Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
Retribution Against the Financial Elite

December 6: Occupy Wall Street “Goes Home”

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 23, 2011, 11:17 a.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

December 6 will be a big day of action for the Occupy Wall Street movement. #OWS will join the struggle of families and communities that have been on the front lines of a struggle for economic justice. We will stand in solidarity and ask our fellow occupations to join us for a national day of action on the foreclosure crisis. We are fighting Wall Street's reach on every block, every farm, every house in America with sit-ins at foreclosed properties to right this moral injustice.

The Occupy movement is born of the simple belief that humanity could meet our common needs if not for the predation and greed of the very few. Nowhere is this disparity of wealth and power more evident than in the struggle to secure the human right to housing.

In a nation that puts the right to housing at the center of its founding dream, millions of people have lost their homes or fear that they soon will because of the foreclosure crisis. Wall Street created this crisis with lies and greed. And Washington, instead of investigating Wall Street and banks, is cutting back room deals to let bankers escape justice for their crimes.

Wall Street turned a fundamental human need into a badly rigged casino game with fraudulent lending practices and corrupt securitization. They destroyed our economy, kicked tens of thousands of people illegally out of their homes, and are now using a small fraction of the money they stole to buy off politicians and settle for far less than they owe.

More information to come.

Contact: occupyourhomes@gmail.com
On Twitter: @OccupyOurHomes
Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/events/304693926222145/



Read the Rules
[-] 21 points by mollymoochers (20) 2 years ago

I do not think that access to basic food and shelter can be called a free ride. A person struggling for minimum pay can't always afford food and housing. My family barely can. The folks getting free rides are at the top of the economic food chain. They rake in millions as compensation for the hard work average peopl e do. It is this work od farming, nursing, teaching, and even clerking in a store so that the people can get things we need and even just want. Meeting the basic needs of the community for minimum pay so that the ultra rich can vacation in Europe and own fifteen expensive cars is tantamount to industrial slavery. Freedom, freedom, we all deserve to own our own lives.

[-] 5 points by farmerjohn (22) 2 years ago

This was written in 2002. What a vision!!! And here we are today.

Question; your complaint is with wall street, Who FUNDS WALL STREET? Answer; THE FEDERAL RESERVE, Who owns the Federal Reserve Answer; The same people who own the CORPORATION OF THE UNITED

"Do you think that any soldier who died in any of our many wars would have fought if he or she had known the truth? Do you think one person would have laid down his/her life for a corporation? How long will we remain silent? How long will we perpetuate the MYTH that we are free? When will we stand together as One Sovereign People? When will we take back what has been as stolen from the us?

"If the People of America had known to what extent their trust was betrayed, how long would it have taken for a real revolution to occur? What we now need is a Revolution in THOUGHT. We need to change our thinking, then we can change our world. Our children deserve their rightful legacy -- the liberty our ancestors fought to preserve, the legacy of a Sovereign and Fully Free People."

"Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) "Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve - in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend THE FEDERAL United States CORPORATION [emphasis added] all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another. ."

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

The Founding Fathers would probably disagree, but the Native Americans who lived here for 12,000 years before we showed up had it right. Land should not be owned, it should be managed. Charging people to have a place to live is no different than taxing the air. If I must pay to have my feet on the ground, then I am a slave to the one who owns the land. I have the right to participate, or not participate, in any system I choose. Yet if I choose to live without money and find an unused piece of land to build a home on, some prick will say I am "trespassing", in many cases on land the prick has never even seen. Why does a squirrel have more rights than a man? A squirrel can live where it likes and can only be legally shot at certain times of the year. I have to pay some prick for a place to live and be taxed even after I have paid for it, and can be shot by a cop any day of the year.

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

I totally agree.... but, unfortunately, the greedy don't want to see this.

[-] 1 points by piewackett1 (5) 2 years ago


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

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." Thomas Jefferson. He warned us 200 years ago.

[-] 6 points by nicky2 (46) 2 years ago

I love Thomas Jefferson. He was replaced by John Calvin(!!) as our national icon in the Texas textbooks which are distributed throughout the country. Without the permission of : we the people, a great man was put on the back burner by the pigs and parasites. Their plan is to shove tainted history down our throats and expect us to take it. Dream On.

[-] -2 points by OccupyTruth (-1) 2 years ago


The Protocols of Zion are True!

[-] 2 points by KishinD (9) 2 years ago

The Protocols of Zion is a racist pamphlet. It doesn't matter one whit what the ancestry of our oppressors is (but I'm willing to bet money that they're white men). Realize we are all human. Realize that if you were a CEO, the pressures of the current rules would lead you to very similar decisions. Realize that money is just paperwork, that the law is just paperwork. It is made real only by those who choose to worship it and devote their lives to it.

As Jesus said, "You cannot serve both God and Mammon." Mammon is the Sumerian deity of property, wealth, and greed - the god of the paperwork of control. Wake up! No ancient conspiracies are needed to see the evil at work here.

[-] -1 points by JanrSsor (-1) 2 years ago

This is a FALSE quotation: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp It sounds good but is not legit according to Snopes

[-] 2 points by nicky2 (46) 2 years ago

snopes.com should be called dopes.com - these people print whatever they want others to believe - the truth be damned. . .one of their e-mails forwarded to me supported the birthers; also, they are racist. I would not be surprised if they were an arm of Fox news. . .busy forwarding lies and mistruths to anyone willing to believe it.

[-] 1 points by zygarch (83) 2 years ago

That's interesting. My stubborn, backwoods father who is a Fox "news" devotee, says that snopes.com is a left-wing radical site propagandizing against the decent folk of the right wing.

I guess everybody has an opinion.

[-] 4 points by Thisisthetime (200) from Kahlotus, WA 2 years ago

I agree. So many people scraping to get by when others are worried about where to park their Lear Jet. World Out of Order. Fair-ness.

[-] 3 points by RedSkiesAwaitUs (57) from Quebec, QC 2 years ago

Agreed. We have the technology, resources and funds to guarantee the basic human needs (Food,water, adequate shelter, protection) to every single citizen with minimal burden to the rest of the country and yet we don't because of greed, apathy and a unhealthy attitude towards the lower class. The right likes to call this idea communism, I like to call it humanism. The very idea that we neglect others, letting them die of hunger, or curable diseases, in the name of continuing the class ideology is both disgusting and disconcerting. We don't need to occupy wallstreet. We need to occupy society. We need to re-wire the current social climate, to achieve real and long term change.

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

We as people of the planet need to rethink our social paradigm. Why is it the terms like racism only applies to the ugly? because I know that when a hot girl no matter what race she is walks by I get a woody and I'm sure the same is true when a girl sees a hot guy. So it seems there is no racism under that situation so why then under other situations? I will tell you why because it is a worn in pattern of thinking taught by the people we grew up and associate with. Proof is we don't discriminate when our feelings are telling us it is wrong only when our brainwashed memories kick in without feelings. The same principles can be applied to all our social behaviors. We as a society got brainwashed many years ago by the 1% to keep us fighting amongst our self's...the old divide and concur routine one of the many tricks and weapons of the 1%. There are many books written about how they had studies done to control the masses. TV and National media two of the worst enemies of the people both controlled by the 1% to spread propaganda, lies, confound, confuse disseminate and convolute the truth so we can not make rational decisions or draw our own conclusions. They have taken away our rights one by one and now we don't even have the right to make up our own minds. Unless you are a free thinking radical like me.


[-] 0 points by farmerjohn (22) 2 years ago

To fully understand how our rights of sovereignty were ended, you must know the full meaning of sovereign:

SOVEREIGN "Chief or highest, supreme power, superior in position to all others; independent of and unlimited by others; possessing or entitled to; original and independent authority or jurisdiction." --Webster

[-] 1 points by libertyandjusticeforall (6) 2 years ago

Yes, especially when you consider that the Earth makes food (what have they given back to the Earth? ...talk about a "free ride") and sleep is mostly a harmless activity, is murder and "letting yourself in" the way to acquire land in which to sleep? That seems to be the lesson of America.



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


The Protocols of Zion are True!

[-] 1 points by zygarch (83) 2 years ago

Please stop it with the conspiracy theories and turn-of-the-last century Russian propaganda. This is NOT constructive, only divisive, and if you don't stop beating this drum, you will be asked to leave.

[-] 0 points by Peretyatkov (241) from город Пенза, Пензенская область 2 years ago

Excuse me, where do you see Russian propaganda? Tell me. I am Russian.

[-] 1 points by zygarch (83) 2 years ago

The Protocols of Zion is a fraudulent, antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for achieving global domination. It was first published in Russia in 1903. It has been debunked-- it's origins (and intentions to inflame hatred) having been thoroughly exposed countless times [See: http://www.rense.com/general45/proto.htm]

It is comforting for many to be able to apply all of their passions and attribute most of the world's ills to a single, common enemy.

Part of maturity is the realisation that nothing is black and white, and that the world is vastly complex, requiring a practised patience, extended analysis, and acceptance that there are infinite perspectives.

[-] 1 points by Peretyatkov (241) from город Пенза, Пензенская область 2 years ago

So that's it. Thank you! I want calm down You. I do not divide people along national lines.

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

I'm so glad we're doing this, I've advocated for an end to evictions as an OWS campaign, and we can be sure it's going to make a difference. Great, great work, this is real leadership THX!!!!!!!!

[-] 8 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6190) 2 years ago

This "National Day of Action to Stop (and Reverse) Foreclosures" initiative makes me think of that scene in "Capitalism - A Love Story" (104 minutes into) where a small neighborhood thru protest and occupying a forclosed home chases away multiple police cars that came to stop the occupation. If a small group of neighbors can chase away 9 police cars, just amagine what a massive growing occupy movement can accomplish

Wonderful initiative, occupiers:)


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

Thanks for directing me to the movie, and thanks for your comments. I think there needs to be people camping out on the lawn of every house that's in foreclosure, and, as you said, a massive movement fighting the evictions. Would you happen to know what happened with the OWS intervention in Atlanta, where a black family was facing eviction, and OWS came to their house and camped out in support. That action seemed to have put the foreclosure on hold for the time being.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1152) 2 years ago

There is no leadership because leaders of insurgency movements apparently get assassinated by our beneviolent government or their allies.

[-] 1 points by JosephCouture (45) 2 years ago

The Red Pill or the Blue Pill, which will you choose? I keep hearing people say they think the world is experiencing a mass awakening represented by the very essence of the Occupy movement. Are you ready for it? Do you dare?

Read “Awakening To the Nightmare” at www.josephcouture.com

[-] 2 points by farmerjohn (22) 2 years ago

How about a "Republic of The United States of America" pill

[-] 1 points by StoopidDub333 (1) 2 years ago

that was a great story. yes human consciousness is evolving and that is why it is the most important time in the world for people to love each other, which isn't going as well for some as it is with others.

[-] 0 points by niet (4) 2 years ago

Better to awaken to the painful truth that to rest easy in a lie. It's only the first and most important step.

[-] -2 points by pearss01 (4) 2 years ago

Yeah, it ticks me off. I worked hard my whole life to save for a home and idiots like you want to take it away and give it to people who did not save a dime and looked for an easy way in. Now they have to pay and the OWS is going to help find them an easy way out.

[-] 4 points by xOccupyx (66) 2 years ago

I am also sorry you feel that way. No one wants to take anything from you. In fact, you shouldn't have had to struggle an entire lifetime to save for a house; and that is the fault of our predatory banking/money institutions and the artificial recession/recovery cycles.

Around 1970, the average US income was around $20,000 a year. The average home price was around $25,000. You do the math. Today, US incomes have fallen to around $28k a year, and houses average $250k.

That is not your fault, nor mine, nor does it have anything to do with the People. That is the greed machine.

[-] 1 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

Your numbers are all bullshit. I just looked up the numbers on various .gov sites. 1970 average household income was $8394 1970 average single family home was $17,000 1970 average home size was 1000 sq, ft. 2010 average household income is $49,445 2010 average single family home is $241,000 2010 average home size is 2100 sq, ft. If you get away from the crazy high home price areas, you can find hundreds of thousands of very nice 1500+ sq. ft.homes in great neighborhoods for 100k-150k and still make the average 50k income or much more.

[-] 2 points by MarkArby (8) 2 years ago

53percenter, Even your "government" numbers support Occupy's point. In 1970, a house cost roughly two times the average income and in 2010 a house cost roughly five times the average income -even after the housing collapse. This is largely because the Government encouraged easy credit through the FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. This was sold to the public as "making housing affordable" but all it did was drive prices up. The Government (i.e. taxpayers) guaranteed these loans, so the banks wouldn't lose money. Predictably, this drove up demand for houses and prices rose up to the point where the buyers could no longer make the payments. In economics, there is no free lunch.


[-] 1 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 2 years ago

Agreed. NO ONE deserves something for nothing. My experience has always been that people who get "things for free" do not take care or treat them as well as things they have to work for.

Also, in some cases, these people who took loans on homes they know they really couldn't afford are at fault along with the banks who loaned them them money. I saw an interview with one family, who admittedly, together made about $70k between he and his wife, but bought a $300K house. That makes no sense.

My father raised me to never accept money or anything else I didn't work for. I have instilled that same philosophy in my own children. Yes, we have struggled at times, had no insurance and bad insurance, yet I have managed to always pay my bills, including medical bills. I may have had to set up payment arrangements, but I have always taken care of things myself.

There is also the problem of jealousy. My neighbor has that, so I want or need it. It is like my daughter, who in August told me she "needed another bathing suit". I asked her why, and she was said the straps broke. So, I mentioned the other 2 she had. Her response was "OK, I want another bathing suit". I told her "No", she had enough.

I know people who had racked up $10k, $20k, even $30k in CC debt and have BMW cars, 2-4 flat screen TV's, have bought 3000-4000 sq ft homes, etc. Basically, living a life they cannot afford. There are 5 of us, living in an 1800 sq ft house. We work to live within our means. Sometimes, that means telling the children "no" to something, but we are trying to instill responsibility in them.

So, no I don't agree with the banks, but I don't agree with just "giving" people a house, food, etc. NOTHING should be free!!! There is no incentive for them to work then. As I have said on here before, my mother, who is a nurse, listens to all of these single mothers at the office talk about how they need to have more babies to get more money from the government. We didn't have all of these babies from single mothers back when there wasn't freebees given to support support them. I mistake, OK, I will give you that it can happen, and maybe give them some support to finish\get an education so they can WORK to support their child, but 2, 3, 4, etc... There needs to be a point these people are cut off!!


[-] 4 points by rcarmstrong (115) from Cadyville, NY 2 years ago

I'm sorry you're afraid that these are OWS motives. I fear that you've been convinced that people who are interested in fairness and an end to corruption are your enemies. Wanting Big Money out of politics and for the rich not to pay a smaller percentage of their taxes than the average family is a goal that benefits you, the hard-working citizen.

[-] 3 points by donovan (15) from Salt Lake City, UT 2 years ago

Um, we don't want your 250k house in middle America, nor your 100k a year job. We want those earning millions ANNUALLY to pay their fair share of taxes for the good of the country.

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

Do you realize that the 1%-ers you hate so much start at 350k per year and not millions and billions? Even the surgeon that botched your lobotomy earns that much.

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

$350 K per year still is WAY MORE than what most people make in any other career/job. #50 K as an entry-level income is pretty damn good!

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

Do you realize that the 1% make about 55% of all the income in American but only pay about 45% of the income TAXES?


--Knave Dave

[-] 1 points by TheodoreK (1) 2 years ago

A lot of Americans grumble about the volume of income tax they pay. However, when compared with income taxes around the world, Americans do not pay that much. It turns out, according to MSNBC, that Americans pay pretty low taxes. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development releases an annual survey of tax information from member countries, including an assessment of tax revenue as percentage of Gross Domestic Product. In other words, how much of the total economic output of a country is taken by the central government as taxes.Learn more at: http://personalmoneynetwork.com/moneyblog/2011/12/01/americans-income-taxes/

[-] 1 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

Do you realize that the top 53% pay all of the income tax?

[-] 3 points by rEvolutionaryGirl (21) 2 years ago

And that 47% are so poor that they get a refund for the taxes they paid throughout the year? I was once there, making under 10,000 a year, and my taxes were automatically deducted as the paychecks came. Then, come tax return filing season the federal government refunded all of it. The state did not.

[-] 0 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

So, that justifies the fact that the top 1% pay a full 10% less of their income in taxes each year than everyone below them? Why would you even WANT to argue for preserving that bizarre privilege for them. LIkewise, the top 20% pay on average 5% less than anyone in the bottom 80%. Why would anyone want to speak in support of a tax system that redistributes the wealth TOWARD the riches slices of society.

As for the bottom 47% that supposedly pays no income taxes, many they STILL pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the rich do because they pay payroll taxes that are capped for the rich. Above a certain income, the rich pay no payroll taxes (if they are even on payroll) on any of their income. The bottom 47% you're talking about pay payroll tax on ALL their income.

