Forum Post: Occupy your foreclosed home
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 29, 2011, 10:37 p.m. EST by Boldhawk
(3)
from Reno, NV
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Families whose only residence was foreclosed, should go squat on the foreclosed property, indefinitely... maybe figure out a way to 'retake the home," maybe paying a small fee for the use . . . or simply squat until the property can become the family's once more... or simply stay, and use the home as if it were yours... which, of course, it is... isn't it? You probably already paid more than if you had been renting it... and have nothing to show for it. Organize communities to do sit-in on foreclosed homes in a neighboorhood, etc.
The first subprime loans were issued in 1994. It was a gimmick to sell more homes, artificially inflate the market, sell more homes at higher profits, foreclose on those who could not pay when the ARM rates readjusted, take their homes leaving them with nothing to show for their payments, resell the homes at a higher profit and so on. It was a cruel and calculated plan to sell more homes and artificially inflate the market. Those loans were incredibly profitable for well over a decade before the house of cards finally collapsed. In the meantime, bankers got richer along with the richest one percent who made off with higher dividends. It was a sham.
The biggest player in the game was Countrywide. Endorsed by Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil. If you have their shows from '04' to '06' on tape, watch them again. All three were paid millions specifically to endorse Countrywide by name. The biggest subprime player in the game. They issued more ARM loans than anyone else. Foreclosing on those who could not make their monthy payments when the rates suddenly went through the roof. It was a cruel and calculated plan to sell more homes, artificially inflate the market, foreclose, and resell for a higher profit. The sham worked like a charm for 12 years before the house of cards finally fell in.
Oprah, Ellen, and Dr Phil were paid millions for their endorsements. Ch'Ching!
I'm afraid you have the time line a bit off. The early sub-prime loans had slightly higher interest rates, and slightly higher rates of default, but those differences were slight. The overwhelming majority of those early sub-prime loans were paid back on time. They had been correctly underwritten, which means that people borrowing did have the ability to pay. And they paid.
In 1999, Glass-Steagal was gutted, opening up the opportunity for banks to take insane risks. Then in 2002, America doubled down when Bush unveiled his "Blueprint for the American Dream". He set a goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through billions of dollars in tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith based organization.
Then each year, the sub-prime loans that were made were worse and worse, until the crash. The fees went through the roof, and people who qualified for prime loans got conned into more expensive sub-prime, among other abuses.
Nasty mess all around.
Glass-Steagal never should have been repealed. We can agree on that. But it's repeal was just another straw on the camel's back. Not the underlying cause. I also don't see how it's repeal contradicts with my original post. The timeline I refered to was 12 years. The market for subprime didn't multiply suddenly with the repeal of Glass-Steagal. It increased gradually with a growing concentration of wealth. Otherwise, there would have been virtually no market for subprime to begin with. Except for those idiots who bought McMansions trying to keep up with the Jones's.
I don't have the numbers in front of me but I have seen them. Foreclosures were up slightly with each year or two prior to the repeal of Glass-Steagal. The same goes for each year or two after. So I agree with you that Glass-Steagal never should have been repealed but I don't see it as the COW on the camel's back. Just another straw.
I agree with your last few comments entirely. That's why they called it 'predatory lending'.
ENDORSED BY OPRAH WINFREY, ELLEN DEGENERES, AND DR PHIL. CH'CHING!
The rich and famous do not want to be seen as 'pigs' or go down in history as 'villains'. They want to be seen as 'heros' and go down in history as 'humanitarians'. The market for their product has become global. The fan base has become global. Therefore, the 'humanitarian' effort and 'good will' PR machine has gone global. These 'huMmanitarian' efforts and 'good deeds' are not chosen to address the greatest need or injustice. They are chosen almost exclusively to appeal to the largest demographic for their respective commercial products. The largest fan base. Efficiency or effect is of little or no concern. Its all about PR, marketing, image, and fame. This is why so many of the rich and famous have taken up 'philanthropy' or 'good will' around the world. This is why so many have 'schools' or 'foundations' in their name. This is why so many play golf or appear on a TV game show for 'charity'. This is why so many sign motorcycles, other merchandise, or auction off their own 'personal effects' for 'charity'. This is why so many have TV shows with a 'charitable' gimmick. This is why so many arrange photo ops with wounded veterans, firefighters, or sick children. This is why so many have adopted children from around the world (Which they always pay others to care for full time. The hired professionals are sworn by legal contract to confidentiality. Not allowed to discuss or appear in public with the children they care for. Those 'photo' and 'interview' opportunities are reserved exclusively for the rich and famous 'adoptive' parents. Often sold for millions.). This is why every 'humanitarian' effort and 'good deed' is plastered all over the media worldwide. Its not about 'humanity' or 'good will'. Its all about marketing, image, fame, and PROFIT. This is why we are so often reminded of their respective 'good deeds' or 'humanitarian' efforts shortly before or after the release of their latest commercial product. IT IS A SHAM. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE HUMANITARIAN. GOOD WILL HAS BECOME BIG BUSINESS.
Charitywatch.org is a non-profit charity watchdog. Others include guidestar.com and charity navigator.org. Of all the well rated charities (about 1500) only three are closely affiliated with celebrities. Michael J Fox (he is not the primary donor), Tiger Woods (he is not the primary donor), and Bill Clinton (he is not the primary donor). That's three well rated celebrity foundations out of 1500. THREE OUT OF 1500. That should tell you something. In general, celebrity foundations run like crap because they blow half the money flying around in private jets, securing five star accommodations, and hiring PR crews.
Don't even get me started on Jolie and Pitt.
Oh the hell with it. I'll tell you just a little.
Virtually every penny they have 'donated' has come from the sale of baby photos. The babies had no choice. The money goes to their own foundation first. Then later, a portion is donated to a a legitimate charity. Another portion is blown on private jet rides, accommodations, photo ops, and pr crap. They always schedule their transactions and photo ops to coincide with the promotion of a new movie.
The Make it Right Foundation took in over $12,000,000 the first year alone. Tens of millions overall. To date, the Make it Right foundation has helped 14 former families of the lower ninth ward in New Orleans move back into new homes. These families were not given homes. They were required to pay an average of $150,000 each. UP FRONT. That's tougher financing than any bank. The difference is offered in cheap loans or on occasion, forgiven.
That's 14 families total after 5 years and tens of millions in funding. Brad Pitt has never been the primary donor. He is nothing but a figurehead. Make it Right is the epitome of inefficiency. A God damn disgrace.
Celebrities suck. They are just like politicians. The only difference is that the celebrities have had more plastic surgery. THEY SUCK.
And in a polar opposite, and conceivably less repugnant realm (as many would assume) the Habitat folks operate much the same way as Make It Right. But digress, when the shits then fan on a local or global scale, the US more than aptly philanthropic in regard to disaster relief. I annually attend a charitable function in Chicago that raises $3,000,000 in one evening to benefit a worthy child-centered cause. Many"elite" attend from both sides of the aisle. The FACT that 98 percent of the $ goes toward research belies what vantage in big business?
Amen.
You know, if you make your payments; they'll let you stay and not hassle you in the least. Something you may not know, but hey, you learn something new every day.
Sure, borrowed money is really just a gift. Pay it back and then you can occupy all you'd like.
Wanna stay in a house? Buy it. Wow, huh? Radical stuff this whole "pay for it" movement.
I know how they can stay in thier homes. Pay for them
a cold, idiotic response