be with 99%. this is certainly not about changing a couple of laws, this is about changing the law structure itself.

[-] 1 points by skiman (4) 3 years ago

The trading community bundled those securites together in a way that could not be unscrambled if the market fell apart. For that alone we need more controls in place. But I dont completely agree with the predatory loans thing. A huge percentage of people who took those loans were themselves greedy, taking a loan with terms they knew they couldnt meet if the market slowed/collapsed. We can't lose sight of the need for personal responsibility for all people. Another group of people that have escaped scruntiny are the real estate brokers and agents that put people in these houses knowing full well they were not qualified. Again, the personal responsibility thing.

[-] 1 points by skiman (4) 3 years ago

The trading community bundled those securites together in a way that could not be unscrambled if the market fell apart. For that alone we need more controls in place. But I dont completely agree with the predatory loans thing. A huge percentage of people who took those loans were themselves greedy, taking a loan with terms they knew they couldnt meet if the market slowed/collapsed. We can't lose sight of the need for personal responsibility for all people. Another group of people that have escaped scruntiny are the real estate brokers and agents that put people in these houses knowing full well they were not qualified. Again, the personal responsibility thing.

[-] 1 points by ttmmhh1 (16) 3 years ago

i don't know why people in here engage in conversations with the likes of 'mook', 'pierponluv', 'barney', growup, et.al. in fact, 'growup' was compelled to post his message 5Xs. keep saying it until it's true... right? hahaha. they spew their fox/corporate dogma in short little sentences in order to confuse people from the real issues under discussion.

these people aren't playing devil's advocate and they are not engaging in healthy discussion with the normal quid pro quo you'd find in normal conversations. they are simply spewing the "corporate line". yet, it amazes me how many people try to convince them of the simple truth that everyone else seems to understand.

these people will never get it because they are either dilusional, dense, obtuse, or part of the problem. my suggestion is to ignore the disruptors and focus your efforts on educating people who really want to know more about what is going on.

stay focused and leave the ankle-biters to feed off themselves.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 3 years ago

agreed

[-] 1 points by bobby (58) from Quincy, CA 3 years ago

8TH USA PARLIAMENT VOTE COUNTING MINISTRY, PACIFIC GROVE CALIFORNIA, See the videos of Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] speak at day one of the Occupy Wall Street protests:

http://usparliament.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=471

Vote Counting Ministry, and all sixty full ministries in the national parliament are seeking political voters and non voters across the political spectrum who would like to organize based on ranked choice votes cast and kept as proof. To sign up, please click the "Sign Up" web page, and your name will be self-appointed to the ministry or region of your choice:

http://usparliament.org/cab-1.php

[-] 1 points by foxrepublican (18) 3 years ago

Your message is important, and so it shutting down the biggest voice for Wall Street. www.occupyfoxnews.com

[-] 1 points by jameswestonmusic (222) from Los Angeles, CA 3 years ago

How is this for a message Barney - Recall the Patents on all the seed Monsanto stole from us, and free the local farms from the legal stranglehold they have on them. Demand the Wall Street Executives who defrauded the economy be held accountable. Bring all our overseas companies home so we can revive "made in the USA", and seal all tax loopholes associated with. Demand an immediate investment in solar, wind, water power - stimulating the economy and putting us to work. Pay teachers what they are truly worth (more than politicians in my opinion, and no, im not a teacher) STOP all WARS, that in itself would truly help our economy quickly. That is just a few of "my recommendations", but there are many out there with other ideas as well. You can't easily classify this movement, you can't define the people of this movement, nor their religious beliefs, nor political affiliations, or status. We are one in the fact that we are Americans and that is all. We elected O'bama because we wanted change, but now we know that change will not happen unless we get out in the streets and shout it. This movement has spread globally. It is universal. I hope it can remain peaceful, but there are many who won't stop until we wrench back our true democracy from the one's who don't care. the one's who make decisions that doom their very own children. The internet can be a scary place if you are so inclined to search for the truth. The injustices that occur every minute in this world are daunting. But we can have a voice, if we choose to use it. I am a musician, I leave you with a song i recorded for the cause, its free to download - http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_10581976 - Please do not spread hate, do not judge what you don't know, and join a cause worthy of historical proportions. in 2100, they will speak of the generations, standing against greed, for the future of mankind. expand yourself, and gift us with your voice. peace - James Weston

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

"The U.S. subprime mortgage crisis was one of the first indicators of the late-2000s financial crisis, characterized by a rise in subprime mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures, and the resulting decline of securities backed by said mortgages. The ratio of lower-quality subprime mortgages originated rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2004-2006, with much higher ratios in some parts of the U.S.[1] A high percentage of these subprime mortgages, over 90% in 2006 for example, were adjustable-rate mortgages.[2] These two changes were part of a broader trend of lowered lending standards and higher-risk mortgage products.[2][3] Further, U.S. households had become increasingly indebted, with the ratio of debt to disposable personal income rising from 77% in 1990 to 127% at the end of 2007, much of this increase mortgage-related.[4] After U.S. house sales prices peaked in mid-2006 and began their steep decline forthwith, refinancing became more difficult. As adjustable-rate mortgages began to reset at higher interest rates (causing higher monthly payments), mortgage delinquencies soared. Securities backed with mortgages, including subprime mortgages, widely held by financial firms, lost most of their value. Global investors also drastically reduced purchases of mortgage-backed debt and other securities as part of a decline in the capacity and willingness of the private financial system to support lending. Concerns about the soundness of U.S. credit and financial markets led to tightening credit around the world and slowing economic growth in the U.S. and Europe.

The immediate cause or trigger of the crisis was the bursting of the United States housing bubble which peaked in approximately 2005–2006.[5][6] High default rates on "subprime" and adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), began to increase quickly thereafter. An increase in loan incentives such as easy initial terms and a long-term trend of rising housing prices had encouraged borrowers to assume difficult mortgages in the belief they would be able to quickly refinance at more favorable terms. Additionally, the economic incentives provided to the originators of subprime mortgages, along with outright fraud, increased the number of subprime mortgages provided to consumers who would have otherwise qualified for conforming loans. However, once interest rates began to rise and housing prices started to drop moderately in 2006–2007 in many parts of the U.S., refinancing became more difficult. Defaults and foreclosure activity increased dramatically as easy initial terms expired, home prices failed to go up as anticipated, and ARM interest rates reset higher. Falling prices also resulted in 23% of U.S. homes worth less than the mortgage loan by September 2010, providing a financial incentive for borrowers to enter foreclosure.[7] The ongoing foreclosure epidemic, of which subprime loans are one part, that began in late 2006 in the U.S. continues to be a key factor in the global economic crisis, because it drains wealth from consumers and erodes the financial strength of banking institutions."

Who's more at fault??