There is so much inequity in the tax system that gives welfare to the rich that it is amazing anyone can speak out in favor of all that ... such as justifying the clear facts about the smaller percentage of income tax paid by the top 1%, who are the focus of the Occupy Wall Street movement by pointing out that the top 53% pay all of the income tax, while ignoring the payroll taxes, sales taxes and property taxes that the poor still pay.

Paying less in the top 1% as a percentage of you income is is unconscionable.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/bushwhacked-by-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-the-rich/

[-] 1 points by zygarch (83) 2 years ago

Your comment is reactionary, xenophobic, Randian screed. I'm afraid you don't really understand what OWS is all about.

Please help us all get the money out of politics so that democracy can be returned to the people.


[-] 7 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

I am shock to read on this post how many people are so critical of the home buyers in this situation! Really people whats wrong with you! The banks knowingly made these loans for the sole purpose of packaging them and selling them off for a profit. They didn't care if the buyers could afford the loans or not. The value of your homes have dropped because of the banks and loaning institutions, not the buyers they were conned!

[-] 4 points by xOccupyx (66) 2 years ago

Apparently many people expect that every home buyer is somehow an expert on finances. They don't understand the manipulations and deceit that helped people buy homes they thought they could afford, to then find out they could not.

It's sad, but there is a percentage of people who reflexively 'blame the people' for everything - we see it in these chats all the time. They've bought into the PR designed to protect the real culprits. Perhaps they should ask themselves why the banks can be held culpable for fraud; it's because they ARE financial institutions and are supposed to know better; people have a reasonable expectation - and the courts agree - to expect that a bank would not place them in jeopardy.

[-] -1 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

No one conned you. You were greedy and decided to take out a loan for more than was wise because the bank was willing to offer it. You weren't conned into signing. You knew before you picked up the pen what the amount was and the monthly payment. You initialed or signed 50 times that you agreed to the total and the monthly payment and rate (and the ARM). You were stupid, not conned.

Did the banks do wrong? Yes.

Did the buyer do wrong? Hell yes. (It was your money and your future - you squandered it on a gamble even though you had all the rates and numbers in front of you.)

Did the Federal Government do wrong? Yes, yes, hell yes, yes! But OWS wants to ignore that and empower government to further regulate . . . the mess they created in the first place...

[-] 8 points by Renoira (12) 2 years ago

We were conned. We negotiated for NO prepayment penalty so we would be free to get another loan if the loan proved to be too burdensome. One month after we were in our home they raised the interest rate 1.5% on the 1st and 5% on the second. That was not even legal when we last purchased a home over 15 years ago.

So okay, we would get another loan, but they held us in bondage with a prepayment penalty we did not sign nor agree to, but the time they had released us property values had dropped even further and our debt had increased by over $50,000.00.

That was a con. Next you will tell me about getting a "lawyer", right? Did that too, it's been almost 5 years and we have yet to see an inside of the court room. The banks conned us. It is just unbelievable because 15 years ago this would have never happened and it is difficult to believe that it is allowed to happen now.

Corporations need regulations! Because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts...ABSOLUTELY!!!

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

Most importantly, of all I could address (here as I have elsewhere), is your last shout . . .

The banks were "regulated" into this. I hate the deregulation claim when in fact it was actually further rule-writing. The power corruption? Politicians.

[-] 3 points by donovan (15) from Salt Lake City, UT 2 years ago

Who corrupts the politicians? Exactly.

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

"The banks were "regulated" into this."

That's a lie. The financial institutions WERE NOT FORCED to give out bad loans. The "regulation" states that lending institutions SHOULD NOT give out bad loans. That's nothing but a cop out and a bold faced lie.

[-] 0 points by TexasThunder (68) 2 years ago

I find our elected officials incompetent to govern. They need some incentive that will mean something to them instead of putting funds at risk that will cause harm to those persons and institutions who can least afford such loss. I suggest that these officials’ pay and/or benefits be cut if and/or when they fail to do their job. As it is, party “a” threatens to harm parties “”d” through “z” if parties “b” and “c” can’t come to an agreement. It makes no sense whatsoever to threaten Congress with cuts that will not have any impact on them directly. Our Constitution establishes the type of government we are to have. We do not need to establish any “sub” groups within these institutions. They are all responsible collectively to govern and if/when they fail to do so they are all liable collectively. The “carrot and stick” method only works when the carrot or stick is guaranteed to the same one. These officials have received their carrot upon being elected as they shall receive full pay and full benefits for the rest of their life even if they only serve one term. I say put all options “on the table” including their lifetime pay and benefits. I’m of the position that such a “stick” would cause these officials to get their head out of the clouds and their feet on the ground.



[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

Anyone that signed for an adjustable rate loan at a time of record low interest rates was a fool. The rates only had 1 way to go.

[-] 5 points by gypsydragonfly (6) 2 years ago

At the time I could afford my loan!! It was when the housing market crashed and I lost HALF of my customer base because people started losing THEIR homes, moving and going bankrupt...trickle down effect....I went from upwards of small biz gross of $100,000 in 2007 to around $24,000 this year. This is where so many ignorant individuals think that it is the home buyers fault. I couldn't predict that! Also the fact that home prices were SKYROCKETING and if I wanted to own I needed to buy when it was cheaper than it would be a year from then. Yes, I am at fault and should have reconsidered but YES THE BANKS ARE AT FAULT FOR GIVING ME TWO MORTGAGES AND NOT STICKING TO ORIGINAL LENDING PRACTICES OF 20% DOWN...isn't that called predatory lending??!!

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

Yes, you were at fault and I am glad you realize that you bought when you shouldn't have and as a small biz guy I understand all of what you say. However, my issue is when people say that this situation means I (who am thankfully not struggling today) need to bail others out directly or through indirect government.

This is why, despite my deep-seeded dislike and distrust of banks, I focus people on their personal responsibility and on the stupidity of asking for the government to fix it. Why would we ask the people who wrote the horrific regulatory rules to rewrite the rules correctly?

[-] 4 points by niet (4) 2 years ago

So how do you feel about the bank bailouts which your tax dollars went to?

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

Hate with an unquenchable fury! How dare the politicians spend my money like that! I have and will continue to vote against those who used my money that way!

Damned politicians, that was MY MONEY!

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

Even Alan Greenspan who fervently defended deregulation is now back peddling on his decision. "I made a mistake, who could have known?"

Who could have?

[-] 3 points by xOccupyx (66) 2 years ago

Greenspan has been wrong ...countless times. I call bullshit, and this guy should have lost all credibility years ago.

[-] 3 points by xOccupyx (66) 2 years ago

"However, my issue is when people say that this situation means I (who am thankfully not struggling today) need to bail others out directly or through indirect government."

The only people that want you to bail anybody out are the corporations. Unfortunately, our gov't does what they want.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

We do have a personal responsibility. Each and every one of us allowed this to happen and together we can FIX it!! Our consumerism can save the world! We can support those businesses, banks, and government officials that have fair practices and moral pride. We can make billionaires out of people who are willing to do the RIGHT thing!! Just think about it!! we can USE GREED to save the world!! Greedy people will trip over each other just to get the chance to show us how much good they can do!!

[-] 4 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Banks would never qualify anyone for a loan that they couldn't pay back unless they had an alternative and that alternative was to sell the loans. And not have to pay the consequences when and if the borrowers defaulted. So if thats not a con job I don't know what is! But I think you would find in most instances that banks were not aware of which loans they would be selling off, so most buyers were qualified, when there circumstances changed the downturn in the economy layoffs inflation etc, that more than anything contributed to the mortgage defaults. And your right no one conned me, I have a 30 year fixed rate mortgage a 4.65% I borrowed less than two thirds of the homes value and now I'm sorry I did, I should have borrowed 100%.

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

That isn't a con job on the person taking out the loan. It is a con on all of America - and seperate from whether you can pay the loan you took out.

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT wrote the rule that allows for the selling and bundling of loans and then bailed out that failed system. That is the area that deserves far more ire than this or any other movement has pushed (TEA Party, small government conservatives included).

[-] -1 points by pearss01 (4) 2 years ago

Ask someone who had to overwrite the loans and retired because the buyers would NOT listen to the terms of the ARM. People voted for a reduction in loan terms, lobbied for easier qualification, and even applauded a president who signed it into law. Most people lied about their income, went in with borrowed money thinking they could sell in one or two years and make a killing. They gambled and lost. We donot blame Vegas when entire life savings are sqandered. When you gamble, you should always consider the loss first.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Who lobbied, I think by saying people you generalize, the real estate industry and banks and loaning institutions lobbied. Because of a surplus of real estate. After they got their way there was a run on real estate with exactly that in the mind of buyers sell in one or two years and make a killing. If the banks had done there job they would have verified the borrowers income, that's on them. But the truth of the matter is the tax payer gets fu_ked in the end!


[-] 0 points by jdnreha (85) 2 years ago

Wow, I think you missed the point.

So tell me, when should a person take responsibility for there own actions? Loans were and still in my opinion way to easy to get.

The banks too need to take responsibility for poor lending practice and eat the money they lended without double making sure the terms were ok on both ends.

But the bottom line is that the people signed a contract to buy a home. I did, and regret it, but I dont blame the banks.

and the "voted in" and "signed into law", he was showing that the people wanted them, yest they were failures, and thats the point. The people did care, they just wanted it to be easy to get because every American should be entitled to own a home. And really, most (including myself) should not own a home.

[-] 3 points by xOccupyx (66) 2 years ago

Ah, if it were that simple:

"you squandered it on a gamble even though you had all the rates and numbers in front of you.:<<

Do more research, please.

[-] 2 points by julianzs (147) 2 years ago

Even if your rage were not misplaced, the "stupid" needs to be protected from crooks. This is what separated us from the cave men. No country with income per-capita of over $57,000 should have a citizen begging with a cup or selling a daily for a quarter at fume riddled traffic junctions, no matter what the circumstances.

[-] 2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

You assume that people are smart enough to read the fine print.

You assume that, of the people who read the fine print, those people understand all of the financial terminology that riddles these loan agreements.

You assume that everyone who doesn't know exactly what's in the loan agreement has the follow-through to ask for clarification on the details.

You assume that the bank issuing the loan has some sort of responsibility to make it "easy" for people without Economics degrees to understand the terms of these loans.

You assume that banks have the consumers' best interests at heart when selling these loans.

You assume that people KNOW how much money they should take out a loan for, or that the friendly bankers, who obviously value their customers over profits, would be kind enough to explain this to these people in terms that people without Economics degrees can understand.

You assume too much. Do you know what happens when you assume? You make an ASS out of U and ME.

[-] 1 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 2 years ago

I make it a policy to never sign anything I haven't fully read. The details are always in the fine print. Yes, I have aggravated people who were waiting on me to sign something, but it is a matter of principal. In fact, as an experiment, a gaming company in England, a few years ago, put in the license agreement that the people accepting the agreement were also agreeing to sale their sole to the company, literally. The people who fully read the agreement, and declined were given a gift certificate for a game. Later, the company sent emails to all people letting them know what they did and that they were giving them their soles back. Most people just accept and don't want to go to the trouble of reading all the fine print. The problem is, we have become a "sue happy" society, so companies need things in there to protect themselves from frivolous law suits.

[-] 0 points by jdnreha (85) 2 years ago

Not to blame Realtor, but isnt one of there jobs to translate the fine print into layman's terms?

Also, what fine print are you referring to? Granted the contract is 50 pages long, but it was quite clear how much I would pay every much. They even broke it down to a chart with every month on it.

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

Mortgage papers from mortgage companies are far more than 50 pages long.... and most of it is not understandable to most people who aren't in the industry.... so regardless of whether someone knows how much they will be paying or not, there could be something written in the 100s of pages that allow the mortgage company to do whatever it is they want to do.

[-] 1 points by jdnreha (85) 2 years ago

Im not in the industry, but I can tell you this, When i heard what an ARM loan was, I thought that was stupid, same with a 2 year intrest only loan. Your about to OWN a home. If your not asking question, then its your fault.

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

I'm not talking about ARMs. I'm talking about CONVENTIONAL loans. When my ex-husband and I bought our first house, there were pages and pages of jibberish, and we ended up getting in a fight with the bank and the title company, because both were trying to screw us over. The bank tried to make us pay $14,000 more at closing, when we had agreed on an amount with the bank ahead of time. And the title company was trying to screw us over by wanting to future date EVERYTHING. We did hire a lawyer, and he screamed and screamed at the title company until they listened to him. They were adamant about future dating things (which is illegal, BTW). I screamed at the bank when they said we had to pay them $14,000 more at closing. This was in 2000.... LONG BEFORE the housing market crash.

It's pretty frickin' pathetic that people have to hire lawyers when closing on their houses, because of how lending institutions and title companies try to screw them over. It's a well known thing that people should take their lawyers with them, and that says EVERYTHING about lending institutions and title companies.... that you can't trust them at all.

You and others can continue making excuses all you want to while the rest of us do what we can to bring down the crooks.

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

Actually, the find print is irrelevent to this. You saw $1500/month for 30-years and said yes. That wasn't fine print. That wasn't confusing. That didn't need clarification. I didn't assume you read fine print because the pertinent terms for affording the loan were not fine print.

I never assumed in my statement (or ever) that the bank had my best interest at heart. You assumed that I assumed.

The bank by law has to make sure you understand the basic of the loan - how much a month for how many months.

I didn't assume people knew how much (total life of loan) to take out responsibly, only that they cannot claim being conned when the monthly payment stared them in the face while they signed the loan 50 times and initialed every page.

I only made an ASS out of you - it was you who read assumptions that weren't there.

[-] 5 points by Vhorthex (21) 2 years ago

From the various tidbits of information I've been reading here and there, It seems that in some cases, the monthly amount sown to the buyer was not the actual full amount. And only 1 year later would the payments shift into gear as they were intended to be. I remember seeing a documentary where this family were paying about 800-900$/month of mortgage, but after 1 year, it sky-rocketed to 2000$/month. Which they could not afford. From what I understood, this was hiding in the fine print.

And if you aren't a notary/lawyer, reading all the legalese BS that Mortage papers are filled with, I'm pretty sure it's easy to oversee a clause. I've even seen reports on some banks making an elderly person refinance their mortgage on a 20 year period, when they were already 75 years old.

Pretty sure that the blame isn't solely on the buyers, as you seem to say.

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

Unless you can show otherwise what you are referring to is almost certainly an ARM (adjustable rate mortgage). These almost never existed in home loans before Clinton rewrote the regulations in 90s.

Hardly fine print, though. More like "here's your rate today and a calculator for if rates change in the future..." Don't like that your rate may go up? Sign up for a traditional mortgage.

[-] 2 points by Vhorthex (21) 2 years ago

I don't know you, but from what I read on your posts, you seem to be fortunate enough to either be working in the banking/loan field, or that you had the personal curiosity to start reading about it. Not everybody has that 'asset' so to assume that everyone understands mortgages is a bit of a optimistic perception of the problem.

It's true what you said that when you sign something you say that you completely agree and understand it, but for some common folk, it's sounds like a bunch of gibberish regardless of how it's presented, and they might have had the bad idea of 'trusting' their bank.

If the unrealistic mortgages weren't there to begin with, Joe & Gill couldn't have even accepted it. And back in the day, you had to have a strong credit to get a house, as well as the income to back it up. So there is part of the responsibility that lies with the bank. And knowing how banks work, it's easy to see this was done on purpose.

It shouldn't be legal to sell debt, it's one of the most retarded concepts that we've ever embraced. When you start dealing with 'maybes', 'IOU', 'what if', you are going to end up with some pretty horrid problems.

Speaking of IOUs, and What-if's, have a look on how garguantuously huge the derivatives "bubble" is at now. Taking figures from 2009, if all the derivatives contracts would come to fruition, it would take 5.7 times the total amount of the worlds 'liquid assets' to pay up these contracts.

For those who like to compare numbers, this chart is quite interesting;


[-] 3 points by jdnreha (85) 2 years ago

If you also look at his post, he hated the fact the government 'bailed' out the banks. The banks too should take responsibility and should have had to take the same personal responsibility as joe and gill.

And back in the day, that was a good way to do things, and still should be. Im willing to bet if the mortgage companies didnt get there bail out money(aka more government) they would have started to regulate themselves and probably started offering better deals to home owners. But now they dont have to stress, because government regulations are taking care of things and not allowing them to take responsibility, but hold them back, in turn hurting the consumer.

[-] 2 points by Vhorthex (21) 2 years ago

Yup, and like I replied to one of his other comments, I was under the false impression that mortgage brokers had a fiduciary duty towards their clients. Which apparently they don't, except in California apparently.

In any case the lack of liability between client and broker is extremely alarming, and apparently the various broker associations are vehement about not holding the mortgage brokers accountable.

