Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Where is Robin Hood within the Occupy Movement?

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 16, 2011, 3:23 p.m. EST by OccupyNews (1183)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Robin Hood, robbed from the rich, gave back what was rightfully theirs, to the good. On that note, I recommend the following Occupy Actions.

Idea number one. I had advocated homeowners get at least 80-90% of their original down payment back, plus any home equity that may have accrued, (although for most people the home equity aspect may be a moot point). Chase bank appears to have started doing something similar to what I advocated over the past year. Chase Bank appears to be actually giving distressed homeowners 35,000 dollars to LEAVE their home via a short sale. However, if this one payment fits all approach is Chase Bank's approach, it becomes typical Chase Bank indifference and unfairly clumps everybody together. Idea number two. Why aren't occupiers shouting down the home foreclosure auctions?

People who are in a distressed homeownership situation are being completely stolen from specifically because they cannot restructure their debts without being defaulted upon.

Everyday 3,000 to 10,000 homeowners are foreclosed upon in this country, when they note the occupy movements disinterest in their plight, do you think they will ever want to join the occupy movement after the fact?

Idea number three. My www.credit-protector.com and www.credit-protector.blogspot.com highlights the ONE BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH theft by credit protector insurance.

Idea number four. How about instantly giving the 99% a way to fight back against the banks by inserting the words DOES NOT into the banking law that states, debt restructures (DOES NOT) require a credit default first.

The four ideas listed above ALL GIVE BACK money and resources into main street, aka the 99%, while also giving main street and the 99% a way to protect their remaining assets. Where is Robin Hood and his angry band of protestors when we need them? When does the Occupy Movement begin to send re-occupiers out to be modern day robin hoods?

Just asking.

47 Comments

47 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Howtodoit (1232) 2 years ago

Thanks OccupyNews!

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

Howtodoit, thank you. A plus for you.

[-] 2 points by Howtodoit (1232) 2 years ago

great news huh, wow. I love you all, just want get one big thing done first! then, the rest will fall into place! you bring back the G-S Act, you will own The Hill!

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

I agree that the glass steagall act is important, but that does not absolve the bush administration and the Obama administration for continuing to stay in the background and allow wall street and their "investors" to handle the home mortgage situation.

By not being involved in the home mortgage situation as the first line of defense, the federal reserve was free to print money for other things, like war.

to add insult to injury, the government didn't even spend the feds money on war, instead the wars were charged, so that the interest rate charges would forever line the pockets of the rich elite, all this while our government and the federal reserve continues to let home foreclosures and defaults occur at a rate of 7,600 A DAY.

[-] 1 points by journey4word (214) 2 years ago

lol Rob in hood. Taking it from the rich and Sticking it, Ooops I meant giving it to the poor. no one ever asked what "IT" was lol

and his band of "middle men". oops i meant to say merry men

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

Whatever the actual truth may be, people view Robin Hood as robbing the rich and giving to the good. (aka the 99%)

[-] 1 points by journey4word (214) 2 years ago

Amen!. loved the movie

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

sigh. all alone. robin hood has lost his merry band of men and women due to the negative spammers.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

Why has this comment thread been spammed with everybody getting negative scores? May I suggest that people should only vote if they like something? Otherwise, it just takes a few people to defecate all over decent threads like this one to ruin for it everyone else.

Isn't that what the occupy movement is trying to stop, the 1% ruining it for everybody else?

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 2 years ago

The Ballad of the 99% (Sung on the "Ballad of Rocket Robin Hood")

Come gather around me, 99'ners surround me, Hark now to the ballad of the occupier's movement.

I may well confound you, Astound you, Spellbound you, With heroes and villains, The bad and the good.

Watch now as our resolve race here from afar. For now, with our pride, we do our part.

Three. Two. One. MIKE CHECK!

Band of brothers, marching together. Heads held high in all kinds of weather. With fiery heart, our resolve rise, beyond the Earth, beyond the skies! At the sight of opposition, take your stand, with the 99% of our land. Send a joyous shout throughout the land! For occupier's movement!

For the song...

http://youtu.be/BjHcLN7q3_Q

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

I would MUCH RATHER expose the fraud of interest rate charges and LOWER those rates and get people less in debt as a result. Meaning the lower interest rates would not be to buy more things, but to begin PAYING DOWN debt.

Interest rate charges worked half a century ago because the country and the world was still building out its infrastructure. That is not the case anymore. Interest rate charges are now no different than a hidden tax.

NOBODY talks about this, which makes me very nervous about all the alleged progressive economics experts, none of them ever disparage interest rate charges.

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

Well, there are some flaws to your argument of interest being outdated.

Interest is necessary in our financial system for 3 reasons I can mention offhand.

  1. To account for inflation.

  2. To account for the risk the lender is taking.

  3. There exists no other incentive to loan money.

Also, when you save money in a bank, you are also demanding interest. The only reason interest on savings is so low is because there is no risk involved.

Basically, I'm probably one of the progressives you're worried about and can probably answer more questions about why we look at business the way we do.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

excellent points Tlydon007, I believe however that all three are refuteable.