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 3 years ago

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/8/stop-the-corruption-on-wall-street/

Read that petition... it's got all the Causes and the solutions that will be Sent to the Congress, Senate, and White House... The Web Site Sponsoring it is About Outting the existence of Criminal Activity on Wall street and how they get away with it.... all Facts..all Substantiated.

[-] 1 points by itsnotthesixties (4) 3 years ago

just a question for you people - in regards to these "forclosed homes" and wall st being responsible for the "systematic displacement of New Yorkers"( which is a lofty, blanket statement in and of itself) , does anyone hold the actual homeowners or average citizens accountable? When do we actually sit back and acknowledge the role that the people who took out loans and mortgages, knowingly not in the financial position to afford them, play in this equation? While of course wall st has done horrible things, are they FULLY to blame? And if not, are our protests a progressive movement towards change, or an accumulation of purposely-placed angst towards a system that very few of us are TRULY educated on while simultaneously overlooking the other major catalyst - US? Love to hear your thoughts..

[-] 1 points by jh42 (1) 3 years ago

AMEN brother.

[-] 0 points by Barney (2) 3 years ago

Personal responsibility is not something understood by the American Socialist. It's always someone elses fault.

[-] 1 points by itsnotthesixties (4) 3 years ago

just a question for you people - in regards to these "forclosed homes" and wall st being responsible for the "systematic displacement of New Yorkers"( which is a lofty, blanket statement in and of itself) , does anyone hold the actual homeowners or average citizens accountable? When do we actually sit back and acknowledge the role that the people who took out loans and mortgages, knowingly not in the financial position to afford them, play in this equation? While of course wall st has done horrible things, are they FULLY to blame? And if not, are our protests a progressive movement towards change, or an accumulation of purposely-placed angst towards a system that very few of us are TRULY educated on while simultaneously overlooking the other major catalyst - US? By no means am i exonerating anyone, but why not offer the other side -it takes two. Love to hear your thoughts..

[-] 1 points by itsnotthesixties (4) 3 years ago

just a question for you people - in regards to these "forclosed homes" and wall st being responsible for the "systematic displacement of New Yorkers"( which is a lofty, blanket statement in and of itself) , does anyone hold the actual homeowners or average citizens accountable? When do we actually sit back and acknowledge the role that the people who took out loans and mortgages, knowingly not in the financial position to afford them, play in this equation? While of course wall st has done horrible things, are they FULLY to blame? And if not, are our protests a progressive movement towards change, or an accumulation of purposely-placed angst towards a system that very few of us are TRULY educated on while simultaneously overlooking the other major catalyst - US? By no means am i exonerating anyone, but why not offer the other side -it takes two. Love to hear your thoughts..

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 3 years ago

And yet they get bailout bonuses paid for by the very tax dollars of the people they're evicting. Truly surreal....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gyyVFJS8E1M/Toyiq0wjcUI/AAAAAAAAAcc/Aq-gtZmT2vA/s1600/5.jpg

http://dailybail.com/home/jon-stewart-on-wall-street-bonuses.html

Peace.

Groobiecat

[ There's a blog here: www.groobiecat.blogspot.com ]

[ There's an #OWS election process here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/come-to-the-nyc-general-assembly-on-10-15-12-to-st/ ]

[ There's a draft Declaration here: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ ]

[-] 1 points by bobthesnob (13) from Austin, TX 3 years ago

Can the government reward me for saving and paying cash for my house? That would be awesome!

Disclosure: 99%er income: 40k

[-] 1 points by Barney (2) 3 years ago

A moratorium on foreclosures is probably the worst thing that can be done. The housing market re-valuation needs to be completed before the economy can recover. The method for doing so is the foreclosures. Without properly valuing the properties, the market cannot be set, and buys will not buy with all the uncertainty.

As usual, you Libs are shooting yourselves in the foot.

[-] 1 points by wirewilly (3) 3 years ago

OWS supporters here are some priorities of the movement I think should be given serious consideration,maybe more to follow also.

  1. Legally replace this Republic with True direct Democracy. We will hire honest employee's to serve the public.Outlaw Representative Govt from existing.Electronic daily issue voting will be made available with existing C-span network modification customized for the citizen Democracy usage.

2.We shut-down all existing financial institutions and Wall street,K-street,the private federal reserve etc, all except the original U.S Treasury who will be replacing all banks for direct public use.

  1. If the people under direct Democracy choose to keep any form of corporations or partake in globalization then we share the profits or losses no exclusive stock holders or exchanges.

4.We will find out who in the Business community and levels of Govt that have burdened and created the national debt levels to near 15 trillions dollars hold them responsible and accountable plus declare our citizens NOT liable to this sham by any means."We didn't create it".

  1. We will provide several generational Americans with a Basic Income Guarantee without means test who are Homeless,Unemployed,inadaquate disability or senior citizen incomes and other economically disadvantaged legetimate citizens. Able persons may be required to work/serve the public. This will not be available to immigrants as we should be seeking a stop on all immigration into the USA right now "we have too many people not enough opportunity currently,and we must get our own country inorder". Sorry the Capitalist encouraged immigration for cheap labor for the most part over the past 4 decades http://www.usbig.net/whatisbig.php

  2. Editable for more information, The highest priority to each Individual and their familes is personal Financial Security. Making this strong will make USA strong once again, we must NOT lose sight of proper priorities.If the citizens choose to possibly put a price freeze on all Capitalism goods and services or even a reduction in prices then so be it for example. It will make a huge differance with direct citizen rule & control. Real Democracy which we have never had with a Capitalist Republic.

[-] 1 points by zeeter (1) from Philadelphia, PA 3 years ago

This sense of entitlement is really getting annoying. You graduate from college and expect to start a career only to find that nobody is hiring. Why don't you stop being pests and go get a job at Sears or someplace like that until you can find that job within your field. Every person I know has worked at an interim job after graduating. It gives them days off during the week to interview and a bit of spending cash. Why does today's generation think they're different? Are you above working retail for a year or so? Are you "better" than the people who work there?

Get a job to put on your resume even if it's not in your field. Wait your turn in line for that dream job. This sounds like a bunch of people who want to whine that they can't start making $70,000 a year the day after graduation. You have to work. I'm sorry about that, but it's how things work in this country.

The housing market crashed because of Carter's and Clinton's ideas that everyone should be able to own a home and Clinton pressuring banks to make high-risk loans. Not to mention Obama's ACORN group manipulating loan applications for people who didn't even have a job. The banks had to make some money somehow on these bad loans so they sold them in packages.

Tell you what, if you really want to make a point then stop banking at BOA and all of those other places run by the billionaires. You protest them, yet you still patronize them for their services. I wonder how many people who "occupied" Wells Fargo yesterday used the ATM machine while they were there. You are keeping the businesses that you are protesting in business. So while you're talking on your iPhones which are run by billionaires at Apple and Verizon or AT&T think about what you're doing. Banks and the rich can be evil in most people's eyes. If you want to stop them then stop using them.