It's such a load of BS, just like how the rating agencies couldn't be held liable for AAA rating the highly toxic mortgage securities that were at the root of all of this jazz.

We seriously need to put an end to all "prospecting" of the future. Seems you can't make enough money off of today, you have to go years into the future and claim money that does not yet exist.

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

Selling debt is no better than betting on futures, which a bunch of Wall Street folk and traders in companies (like my company) are making hoards of cash from. It's no different than rolling dice or pulling the handles on the slot machines in Vegas.

Our financial system in this country is based on high-end gambling.... period.

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

Please do not use the word retarded as a pejorative. It's one of the last refuges of bigotry, so commonly used that people who would never allow themselves to use a racist epithet feel perfectly fine with retarded.

[-] 1 points by Vhorthex (21) 2 years ago

Fair enough, I apologize for the misuse of the word. But I sincerely hope you took more out of what I said than simply noticing I used that word.

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

Hi, thank you so much, and what you're saying is great. I'm going to take a look at the link when I get a chance. And, I'm sorry I just don't get it, but what are derivatives? Thanks very much.

[-] 3 points by Vhorthex (21) 2 years ago

To vulgarize it, a lot, derivatives are bets against any item/value. There are quite a lot of types of derivatives. Some of which allow you to get insurance over an investment, and if the investment goes down, you get money back. There are also conditional purchases and sales, it's pretty complicated when you get into the details.

Just to focus on a single type; Credit Default Swaps. Basically, this is an entity asking another entity for some kind of insurance against the value/solvency of 'bond, stock, etc. (for example a 'Collateralized Debt Obligation' (COD). Which is basically a bunch of debts bundle up and given a value based on how much/when will the debt be paid off).

So Financial Institution A, can call Financial Institution B and say, Hey, I think this 'COD' will not go through. I'll pay you X amount each Y period and if the COD goes under, you'll pay me Z value we agree upon. Sounds not soo bad right? But thing is, Financial Institution A does NOT NEED TO HAVE OWNERSHIP of the said 'item' that they want to 'insure'.

It doesn't take a wizard to realize that if you have any type of inside knowledge on toxics assets, which are highly rated, you stand to make some pretty large sums of money. The only thing is, the assets need to look good on paper, or else Financial Institution B would never want to insure them.

Truth be told, so many toxic assets that were discovered were rated AAA!! The highest rating anything can have! And yet, because rating agencies say that the ratings are their 'opinions' they aren't liable for any legal recourse should their 'opinion' be catastrophically wrong.

Even worse, because so many derivatives are not regulated. Meaning they are private contracts between financial entities, there is NO reserve requirements nothing. So all the money they make of the contracts can be spent right away, without making any reserves to cover should ever the contracts go sour. And this is apparently want happened during the 2008 credit crysis. So many crap investmenets were bundled up and labelled as AAA, and then all the profits of these bets/investments, were immediatedly given as bonuses and what not. So in the end, when everything blew up, there was no money to pay off the obligations, because they had 'spent/given' it all away.

And from what I hear, people like Richard Severin Fuld, Jr. (CEO of Lehman Brothers at the moment of their collapse) were never really held accountable for the investment oversights, and if I recall correctly he ended up settling things outside of courts. A few quick pay offs I'm pretty sure.

Anyways, I could go on forever.

Important thing to notice about the money chart I posted. Look at how many Credit Default Swaps there were in 2007, and how many there were in 2010. 66 Trillion to 33 Trillion. I think it's safe to say that there are a lot of people that knew shit was going to go down, and made a lot of CDS against stuff they KNEW would fail and so get pay offs. But people were so damn greedy, that they broke the system. (aka crysis)

[-] 1 points by EVmc (11) 2 years ago

Vhorthex-Credit Default Swaps. Basically, this is an entity asking another >entity for some kind of insurance against the value/solvency of 'bond, stock, >etc. (for example a 'Collateralized Debt Obligation' (CDO) Credit Default Swap is insurance but Insurance law states the insurance company has has to have the money to pay claims. by calling Insurance a Credit Default Swap they did not have to have money to pay claims. FRAUD for instance AIG knew they did not have the money to pay claims when they signed contracts for billions of dollars.when one party knows something the other party does not know thats fraud. now if you got in a car wreck and your car insurance would not pay. you would consider that fraud they not honor signed contract? thats exactly what a CDO is

[-] 2 points by Vhorthex (21) 2 years ago

From what I understand Credit Default Swaps are Over The Counter (OTC) derivatives, and thus not traded on the market and done privately between 2 financial entities. And as such, there is no clear regulation or house that oversees the dealings of such financial transactions. Apparently, they say that since it is a private contract between 2 'private persons' they should know what is good for themselves, and should be allowed to do whatever they want.

Now, personally, I think it's a big load of bull. I don't care that 'Jack & Gill' make a personal business deal amongts themselves, but when the 'persons' are huge financial institution backed by other peoples money, I would find it pretty damn rudimentary to have any transactions they perform be scrutinized to death.

Also, per say, CDS cannot be called an insurance, since the buyer (of the protection) does not need to have any investment in the said item being 'insured'.

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

Oh, my God, this is a fantastic description of something I really didn't understand. I'm going to have to read it a couple times. I'm really grateful you took the time to explain what's been going on. I've gotten inklings of this from my reading, and OWS had a good article accompanying the action on the day OWS protested outside Goldman Sachs's headquarters.

I feel a little phony calling myself a socialist but not understanding this stuff. I also typed it, thousands of documents over almost 24 years as a legal secretary for one of the big Wall Street law firms (until they dumped a lot of older secretaries--I have an age-discrimination lawsuit against the firm)--lots of documents about just this very con game--in fact, Goldman is their biggest client. But I really didn't know what it meant. All that stuff about "tranches"; and "instant transaction;" and tiers.

I think the main outlines of what Marxists have said about the crisis is that the profits capitalists could make from investing in production weren't large enough for them, so instead they started investing in these speculative financial "instruments" and financial "products." Marx talks about the falling rate of profit, and I'm not sure if that applies to what's happened in the recent period.

Understanding economics is hugely important to being able to lead us out of the hellhole the 1% have sunk us in, but I haven't been able to understand this sophisticated investment stuff. I remember when I was in the Socialist Workers Party in the early '70's, an economist in the party, Dick Roberts, who came from a 1% family, told us at a class on Marxist economic theory that we were in for a period of class crisis and to "steep ourselves in study" to prepare for it. I never really did after I left the party, and it's so much to learn. So I feel very guilty that now tht this crisis that socialists have been predicting for decades is finally here, I don't understand it.

So thank you very, very much, and if you have any sources you'd suggest reading, I'd appreciate it. I still have some questions about some of what you wrote, not sure I understood it completely, but most of it's pretty clear and you really explained the ideas beautifully.

I'm also having trouble understanding what's going on in Europe, if you have a good source for reading about that.

Many, many thanks, and my very best.

[-] 2 points by xOccupyx (66) 2 years ago

You are completely ignoring (and oversimplifying) the many, if not majority of people who suddenly saw their payments jump for various reasons that they could not have predicted, and which the banls knew damn well they didn't know or understand.

"The bank by law has to make sure you understand the basic of the loan - how much a month for how many months."

Except they now can make post-sale changes around the contracts that affect the homeowners rates. Wake up.

[-] -1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

What law states that the banks have to make it easy to understand the terms of a loan? Whatever law that is isn't working because there is so much fine print that its a wonder PhDs fully understand all of the nuances of their mortgages.

You know as well as I do that no loan from a bank is as simple as "pay $1500/mo for 15 years." If it was that simple then the loan agreement would fit on ONE page, in a 24-point bold font. Not the 50-page monstrosities filled with fine print that you are expecting average Joe American to comprehend. The loans are written to be difficult to understand on purpose in order to confuse people and leave them oblivious to the clause on page 34 that ends up causing their property to be foreclosed on.

Its not the people's fault for these bad mortgages. They should not be held responsible for signing agreements that they do not understand. You're the one that thinks it is fair to subject people to this kind of activity.

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

"Its not the people's fault for these bad mortgages. They should not be held responsible for signing agreements that they do not understand." Really?

Yes they should!!! For cripes sake! If you sign it you are saying in writing that you agree, understand and will abide!!! If you didn't understand, you shouldn't have signed. It's that simple. If we do not hold people to a willingly entered contract, the social fabric of all civilization is destroyed!

If your word means nothing and your agreement in writing cannot be upheld even in court, I cannot do any business with you nor you with me.

I cannot hire you to work for me because I cannot hold you accountable for failing to meet the terms of your employment. I cannot buy things from you because I cannot trust your assurances about the quality or performance or safety of your product (and cannot sue you for lies because contracts are now void because you think stupidity is justification for voiding legal contracts).

Please recant your statement.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

To a degree I agree with XenuLives, in some instances mortgage documents seem like legalized entrapment. They present a 50 page document at settlement usually in an office building at a conference table with 3 to 10 people you never met dressed in business suite, and there all waiting for you to sign the thing, no pressure right! Really it's a legalized shell game and your at their mercy. They have had decades and tens of thousands of man hours utilizing the expertise of lawyers and financial experts PhD's and MBA's and god knows what other kinds of degrees were involved in creating and fine tuning the concoction of the document. And what for? To maximize their profits with minimal risk within the confinds of THEIR law. That's basically what it boils down to. So compared to that I guess the average guy is stupid.

[-] -2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

People aren't smart enough to understand what's in a 50-page contract filled with legalise and fine print, and we shouldn't place all of the blame on them when its the banks who wrote those contracts in the first place.

Just because people don't have degrees in Economics and know every term presented to them in these documents does not make them stupid. Its the banks' fault for writing loan documents that have to be interpreted in court because of how complicated they are.

Why are mortgages 50 pages long?

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

So you still think people should be able to sign on to any contract for things they want and walk away freely from the contract because it was trickily worded or long or the person is stupid? You don't see a problem with that?

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

No, they shouldn't be able to walk away scott-free, but the banks definitely should share some of the responsibility for perpetuating the problem.

These are mortgages that we are talking about here. Loans for homes. The American Dream. If you want to buy a home in America today, then you have to sign one of these behemoth contracts and either hire a lawyer to sort it out, or pray that you don't miss a clause in 6-point font on page 14 that screws you. There is NO OTHER OPTION for a potential home owner. No company that I know of offers a short, no-BS, mortgage that is easy for even someone with an 8th grade education to understand.

I can choose not to buy a cell phone plan if I don't like the terms. I can go to a different company and accept a plan that has more favorable terms for me. Home owners do not have that same luxury. They have to sign a huge contract or they don't get to buy that house on Cherry Dr. Since nobody besides the 1% has the funds to outright buy a home, the rest of us have to live with this fact, or rent forever. This is not fair.

You said it: How fair is a contract that is trickily worded?

Its the reason why we needs lawyers to sort so many of these contracts out. In fact, there is an entire branch of study devoted to Contract Law.

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

FHA loans are much better. They are maybe 20 pages long, and the jargon is much easier to understand. The loans are more stringent and have very picky standards, but you don't feel overwhelmed at the end when you are signing all the papers. I've bought houses with both conventional mortgages and with an FHA mortgage, and there is a big difference between the two. The FHA mortgages are straight forward and don't contain fine print. They are insured by the federal government (HUD/FHA.... and this doesn't come out of taxpayer money), and therefore are regulated by the government. As I said, the standards are much pickier than those for a conventional mortgage (but that's better for the buyer in the long run), and you can understand all the papers you sign. When I was at my closing, the agent at the title company explained every page to me and made sure I understood them, and if I had questions, he explained them further. I didn't feel like I was getting the wool pulled over my eyes like I did when signing the closing papers with a conventional mortgage.

After buying a house both ways, I don't think I'd ever get a conventional mortgage again, even if I had plenty of money for the down payment, just because of the difference in experiences.

[-] 1 points by jdnreha (85) 2 years ago

They could save up and buy the house outright. Why would you sign 30year contract without question?

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

For most people, it would take a lifetime to save up for house. I don't think that's fair at all.

[-] 1 points by jdnreha (85) 2 years ago

Home ownership isnt about fairness, its also about have the responsibility of owning a home. Thats why we have loans, but thats the start of the individual responsibility part. This isnt a highschool game where its about being equal.

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

So, are you saying that if people aren't able to save up to pay for a home in cash, they should never own one? And when home prices skyrocketed before the crash, how in the hell would most people have saved that much money? The things people like you expect are ridiculous.

[-] 1 points by jdnreha (85) 2 years ago

I never said thats what they have to do. I gave that as an option. Its a long term commitment.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I wouldn't, personally. I know I would set aside a few grand for billable lawyer hours, because I'm not going to walk into something like that without knowing exactly what is going on.

If I ever own a home, I plan on saving up for it. It probably will not happen for another 2 decades at least, thanks to my student loan debt.

I feel like a lot of people have been duped. They shouldn't be scott free, but we shouldn't villainize them either. I hold the people with the most education in the transaction (the bankers) with the brunt of the blame.

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

First off, "a potential home owner" does have a different option. Two jump to mind but you know them already. #1 is renting rather than owning. Renters are better off right now than upside-down home owners. #2 is to hire a lawyer when contracts look scary. It isn't as unaffordable as risking your entire future.

The problem is that you are arguing for people to be able to walk away with little consequence. You want to change the rules of a contract. This is less dangerous than "scott-free" but still . . . people must live with the consequences and I should not have to bail them out.

I feel sorry for them, but I hope they learn their lesson and others learn it too. Mortgages are big, long-term investments. Take time with it.

Oh, and to answer your question: a trickily worded contract is still "fair", even if it is frustrating. It is also still binding. It doesn't remove the burden of understanding what you are agreeing to just because the wording was needlessly difficult.

And I have read 3 mortgages in my short life. The one I originally signed, 1 I didn't, and the one I signed when I refinanced. There were no 6-point font sneaky clauses.

Granted I have more than an 8th grade education, but I understood all of it well enough to get the idea. No BS.

[-] 2 points by Vhorthex (21) 2 years ago

I don't think people shouldn't be held accountable for things they sign. But I was seriously under the impression that a mortgage broker operated under a fiduciary duty, as do financial advisers.

When you are signing a contract on which expertise/council is required, the person doing the explaining should be held liable if they setup their clients in a unrealistic/dangerous situation.

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

I think it's complete bullshit that consumers be required to hire a lawyer to sign a mortgage. To me, that says a LOT about whether you can trust mortgage companies or not. If the papers aren't in common language that just about anyone can understand, then the fucking lending institutions need to change the jargon. It's THEIR FAULT (lending institutions) people can't understand what they're reading.


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

It's not that people aren't smart enough to understand it. The problem is that mortgages are written in a specialized language that only those who work in the industry and who deal with mortgages on a daily basis understand it. It's like expecting the average person (meaning, someone who isn't an "expert" in a certain area) to understand lawyer jargon or expecting someone who's not an engineer to understand engineer jargon.

[-] 1 points by jdnreha (85) 2 years ago

it is on the first page of mine. Majority of the loan is property descriptions, contacts, regulatory stuff, etc. Hell, look at a rental agreement, there 15 pages at least, and its cut and dry. Should people be relised from leases because they didnt understand the payment arrangement? Lets just not hold the individual accountable for anything.

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

My rental agreements never were 15 pages long.... much less.... and I never had a problem with understanding them and didn't need to hire a lawyer to have them explained to me in common language. There obviously is a reason why mortgage papers are so hard to understand and why there are a million you have to sign at closing. Landlords don't have an incentive to rip people off (they can raise rent only for very specific reasons within a lease term).

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

No one can take out a loan if the financial institution DOESN'T grant them that loan. The people who work in specific industries are the ones who are supposed to be the experts in their fields.... not the consumers. And if they are told lies, who is responsible for THAT?

[-] -2 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

Actually, it was Freddie and Fannie, Frank and Dodd. It all started with the CRA in the late 70's and then compounded in the 90s. That is the root cause of all this mess.

[-] 3 points by shooz (26657) 2 years ago

Well, at least that's what Limbaugh said.

He never lies........................LOL

Viagra anyone?

[-] -1 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

Look it up, the truth will set you free! LOL

[-] 3 points by shooz (26657) 2 years ago

I did.

There's little truth in your statement.

It's just Heritage's explanation. Look deeper and you will find it was all backed by Wallstreet.

How does that Gibe with Gingrich getting $30,000 a month for an hours worth of "consultation", with Freddie?

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

$30,000 for an hours worth of consultation? Who was the fool in that deal?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26657) 2 years ago

The US public.

It seems Gingrich is in the habit of ripping us off.

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

I don't think Newt went into Freddie with a gun and robbed them. Do you have some inside info? What about Solyndra and the other solar companies who got the massive gov backed loans and then went bankrupt (but not before huge bonuses were handed out)... all of which gave big contributions to Obama's campaign.