To accound for inflation. Our digital age communication devices help to combat inflation. Prices may go up, but if you are patient and wait for sales, you can still get good pricing on almost anything. The regular prices are for those who can afford it and like the malls a little less empty.

  1. what about the risk associated with tanking the economy and everybody losing 54% of their home equity wealth since 2006? Is that few percentage points really worth that LOSS of 54% across every income strata wealth?

  2. what about the risk associated with tanking the economy and everybody losing 54% of their home equity wealth since 2006? Is that few percentage points really worth that LOSS of 54% across every income strata wealth?

  3. The government has a huge incentive to loan money, it's what that did up until 2000, that is why we had a relatively stable economy. We freed the government and the federal reserve in 2000 to walk away from home mortgages. That by the way is when people started to lose their wealth.

Even if the government paid the interest rate float to everybody, they still come out WAY AHEAD because the more people that can pay their mortgages, the more employment, the MORE in income tax.

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

"Our digital age communication devices help to combat inflation. Prices may go up, but if you are patient and wait for sales, you can still get good pricing on almost anything. The regular prices are for those who can afford it and like the malls a little less empty."

That's not exactly inflation. Also, inflation isn't always bad. Recessions are usually characterized by having inflation too low. The problem there is that nobody wants to spend or invest money because the value of it is anticipated to increase relative to goods(called deflation).

  1. You're right. There was much risk. In fact, it was artificially low interest rates combined with reckless deregulatory policy that led to the risky behavior that caused the collapse. The problem was that the cost to borrow money(interest) was made too cheap to keep the housing market afloat. I'm pretty sure you're familiar with the rest.

  2. You posted the same thing twice.

  3. Interest existed before 2000. In fact, interest existed before 2000 BC. I'm pretty sure you're confusing interest with something else or are conflating it with something.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

I'll try again if you don't mind. Number one somehow morphed into number two.

Our digital age communication devices help to combat inflation. Inflation is caused when the cost for goods rises. However, the increased efficiency that digital devices provide can always combat inflation, increased efficiency is an inflation fighter.

Number 1, I may need to sell 10,000 widgets for a buck a piece to make my profit, but if that takes me 6 months, or I can sell them all tomorrow for 75 cents each, even though this cuts way into my profit margin, I have all of my money back, plus a smaller profit, six months sooner. Cash is king. I may be able to create my next product and have it out to market and sold and I make the same profit, but at a lower cost per widget.

Even though I should have gotten a dollar per widget to account for inflation, I accepted 75 cents each in exchange for getting my money back right away. Efficiency is an inflation fighter.

Number 2, what about the risk associated with tanking the economy and everybody losing 54% of their home equity wealth since 2006? Is a few percentage points of interest really worth that LOSS of 54% across every income strata wealth? Interest Rates should have been cut once it became obvious people could not afford balloon payments. Interest Rates were not cut because wall street and their investors cut in front of the line, ahead of the government and the federal reserve. Billionaires and trillionaires cause inflation because they expect the best return on their money, this puts pressure on fund managers to cut corners to maximize their return to make billionaires and trillionaires happy.

Number 3, of course interest rates existed before 2000. We also had the dot com explosion before 2000. The dot com explosion represented the final frontier. Instant communication between almost any two points in the world, with visuals if necessary, wowzer.

The point is, interest rates ONLY work when there is a necessary new technology that when introduced to society, creates new employment opportunities. The last frontier is renewable energy but that frontier is so unpredictable that it should be a subsidized platform anyways because it might help to prevent future wars over oil.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago
  1. I admit efficiency can keep costs down and that is factored into inflation. However, it seemed like you're trying to make a case as to eliminate inflation. That might be possible, but it would suck. If both businesses and people assume their money will not depreciate, they'll tend to hold on to it more. This leads to a deflationary cycle, aka depression(but there are other factors involved)

  2. The home equity problem is more complicated. Bear in mind, I'm talking about the target rate which can be different from the costs of interest to consumers. In early 2000s, Greenspan lowered the rate after the tech bubble to increase inflation to speed up the economy.(remember, lowering interest rates increases inflation and raising it decreases inflation because it decreases the cost of borrowing money) This decrease in rates helped bolster home equity because it made it artificially cheaper to borrow money for a house and overall demand for houses kept increasing. As more problems occured(9/11, Iraq), he kept lowering interest rates to new record lows and housing prices continued to increase while people kept pulling the increased equity out of their homes. The balloon payments were not the result of traditional loans, by the way. These particular mortgages (subprime) were just incredibly dubious and in my opinion, usurious and should have been illegal(please look up usury for more insight on that).

I'll skip 3 and address the paragraph after.

I think interest rates are way more multifaceted than you think. Also, they're not just the result of policy or greed. They are simply a result of any economic system other than communism. Even with a gold-based currency system, it always exists. Any time one party seeks to lend and another to borrow for a more productive use of resources, interest will exist.

I know it may seem immature, but to understand it a little better, maybe you can try playing this flash game called "The Fed Game".

http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/chairman/

And perhaps look up "usury", and you may understand better the distinctions between normal interest and unethical exploitation.