[-] 1 points by Elysium22 (95) 3 years ago

As this goes on this ultamatly your right.Im pretty much done with this becouse i know that if we keep things the way we are the economy goes up from here we are in the Trough or aproaching it soon then from their its pure growth

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 3 years ago

Behind our backs again, both democrats and republicans signed 3 new free trade deals to send more of our jobs overseas. Korea, Columbia, and Panama. Now you will be seeing more job losses and more products not made in usa. I guess our politicians on both side sof the aisle are NOT listening. We need jobs!

[-] 1 points by Barney (2) 3 years ago

Lots of help wanted signs in NY, Chicago, and LA. Rather than wandering around and chanting, maybe you should fill out an application. Help is available if you're too confused to do so.

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 3 years ago

I have a job but sending jobs to other countries to make money off of slaves at our expense is not patriotic. I thought republicans were against communism or is China and exception? Anyone who outsources is a guilty of treason against the people of the USA!

[-] 1 points by balloon (1) 3 years ago

An effective anti-foreclosure practical action was carried out in the UK in the 1980s, during the Miners' Strike. It was effective because the miners' union organised a key contact person in each pit village. When someone received a letter threatening court action they would take it to that contact person, who would copy it and send it immediately to a group of lawyers who gave their expertise free. As far as I am aware not a single miner was foreclosed in the areas in which this action was taken. What made it work so well were the key contact person and free legal help readily available.

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 3 years ago

The draft declaration we are proposing on 10-15-11 contains a freeze on foreclosure and task force to investigate each foreclosure. It also contains President Clinton's plan to have the Fed refinance all mortgages in distress. Please read our declaration and plan of action.

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

[-] 1 points by Libraryuser (1) from Clifton, AZ 3 years ago

Please do not give up. This fight MUST be won. Please grow to Arizona where the foreclosures are like a cancer. I send my good thoughts to you. I pray to my God for all who are in this struggle. Be peaceful, and PREVAIL!!!

[-] 1 points by occupie (75) 3 years ago

in solidarity brah.

[-] 1 points by norm741 (5) 3 years ago

2 wrongs don't make a right. All bailouts are wrong and send the wrong message of personal responsibility. This movement must not be co opted by socialists any more than the T party being taken over by right wing extremists The Fed, Endless wars and Crony Capitalism should be the focus. This is what the MSM fears

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 3 years ago

Shouldn't you guys call for a national moratorium on foreclosures since this is being seen as a national movement? I think if you did that you would generate even more support and inspire many more "occupy" locations nationwide. It would be especially powerful in the states that have the highest foreclosure rate, California, Nevada, Florida, etc.

[-] 1 points by Peterplavchan (1) 3 years ago

Time to call for a nation wide strike. Everyone just stop working. Coordinated. 1st 1 day, then , 1 week, then 1 month

[-] 1 points by pnj (2) 3 years ago

The major problems of the increase in CEO salary and bonus relative to average worker (ratio of 10:1 has changed to 400:1) is: 1. Board selected by CEO decides the CEO's salary and bonus. 2. After bailout, banks stopped loaning to people and small companies and increased the gimmics of increasing fee. 3. Consumer advocates such as E. Warren are sidelined while CEOs make the job creation committee (like GE CEO). What are they doing? Does anyone know? What is happening to the job creation? 4. If there is no middle class, there are no customers, there will be no business. When will these big businessmen learn this. They are thinking of only getting rich today at the expense of majority of people.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

I've read that the ratio is 425:1. I'm sure in a lot of cases, it's even much worse than that.

[-] 1 points by pnj (2) 3 years ago

The major problems of the increase in CEO salary and bonus relative to average worker (ratio of 10:1 has changed to 400:1) is: 1. Board selected by CEO decides the CEO's salary and bonus. 2. After bailout, banks stopped loaning to people and small companies and increased the gimmics of increasing fee. 3. Consumer advocates such as E. Warren are sidelined while CEOs make the job creation committee (like GE CEO). What are they doing? Does anyone know? What is happening to the job creation? 4. If there is no middle class, there are no customers, there will be no business. When will these big businessmen learn this. They are thinking of only getting rich today at the expense of majority of people.

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

More Power to Occupy Wall Street. Fairness.

[-] 1 points by ForeclosureFightClub (3) 3 years ago

Now would be a perfect time to investigate the murder of Sunny Sheu!

Sunny Sheu: Murdered for Investigating NY Foreclosure Judge Joseph Golia?

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/06/sunny-sheu-murdered-for-investigating-ny-foreclosure-judge-joseph-golia.html

[-] 1 points by brett22 (2) 3 years ago

By William A. Collins

Campaigns face A lot of stress; When ignored By all the press.

You may have heard of Ron Paul. He’s a popular Republican candidate for president who just won the Values Voter Summit’s straw poll. He’s done well in other polling too, generally holding onto third place as the frontrunners come and go. And he raised an impressive $8 million in the third quarter of this year.

On the other hand, you may not have heard of Ron Paul. That’s because the mainstream corporate media mostly blacks him out. No matter how well he might perform in the polls or at fundraising, he’s largely a non-person in the press.

This media blackout is apparently not due to any bizarre social policy beliefs that separate him from the other GOP candidates. The problem seems to lie in his being a libertarian. This branch of the GOP generally opposes wars and big banks and questions the whole theory of the Drug War. So do millions of other Republicans. These, however, are not the Republicans who control the media.

The press makes big bucks from wars and banks and generates countless juicy crime articles from drug arrests, so it’s not likely to dote on a candidate like Paul, or give his views any ink or air time.

Democrats face the same bias when it’s their turn. Remember in 2003 and 2004, when former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean looked like the Democratic Party’s frontrunner, having taken the press by surprise? Nasty media coverage ultimately sank his candidacy. Rep. Dennis Kucinich was ignored by the media right from the start during his 2004 and 2008 presidential bids. Treating the Ohio Democrat like a non-contender made it easier to forget about discussing those nasty wars, the need to prosecute unethical banks, or any other fundamental issues.

This same modus operandi applies to the coverage of public protests. Aside from the Occupy Wall Street movement, which recently began to grab headlines, the only ones deemed worthy of regular coverage are those that support low taxes, low spending, and other corporate dogma.

Of course the White House itself is no help in getting us information on public actions. In April, after the San Francisco Chronicle posted a video of a rally in support of alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning outside an Obama fundraiser, the administration threatened the paper with banishment from the presidential press pool. The move conveyed a chilling “no protest coverage, please” message.

Such self-censorship dominates U.S. media today. Meanwhile, ironically, we are living at a moment of great democratic opportunity, bravely presented to us by WikiLeaks. Those caches of secret cables provide chapter and verse of American foreign policy treachery. In other lands one would expect them to stimulate great public unrest.