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

Both are guilty. How can you blame just one of the parties involved? That's the same as lying.


[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

You just see what you want to see. Facts to you are just a distraction.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26657) 2 years ago

Heritage isn't in business to provide facts. What of the Gingrich thing?

Seems you're the one in avoidance mode.

Facts huh?

You want some?

Watch this.


[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

Who mentioned Heritage? Also, I did respond to your Gingrich comment. See above. Liz Warren, speaking at Berkeley? Yeah, no bias there! LOL

[-] 1 points by shooz (26657) 2 years ago

I mention Heritage because you parrot them.

You didn't respond about the Gingrich thing. You asked more questions.

There is no politics in the talk. Just raw facts.

So now I know you won't watch it.

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

I don't know why they paid him as a consultant, you tell me. Do you see a crime or unethical behavior here? So Liz Warren=facts but Heritage Foundation=...what? Lies? Because you disagree with their analysis? The real fact is that Dodd, Frank, and the CEOs of Fannie and Freddie should be in prison now. How can you not agree with that?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26657) 2 years ago

You didn't watch it.

Scaredy cat

Sure throw them in jail along with all the traders and hedge fund managers that leveraged and sold all those derivatives.

Along with every bank that sold an ARM and every mortgage agent that fudged an application to get the sale..

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

Looks like you avoided the Newt question this time.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26657) 2 years ago

Newt is an asshole.

He's everything but clear about what he does for them.

He'd take the money and screw us anyway.

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

Why is newt an asshole and how did he screw you?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26657) 2 years ago

If you don't know by now, you'll never learn.

I'm sure he's worth every penny of $30,000 an hour.

Please don't say another word about ANY workers pay.

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

For whatever reason, there is no "reply" button on your comment below so I'll just make my statement here......

Yet another non-answer. When did I mention "ANY workers pay"? It's you and the rest of OWS that talks about workers pay.... "1% makes too much while the 99% don't make enough." So if I make 349k per year, I'm cool but @ 350k, I suck?

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

Even George Soros?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26657) 2 years ago

Why not.

If he's involved in all that.

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

Finally we agree on something. LOL

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

The bill NEVER said that lending institutions should give out bad/high-risk loans. Actually, it says the opposite. People like you just love to make bullshit excuses for the real crooks who got away with this. It's so sickening.


[+] -4 points by conservative4change (12) 2 years ago

Yes, banks want to make profits. This is capitalism. Don't like it? Go to Cuba. I hear housing is very affordable there.

Many of the people that got loans in the first place could not afford them. The banks, under pressure from the government (Maxine Waters, et. al.), eased their credit requirements. People who had no business getting a loan got them. THAT is what caused the whole mess.

I'm sick of this idea that people who could never afford a mortgage payment got a mortgage anyway and that they are somehow a victim. You know what? People have to take responsibility at some point for what they do.

Now, there are millions of homeowners that are underwater. Their house is worth less than the outstanding mortgage balance. They got a mortgage and had no trouble making payments. They were responsible. They played by the rules. But you know who screwed them? Not the banks. Again, it's the federal government that eased credit, reduced supply and artificially drove up prices.

The governent screws up everything it tries to manipulate like this. So again, I'm sick and tired of hearing it's the banks' fault, it's Wall Street's fault, etc., etc. It's the godammned federal government already!

[-] 2 points by robes (63) from Maplewood, NJ 2 years ago

we agree... the federal government does share a lot of the blame for deregulating the system... but why did they deregulate it? to appease there corporate donors in the banking industry...

are you really trying to tell us that the banks didnt want to give these loans and they only did it because the big bad federal government forced them to?

[-] 2 points by conservative4change (12) 2 years ago

The government didn't force them to. Some banks had a direct hand in crafting legislation to help their bank, as in the case of Maxine Waters' husband's bank:

"The Waters case can be traced back to a meeting investigators say the congresswoman set up between Treasury Department officials and the National Bankers Assn., which represents minority-owned banks. But the only bank with representatives at the meeting was OneUnited Bank, on whose board Waters’ husband had served and in which he owned thousands of shares of stock. OneUnited later received $12 million in government bailout money. Waters denies any wrongdoing and insists that her interest was in assisting minority-owned banks in general.

An investigative subcommittee of the Ethics Committee found that there is substantial reason to believe she violated the Code of Ethics for Government Service, as well as a requirement that members “behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.” She also was accused of violating the “spirit” of a rule against receiving compensation for improper official acts."

  • Los Angeles Times

One of many, many cases of direct manipulation of congress by banks.

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

"are you really trying to tell us that the banks didnt want to give these loans and they only did it because the big bad federal government forced them to?"

That is a complete lie. The bill states that lending institutions SHOULD NOT give out bad/high-risk loans. People who back up the lending institutions are nothing but liars who want to make excuses.

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

They did it to appease ACORN and other community activist groups. Study Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

"are you really trying to tell us that the banks didnt want to give these loans and they only did it because the big bad federal government forced them to?"

Yes, that is exactly correct! At least that's how it all started. Then once the mortgage companies and banks figured out that Fannie and Freddie would buy up any junk they sent them, Pandora's box was opened. Fannie and Freddie bundled the same junk, gave it a AAA+ rating and sold them on on the world market. When the defaults began, everyone was caught with the hot potatoes.

[-] 2 points by robes (63) from Maplewood, NJ 2 years ago

And im sure fanny and freddie were only buying up the junk because the government forced them to right?

no... they did cause it was going to make them a shit ton of money. which is why they lobbied for the ability to do this.


[-] -1 points by pearss01 (4) 2 years ago

"but why did they deregulate it?" Because the people who vote demanded it.

[-] 3 points by SeaChange (134) 2 years ago

You've got to be kidding.

[-] 3 points by robes (63) from Maplewood, NJ 2 years ago

seriously... hes got to be kidding... more like, the people who pay for their campaigns demanded it.

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

The people you are referring to ARE NOT the American public, are they.... because I don't ever remember voting on such a thing?

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

So as far as banks are concerned your theory is, make a buck at whoevers expense, it's capitalism? But what about ethics? Banks should be held equally responsible in there dealings with buyer. No matter how reduced credit requirements became banks were not forced to make loans. Name one bank that would knowingly make loans that they would not make a profit on? They specifically made these loans to re-market them. Banks have as much or more information about a property as a buyer. In fact besides there own appraisal they require buyers to get a appraisal as well. They are not just loaning money they are an interested second party in the transaction. If the property values drop it shouldn't be all on the buyer, as long as the buyer is holding a loan from a second party. I think all three parties are equally at fault, but the buyers were used as pawns, and are now required to foot the bill or get out which is wrong!

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

akfdaipea ireuoruwer zcm,zxnc kj;jl weioriew ieilaisd kdladjlkdf iewouire uieuriw

pay $1500/mo for 15 years.

Your signature here_______


[-] 5 points by liouvina (13) 2 years ago

What's the percentage of people who had jobs and could afford their loans at the time and were laid off from their jobs due to corporate greed? Or the people who became too ill to work and still lost their homes. Not everyone just takes out loans knowing they can't afford it and loses their house in that way. My aunt was diagnosed with cancer, could no longer work as a nurse, and she's about to lose her house.

[-] 2 points by TheFred (43) from Clinton, IL 2 years ago

Or, people who've sacrificed hard to get the home paid for, got laid off, suffered illness or injury, and now the property taxes are four or five times what they were when the home was first purchased. A home, paid for for years, can still be lost on the courthouse steps.

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

Yes, exactly. Why do property taxes continue to climb while house values plummet? I thought the two were related, but I guess not.

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

Can't blame Wall St. for that problem.

[-] 4 points by willful (7) 2 years ago

THE BIG, FAT LIE: It's very to read the comments posted here thus far. It truly shows a great deal of varied opinion on this one. I feel I have to spell out the basic scam afoot here, that's been accepted for decades. When banks post mortgage rates, they're always something like 5%. This gives a very false impression of what you'll pay to purchase a property. Very few people seem to fully understand the actual price of home ownership, until it bites them in the ass. They've been mislead. Let's say that you decided to purchase a home valued at $200,000. You organize a deposit and hopefully get approved for a mortgage with a bank. If the term of of the loan is 20 years, you will be paying 5% annually, for 25 years = 100% total interest. This means that your house 200k house, actually will cost you $400K to own. I know it's simple math and it seems obvious, but I've had a couple of mortgages in my life, and nowhere on the actual written contract did I see the total amount of interest (100%) calculated out and written down!!!!!! I've had this discussion with friends who are educated and alert, and yet never fully realized that they will pay the banks the same amount in interest as the purchase price of their home. Add to the purchase price things like property taxes, maintenance and insurance (often required for a mortgage) and you've got yourself a serious amount of financial commitment which is not, at first glance, apparent. I feel that the reason so many people are defaulting on payments, is that they perhaps never truly realized the total amount of their life that the property will suck out of them. I fully support OWS's upcoming action. The banks have flourished of our misery for too long, in many ways because of scenarios like this.

POWER TO OWS (remember, that's US!)

[-] 1 points by pearss01 (4) 2 years ago

Speak for yourself. I did the research and discovered I could qualify, but not commit to the morgage. Remember, 85% of buyers were buying for a future sell, not future a future home.

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

You know, I remember the multi-page document that showed what my payment and balance would be for every month of the entire life of the loan. Standard pages. I also remember the 3 page document I had to sign that did break out the interest total.

I also remember thinking: $1500/month for 30 years is $540,000, not the $230,000 I was asking for. I knew it up front because I passed Junior High math and took a second to think before signing my name 50 times for a loan. (I also realized that the only way to get the loan was to pay interest because that is the way for the bank to make money and to buffer against losses if I fail to pay).

Your willingness to just excuse away people's responsibility for their own decision making is dangerously irresponsible. Much like the people who willingly took out loans they couldn't afford.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Yes, and don't you love the part where you pay all the interest up front, so the bank makes all their profit first and if you bail out they get the house to!

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

It was all spelled out on every mortgage I ever had (6, at least). If it hadn't been, I'd have asked it be added or I would walk away. It's called the Amortization Table. You pay (per your example) 5% per year on the balance of your loan divided by the number of payments per year. Who would commit to giant investments like this without doing homework? I knew all this at 23yo, when I bought my first house.

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

You obviously failed in math. The annual 5% interest rate is on the remaining balance after each payment. Each month part of the balance is reduced.

The reason you didn't see what you claim is the proper interest total is because you are wrong with your calculations.

[-] 4 points by afyouth (4) 2 years ago

True, the United States has science and technology. But unfortunately they are in the grip of the capitalists, not in the hands of the people, and are used to exploit and oppress the people at home and to perpetrate aggression and to slaughter people abroad. -------- Mao Tse-tung (1949)

[-] 1 points by pearss01 (4) 2 years ago

Thanks for putting in a quote from a leader whose country still does not have basic human rights. I really want to follow a group who's role models include genocide, torture, and years of civilian slavery!

[-] 4 points by robes (63) from Maplewood, NJ 2 years ago

why is every day of action on a work day???

i support ows fully and took off work to attend the n17 day of action... but i dont know if i can do it again. I would love to participate. but dont you guys want more people to come out?

i will definitely be participating in the #D10 human rights day events. but i would be a part of this every weekend if i could. i know this movement is made up of a lot of students and young people and unemployed. but if you want truly massive days of action, have them on a weekend or a national holiday.

[-] 2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Agreed. Saturdays would facilitate larger turnouts and quell all of those trolls who were complaining about "blocking people from going to work" on the 17th.

[-] 2 points by robes (63) from Maplewood, NJ 2 years ago

yeah... a lot of people saw us on the 17th and wanted to join us but couldnt because they were on their lunch break. on a saturday passers by will be free to join.

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

Maybe it's because the NYSE and other places aren't open on weekends. Just my guess.

[-] 1 points by robes (63) from Maplewood, NJ 2 years ago

well... that obviously has something to do with it... but we dont need to shut down anything... that is just pissing people off. we need to have massive marches in nyc to show the world how many people support this movement. nov 17th was a start. but if we have a massive day of action on a weekend the media will have no choice but to cover it.

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

I think that shutting down certain places (the Wall St.) is effective. It does get attention for sure.

[-] 4 points by wupta (25) 2 years ago

We better fight to get back fir our rights now because I'm afraid tomorrow they'll figure out a way to charges us for the air we breath tomorrow. Why do we accept amortization as a fair formula for paying back loans, for every dollar you borrow we are paying back 3 to four dollars, not to mention the initial debt payment doesn't even reduce the principle. Why should this type of institutionalized debt be legal?

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

What is your plan?

[-] 2 points by wupta (25) 2 years ago

For starters the loan can be a straight loan in other words payments can be applied equally to interest as well as principle. This still gives profit to the banks and allows for a rapid principle reduction except that it doesn't make you a debt slave for 30yrs.



[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 2 years ago

You'll need to be much more specific. Let's see the math for your "plan".

[-] 1 points by wupta (25) 2 years ago


If you follow this link it will give you a great definition.


[-] 4 points by Barefootin (33) 2 years ago

Over 60,000 people are part of a "mass joinder" action against B of A and Wells Fargo for fraud. You'll never see the "controlled" media cover what's going on behind the scenes of the banking industry! Anyone who has truly studied the issue know that banks never "loan" money for homes. You discover that through a forensic audit of the bank books. They create "credit" out of thin air based on the "value" of your "signature" to create "credit!" Then they go and sell that credit over and over again referred to as "securitization" of the loan.

Note: Banks have foreclosed on homeowners who paid off their fraudulent loans over 30 years. They didn't owe a dime, and yet the banks foreclosed on them! Anyone posting anything about people trying to get something for free need to really do some research into what's been going on in the bank, home loan, fraud arena for years!

Put BOA on the endangered species list. The regulators entered into secret "MOU" in May, 2009 where the Bank was put on notice that it was operating without sufficient capital and that its management was not meeting standards of the industry. With the upcoming slew of "defaults" and BOA's balance sheet showing assets that are either non-existent or vastly overvalued, the time is nearing for government action. The minimum is a psinoff of Merrill Lynch, but the writing is on the wall and the Bank is headed for extinction because it cannot raise minimum capital requirements to offset the write down of the mortgages it is claiming or the buy-backs demanded by Fannie and Freddie. The effect on the housing market and foreclosures in general is difficult to measure at this time. BOA is resisting compliance with the MOU and the OCC Consent decree, which are interrelated. If the mortgages they claim on their books don't actually belong to BOA (which many don't, in my opinion) then their capital will plummet and the only answer will be nationalization or resolution under the Dodd-Frank Act. Whatever hope they had to survive is being diminished by their arrogance. It will be especially interesting to see what happens to Quality Loan Service which is controlled by BOA. QLS serves as the "Substitute trustee" in tens of thousands of foreclosures in non-judicial states. It is the equivalent of BOA declaring by fiat that it is the creditor when they never loaned any money nor did they buy the loans, and then naming itself as the "independent trustee" on the deed of trust. Plenty of problems with that scenario. Whoever takes over that function will have a Madoff-like mess on their hands potentially requiring reversal of tens of thousands of foreclosures.

[-] 2 points by morningyoga (5) 2 years ago

@Barefootin.....Thank you! I couldn't bear to read anymore crap from people on here defending big banks. Why are they so adament and insistent of defending these greedy monsters! And why do they not do their research! It's just beyond comprehension. These people ...do they honestly believe that the banking industry is an honest, caring group here only to help everyone live the American dream? ha! They need to get off their smug high horse and do some digging into the how's and the why's as you so obviously have!

[-] 1 points by shifty2 (117) 2 years ago

Barefootin I am not very well educated so maby you can educate me on this, I don't understand why the mortgage holder will foreclose on a property and throw the people who by this time have no credit and no chance of using the gov program to refinance their mortgage so they can keep their home that they have paying on for years. Instead they throw them out and auction the home for almost nothing.I don't understand this logic.

[-] 4 points by foundingbaby (15) 2 years ago

The lien holder, in most cases, had insurance on the loan, so if there was a default they were covered and did not lose money.

Mortgages were bundled and bought and sold and betted against, and again there was insurance involved and banks were almost gauranteed to not lose no matter what happened.

I don't think anyone expected the housing bubble to grow so fast and get so large before bursting.

AIG was, I believe, one of the insurance companies, and it almost went bust covering all of its loses, and that was bad, and the government stepped in to bail them out.

It is all so very complicated -- no, I am no know-it-all -- but what happened to home owners was not all their fault in most cases.

We are talking about millions of homes and billions of dollars in a de-regulated financial system.

[-] 2 points by shifty2 (117) 2 years ago

Thank you that helped, So I guess the home owner get's the shaft in the end, Who ever owns the mortgage when it goes to action could help the owner buy letting them buy it back at the much lower price, It's probably not that easy but it seam's it could be done. Thank you again for your reply, You may not be a know it all ( lol ) but you know enough.