[-] 0 points by l31sh0p (279) from Sand Fork, WV 2 years ago

"Everyday 3,000 to 10,000 homeowners are foreclosed upon in this country, when they note the occupy movements disinterest in their plight, do you think they will ever want to join you after the fact?"

Making up statistics does not help your plight. The average number is somewhere around 2,700. It's also pertinent to note that 43% of Americans spend more than they make each year.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

A total of 230,678 properties received notices of default, auction or repossession In October of 2011.

That's 7,441 A DAY, and this with the countless lawsuits to slow down the banks rush to steal homes for nothing.

Read more: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20111110/REAL_ESTATE/111119998#ixzz1dzXdgqSw

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Robin Hood stole from the government of the Sherriff of Nottingham and gave it back to the tax-payer . . . in terms of Federal Income Tax, the 1% pay about 36% of all Federal Income Tax.

So Robin Hood would be benefitting the 1% most.

Great idea.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

Danimal98367, I'm really confused by your statement. Kind of impressive for its confusitorious quality.

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

"Robin Hood stole from the government of the Sherriff of Nottingham and gave it back to the tax-payer . . "

This is the most ridiculous revised version of Robin Hood I've ever heard of.

Do you always twist the themes of folklore to suit a narrative more palatable to your prejudices??

[-] 0 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

You should read the original ballads before you spout . . . starting with the Piers Plowman.

Sorry, dude. History is king.

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

In Piers Plowman's ballads, he stole from the clergy and gave to the poor that were dispossessed from their lands. (not exactly taxpayers)

I agree that History IS king... Sad that you don't know jack shit about History, though.

[-] 0 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Nay, he is not mentioned stealing from anyone. Piers Plowman is a reference I use to test people who base their knowledge off quick google or wiki searches. From my thesis is the text mention:

I can noughte perfitly fit my pater-noster, as the priest singeth, but I can rymes of Robin Hood and Randolf Earl of Chester, as neither of owre lorde nor of owre lady, the leste that ever was made.

Translated and summarized: I can't sing the Lord's prayer like the priests but I can tell the stories of Robin Hood and Randolf, Earl of Chester better than any lord or lady.

F-f-f-failed my test

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

Too bad I was already testing you to see if you could back up your original claims that he "stole from the government" or "gave it back to the tax-payer", which, by the way, you didn't

I'm a lenient grader cause I know you don't have much else going for you so I'll give you a..... D

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

Robin Hood, robbed from the rich, gave to the good.

[-] 0 points by Howtodoit (1232) 2 years ago

how about this: we do this, then we are all Robin Hoods, or...

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-day-the-gramm-leach-bliley-act-of-1999-came-up/

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

I think if we just and one word and change two words in the debt restructure law, we can accomplish, more, more quickly.

Justifiable debt restructure DOES NOT require a credit default by the debtor. Instantly, not only would main street be able to fight back against the banks, but the banks would have to hire tens of thousands of people to process all the debt restructures.

These hires would be help to lower the bonuses that wall street pays itself, it's a win all the way around.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/1812-the-last-lawful-amendment/

we are the robin hoods

nobody else can or will do it for us

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

has any effort been made to return wealth to the 99%? Has any wealth actually been returned to the 99%. The wealth exists right in front of us, it's being taken everyday, every way, and there appears to be no plan to reverse the trend.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Form Grand Juries

Finding even one un-corrupt judge would be a huge bonus

[-] 0 points by Biker (-5) 2 years ago

Robin Hood , this post should be at the top.

[-] 0 points by pigeonlady (125) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Pardon typo. Stay in bed. Everything will be ok.

[-] 0 points by PartyX (202) 2 years ago

have you ever heard of Emmanuel Kant?

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

No, but I have heard of his brother, Emmanuel Kan.

[-] 0 points by PartyX (202) 2 years ago

awesome, but what is not awesome is the delay on posting

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

you like me, you really like me.

[-] 1 points by PartyX (202) 2 years ago

your sense of humor gets a point

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

Ditto.

Dohhhh!

[-] 0 points by Biker (-5) 2 years ago

German Shampoo ?

[-] 0 points by pigeonlady (125) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Biker, you are very thin skinned if you are, indeed, one of us. The skirmish gave each side something. I expect Occupy Wall St will win the battle. Feel free to stat in bed as usual.

[-] 0 points by Biker (-5) 2 years ago

Expectation upon Realization ? Dreams or facts ?

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

I think Biker is ready to roll and be one of the roving robin hoods.

[-] 0 points by Biker (-5) 2 years ago

I think Our don Robin Hood got arrested last night, maybe to Gitmo. I dont really know what happen with our leaders. But it seems they are all arrested yesterday. So, we lost the game. We should occupy now our own homes only. I will occupy my own bed.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

Where exactly did wealth reverse flow and go from the rich to the poor? I haven't seen that happen yet.

[-] 0 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

They brought upon themselves by lying about not being the leaders in the first place. This was supposed to be a "leaderless" movement.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]