But in this country, the press either won’t touch them or treats the cables like toxic waste. Just as happens when candidates like Ron Paul, Howard Dean, and Dennis Kucinich run for president, our media supports the elite corporate status quo. No boat-rocking allowed. Bradley Manning and Julian Assange may well spend the rest of their lives in jail just for blowing that whistle, but don’t expect to hear much about that in the mainstream media.

[-] 1 points by brett22 (2) 3 years ago

By William A. Collins

Campaigns face A lot of stress; When ignored By all the press.

You may have heard of Ron Paul. He’s a popular Republican candidate for president who just won the Values Voter Summit’s straw poll. He’s done well in other polling too, generally holding onto third place as the frontrunners come and go. And he raised an impressive $8 million in the third quarter of this year.

On the other hand, you may not have heard of Ron Paul. That’s because the mainstream corporate media mostly blacks him out. No matter how well he might perform in the polls or at fundraising, he’s largely a non-person in the press.

This media blackout is apparently not due to any bizarre social policy beliefs that separate him from the other GOP candidates. The problem seems to lie in his being a libertarian. This branch of the GOP generally opposes wars and big banks and questions the whole theory of the Drug War. So do millions of other Republicans. These, however, are not the Republicans who control the media.

The press makes big bucks from wars and banks and generates countless juicy crime articles from drug arrests, so it’s not likely to dote on a candidate like Paul, or give his views any ink or air time.

Democrats face the same bias when it’s their turn. Remember in 2003 and 2004, when former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean looked like the Democratic Party’s frontrunner, having taken the press by surprise? Nasty media coverage ultimately sank his candidacy. Rep. Dennis Kucinich was ignored by the media right from the start during his 2004 and 2008 presidential bids. Treating the Ohio Democrat like a non-contender made it easier to forget about discussing those nasty wars, the need to prosecute unethical banks, or any other fundamental issues.

This same modus operandi applies to the coverage of public protests. Aside from the Occupy Wall Street movement, which recently began to grab headlines, the only ones deemed worthy of regular coverage are those that support low taxes, low spending, and other corporate dogma.

Of course the White House itself is no help in getting us information on public actions. In April, after the San Francisco Chronicle posted a video of a rally in support of alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning outside an Obama fundraiser, the administration threatened the paper with banishment from the presidential press pool. The move conveyed a chilling “no protest coverage, please” message.

Such self-censorship dominates U.S. media today. Meanwhile, ironically, we are living at a moment of great democratic opportunity, bravely presented to us by WikiLeaks. Those caches of secret cables provide chapter and verse of American foreign policy treachery. In other lands one would expect them to stimulate great public unrest.

But in this country, the press either won’t touch them or treats the cables like toxic waste. Just as happens when candidates like Ron Paul, Howard Dean, and Dennis Kucinich run for president, our media supports the elite corporate status quo. No boat-rocking allowed. Bradley Manning and Julian Assange may well spend the rest of their lives in jail just for blowing that whistle, but don’t expect to hear much about that in the mainstream media.

[-] 1 points by Kriz (2) from Groenekan, UT 3 years ago

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 3 years ago

If #OWS could stop just one foreclosure in the near future, I know I would be impressed. It would also be a good proof of concept.

Might I suggest, after the 15th and before the 22nd.

Good luck and God speed,

P.S. Not all foreclosures are on homes.

[-] 1 points by DonQuixot (231) 3 years ago

People blocked dozens of evictions in Spain by standing or sitting in the hundreds before the house. Some judges have ruled on behalf of debtors and against the bank, in spite of the law that in Spain does not end the debt with the return of the house, but the debt continues after the house is given. Judges argued that the law is unjust. Banks have not appealed. There is a growing movement in Spain against banks on foreclosures.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

Thanks for the info. I'm happy to see this has been successful in other countries.

[-] 1 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 3 years ago

The final responsibility for any financing decision rests with the financial institution making it. Borrowers are not responsible for the decision itself. They are responsible for repayment of legal, ethical lending agreements.

Courts are key. They are also under the control of the banks. Now you are getting somewhere. Good luck.

[-] 1 points by seriously (1) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Peace isn't working. Learn from London.

Educate yourself. Educate others. Make this movement ours.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (274) 3 years ago

You need a 'virtual bank' to avoid using the currency called 'dollar'.That is everybody Mr. A has to disclose ones assets for consumption including dollars/money in order to hand them over to a 'Body/Organisation' which organizes the flow of consumables etc to people whenever Mr. A is asked to do so while keeping one more person Mr. B as a guarantor to his assets.Which implies that the newly formed Body can use at the most only half of the assets which people disclose to them.Just think upon it.Thus the virtual bank consist of people who disclose their assets for consuming which they lend to the Body which returns the people/lenders the assets/consumables in the course of time which they had earlier lent to the Body.
You can start with just gaining the confidence of the people by letting them only to disclose what ever they want to offer for the time being. But the government can sabotage this plan like other plans which must be kept in view. You can start like this that whatever donations you get you can take loans from the participants/people only to that extent.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (274) 3 years ago

That people who disclose their assets may like to consume them as well in the course of time for example my income is 1000 dollars a month which naturally I do not use at a time therefore I can disclose that to the Revolutionary Body who can use some of that money to help those who give sacrifices for the revolution or for other essential purposes with an intention to return me the part of money they spent at a later stage or on demand.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (274) 3 years ago

donations can act as a guarantee for them(Revolutionary Body) to proceed ahead in order to make the virtual bank a success which shall cater to the requirements of the revolution.

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 3 years ago

Virtual banking, check out Bitcoin.

http://bitcoin.org/

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (274) 3 years ago

Thank you very much for your reply.Bitcoin is a virtual Banking-a system for transactions but I suggest A virtual bank where you have a DATA BASE of the people who would like to contribute to the peoples revolution in terms of assets ,services and money.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (274) 3 years ago

And in addition it (virtual bank)shall have the data of the things offered.This bank shall not keep in it any goods,services or money but only the information about that.However,the transaction shall take place in a different manner not as the normal banks do. Those who offer something they shall be given a code specific to a quantity which when matches with the demander's code the transaction shall take place.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (274) 3 years ago

Thank you very much for your reply.Bitcoin is a virtual Banking-a system for transactions but I suggest A virtual bank where you have a DATA BASE of the people who would like to contribute to the peoples revolution in terms of assets ,services and money.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (274) 3 years ago

And in addition it (virtual bank)shall have the data of the things offered.This bank shall not keep in it any goods,services or money but only the information about that.However,the transaction shall take place in a different manner not as the normal banks do.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (274) 3 years ago

Those who offer something they shall be given a code specific to a quantity which when matches with the demander's code the transaction shall take place.