[-] 4 points by jhonel (23) from New York, NY 2 years ago

viva la revolution

[-] 4 points by murderkingz (56) 2 years ago

viva la huelga!!!

[-] 3 points by OccupyNews (1152) 2 years ago

Tens of thousands out of their home???? Try MILLIONS kicked out of their homes because of home securitization fraud and home mortgage fraud necessary to create enough mortgages so they could be sliced into fraudulently triple A rated wall street investments.

Try 3,000 to 7,500 PER DAY are kicked out of their homes or threatened with foreclosure action.

[-] 1 points by pearss01 (4) 2 years ago

Hey some of those actually bought a 2nd home when the bubble burst and walked away from the 1st. Those numbers are skewed by the media to get public shock.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Thats crazy, and simply not true. Your credit rating is ruined when you walk away, no bank would loan money to you under those conditions!

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1152) 2 years ago

May I add that there are also people renting who are being displaced with no prior notification because that second home investment is being foreclosed upon. So, maybe we should stick to the original numbers of 3,000 to 7,500 foreclosures and defaults per day.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1152) 2 years ago

The total number of 3,000 to 7,500 foreclosures and defaults per day might include 10% investors who bought a second home, so that would still leave 2,700 to 6,750 per day being foreclosed upon.

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

Brilliant ! One of the best ways to bring the occupy spirit into politics and real life. This is now a marching revolution. Wishing all the best from Europe.

[-] 3 points by shifty2 (117) 2 years ago

Can you read, What about the millions out of work and can't find a job, You must live in a part of the country that isn't that bad, But there are more poor now than ever and most people would rather pay their bill's but through no fault of their own they lose their job's and have a family to feed Don't you realize we are in a bad rescission, Where is your compassion for your neighbors. What about the politicians that make the law's to suit themselves, Like inside trading and there are many more. Read this throw them all out,Maby it will help you understand what's going on in this country.


[-] 3 points by maurielouis (8) 2 years ago

Please pressure the local and national politicians that allow themselves to be controlled (bought) by the lobbyists(Grover Norquist) hired by the 1% or big conscious-fee corporations. Please make the bought politicans' lives miserable. Please find straight, factual proof and blast it all over the internet and, when possible, the MSM.

[-] 0 points by shifty2 (117) 2 years ago

Read this ( Throw them all out ) It gives good information what's going on in this country. http://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Out-ebook/dp/B0062N35X8/ref=pd_rhf_se_p_t_3#reader_B0062N35X8

Just click on the book and it will come up, It's a fairly long read but well worth the time.

[-] 2 points by lilmsgt (2) from Brentwood, CA 2 years ago

I live in Northern California, Antioch Ca. There are foreclosures all over the place around here. So in order to show our neighbors what we are talking about, #ows, we have started labeling every foreclosed home with signs that read OCCUPIED OR #ows or 99% YOURS MIGHT BE NEXT!! It seems to be at least calling peoples attention to the number of foreclosed homes. We also stood in front of our local walmart in solidarity with Boycott Black Friday and occupyseattle's occupywalmart. We also have been puttiing signs up all over town,"EARN 250K A YR? NO? WELCOME TO THE 99%!! In order for anything to come of our movement, we must educate the masses. People around here still don't want to believe they are the 99% because they can still pay their mortgage and drive a luxury vehicle!! We need a massive campagin to get the truth out to the people. I have been talking to small business owners who are absolutely sick of the crap and regulations that the State and Federal government puts on them but the corporations get a free ride. I currently am on unemployment, as I got laid off when the company I was working for closed all their northern california branches. I have a property in foreclosure in Richmond Ca that I can do absolutely nothing. Right now, I have nothing but time to try to get the message of occupy out to the masses. I want to be the 100th monkey.

[-] 2 points by Guaya (5) 2 years ago

When my son was 4 months old, my husband lost his ability to walk or care for himself because of an asthma attack. We had a private contracting business, but since he was unable to work anymore, and I couldn't do it by myself while taking care of my newly disabled husband and 4 month old son- we were forced to go on welfare until they determined his disability (which took 2 1/2 years). I did try an at home computer job, but got scammed out of 2 months of 18 hour days of work. Now, he's on SSI, but medicaid refuses to give him the hips he needs to work again and get our lives back- they would rather have him strung on SSI payments for the rest of his life than help him get better. My son, who's 4 will be in severe debt by the time he graduates school because of this system. Something has to change! We did NOT choose this out of laziness, we have been victimized by the system of this country after working our asses off and doing what we were supposed to. We are the 99%! OCCUPY

[-] 2 points by suzeesjubileez (2) 2 years ago

Like so many I am in danger of losing my house. I am hoping gfor a christmas miracle. I was widowed in 2008 and have worked for 3 companies that have gone under since 2007. When my son graduated in 2009 I put the house on the market. He died in 2010. I have lost three jobs, the love my life and my son. I dont want to lose my house. I want to sell it . Thank you for this movement the world has gotten too crazy.

[-] 2 points by maksims (5) 2 years ago

Wall Street turned a fundamental human need into a badly rigged casino game with fraudulent lending practices and corrupt securitization. http://www.doremisoft.net/guides/convert-swf/to-mov-on-mac-os-x-converter.html

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

I'll be there. (Thanks for having it on a Tuesday! That's when the babysitter's available! :)

[-] 2 points by OccupyLink (529) 2 years ago

This is great. I am right behind this move. This is almost a holy mission. It is good vs evil. Truly.

[-] 1 points by pearss01 (4) 2 years ago

Which are you?

[-] 2 points by engeda (6) 2 years ago

u r great the 99%r great

[-] 2 points by aPimpsGlimpse (4) from West Chester, PA 2 years ago

Get the authorities on your side. When repo-men and cops stop cooperating with banks, nobody is going to come take your home. This only works if the cops fight for the common man instead of bank driven policies. This is possible, but not by clashing with cops in the streets. This is just pissing people off and creating fear.

Get creative.

[-] 1 points by elieen2 (2) 2 years ago

http://www.flashconverterformac.com/video-to-flash-converter-mac/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-quicktime-mov-movie-to-swf-flv-for-website/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/flv-to-swf-converter-mac/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-m4v-to-flash-flv-swf-on-mac/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/mac-mp4-to-flash-swf-flv-converter/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-video-to-swf-with-controls/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-mov-to-flash-for-mac/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/final-cut-pro-export-flash-video-webpages/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/avi-to-flash-flv-swf-converter-mac/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-mov-to-swf-with-flash-player-mac.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/add-text-logo-image-to-video-files-as-watermark/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/export-iMovie-video-to-flash-converter/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/how-to-convert-video-to-flv-swf-flash-animation-on-mac-osx/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/export-keynote-to-flash-website.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/youtube-to-itunes-converter-mac.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/dvd-to-flash-converter-mac/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/embed-flash-video-in-website/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/embed-fce-project-in-webpage-with-fce-to-flash-converter/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-3pg-3g2-to-flash-for-video-sharing-on-mac/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/mpeg-mpg-to-flash-mac-converter/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/hd-to-flash-converter-mac/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/flip-video-to-flash-converter-mac/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/embed-wmv-video-clips-on-your-website-on-mac/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/flash-screen-capture/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/mkv-to-flash-converter-mac/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/publish-video-to-web-from-avchd-to-flash-on-mac/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/share-camcorder-video-to-website-and-blog/ http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-iphone-4s-video-to-flash-on-mac-os.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-ipad2-video-to-flash-on-mac-os.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-canon-camcorder-video-to-flash-on-mac-os.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-itunes-video-to-flash-on-mac-os.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-samsung-galaxy-tab-77-video-to-flash-on-mac-os.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-nokia-603-video-to-flash-on-mac-os.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-htc-titan-to-flash-on-mac-os.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-sony-ericsson-xperia-arc-s-to-flash-on-mac-os.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-samsung-galaxy-nexus-to-flash-on-mac-os.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-motorola-droid-razr-to-flash-on-mac-os.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-video-to-flash-on-macbook-pro.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-nokia-700-to-flash-on-mac-os.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-nokia-lumia-800-to-flash-on-mac-os.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-video-to-flash-on-mac-os-x-lion.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/difference-between-flv-and-f4v.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-imovie11-video-to-swf-on-mac.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-sony-handycam-video-to-youtube-on-mac.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-canon-vixia-video-to-youtube-on-mac.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-panasonic-camcorder-video-to-flash-on-mac-os.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-nikon-d7000-video-to-youtube-on-mac.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-samsung-mobile-phone-video-to-youtube-on-mac.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-1080p-avchd-to-youtube-on-mac.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-video-to-flash-movie-on-mac.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/top-5-online-sharing-websites.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/top-5-online-sharing-websites.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-mts-file-to-flash-on-mac.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/convert-powerpoint-file-to-flash-mac.html http://www.flashconverterformac.com/articles/embed-swf-file-to-google-blogger.html

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 2 years ago

It should be quite evident by now to every sane person that the nationwide Occupy movement will only be tolerated by local governments until public opinion turns against the squaller and foolishness of a rudderless movement. This time has arrived, and complain as you will, this is no "Arab Spring", and is over.. You were told many times to conduct a full scale Occupation of the White House which is not only the source of the national problems we face, but is not a State, and is governed by different rules that would have allowed you to stay forever in Tents with Generators. The current administration has no back bone to stop you, and the Capitol Police support OWH. But you have failed, and failed miserably . You can thank the DNC backed OWS group and a coerced General Assembly. LA, Oakland, New York, etc.. you have been used!! Wake up.. Go against The GA/ OWS bias and support of the corrupt DNC, and " the White House" Now!!

[-] 1 points by sunshine (1) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

My past job I was a housing counselor for ACORN Housing (now operating under a different name due to the weasel who took down ACORN). I have had thousands of cases of delinquency and foreclosure pass through my desk. They consisted of people from ALL over the country, ALL races, ALL ages and from a wide variety of socioeconomic backgrounds. I can truly say that very few were there because greed. Yes there were people who were in homes they could not afford, yes there were people who were ignorant and made mistakes (what do you expect- we do not teach money management and economics widely enough in schools), but truly the majority found their files on my desk because of illness, loss of their job, and sometimes both. Not to mention the many clients who were victims of Hurricane Katrina. We are all human and life happens. All things being equal, we know that there are those on both sides who have made mistakes, but there needs to be a clear line between mistakes and illegal, immoral behavior. We know who the perpetrators are. Those who have been evicted due to foreclosure DO see real consequences for their so- called mistakes. They no longer have a home, the largest investment of their lives, their credit is shot. On the other hand, one more foreclosure to the banks is a drop in the bucket. They have not been held accountable. Our democracy and values as a nation have been sold. Reduce inequality, expand opportunity! Occupy Democracy!

[-] 1 points by Britton (6) from Danville, VA 2 years ago

I think people see the problem with the Federal Reserve and our spineless government, but it's such a daunting task to try and take back what is rightfully ours.

With the passing of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, we basically tore up the constitution and allowed England to retake control of its "colonies". What a shady tactic indeed, they let us fully settle the lands, and build up our infrastructure, then turn around and use our own government to retake (steal) the US with out ever firing one shot. It makes me sick to my stomach to know such decisions were made long before I was even born, but there it is in plain sight. How can a US citizen sit there and not get angry about this? Just asking them to give back what they have taken will not work, the only course of action left for our people is to fight back, violently. It was the only way to break free from the serfdom type slavery system that was in place prior to 1776 in England.

The international bankers know what they are doing, and what they are doing is beyond treason, its right out theft! All for what? For control they conceive as power over you, to take your land, your rights and then tube feed them back as "privileges" by using a FIAT money system that has zero value.

The real value in this world is its people and its natural resources, they know this and this is their ultimate end, to have complete control over those things so that people like you and I have no way of ever removing them from the power chair.

[-] 1 points by platnumego (1) 2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V0ZozkCF2A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V0ZozkCF2A This Song & Video Was inspired by the protesters in Zucotti Park & all over the world Fighting for change!! Power to the people but more importantly power to the world! Let us be righteous in Heart & not just Mouth..... Prinxmikul. Follow @Prinxmikul or email platnumego@gmail.com

[-] 1 points by Jonahl (11) 2 years ago

This will go on for days right? I'm not going to be able to do anything on the 6th. I have exams all that week. :(

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

molly u def. right but not only riding their gravy train from the oppression of other people of"our soul",most of the time they dont need to even pay for the things they have.We see this all the time as friends in the same crowd anything they desire is accessible to them at anytime

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

yarichin-thats what has happened, that is what we are up against. It isn't "Well if we let this keep happening children will be homeless".They are homeless.Great job uniting and now only if we could gain enough strength and power to actually get in control not just hurt some financial institutes$, but hurt their$ that they recieve from those in "POWER" where we need to have our own "Puppet's"just as they do. Then get the 99% of U.S to vote for US. That is the only way the future generations will everhave the chance to live even if they are starving at least we can help the future of Oxygen and water plants and wildlife(you know what WE exist on)

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

I am Curious - What would happen if we ALL refused to file or pay or acknowledge the said taxes come april 15, 2012 ? If we collectively refuse to file, what happens to the IRS ? Do we actually owe & benefit from these taxes or are they complexly-well written beaurocratic red tape none of us understand and like sheep do what we're told ? Who knows what really happens if we refuse ?

[-] 1 points by JosephAMungai (5) 2 years ago

WITH PUBLIC BANKING - 99% DECIDES WHAT’S FUNDED: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7639

11/24/11 TRNN -- A Global Recession Looms As Euro Crisis Deepens. Costas Lapavitsas, economics professor at the University of London, discusses the deepening economic crisis as Germany fails to sell-out 10 year bonds. “Regulation is not enough, particularly regulation the way we've seen it the last few years, organized by bankers, reflecting bankers' interests, and not really working in the end of the day. What we need is more than regulation; we need also public ownership of banks. Private banking has failed. It has failed in the United States. It has failed in Europe. It has failed in many other parts of the world. We need public ownership of banking. We need public control over banking and other forms of finance. We need to tame that monster, bring it back under some kind of control. And then we need to begin to think of how to restructure the real economy, how to rejuvenate production, how to begin to create jobs, and how to reinvigorate real activity, as it were, in order to create rising incomes and stable employment. The United States is one of the key countries that needs this. Real incomes, as I'm sure you know, have been stagnant in the United States for three decades for the majority of the population, while they've been increasing enormously for the top 1 percent. Finance is related to this, and the mechanisms of finance have been instrumental to this. The United States needs that type of change urgently. It needs to reconsider its real economy, it needs to reconsider how to rejuvenate production, how to create jobs, how to improve its infrastructure. And that--prerequisite for that is to control finance.”

[-] 1 points by sawyersb42 (1) 2 years ago

Foreclosed Homes being left Boarded up and Vaccant or Buldozed and written off as an allowed Federal Tax Break for Morgage Corporatons or Bankers. Millions of Dollars of Federal Office Buildings, Warehouses and such being sold off by the Obama Administration. Why are not these Vaccant Homes, Office Buildings and Warehouses being converted as Homes or Shelters for the Millions of Homeless that this Nation has? Should not these Structures be reclaimed Wealth for this Nations People? Would not Re-Vitalizing and Re-Modeling these Structures for Civil Use a means for putting the Un-Employed back to Work? Could not such a thing be done under Job Bills like FDR's New Deal Jobs following the Depression?

[-] 1 points by StartingOver (1) 2 years ago

The housing failure is only one part of the big issue. I know because I lost my home too. It has been in death throws for 21/2 years now. That's how long it has been for sale. The mortgage company, whose initials are, Chase, will not help us. They would rather push a 60 year old woman and her family out. Now I'm starting over where I began when I was 20. Forty years of working hard, paying on time all the time and being proud of what I had accomplished all for some corporate fat cats to take the money and run. There is another very serious issue in America that is at the heart of all this greed. That is the large companies who have been allowed by our government to lay off their U.S. employees and move all the jobs to foreign countries. This practice has laid off millions of Americans over the last 8 - 10 years and some of those let go, still have not been able to find jobs. My husband's hours were cut back to 8 hours a week 3 years ago. He now works odd jobs because no one needs a full time employee. The company I work for has laid off thousands of Americans to move those jobs to India and the Philippians. Every 4th quarter there is a layoff and every January the CEO, his side kicks and the board get huge multimillion dollar bonuses. The laws need to change to prohibit this corporate greed. Corporations need to lawfully be forced to keep jobs in the United States and to have to pay for every job they move out of the United States. This greedy practice by the companies is what has caused millions of Americans to be unemployed, to lose their homes and everything they have worked for their entire lives. This greedy practice is what is at the heart of killing the United States. Please do something to stop the selling of America!

[-] 1 points by econdemocracy (41) 2 years ago

Yes it's about fairness and justice, but it's about more:

"We want structures serving people, not people serving structures" -1968 Paris Commune graffiti

Similarly we need an economy that serves people; instead of living in a world were people are expected to "serve" the economy, or "serve" non-living artificial legal entities (corporations) or to "serve" or be sacrificed at the altar of the God of Mammon, Money, and exponential Growth forever which is impossible on a finite planet

That is the core.

An economy that serves people, not the other way around.

There is a similarity between today's Corporate Capitalists and the Soviet Communists both believed the people, flesh and blood human beings, should serve the economy. We demand the opposite: a grassroots economic democracy from the bottom up and an economy that serves people!

That is at the core: establish that, and much else follows including housing and food are basic human rights. Deny that core, and 101 abuses flow from it.

-ED http://economicdemocracy.org/alternatives-to-wallst.html

[-] 1 points by TSforever (0) 2 years ago

Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal Matt Taibbi

A power play is underway in the foreclosure arena, according to the New York Times. On the one side is Eric Schneiderman, the New York Attorney General, who is conducting his own investigation into the era of securitizations – the practice of chopping up assets like mortgages and converting them into saleable securities – that led up to the financial crisis of

On the other side is the Obama administration, the banks, and all the other state attorneys general. This second camp has cooked up a deal that would allow the banks to walk away with just a seriously discounted fine from a generation of fraud that led to millions of people losing their homes.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/obama-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824#ixzz1eUAiQBrA

[-] 1 points by larocks (414) from Lexington, KY 2 years ago

if a product isnt created in america it should be taxed 5 times as much as items produced in america. world trade has caused an economic unfairness in our country in the name of profit.

[-] 1 points by pamellis34 (5) from Barnstable, MA 2 years ago

I thought I already posted this but don't see it, anyways how can a bank forclose on a property, when they don't have or own the mortgage? Theyve typically sold it, so how can they foreclose, looking for comments

[-] 1 points by pamellis34 (5) from Barnstable, MA 2 years ago

mic check

[-] 1 points by pamellis34 (5) from Barnstable, MA 2 years ago

I've tried to read through all the posts here, but one thing I haven't seen and I may be wrong or out there, but if a bank tries to foreclose on a property don't they have to show that they have the mortgage or tiitle to the property? I believe if you ask them to show that they own your mortgage they won't beable to because they sold it. Looking for comments

[-] 1 points by isabella (1) 2 years ago

go on! all over the world we are looking at you. i am from austria. the land where Mozart and Freud were born (;-) we can change the world. every day and every person. i ask also the 1 % to change their thinking and doing! we are free and responsible. everyone. deep in my heart i am sure that we can change the actual crisis, when we stop lying, stop dealing, stop to do nothing. we can do all better, when we start togehter to rich our happiness doing meaningful things. meaningful things in our privacy and public. thank you all!

[-] 1 points by Fiction (14) 2 years ago

An Idea that i have set in Motion, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gryco23SQlU Can You Commit to it? Spread it if you can, My family agreed.

[-] 1 points by apcjerry (1) 2 years ago

Demand a Two Year Moratorium to Stop all Foreclosures and Evictions.
Along with direct action to stop foreclosures, we should demand the president issue an executive order to place a two year moratorium to stop all foreclosures and evictions. In the 1930's 25 states implemented such moratoriums in response to the actions by the unemployed councils stopping evictions across the country. Today the federal government bails out the banks with virtually every foreclosure through its federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Here is a link to an article raising this demand. http://www.workers.org/2010/us/mortgage_fraud_1104 Also, look at our website at moratorium-mi.org. Jerry Goldberg, Detroit

[-] 1 points by BeheadedOne (23) from Queens, NY 2 years ago

Let's not forget the role the real estate industry has played in all of this. It was RE endlessly pushing the cost of housing ever skyward that made a crisis of this. Without those skyrocketing prices, there would have been no market crash, no recession, no skyrocketing rents, no crisis at all. It's time to re-regulate the RE industry, along with the banksters.

[-] 1 points by nemiowss52 (1) 2 years ago

Why are we paying for the "Gambling of the 1% - money lost on junk bonds and other bad investments in the 90's" if any of us went to a casino and lost our money, could we expect to get it back from the pockets of people that had nothing to do with our gambling? You loose the money, you pay. They should have forfeited a summer mansion or 2, payroll deduction, (ya right) or be arrested for stealing! We should not be responsible!

[-] 1 points by OccupyPetaluma (1) from Petaluma, CA 2 years ago

Please sign our petition asking the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to declare a holiday moratorium on foreclosures, auctions, and evictions from November 24, 2011 through January 1, 2012:
http://www.change.org/petitions/director-of-the-federal-housing-finance-agency-declare-a-holiday-moratorium-on-home-foreclosures We'd like to get 5,000 signatures by next week! Please pass it around.

Occupy Petaluma proposed the moratorium, our City Council passed a resolution supporting it: http://www.petaluma360.com/article/20111122/COMMUNITY/111129919

We are using the holidays to plan occupations of the front yards of those faced with foreclosure. Goal: embarrass the heck out of the banks, convince them to re-negotiate mortgages.

Love you OWS! xo Occupy Petaluma, Sonoma County, Northern California

[-] 1 points by Jimmy44 (-57) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Sitting in empty houses. Nice. Most people call that squatting - and it's nothing to be proud of.

[-] 1 points by Stopwar (8) 2 years ago

The majority of people are hypnotized by the cable television, tools of the culprits, the root cause of what we disdained. Until people realize that the media is manipulative and used against their own interests, there will be little hope for a massive public action to restore a true Democracy.

[-] 1 points by farmerjohn (22) 2 years ago

I'm sorry, but we have heard all the complaints, here is the cause of your problems, what I'm having real trouble with is the that there is no procedure to address this issue in your movement to attain what you are seeking.


1871, February 21: Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871

With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).

The act -- passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War -- was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America.

Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.

The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced -- in effect vandalized and sabotage -- when the title was capitalized and the word "for" was changed to "of" in the title.


It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does is not!

Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly "minor" alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans.

What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government. This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution.

Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, we the people now have "relative" rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a "privilege" that requires citizens to be licensed.

By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution.

The Act of 1871 became the FOUNDATION of all the treason since committed by government officials.]

[-] 1 points by australiano (37) from Burleigh Waters, QLD 2 years ago

Once again Occupy Wall Street you cease to amaze me and many others. Like the typical American arrogance that we as the rest of the world knows, you seem to promote your own problems and expect us to "woe" with you, especially when we have been standing by in support of you all this time.

May I remind you that the Wall Street crisis had effected millions world wide, even to the point of developing countries, where people had lost their houses, jobs and lives. So may I ask you this? Why is it so important that you promote this protest for only your country? How about the rest of the world?

[-] 1 points by bonefilm1 (1) 2 years ago

i'll be there, wherever they want me to be. I'm fighting for a better tomorrow, everything else is semantics.

[-] 1 points by boni007 (4) 2 years ago

Birth of a New Tradition as the holidays approach. The giant Asian factories are kicking into high gear to provide Americans with monstrous piles of cheaply produced goods. Merchandise that has been produced at the expense of American labor. This year will be different. This year Americans will give the gift of genuine concern for other Americans. There is no longer an excuse that, at gift giving time, nothing can be found that is produced by American hands. Yes there is! It's time to think outside the box, people. Who says a gift needs to fit in a shirt box wrapped in Chinese produced wrapping paper? Everyone yes EVERYONE gets their hair cut. How about gift certificates for your local American owned hair salon or barber? Gym memberships are appropriate for all ages who are thinking about some health improvement. Who wouldn't appreciate getting their car detailed? Small, American owned detail shops and car washes would love to sell you a gift certificate or a book of gift certificates. Are you one of those extravagant givers who think nothing of plunking down the Benjamin’s on a Chinese made flat-screen? Perhaps that grateful gift receiver would like his driveway sealed, or lawn mowed for the summer, or their driveway plowed all winter, or 18 holes at their local golf course. There are bazillion owner-run restaurants -- all offering gift certificates. And, if your intended recipient isn't the fancy eatery sort, what about a half dozen breakfasts at their local breakfast joint. Remember, folks this isn't about big national chains -- this is about supporting your home town Americans with their financial lives on the line to keep their doors open. How many people could use an oil change for their car, truck or motorcycle done at a shop run by the American working guy? Thinking about a heartfelt gift for mom? Mom would LOVE the services of a local cleaning lady for a day. My computer could use a tune-up, and I KNOW I can find some young guy who is struggling to get his repair business up and running. OK, you were looking for something more personal. Local crafts people spin their own wool and knit them into scarves. They make jewelry, and pottery and beautiful wooden boxes. Plan your holiday outings at a local, owner operated restaurant, and leave your server a nice tip. How about going out to see a play or ballet at your hometown theatre. Musicians need love too, so find a venue showcasing local bands. Honestly, people do you REALLY need to buy ten thousand Chinese lights for the house? When you buy a five dollar string of light, about fifty cents stays in the community. If you have those kinds of bucks to burn, leave the mailman, trash guy or babysitter a nice BIG tip. You see, Christmas is no longer about draining American pockets so that China can build another glittering city. Christmas is now about caring about US, encouraging American small businesses to keep plugging away and following their dreams. And, when we care about other Americans, we care about our communities, and the benefits come back to us in ways we couldn't imagine. THIS is the new American Christmas tradition. Forward this to everyone on your mailing list -- post it to discussion groups -- throw up a post on Craigslist in the Rants and Raves section in your city -- send it to the editor of your local paper and radio stations, and TV news departments. This is a revolution of caring about each other, and isn't that what Christmas is about?

[-] 1 points by valkyre (1) from Grant, CO 2 years ago

It's hard to believe that after all the evidence that banks did mislead home-buyers, securities investors, rating agencies, regulators, and anyone that listened that some are still arguing now we need to let the people fail. I guess I can agree that if we actually had a situation where lenders and borrowers of equal knowledge regarding the transaction entered into a deal that they both lost on when it fell apart, we probably would have a mass uprising.

But we don't. The banks knew the loans were bad and people didn't, so the banks sold of their risk with AAA ratings to our pensions, among other investors looking for safe assets. The worst abusers were short on the these mortgages, or at least they thought they were until the companies that insured against losses of the big banks portion of the assets (who sold this insurance as exotic derivatives - CDS - so they didn't actually have to hold reserves to pay out on default) failed when they couldn't pay out losses. All this fraud is thoroughly documented, although we haven't prosecuted anyone.

Obvious fraud has also been found in the securitization process when banks created MERS to avoid local regulations (that the law said they still has to follow) and thus be able to fudge their asset quality, as well as the subsequent fraud on the courts we saw with the robosigning scandal. Yet the laws still don't apply to banksters. No, instead our treasury + Fed provide 16 trillion in 0% interest loans, backstops, guarantees, and other bailouts. Society covers their losses, and no one covers the losses to society. We have therefor seen the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class, whose last store of remaining wealth was their homes, to the financial sector and investment class in history. They are harvesting America's wealth.

Also remember, when housing costs declined in past recessions, holders of mortgages would voluntarily refinance as a $100K investment would do better if they got back payments on $90K then if they had to foreclose and allow the home to depreciate until they were able to sell for $75K. We don't see this today. This is because of securities fraud that has made it impossible for the end-investor to connect with the homeowner and offer relief; instead we allow the same big banks that wrote the crag loan to service it and just trust they'll act in the investors interest (when they make more serving fees by foreclosing and the gov't has covered all their CDS shorts for when the underlying security fails).

If laws were actually followed throughout the foreclosure crisis, the end result is that more people would have been able to refinance and the banks would have failed under the weight of their own fraud. Fighting neighborhood-level battles to help a few save their homes at a cost to big banks is perfectly fair.

Stopping foreclosure evictions also highlights exactly the issues I love to see OWS focus on, especially as the Obama administration is rumored to be coming out soon with their latest deal to let the big banks get away with foreclosure fraud.

[-] 1 points by Senka (3) from Quincy, MA 2 years ago

we must force our government to enter into fair market value negotiations; let's see how much money these homeowners paid into fraudulenlty inflated mortgages and you will have a better picture; many learned a lot about mortgage securitization and that's why we can fight back; from now, we have to learn as we go...you know y - because a crime like this never happened in the history of the world :) and for these who have no idea about all this mess, but are still "sharing" their opinions, please be our guest and check out over 36,000 fraudulent docuements at only one Registry of Deeds in MA: the fraud must be completely investigated! Otherwise, we're just pushing people into more fraud, without proper titles; everyone should follow Register O'Brien's lead: http://boston67.blog.com/peoples-hero/

[-] 1 points by xOccupyx (66) 2 years ago

"I do not think that access to basic food and shelter can be called a free ride. A person struggling for minimum pay can't always afford food and housing."<<

^This. The bigger picture is that our society, through the machinations of the corporations/government, has been stripped of the ability to be self-sufficient. The greed got so out of control in the last 100 years, that we are at the inevitable tipping point. It cannot be sustained nor tolerated any longer.

[-] 1 points by vmnieves101 (4) 2 years ago

The real perpertrators of crimes against humanity must be identified and exposed as criminals. The Israeli Zionist Parasites are responsible for the chaos and misery you witness evey day. Theycontrol Banking and Trading, both Political Parties, The Federal Reserve, IRS, Dept of Justice, Dept of Defense, the Military industrial Complex, The Mass Media, the U.N., and the President of the U.S.A. They cannot be criticized (anti-semitism) or exposed. The illegal apartheid state of Israel has over 300 undeclared Nuclear Weopons, yet they point their poisonous fingers at Iran (Persia), a nation that has never attacked another country in It's entire history. The Israeli's murderous fingerprints are all over 911, yet the coverup of their mass murder of 3,800 Americans goes unpunished and buried by the Zionist Controlled Mass Media. The Occupy movements must expose these criminals before we can rid our nation and Europe of these racist parasites. Occupy the Earth, Evict the Zionists, this should be our motto.

[-] 1 points by FilmMD (6) 2 years ago

What you did today OWS was generous and noble. It was inspiring.

[-] 1 points by SelfReliant (94) 2 years ago

An important topic. May I ask the forum participants: If a financial institution made a home loan and a borrower stops paying and falls into default, what is the solution? If the forum believes that the lender should NOT foreclose, than what should be done? Should the borrower be allowed to remain in the house and make no payments? Reduced payments? And if so, would the loan be permanently modified to be a lower amount? Hence the lender takes the loss but cannot recoup through property sale?

And a final thought, if something like this is advocated, why then should anyone else pay their mortgage? Just wondering what the forum thinks the solution should be.

[-] 1 points by IronicJesus (2) 2 years ago

Im sorry, but i think you are losing focus. You haven't unified your message, and now you're diversifying. wtF?? Couldnt your message simply be against CORRUPTION ?? Thats pretty simple isnt it? dont all our other grievances fall under THAT??. Couldnt you also hold your Government and your sacred COW Obama somewhat accountable as well?? Fascism is the COLLUSION of business AND government. Why isnt this protest on the lawn in DC?? You wanna have your "valley forge"?? THATS the place for that. Wallstreet does whatever Wallstreet can get away with, just like we ALL do for the most part. It's your governments job to regulate Wallstreet and the rest of us according to the law, and it doesnt seem they've been doing that. Democrats are just the half of our TWO PARTY DICTATORSHIP. Black Jesus (not meant to offend, but his campaign was absolutely Messianic) is really just a TOOLE. He works for the banks and the biz guys... just like YOU do, when it all boils down...

Doesnt anybody else here have the stomach to call our own country and government GROSSLY CORRUPT. We're all such BELIEVERS. We love to reserve that label for places like Mexico and Russia and Afganistan, when in fact MOST of US have been corrupted as well. Until this is addressed, this movement cannot go anywhere good, As a whole, we have become quite "corrupted". We ALL need to take a look in the mirror... MOST of the people who are losing their houses got greedy. They wanted more than they could afford. They were lazy and unsophisticated with probably the largest investment of their life. THEY WERE DRUNK with greed. MOST of them were not hustled, although we love to see it that way because we get to point the finger at the evil doers. Mortgage brokers do what they can get away with too. If you think they owe you the truth, then they are dreaming. There is something called due diligence. I sold my house and my rentals in 2007, when the booming market here in Tucson showed signs of crumbling. Most would not listen to me when i told them the market was obviously out of balance. If you cant pay a mortgage with what you could rent it for, plus 20%, then its a bad deal. thats Real Estate 101. In this predatory, dog eat dog world of the 20th century, you have no business being anything but a renter if you're not willing to be diligent in your dealings... EVEN as a renter. Im sorry to say that to anybody out there who was truly victimized, but its true.