[-] 1 points by armchairecon (138) 3 years ago

the same homeowners who were greedy and wanted in on the action... or refinanced so they could spend more, i do not absolve banks of their guilt in making high risk loans (and thus they deserve to take losses when homeowners bail) but homeowners underwater 1) made an obligation by taking out the loan 2) made a bet on the direction of the housing market (and lost) and thus 3) are responsible for their debts. I the only problem with how the housing crisis played out was that the banks got bailed out.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

The banks and mortgage companies are the ones who handed out the money. They are the MOST responsible. No one can get a loan, regardless of whether they can pay it back or not, without the lending institution giving them that loan. DUH!!!!

[-] 1 points by armchairecon (138) 3 years ago

duh? im not sure if you are being facetious regarding your comment by adding that in or if that is actually part of a contribution to an intellectual discourse

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

I'm being facetious, because it's not hard to figure out that if lending companies would have been moral, NONE of this would have happened.... regardless of who wanted and tried to get a loan.

[-] 1 points by armchairecon (138) 3 years ago

uh..if these people (homeowners) were moral, they wouldnt have taken the money they didnt deserve?? do you really think that people who lied on their applications/or thought the bank was going to give them free hundreds of thousands is not guilty? im not absolving some mortgage brokers guilt from not educating the homeowners (homeowners should have educated themselves.. atleast do enough due diligence to understand what an ARM is and how it can affect your future financial situation)

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

Yes, but they WOULDN'T have gotten the loans if the banks/mortgage companies WOULDN'T have given them out. So, everyone who got a subprime loan lied on their applications? The banks and mortgage companies didn't check out their employment, income, credit history, or anything else??????

I just got a mortgage, and the bank I borrowed from thoroughly checked out my employment (more than once) and work history, my income, my credit history and credit score, whether I have debts or not, etc., etc., etc.

And, the fact that people who took out ARMs were told that they could refinance right away easily and then got denied to do so.... that's THEIR fault, right?

[-] 1 points by armchairecon (138) 3 years ago

wow.. you are really close minded if you are putting ALL of the blame on banks . you really think people who refinanced their mortgages to buy SUVs.. those who baught mcmansions to keep up with the joneses.. who now cant keep their financial obligations are guilt free?

Yes, it is their fault even if they couldnt refinance. (if they were expecting to refinance right away, they obviously knew this wasn't on the up and up.. otherwise why not take out that other loan to begin with??)

Also.. instead of being entitled to being spoon fed everything, people should do their own research and make their own decisions. that is what adults do. if you took out an ARM, you should understand teh financial obligations..

the whole point of subprime mortgages was to enable lower income people to have their own homes.. ie: stated income loans were meant to allow people with inconsistent incomes (make most of their money during a season) to own a home. those who lied on their applications (ie: said they made more money than they actually did) to get the loans are moral? even if mortgage brokers guided them (im sure there were brokers who told homeowners about this loop hole) the homeowner agreed to do it and signed on the dotted line of the contract.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

I didn't say they are guilt-free.... but you and others solely blame those who got the loans. They are guilty, but the institutions who gave out the loans (and lied) are MORE guilty.

Yes, everyone bought mansions and SUVs.... really? Who's the close-minded one?

I disagree about refinancing. The lending institutions are the "experts" at loans. If they told the people getting the loans that they could refinance right away, that is THEIR fault. Don't expect all of us to be experts on all aspects of loans. There is a moral responsibility for the "experts" to tell the truth.

"the whole point of subprime mortgages was to enable lower income people to have their own homes.. " That's complete bullshit.

I know of people who got screwed by lending institutions that falsified their mortgage papers by changing details later..... claiming that those people made a lot more money than they did. When will they be held accountable???

[-] 1 points by armchairecon (138) 3 years ago

from my first post: > i do not absolve banks of their guilt in making high risk loans (and thus they deserve to take losses when homeowners bail)

where in my post did I say everyone baught mcmansions and SUVs?

i guess we will have to agree to disagree on moral responsibility of experts. my take is everyone is out for themseleves, so I take what everyone says with a grain of salt (hello esp a salesperson), and i go do the research for myself. when someone is trying to sell something to you, they are NOT your friend, they are a salesperson.

uh. regarding enabling lower income people to own homes: maybe you should edumacate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

for your last example: if lenders falsified mortgage papers after your friends signed it, yes they deserve to be prosecuted

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

"you really think people who refinanced their mortgages to buy SUVs.. those who baught mcmansions to keep up with the joneses.. who now cant keep their financial obligations are guilt free?" That sounds like it to me. Perhaps you could phrase it better if that's not what you meant. Not everyone who lost their homes or who got shit loans did this.

"when someone is trying to sell something to you, they are NOT your friend, they are a salesperson." I don't believe every salesperson is guilty of trying to rip people off and lie to them. Yes, they are selling something, but it doesn't mean they are being dishonest just because they are selling something.

"The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.[3][4]" I guess you missed that part.

[-] 1 points by armchairecon (138) 3 years ago

Never said nor meant everybody.

Salesperson = selling. some are more dishonest, but i never trust one (cynical but ive never been had). In fact, when i go buy something, i tell the salesperson exactly what I want, makes their job easier

Subprime mortgages worked until the banks figured out a way to defer liability (by packaging them into mortgage backed securities).,. So technically, these loans were not at risk to these institutions (ie: they put at risk those who baught the mortgages). Trust me, I currently own shares in a company that insured those mortgage backed securities.. that has billions of insurance liabilities. When the legal decision comes down that the banks were at fault for falsifying documentation, and gets the insurance company off the hook for billions of fradulent mortgages, i will make a killing.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

I also tell the salesperson exactly what I want when I know what I want.

And I assume that these insurance companies knew what they were getting into. Am I correct? If so, then the insurance companies are at fault as well. Whatever parties were involved with the scam are guilty. The people who got the mortgages are somewhat guilty for not being responsible and wise, but the other parties are the ones that orchestrated the whole thing..... on purpose.

[-] 1 points by armchairecon (138) 3 years ago

These insurance companies insured the mortgage backed securities thinking they were low risk assets (traditionally mortgages were one of the lowest risk assets because everyone made it an obligation to pay their mortgages). they didnt know banks were offering many stated income loans where incomes were falsified and not verified.. ie: high risk loans which are NOT safe, where if they knew they would obviusly not have insured..

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

Ah. Thanks for that info. I've read some about the insurance companies backing those loans and wondered why they would do it if they were aware they could lose a ton of money by doing it.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

When my ex and I bought a new house in 2000, we had to hire a lawyer, because the bank we borrowed the money from and the title company tried to falsify documents and wanted to future date those documents (probably so that they could change details without us knowing). Our lawyer was screaming and yelling at them, and it took a lot of that screaming and yelling to get them to do things legally. Also, the bank tried to rip us off by claiming we owed thousands more at closing than we all had agreed upon before closing. That's when I came unglued and started screaming and yelling at them.

The fucking lending institutions ARE THE MOST GUILTY PARTY.