...read about the aftermath of the Russian revolution if you want a glimpse at where this could all badly go unless we learn to THINK HARDER. read about what happened to Cambodia or in Cuba after their revolutions. This Left / Right CRAP is a LOT of nonsense. Its so 20th century. WE have to think bigger than this..

note also that there is a building animosity towards you and its only a matter of time before you have some redneck / neo-con flashmobs (they have facebook too) come and kick your asses or kill you - they would love that - like no cop ever would) . You'll be standing there doing mic checks while they are laughing and shooting at you. They've thought silly libs to be the problem ever since socialism began in the early 20th century, AND they've been Walmarts best customer for years... BUYING UP ALL THE AMUNITION THEY SELL THERE. Speaking for people (the 99) before you have their approval, or speaking inarticulately, or getting your facts mixed up, where you come across looking foolish and lazy, does not make allies. It's not a good way to package and sell your efforts. (you DO have to SELL yourselves, you know. You are responsible for the image you portray)... Calling yourselves the 99% is as absurd as Obama getting the Nobel Prize before either of you ever actually did anything to justify your name or the prize...

Im sorry to say that i had the suspicion from the beginning that your movement was created or co-opted even in its inception as being intended to fail. WTO protests in the 90s were much better run and much more articulate than you. WTF?? Modeling yourselves after the 60s or acting like your at a music festival or giggling and cracking jokes in Youtube videos isnt going to make you any allies. Setting up a Library in your camp seems absolutely moronic and stupid to anybody on the outside and your failure to consider the perspectives of the rest of the 99 is bringing you down.

Read Macheavelli or Atilla for a good education on whats been done to you... If their enemy (you) might soon stir a ruckus , then start a ruckus yourself, but do it in a way that discredits those annoying surfs.

Either you have been HAD... or you are just fools. Im not sure yet. I supported this thing whole heartedly since before it started when Anonymous lit the match. (funny how so many occupiers never heard of Anonymous...wtf?) Now I have to wonder who the hell Anonymous IS?? People say its decentralized and merely an "Idea" or a "meme". I say "who the hell started it"?

[-] 1 points by SeaChange (134) 2 years ago

This is a really great direction for OWS. It really gets to the heart of the matter and brings us into contact with our local communities. Great idea!

[-] 1 points by jfenello (4) 2 years ago

December 6th is the date of my hearing in my lawsuit against Bank of America to stop them from taking our home. The hearing will be held in the Cherokee County Courthouse at 9:30 am. I believe this is open to the public. Might be a good place for some support.

The address is:

Cherokee County Courthouse 90 North Street Canton, GA 30114

You can read the details in this press release: http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2011-10-1027-002.shtml

[-] 2 points by OccupyLink (529) 2 years ago

Help! Can anyone help this guy? This is all about helping the 99%, and what this movement is all about!

[-] 1 points by jfenello (4) 2 years ago

Please be aware that this hearing has been postponed, and moved to federal court. Please don't show up tomorrow. More soon, as it becomes available ...

[-] 1 points by Mirra (1) 2 years ago

Of course, the banks are to blame. B of A foreclosed homes without the necessary paperwork, part of the "robo-sign" scandal. Also, other banks essentially stole homes of combat slodiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who were deployed, despite a law that forbides such foreclosures. There is no debate for those who claim its individual's own fault. As a homeowner, I recall the pressure to take a variable interest rate loan (thankfully I did not). With all the confusing terminolgy and charts to show how much money you can "save" it's is easy to see how people got in over their heads, and remember it was the same banks that stole veterans homes that pressured people into bad loans

[-] 1 points by rcarmstrong (115) from Cadyville, NY 2 years ago

Beautiful and inspiring stuff from Phil Rockstroh, poet, lyricist, and philosopher: "Remember this: Most likely, the corporate state has, to some degree, colonized your mind, as it is well on its way to destroying the ecosystem of the entire planet. Conversely, let your soul occupy you. While there might be an ongoing effort to scour Liberty Park of liberty, they cannot do likewise to your heart without your consent. Turn the tables on them: Evict the corporate occupiers from the public realm within--as all the while, you challenge propaganda whenever it crosses your path…on the streets, at your workplace, at family gatherings, and on social media-- because a lie left unchallenged begins to be accepted as truth. And worse, invades, colonizes and exploits (and often kills) a portion of the soul of the world." http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/23 He ends his essay with a quote from Utah Phillips: The state can't give you freedom, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.”

[-] 1 points by Anacleto (6) 2 years ago

VETO para todos estos personajes que han participado de alguna manera en las decisiones que han llevado a Colombia (y todos los demás países) a la situación en la que se encuentra. No supieron aprovechar la oportunidad de hacer algo bueno por el país, sólo por sus bolsillos. No más de estos funestos personajes, necesitamos sangre nueva para que de verdad este país tenga lo que se merece. VETO

[-] 1 points by Vhorthex (21) 2 years ago

If banks were not allowed to sell off their mortgages into securities, they would not be so hasty to give out risky loans. Truth be told, they basically take your mortage and sell it to someone else. So they basically already 'made' their money, so who cares if you default down the road. They'll just repossess everything and catch another sap.

I really hope that the Occupy movements will shed more light on the completely insane banking practices that the banks from all over the world are following.

Also, before helping people not get foreclosed, I hope there will be some consideration made as to whether it's financially viable for them to remain there. For I think in quite a few cases it wouldn't solve their problem at all, and rather just prolong a long financial suicide.

[-] 1 points by CaronDai (1) from Elmira, NY 2 years ago

The housing crash was a result of the conning of the Banking Industry. They gave out these loans, and then they bet against them. They made money if the loans were paid or foreclosed on.

The Glass-Steigal Act being repealed is one of the biggest root causes of the mess the US finds itself in.

[-] 1 points by gypsydragonfly (6) 2 years ago

Just want to point out from my foreclosure case that it has been 3 years of non payment and when I finally had a court date Feb 2011 for it to be over CHASE NEVER SHOWED UP for court!! Judge dismissed case, but that doesn't mean I don't owe a mortgage that means I still am racking up fees, taxes and water bills (even though it is shut off I am charged $42/mos as an access to water charge). THey have to refile spending more money. This was even after a denial of 4 short sale offers and an offer for a deed in lieu of foreclosure. I haven't lived there in 2 1/2 years so it is in desperate need of repairs and this could be housing one of the many families that are on the streets.

[-] 1 points by morningyoga (5) 2 years ago

There are so many stories like this that people defending big banking do not realize or research. My husband lost his job and we were only able to pay 1/2 the mortgage payment for 6 months which we worked out with Wachovia Bank. When husband found a job and started working, I contacted the bank to let them know that we could now start paying full payments. However I was informed that I could not just resume payments, that I had to catch up and pay in full the 6 months we did not pay full payments and penalties. When we could not afford to do so, we were put in default and eventually foreclosed on. We are now not even allowed to remove our refrigerator that we bought still in the house. They also have renters in the house that they are collecting rent on. Oh and I forgot, we also were trying to sell our home so as not to foreclose. 2 offers came in that were not far from the asking price and the bank refused both times. Its a no win situation with them. They want you out of your home...lplain and simple.

[-] 1 points by leda (1) 2 years ago

Thank goodness people are finally standing up for all the wrong that has been happening for years. As a child of the sixties, I am finally proud to also be a advocate of this decade. Keep on movin on!

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

A home to live in is not a commodity. It is a basic human necessity. No one,no family should be kicked out of their house,their Shelter by banks who don't want to negociate.Fight foreclosures.

[-] 1 points by DanK (44) 2 years ago

"The Occupy movement is born of the simple belief that humanity could meet our common needs if not for the predation and greed of the very few."

This kind of statement smacks too much of the idea that the problem of inequality can be pinned on a few "bad apples", who happen to be much greedier and more predatory than everyone else. I worry that OWS will never formulate a coherent approach to building a more equal society if it doesn't come to grips with the fact that the tendencies toward domination, monopolization and inequality are inherent in the very practice of unregulated market exchange. It's not just a problem with a handful of moral monsters. It's a problem whose roots lie within all of us.

Building a more equal society is hard work, and requires attending to the rules we establish for ourselves governing our economic interactions. We need to make and enforce rules that temper our own selfish and acquisitive drives for things and power, provide adequate funding for important public purposes and full employment, prevent the private acquisition of massive stores of concentrated wealth, and preserve the social incentives to bend our actions toward the common good.

Without this realization, and short-run measures that take on the power and interests of the current 1% will only clear the way for the immediate rise of another 1% to replace them.

The fault, dear friends, lies not just within the starry heavens of the current 1% but in ourselves.

[-] 1 points by pearss01 (4) 2 years ago

About time someone in the OWS movement made sense. How many of the 1% actually worked for their share? How many of the so called 99% are even trying to EARN theirs? Don't some of the 1% open factories, schools, pay for college scholarships, or donate time, employee hours, and goods to help the 99%? P.S. Look at tax law. They actually pay the same taxes as everyone else. They also pay a capital gain tax instead of personal income tax on business deals. If the 999 law is passed, their capital gain tax of 12-15% goes down and they get richer.

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

The ability for us to stand together in support of those whose homes are being foreclosed upon is something this nation direly needs. We simply need to think about occupying homes that are being foreclosed along with their owners and simply refuse to let the authorities and the bank experts in. We can be on to something with this one, especially if it makes the banks think real hard before they dare foreclose on someone.

At the same time, we ought to be educating people, trying to steer people away from home ownership to more sustainable ownership policies, e.g. land trusts, housing cooperatives, rentals. We also should bring to light the negatives of landlords, opting instead for collective ownership by the people or businesses involved to run things on their own terms. Landlords do not produce freedom but rather take it away.

[-] 1 points by pamellis34 (5) from Barnstable, MA 2 years ago

Unfortunately I was a part of the past "boom" in the real estate market, so I saw first hand how greed was running the show, from the real estate agents to the sellers to the mortgage brokers, all these people took what they could and ran with the rest. Devious methods were used by both agents and mortgage brokers etc...to line their pockets, the consumers got caught in the middle. It appeared that the bubble was never going to bust, as the think was there is only so much real estate so why should it ever crash. To understand how a mortgage REALLY works, ie: balloon payments etc.. you almost need a degree in finance, and a crystal ball into the economy. Of course there were people who took an easy mortgage because they wanted what they wanted and they wanted it NOW!

I belive what the 1% (for the most part) want is just more and more, I mean when your have trillions, how much more do you need? Well it appears to be more and more, I think this country (at least the 1%) have toppled over into materialism while negating anything on the spiritual side. Remember the hippies becoming the yuppies, greed and why not me, took over. It would be great if we could have some kind of balancing act, and become equal parts spirit and material, and put and end to I need more and more. Maybe the protestors will wake us up to the fact that you can't take your toys and the other junk with you but you can take your spirit

[-] 1 points by scarecrow1newzealand (1) from Nantucket, MA 2 years ago

Michael Moore / OWS... come to Nantucket Island, MA. Great place to holiday. 56 billionaires (last count), on island during the summer. B. Madoff, R. Scafe (Mellon banking, oil, and aluminum fortune), D. Kozlowsky, etc... You know the type. Yep, some of them are already in jail. Those culprits who blew their Gatsby cover too overtly. Rocked the yacht -- so to speak. But, most aren't. Most are enjoying the pleasures you attempt to confront with your list. Just being themselves. Riding their private jets (busiest airport in MA. during periods of the summer), to this social enclave. The slow ferry is actually a nice and inexpensive ride.

One little island, so many big players. They drink, relax, spend their spare change on $10+ million dollar homes they spend a summer week in. Getting away from it all... the stress of being so rich and so powerful. What fun to have a Mr. Moore show pop over. Say "hello," sit down at the bar / restaurant for a quiet word and shed some light on the life style of the .01%.

Just a thought..

[-] 1 points by Coinyer101 (25) 2 years ago


[-] 1 points by pamellis34 (5) from Barnstable, MA 2 years ago

mic check

[-] 1 points by Revolt (1) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Occupy is not necessarily about Socialist, communist, and Marxists ideologies. It is not something that can be defined by a word or a theory. It is a movement, something that is taking place in each successive day. It is a group experience, of which is new and evolving. What it stands up against is not America nor capitalism, but rather it stands up against the aspect of human consciousness that perpetuates inequality, war, brutality, duality, and all other human actions that destroy not only human dignity, but the earth as well. The 0.00001% that controls the ebb and flow of the economy also control the education system and this student rising is exactly what needs to happen so that those in rule know who is really in control. I support this tactic and I really give a lot of love to those students at UC Davis who "took it for the team" while they were sprayed. That was a pivotal moment in this movement! The system we live under now is cancerous to the Earth and is only kept in place big big corporations and the lobbyist they hire in Washington. Yes, we have things "better" here in this country, no doubt. Yet, a major reason, if not the biggest reason why other countries are not as prosperous as we are is because the "power nations" of this world [the US, England, etc.] have employed tactics of economic imperialism throughout this world. One example of this is that "3rd World" countries cannot pay off the loans big elitist owned banks lent them and thus cannot develop the way we did in America. These trans-national banking arrangements, where countries like America loaned money to other developing countries in attempts to boast their infrastructure was analogous to the sub-prime loans that banks gave to home owners whom they knew could never pay them off, thus crashing there markets. This is not a country that is doing fowl things, or banks rather, but it is a sense of human consciousness that perpetuates greed and control. It is all about control. The problem is that the system is rigged. You cannot vote for anyone to make change becuase those whom we vote for are backed by big corporate interest [i.e big oil, among others]. Like Albert Einstein said, you cannot find a solution to a problem with the same thinking that created the problem. There is no option left but to defy the current system, for the current system has safeguarded itself form any real fundamental change. For instance, so called "free" energy, a source of energy that cannot be monitored is suppressed every time a developer comes close to making great strides. Think of people like Tesla and Wilhelm Reich, among others. Free energy undermines big industry and thus is destroyed before it can even reach public knowledge. You really do not think the giant stones that make up the pyramids in Egypt where lifted solely by human hands and apparatus do you? Think outside the box. The occupy movement is about breaking the bounds of the "box thinking" to which the media conditions us to believe. The occupy movement stands up in the same way that the revolutionaries stood up for their own freedom when the colonist did away with British rule. The occupy movement is the most "American" thing to happen to America since the founding of this great country. Furthermore, and my last point...why do we need to be governed, cannot we not simply cooperate? Only when we get past the point of submitting our autonomy to a elitist controlled government can we really reclaim our dignity and say that we are free Americans again. And these students, as well as all those participating in the movement are doing just that! Keep the love and compassion in your hearts flowing and let's move on into the new dawn!

[-] 1 points by morningyoga (5) 2 years ago

brilliant! <3

[-] 1 points by timnonn (1) 2 years ago

Occupy Petaluma invites you to sign an online petition that asks the Federal Housing Finance Agency to declare a national Holiday Moratorium on Foreclosures and Evictions. Please sign the petition today!


[-] 1 points by TR11005 (7) 2 years ago

I think you have to judge on a case by case situation. I do think it is better if people can stay in their own homes, if they have been responsible. Just because you hit a temporary hard times does not mean you take a house away. Temporary help, yes! I don't think you should forgive the original mortgage amount. They still must pay. Hopefully at a reduced refinance rate while it is low interest.

I recently refinanced. You can't do that if your unemployed. You need to be employed for two years. I worked temporary assignments and it would not count.. Even with my wife working full time.

If your 62, you can go on early Social Security and then you can refinance, believe it or not. I did this mostly because of my high home equity caused by being unemployed and an Exhaustee.. The home equity is at 3.25%, but could easily climb to 6%. This could have destroyed me and more will be in trouble if they don't. I was able to get a 3.75% for 15 years. This way I can stay in my house for now.

I do think temporary help is necessary in most cases. We can help everyone in the world, but ourselves. People have payed taxes for years supporting different programs. Why do you want to make people homeless in a time of need. Tax the rich!

[-] 1 points by tittiger (0) 2 years ago

There is a lot I would like to say. But the word is out that diversity to you has to do with looking different, and that you are totally intolerant to people that think differently and you delete their comments.

[-] 4 points by BNB (89) 2 years ago

We need to move over to another site if that is true. I'd like to hear what folks have to say. I'm all for spam and ads being deleted, but that's about it.

As for free rides---I work 40 hours a week and walk/run/subway ride to work and rent a small room, have no financial help from anyone or any institution and i can see clearly how corrupt the governement/banks are. I am not interested in a hand out, even though most everything on Earth has been stolen from everyone and given to a few. I would however like to see the thousands of dollars I pay in taxes every year spent on something besides pepper spray, battons, and sound cannons.

[-] 1 points by morningyoga (5) 2 years ago


[-] 1 points by loveitall (8) from Willard, UT 2 years ago

test the "word is out" and post what you would like and see if the theory is true or not.

[-] 1 points by conservative4change (12) 2 years ago

"Human right to housing"? "In a nation that puts the right to housing at the center of its founding dream"?

You know, the idea that housing and owning a home is a fundamental "right" is the core reason for the housing crisis that caused this mess in the first place. IT WAS NOT WALL STREET!