[-] 1 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 3 years ago

Unfortunately, there was a group of people who were not taking out loans for homes. There was a group of people who owed money: to gamblers, probably for drugs, and for other activities for which you might owe someone hundreds of thousands of dollars. And banks were READY to lend. Literally, people who applied for loans simply had to say out loud that they had a job with enough money to pay back the loan. In some cases, this wasn't even necessary. The banks literally started giving out $200,000 and $500,000 loans to people who didn't have jobs, because the banks were that willing to loan. The problem came then when these people who didn't have jobs, and had simply been trying to pay off "other debt" (most likely the illegal kind), could not pay their mortgages. Then the interest rates on home equity loans for average Americans increased exorbitantly, to the point that then the average American could also not pay their loans. This ricocheted all the way back up the pyramid to the original people who had invested. These investors were promised a 20% interest rate on money that they invested. Once the mortgages stopped being paid, this interest return disappeared along with all the money that had been invested. The bank bailout was a way for banks to make up the money they had "accidentally" given to gamblers and people who owed money for drugs. Check out: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money

[-] 1 points by NickPalmer (1) 3 years ago

Homeowners share some of the blame (but not very much) because when they were invited to take out loans they were not informed of the full risks.

One might say that the banks, financiers - the loaners - were not fully aware either or why would they have allowed the system to get so unstable and impossible? BUT... the professionals are supposed to know what they are doing, they are supposed to have deeper knowledge than the man in the street and the ordinary person cannot, in any rational world be expected to have such deep knowledge. That is why we have "professionals" so that we don't have to have specialist knowledge about everything that affects us - we are entitled to trust those who claim to be professionals and when what those professionals sell us, advise us and help us to do turns sour, the vast majority of the fault is at the door of the professionals who mis-sold the product or service, because their own knowledge was inadequate or because they took reckless risks for ridiculous rewards.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

While I agree that it's foolish to want to take out a loan you can't pay for, I don't think the ones who did really have any of the blame. If the banks and mortgage companies would've simply said no to them, then they wouldn't have gotten the loans. The banks and mortgage companies said yes, because they figured out a way they could make shitloads of money from doing so.... and the ones on Wall Street share this blame.

[-] 1 points by AmericanRedWhiteBlue (126) 3 years ago

... the professionals are supposed to know what they are doing, they are supposed to have deeper knowledge than the man in the street and the ordinary person cannot, in any rational world be expected to have such deep knowledge. That is why we have "professionals" so that we don't have to have specialist knowledge about everything that affects us - we are entitled to trust those who claim to be professionals and when what those professionals sell us, advise us and help us to do turns sour, the vast majority of the fault is at the door of the professionals who mis-sold the product or service, because their own knowledge was inadequate or because they took reckless risks for ridiculous rewards.

Exactly Nick! You are correct, Sir!

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

I don't believe that their knowledge was inadequate. They were in on the scam.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

And the main problem in general, is that bankers, The Wall Street Gangsters, the finacial elite, have gained more and more wealth, power and influence over our lives, despite not being democratically elected.Private tyranny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ .The system we have today has to be replaced with a sytem in which people can have more influence in the affairs that affect them, in other words, more democracy - democratic workplaces and communities!

[-] 0 points by admin (15) 3 years ago

...despite not being democratically elected. Private tyranny...

OWS was not democratically elected, but it claims to speak for me. Couldn't I use the same argument to say that OWS has an unfair influence because I didn't elect them? What sets OWS apart from any other unelected group that wants to have influence?

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (274) 2 years ago

Saviors are not elected by people.They come into the picture whenever they see oppression to save the humanity.I wonder most of those elected turn out to be the oppressors most of the time.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

First of all, OWS are not the ones who control society, the power is in the hands of the wealthy. Secondly, the OWS are not advocating that a minority of protesters should rule over the majority. They` re advocating more democracy freedom and justice and hope that the majority of the poeple eventually will join their cause. October 15 will show you that an increasing number of people do join their cause!

[-] 1 points by admin (15) 3 years ago

Allow me to rephrase my questions. If "power and influence over our lives" are a problem because they are not democratically elected (I have no problem with this statement), then there is a problem with OWS claiming to represent 99%. I did not elect OWS to represent me in a protest or anywhere else, so isn't appropriate for me to be upset with their attempts to do so?

The problem with claiming that they "hope that the majority of the poeple eventually will join their cause" is that OWS doesn't need the majority of people to join them: they already claim that they are the majority and that they can duly speak for it.

In effect, OWS is isolating those who disagree with them while at the same time claiming that they represent the 99% -- which naturally includes those who have at least misgivings about the movement. This sounds very much like what OWS claims to be against. Don't you agree?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

Youre way off.

"I did not elect OWS to represent me in a protest or anywhere else, so isn't appropriate for me to be upset with their attempts to do so?"

Theres a BIG difference between protesting and speaking your mind,and exercing actual political power. In my country (Norway) and in your country you dont have to be elected to be able to protest, and thats the way it should be. Again, the occupy movent are not the ones controlling the recourses and poilitical decitions.

"they already claim that they are the majority and that they can duly speak for it." They are PARTS of the 99% how dont have all this financial power and influence. It doesn take much to understand what they mean. Come on..

[-] 1 points by admin (15) 3 years ago

"They are PARTS of the 99%"...

Those are your words. OWS claims to represent the whole 99% in protests that they hope gains them influence, and that is my point.

"We are the 99%" : http://occupywallst.org/article/oct1-march/

"We the 99% will not be silent and we will not be intimidated. ..."

How can they claim to speak for the 99% and not claim to speak for me? By contrast, if I disagree with OWS, am I then part of the 1%?

Whether or not they have political power now is irrelevant -- but be honest, do you think OWS has no political influence when politicians are coming out to endorse their actions?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

They are saying they represent the 99%, because it is the 1% who controls everything. If you're not in the 1%, then you're in the 99%..... regardless of whether you agree with the movement or not. They are representing the 99% by protesting to give control back to the people.

Give me a break. It's so simple.

[-] 1 points by admin (15) 3 years ago

"...then you're in the 99%..... regardless of whether you agree with the movement or not. They are representing the 99%..."

That's my point. How can they represent those in the 99% who disagree with them? At what point does OWS become simply 1% of the 99%, telling the remaining 98% what's good for them -- i.e., everything OWS claims to be against?

Members of the 99% are just as capable of exploiting other members of the 99% as that top 1%.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

Is this issue really that important to you?

"That's my point. How can they represent those in the 99% who disagree with them?" They` re SAYING they represent the 99% which they are entitled to because we have FREEDOM OF SPEECH. They say this because they are a part of the 99% who dont have the wealth and power in society, and want to express what they and many of the people who dont have all this power and wealth feel

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

"OWS claims to represent the whole 99% in protests that they hope gains them influence, and that is my point"

They are PARTS of the 99% who dont have all this financial power and influence. 99% doesnt have this enormous power and wealth, OWS are parts of this 99%, and theyre protesting and using their freedom of speech to express that. Don't get you're panties all in a bunch

"How can they claim to speak for the 99% and not claim to speak for me?" Because we have freedom of speech. Theyre using their right to protest and to speak their minds in the fashion they want.

"By contrast, if I disagree with OWS, am I then part of the 1%" No.

"but be honest, do you think OWS has no political influence when politicians are coming out to endorse their actions?" Very little (so far but soon well get the majority to join our cause), as compared with the wealthy. Everybody has the right to protest, also when many orgnize and protest together. If you disagree with them youre free to protest that.

[-] 1 points by admin (15) 3 years ago

"They are PARTS of the 99% who dont have all this financial power and influence."

Again, "parts" is your word, not OWS's. OWS claims to be the 99%. I'm concerned about their choice of words, because in those words they are claiming to represent me.

"Don't get you're panties all in a bunch."

I don't wear panties. I'll assume that's something you do in Norway. ;)

"How can they claim to speak for the 99% and not claim to speak for me?" Because we have freedom of speech. Theyre using their right to protest and to speak their minds in the fashion they want.

That's a cop-out answer. If Høyre claimed to represent you, would you stay quiet about it because of their "freedom of speech"? OWS claims to represent me when they do not. Should I simply accept that, too?

"If you disagree with them youre free to protest that."

I am also free to point out that, despite their claims, OWS does not represent me.

[-] 1 points by motherhill (1) from Spencer, NY 3 years ago

Please consider using fairly traded materials to support this movement, not sweatshop clothing. There are lots of sites out there-here's one: http://www.sweatfree.org/shoppingguide.html#TShirts

[-] 1 points by nworbmit (5) 3 years ago

Well, I actually run a sweatshop lighting fixture manufacturer in Zhongshan China. So I guess I won't be taking your advice.

[-] 0 points by Barney (2) 3 years ago

You Lefties are certainly struggling. Got a message yet? Working on it you say. We're waiting.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

If you payed som attention you`d know that there are lots of messages from this growing movement

Tax the Rich, people not profit, more democracy, more finacial equality, justice, end corporate welfare, money out of politics et etc. This is not about changing a couple of laws, this is about ending this unsustainable unjust system we have today.

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 3 years ago

Your mom's working on it.

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

Insults are the last resort of insecure people with a crumbling position trying to appear confident

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 3 years ago

Your mom appears confident

[-] 1 points by feather01 (1) 3 years ago

Hi Barney... is your last name fife?

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

Same reply: Insults are the last resort of insecure people with a crumbling position trying to appear confident. Let us be better than this. We have the higher ground, and let us keep it.

[-] 1 points by riZeup (2) 3 years ago

And to whom should this message be directed? The 'rulers'?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

So, all of the people in the protest are lefties? Really?

Did the Tea Party have a message when it protested? You people are so hypocritical.

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

They said the same thing about the demonstrators in Tahrir Square, Egypt. They can't stand young, smart intellectuals non-conforming, and speaking out. They are scared for their old, decaying ideas, and they are lashing out. The message is clear and one in the same, but described by every one in his or her own way. (Just like the Egyptian people who gathered to Occupy Tahrir Sq. to revolt against the corrupt system headed by president Mubarak, the American people gathered to Occupy Wall St. to revolt against the corrupt system headed by the financial sector)

[-] 0 points by Rajan (0) 3 years ago

This has nothing to do with left or right. It is about greed. First the banks lent mortgage money to people, who they knew cannot repay the loan. They did this because they knew that they were not going to keep these loans on their books. They turned around and sold them as CDOs to some other saps - pension funds, etc and walked away with millions in profits. This has nothing to do with left or right. It is about criminal behavior.

[-] 0 points by PierpontLuv (38) 3 years ago

Barney....their message is "we are entitled to everything for nothing - give it to us now!" Spoiled entitlement children.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

Eh, no, that would be the finacial elite that exploits and in 08 took a break from reading Friedman, so thet they could run to the nanny state and get the hard working tax payer to bail them out when they screw up

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

Yep! that 1% and their offspring have that mentality.

[-] 0 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

PEOPLE stay in your Homes!

[-] 0 points by GrowUP (0) 3 years ago

If you're too lazy to invest the time or effort into reading a document on what will probably be the largest purchase of your life which you will be devoting a considerable portion of your income on for the next 30 years you're at as much fault as the bank who gave it to you... It's easy to point the finger and blame the other guy it takes a real man to acknowledge their own faults...

The way I see it it's the government's fault for selling the "American Dream" that everyone "deserves" to be a home owner and thus lowering the mortgage requirements and the fault of those who thought that by being able to afford their mortgage but didn't want to give up their current standard of living to pay for it...

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"

For anyone that got legitimately duped by a mortgage broker... I got a bridge for sale... Let me know if you're interested...

Owning a home is a privilege and not a right & the fact that you defaulted on a loan you should have never signed in the first place shouldn't be the responsibility of anyone else but your own...

Be held accountable for your own actions... That's how I was raised... The problem with society today is there is no moral compass... People will try and get away with whatever they can...

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

Did you need to post the same thing 5 times?

[-] 0 points by GrowUP (0) 3 years ago

If you're too lazy to invest the time or effort into reading a document on what will probably be the largest purchase of your life which you will be devoting a considerable portion of your income on for the next 30 years you're at as much fault as the bank who gave it to you... It's easy to point the finger and blame the other guy it takes a real man to acknowledge their own faults...

The way I see it it's the government's fault for selling the "American Dream" that everyone "deserves" to be a home owner and thus lowering the mortgage requirements and the fault of those who thought that by being able to afford their mortgage but didn't want to give up their current standard of living to pay for it...

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"

For anyone that got legitimately duped by a mortgage broker... I got a bridge for sale... Let me know if you're interested...

Owning a home is a privilege and not a right & the fact that you defaulted on a loan you should have never signed in the first place shouldn't be the responsibility of anyone else but your own...

Be held accountable for your own actions... That's how I was raised... The problem with society today is there is no moral compass... People will try and get away with whatever they can...

[-] 0 points by GrowUP (0) 3 years ago

If you're too lazy to invest the time or effort into reading a document on what will probably be the largest purchase of your life which you will be devoting a considerable portion of your income on for the next 30 years you're at as much fault as the bank who gave it to you... It's easy to point the finger and blame the other guy it takes a real man to acknowledge their own faults...

The way I see it it's the government's fault for selling the "American Dream" that everyone "deserves" to be a home owner and thus lowering the mortgage requirements and the fault of those who thought that by being able to afford their mortgage but didn't want to give up their current standard of living to pay for it...

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"

For anyone that got legitimately duped by a mortgage broker... I got a bridge for sale... Let me know if you're interested...

Owning a home is a privilege and not a right & the fact that you defaulted on a loan you should have never signed in the first place shouldn't be the responsibility of anyone else but your own...

Be held accountable for your own actions... That's how I was raised... The problem with society today is there is no moral compass... People will try and get away with whatever they can...

[-] 0 points by GrowUP (0) 3 years ago

If you're too lazy to invest the time or effort into reading a document on what will probably be the largest purchase of your life which you will be devoting a considerable portion of your income on for the next 30 years you're at as much fault as the bank who gave it to you... It's easy to point the finger and blame the other guy it takes a real man to acknowledge their own faults...

The way I see it it's the government's fault for selling the "American Dream" that everyone "deserves" to be a home owner and thus lowering the mortgage requirements and the fault of those who thought that by being able to afford their mortgage but didn't want to give up their current standard of living to pay for it...

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"

For anyone that got legitimately duped by a mortgage broker... I got a bridge for sale... Let me know if you're interested...

Owning a home is a privilege and not a right & the fact that you defaulted on a loan you should have never signed in the first place shouldn't be the responsibility of anyone else but your own...

Be held accountable for your own actions... That's how I was raised... The problem with society today is there is no moral compass... People will try and get away with whatever they can...

[-] 0 points by GrowUP (0) 3 years ago

If you're too lazy to invest the time or effort into reading a document on what will probably be the largest purchase of your life which you will be devoting a considerable portion of your income on for the next 30 years you're at as much fault as the bank who gave it to you... It's easy to point the finger and blame the other guy it takes a real man to acknowledge their own faults...

The way I see it it's the government's fault for selling the "American Dream" that everyone "deserves" to be a home owner and thus lowering the mortgage requirements and the fault of those who thought that by being able to afford their mortgage but didn't want to give up their current standard of living to pay for it...

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"

For anyone that got legitimately duped by a mortgage broker... I got a bridge for sale... Let me know if you're interested...

Owning a home is a privilege and not a right & the fact that you defaulted on a loan you should have never signed in the first place shouldn't be the responsibility of anyone else but your own...

Be held accountable for your own actions... That's how I was raised... The problem with society today is there is no moral compass... People will try and get away with whatever they can...

[-] 0 points by EAD69 (8) 3 years ago

"used predatory loans to lure homeowners into mortgages with impossible—and unseen—interest rates. "

Wow! By homeowners you meant low-paid uneducated illiterate populous with an entitlement sense that they must "own" a home or to be more precise, borrow money from a bank that will own the home, and they will own a piece of paper that says that they own the debt on that home. And by "unseen and impossible" interest rates you mean those interest rates that were right there in the contract that the borrower never took the time to read. But of course it's the Wall Street bankers who 1. convinced people that they must "own" a home and 2. prevented them from reading documents before signing them. yep, that makes sense.

[-] 0 points by Barney (2) 3 years ago

Day whatever

Accomplishments - Zero

And now your park stinks. Can't you people even pickup your own waste?

[-] 0 points by jh42 (1) 3 years ago

I'd like to protest people who entered into contracts (loans) with banks that they couldn't afford. I wouldn't buy a rock from someone who told me it was a loaf of bread, why wouldn't these people take time to understand the agreements they were entering into when they signed them? I know that some of those people have legitimately lost jobs or come into financial hardships, but then find any kind of job you can to help pay - landscaper, contractor, waiter, etc - and cut out things you don't need in your life - TV, alcohol, etc. Seriously, think about who/what you're protesting here. These banks made bad deals, but the people didn't have to buy them. Think for yourselves.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

"why wouldn't these people take time to understand the agreements they were entering into when they signed them?" Maybe because those "agreements" are 3,000 pages long and make no sense, for the most part, to the average person. I see that as mortgage companies and banks purposely screwing people over.

Where's the accountability of the banks and mortgage companies that gave out bullshit loans?

[-] 0 points by itsnotthesixties (4) 3 years ago

then this whole situation is merely the consequence of our own stupidity. Maybe u should be protesting people being idiots and not reading "3,000 pg long documents". Go to school and learn how to read those documents, because they do make sense - wall st played off people's laziness, but so does everyone else, so what exactly is your point?

[-] 0 points by conservativemomof4 (-1) 3 years ago

You are lazy lunatics. Why should anyone bail you out but yourself? job is not a right, it is a privelege. You want money? Work for it. If you want charity, stand on a corner and I will give you a hot meal and whatever is in my wallet. You are what is wrong with America. Loans are fair...if you don't have a way to pay them back, you shouldn't take them out! Don't spend what you dont have, and work hard for what you do have. Want to know why wealthy people have money? THEY EARNED IT!

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

Or, they have money because THEY MARRIED IT! Or, they INHERITED IT! Or, they STOLE IT! Or, they found a way to corrupt our government, bribe our politicians, ship our jobs to other countries, change the tax laws, cheat us out of our taxes, and leave us to get poorer and poorer while they got richer and richer. Or, do you really think Rush Limbaugh sitting on his fat ass talking to you for 3 hours, teaching you how to hate, EARNS his 9 million dollars, but 300 teachers working all day long teaching 4000 children like yours how to read don't EARN their money???

[-] 0 points by vacant (0) 3 years ago

I have a better idea: people should look closely at the terms of their mortgages before signing rather than taking on financial obligations they won't be able to keep. (And I say that not as a greedy businessman but as someone who hasn't purchased a home yet because I've known I couldn't afford it, despite the fact that I could get a mortgage.) If I follow you correctly, people who sign financial contracts to buy homes and then fail to make the payments should have a right to live there still?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

Yes, people should think more before trying to buy a house, but the biggest responsibility falls with the institutions giving the loans. They knowing and purposely gave out bad loans, knowing that they would make money on them. These institutions are NO. 1 responsible. If they tell someone no, then the bad loan never happens.

[-] 0 points by rezar (0) 3 years ago

i have a sugestion of you create a google bomb

[-] 0 points by rezar (0) 3 years ago

Hello all friends, I am a Muslim and I'm glad that you'll soon reach your goals The hope of Jesus Christ

[-] -1 points by conservativemomof4 (-1) 3 years ago

You are lazy lunatics. Why should anyone bail you out but yourself? job is not a right, it is a privelege. You want money? Work for it. If you want charity, stand on a corner and I will give you a hot meal and whatever is in my wallet. You are what is wrong with America. Loans are fair...if you don't have a way to pay them back, you shouldn't take them out! Don't spend what you dont have, and work hard for what you do have. Want to know why wealthy people have money? THEY EARNED IT!

[-] 1 points by bdubatdi (11) 3 years ago

so they earned the trillion dollar bailouts the government handed them because they drove their business into the ground?

do you even think about what you say before you type it?

EDIT: "job is not a right, it is a privelege"

so no one should have the right to feed and shelter themselves? you should just be happy you can? no wonder the crooks think they can get away with anything...

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

People like conservativemomof4 never think before they speak. They just accuse. She's conservative. That says everything.