Yes, Wall Street got greedy and created credit default swaps and other derivative instruments to package and hide the bad debt which institutions gobbled up like popcorn. Yes, greed was at the root of these activities. But I get really upset when people lose sight of the real reason for this mess. And the idea that people have this inherent right of owning a home is wrong and is why we are where we are today.

[-] 3 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 2 years ago

Nay, that's a bait and switch. You believe in a right to housing - they give you a right to loans. Then you enjoy a right to foreclosure.

[-] 1 points by HowardMarx (1) 2 years ago

Hate to disagree, but isn't owning more than one home when others are homeless/not homeowners not being greedy? Or I guess we could go back to the fuedal system and live under our masters supervision. Therefore, I don't suppose the "privilege" of desiring a roof over yours, or my head, is too much to "ask" for while on this wonderful earth for such a short time, right?



[-] -1 points by conservative4change (12) 2 years ago

Owning more than one home is not greedy. It's a sign of success. There are many successful people who did not gain their wealth from nefarious means. Most gained it through hard work. If they have five homes, all the more power to 'em.

Desiring a roof over your head is not a "privilege", it's basic survival. With the exception of the truly homeless - who are mostly mentally ill or drug addicts - there are many ways to maintain a roof over your head, at least in this country: Own, own/mortgage, rent, federally-subsidized housing. A very tiny percentage are on the street or living in a van.

[-] 4 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

You are incorrect that truly homeless are mostly mentally ill or drug addicts.

In Seattle and surrounding communities there are people who go to work each day and sleep in a car because the jobs that are available to them don't pay enough to cover a 'roof', there are people who sleep under a bridge, having already given up the car to purchase food or medical needs and still go to work each day.

This is not the only city with these issues.

These people are not lazy, they are not dirty, they are not drug addicts, or mentally ill.

They work each day and earn too much to qualify for help, yet they do not earn enough to purchase housing be it rent or buy.

People on forums rail against the home owner who was foreclosed upon, without understanding that a great number of them are defaulting because of pay reduction or 'downsizing'. Home owners who worked hard, who still work hard and find themselves in reduced circumstances through no fault of their own.

When a nuclear engineer finds himself returning to school to earn a teaching degree for high school level instruction, after working at his career for nearly 20 years, that says something isn't working right, and it isn't all the home owners that aren't.

[-] 1 points by nich (57) 2 years ago

I am assuming that your comments and questions are in earnest.

I believe that your comments are one sided without taking into consideration of the forces, Madison Ave., legal counsel, mass distribution of media that the banks have used to mercilessly market to individuals that want something for nothing. While the industry can allay these costs with mass distribution, the individual does not have similar resources at h/er disposal.

In that respect, consumers are are no different than any consumers in a consumer culture. Marketing mortgages is no different than any grift. Yes, people shouldn't fall for this. Yes, banks are thugs in this respect.

They are friendly when they are selling a bad deal and merciless when they are collecting on a bad deal.

To them, it is not an illegal deal because they wrote the laws. As is said, "you can't legislate morality" but you can have rules that prevent immoral behavior.

Asymmetrical benefits and laws are just such a grift and standout as an example of political corruption.When a home buyer that has 'played by the rules' feels that s/he is being shortchanged in an attempt to rectify this abomination then h/she has not admitted that they have benefited from the abominations also, but that is too much to ask from the vast majority that have been in denial about the system.

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

该运动必须继续前进和打击邪恶的势力,是在湾。 转OWS!

[-] 2 points by devnull (18) 2 years ago

Translation by Google:

The campaign must continue to move forward and fight against evil forces in the Gulf. Turn OWS!



[-] 0 points by pearss01 (4) 2 years ago

Can't support you here. This was the irresponsibility of banks, buyers, and sellers. Everyone is to blame and you only want one-third of those responsible to take full credit for this disaster? Perhaps people should have read their contracts before signing for an ajustable rate morgage that would put them in finacial straights when the interest rate changed!!! People are in foreclosure because they agreed with a binding contract to pay back the money they borrowed. If the house was not worth the amount of the loan, why did they agree to pay that? The 99% demanded looser terms for qualifying for loans, they got it. Now the 99% wants to help people walk away from payment contracts because they got loan terms they wanted?


[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

Is the position of OWS that all foreclosures should be stopped? If yes, is there ever a reason to proceed with a foreclosure?

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

I have always believed that land ownership should be based on USE not a piece of paper in an office miles away. The banks are not using these homes and so have no right to them. Move in, call the electric company, change the address on your license, and stay as long as possible. After the bank spends thousands of dollars to evict you, move to the nearest empty home, preferably one owned by a bank. People have moved out of small towns over the past 50 years leaving many empty houses. These homes also should be available. We need a way to make vacant or unused property into commons. No payment required just a registration system to show who is living in the house. No false claims of who was there first. When you move out you cannot sell it since it is common property. You may however let a friend or family member know when you are moving. Just an idea. Many cultures have handled land ownership and usage this way.

[-] 1 points by pearss01 (4) 2 years ago

So can I just move into your home, bring a few more firends in, claim I have more right because I have more people and take it from you? I love socialism. No such thing as peronal property.

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

Negative, the registration I mentioned would insure rule of law. Houses and land found vacant become community property. First person to move in registers with some local authority. They move out and no one else moves in the property becomes vacant again. Even under our current debt based system you could show up with 10 armed men and force me out, I would call the police and you would be arrested. This would not change. The difference would be that common lands are managed but not owned by the occupant. Vacant land in common areas not being used for agriculture or set aside as a natural preserve could be built on for residential and agricultural purposes only. Industrial purpose land needs to be approved by the local community.

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


The people "using" the home they are(not) paying a mortgage on do not own it, the bank does. The people couldn't afford the home so they asked the bank to buy it for them and mortgage usage to the people for a monthly payment.

You're advocating of living like a parasite is disgusting.

[-] 1 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

Anybody who defends that bankers and claims they have the paperwork to prove ownership is either outright lying or just plain ignorant.

This is nothing more than a pack of lies peddled by the far right. The fact is that we know who removed the firewall between bankers and the securities industry. The deregulation sponsored by Sen. Hatch and then Sen. Gramm (1995 and 1999) removed the Glass-Steigal protection.

That opened the door to derivatives, CDO’s, CDS’s and much more. Basically, it turned housing in a commodity to be sold. Worse it removed the personal connection between the banker and the home

owner by slicing and dicing the property. Prior to that housing was considered a solid investment. Note that the framework for this scam is still in place.

The legislative framework created by Senator’s Hatch and Gramm has literally resulted in homelessness, mass starvation, fake shortages of most every commodity, and more. The current legal framework in place has permitted the 1% too turn Capitalism into a weapon that is used to commit mass-murder for a profit.

In addition, what the home owner got were highly qualified con-artists holding MBA’s scamming the public by the millions. They came to my door and tried the scam on me. Their arguments were supported by 500 page books explaining why the scam would make the homeowner wealthy. Listening to the MBA’s would put you into an inside network of con-artists that sold these scams.

Finally, in 1995 the mass-murders removed the requirement for the lenders to have physical copies of the paperwork. This was the foundation that has resulted Sen’s Hatch/Gramm becoming the authors of a legal framework that is resulting in homelessness, mass starvation, fake shortages in most every commodity to drive up prices, and much more.

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

A parasite is a central bank that bribes politicians into making said bank the sole authority for creating money. The bank then prints worthless IOUs LOANS them to the government, and charges interest. Lets shrink this to an individual level to understand the scam a little better. You need money, I create an IOU, I am the bank. By accepting my IOU you are actually loaning me money. I then charge you 10% interest on the IOU. I am the only source of money. To pay the interest you have no choice but to borrow more from me. It is a scam. As to making a monthly payment for a piece of land. I tell you I own the air, and since you are breathing it you have to pay me $600 a year. Payable only in MY IOUs. Owning the air is no different than owning land. Having a place to live is a prerequisite to survival.



[-] 0 points by Coriolanus (272) 2 years ago

While I don't want to see people evicted, it might be a good idea to consider the issue of the right to housing, and specifically, to the question of what constitutes "housing." In part, the economic crisis we face was created by the idea that everyone should own a house. But that is not necessarily the definition of housing. There is nothing wrong with renting; everyone doesn't need to own a ticky tacky box in a sprawl development. And home ownership carries a much bigger carbon footprint, in general, than does renting in an apartment building.

[-] 1 points by robes (63) from Maplewood, NJ 2 years ago

home ownership isnt just about having a roof over your head. owning a home brings economic stability to you and your family for generations. your kids will inherit that home and live in it (rent free) or sell it.

renting makes it very hard to save money. paying off a reasonable mortgage is saving.

if you want to pay rent your whole life feel free. im working towards owning a home.

[-] 1 points by myers73 (6) from Orlando, FL 2 years ago

Renting can be a much better financial decision in some circumstances. I'm renting a $300,000 house for $1,400/month. That is about half of what my true "cost of ownership" monthly payment would be if I were to purchase this house. Do the math over years...


[-] 1 points by Coriolanus (272) 2 years ago

I actually have a house (I'm probably older than you, I have owned eight houses over the years. My plan is that my current house will be the next-to-the-last one). But the idea that everyone should own a house, whether they can afford it or not, is I think a peculiarly American one.

By the way, the idea of economic stability is based in part on the idea that the value of your house will always increase. I have made money and lost money on houses, and if I sold right now I would take a beating. (Your kids living rent free is a nice advantage, though they will still have to pay insurance and property tax.)

[-] 3 points by robes (63) from Maplewood, NJ 2 years ago

i also find it a little silly that your telling others to rent, when you have owned 8 houses in your life... are you broke because of those 8 houses? no. but i have spent about 75,000 dollars on rent in the past ten years and i have nothing to show for it.

[-] 3 points by robes (63) from Maplewood, NJ 2 years ago

no one is saying people should buy a house that they cant afford. thats partially what got us into this mess. but as person who has been paying rent for about 10 years now, i wish i had been paying a mortgage this whole time maybe i would be a home owner now. im not trying to own 8 houses or flip houses. im trying to own a home that i can live in until i die so that when i retire i dont have to be paying rent. isnt it obvious that paying a mortgage is better than paying rent?

[-] 2 points by tryingheretoo (11) 2 years ago

He cannot use 8 houses at the same time, so he encourages you to rent them, thus paying him and not getting a house for you. It is as simple as that. Ever heard the word hypocrisy?

[-] 1 points by Coriolanus (272) 2 years ago

I have only ever owned one house at a time. I have moved a fair amount over the decades. I have never owned rental property, though now I realize that was a mistake.

[-] 1 points by Coriolanus (272) 2 years ago

"no one is saying people should buy a house that they cant afford. thats partially what got us into this mess."

I agree with your second sentence. But there were people being encouraged to buy houses they couldn't afford by Freddie and Fannie and those banks that were creating those bizarre debt instruments.

"isnt it obvious that paying a mortgage is better than paying rent?"

Well, I'm no expert but I've done both, and it is not obvious to me. From a purely financial standpoint, you can find online calculators that will help you run the numbers and figure out if it is better to buy or rent. There is also the question of where you want to live: for example, midtown Manhattan or rural Kentucky (I bought a terrific house in KY on 3 acres of land for next to nothing, but couldn't afford to buy a closet in the Big Apple). And owning a house involves a fair amount of maintenance, insurance, property tax, mortgage interest, etc. Of course in the house you own you can break down the walls and rebuild it the way you like (been there, done that). And you get a tax break on the mortgage interest.

Renting is simpler, you don't have to mow the lawn, shovel the parking area, or do your own maintenance.

Overall, I prefer ownership, but it is a judgment call and there are some advantages to renting.

By the way, I have never been a real estate speculator. I have just moved a lot for job reasons, and bought larger houses as the family grew. I do not know how many houses the average person or family owns over the course of a lifetime.

[-] 0 points by Bov (1) 2 years ago

This is a joke. Everyone supporting this is supporting the ideal that America is a land where you can live beyond your means without consequence. Use common sense before borrowing money and get real

[-] 0 points by TimMcGraw (50) 2 years ago

yeah, don't punish me for someone elses mistakes.


[-] 0 points by littlebiggygirl (26) from Hesperia, CA 2 years ago

in an effort to help many #OWS is diluting itself before our very eyes. There needs to be a more concentrated focus that addresses all areas of concern. http://littlebiggy.org/viewSubject/4660547


[-] -1 points by morons123 (131) 2 years ago

Question to any member of OWS: If you gave someone an item (could be money, a book, a car etc.) with the understanding that you would be compensated for this item ( could be compensation in the form of money or tickets to a ballgame etc etc) and the person you gave this item to did not hold up their end of the bargain and refused to compensate you as agreed what would you do? Part of this agreement was that if you were not compensated as agreed you would be able to get the book or whatever item it was you gave back. Would it be OK for this person to keep your book not compensate you as agreed and just walk away from their responsibility to you?

[-] 1 points by morons123 (131) 2 years ago

Amazing how no one can answer a fair question. Reason is we all know the answer. Yes, the people who signed for these loans are responsible to pay for them. It is as simple as that. You want to blame the banks but not take responsibility for your own actions.

[-] 1 points by loveitall (8) from Willard, UT 2 years ago

To your questions..

1 I would do my due diligence on the proposed borrower and if I suspected them unable to repay said loan..I would do us both a favor and not put either of us in the situation where we could be divided by the idea. (but this is not what happened with the improper regulations in place)

2 If I were in the position of the bank and I knew that I could hedge a bet on them not repaying said loan and I could still make $ (if $ were ALL I cared about) why wouldn't I forget to heed moral implications and just go for what I was after to begin with, more $$$$.

thanks for the inquiry, I hope this helps clarify the problem a lot of people are concerned about. "Profits over humanity"

[-] 1 points by morons123 (131) 2 years ago

you still did not answer the question. you continue to blame others. people need to take responsibility for their actions. the same way you can short a stock you can "hedge a bet" or buy a put or buy options. wall street is in business to make money. is this news to you?

[-] -1 points by foundingbaby (15) 2 years ago

Oh, those OWS kids are so silly! They carry signs that say, "I want money!" and "I want a job, but not hardwork!" They chant, "Whose home? My home!" "What drugs? Free drugs!"

And the sign I like the best was, "No soap, no worry!"

I love these kids! They are just pulling your leg!

Ha, ha.

[-] -1 points by noslappz (-35) 2 years ago

It is folly to give mortgage loans to people with lousy credit scores, lousy jobs and NO downpayment money. But that's what the government wanted and that's what caused the financial mess.

[-] 1 points by morons123 (131) 2 years ago

So would it be fair to call these people who signed these loans naive? what would you call them?


[-] 1 points by foundingbaby (15) 2 years ago

Yup. But some of the largest banks were involved too.


[-] -3 points by jobu1642 (0) 2 years ago

Why don't we just forgive all of the mortgage debt that people took on? I pay my debts and have paid my mortgage diligently. And yes, I took it in the stones when I sold my house just a few months back - lost about 40%. But I paid back what I borrowered. People need to have a little respect for themselves and take some responsibility here. Why should I bail out someone who made a bad decision in borrowing $200k for a house woth $200k with a salary of $35k per year. A little common sense and responsibility would tell that person that it's getting in over their head. A home is an investment, and with investments, sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. I refuse to be responsible for the bad decisions that my neighbor made, particularly where my neighbor wants to blame everyone except for themselves. Step up people - be a 'man' and pay your damn bills!!! If you can't pay your bills, don't complain when the lender that took a chance on your credit wants their money back. And calling housing a human right is a joke. Buy or rent what you can afford people. On December 6, I suggest everyone get out their checkbooks and make a payment on the big fat loan they received to buy their houses and other toys. Step up to the plate people. Quit blaming others. You did this to yourselves.

[-] 6 points by JProffitt71 (222) from Colorado Springs, CO 2 years ago

That is not what we stand for, let me simply assert a situation:

You take out a 120K loan on a modest town-house on a 40K income to get out of the hell-hole apartment complex unfit for a family.

Half-way through paying, this recession hits, and your company decides you're unnecessary.

No one else is hiring.

You and your family face eviction through completely unforeseen circumstances.

This nearly happened to my family. The thing that saved us was the same company decided, after a few months, that they literally could not function without my father, and they hired him back as a benefit-less freelancer.

The basic idea is that people bought these homes in secure situations, and then the economy tanked, due at least in some part to the malpractice of banks, costing many their financial security. Then in some situations these same banks have come back demanding their houses back. Is that fair to you? Regardless of who the lender is, is that fair?

Were jumping on the "fuck you I've got mine" ideology, we can not have a functional society where everyone who has something would throw the ones who don't under the bus for being so disgustingly unfortunate.

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

You are right, except for one thing, it was not malpractice it was intentional. We ended up in debt they walked away with all the money. They planned it. Goldman Sachs former CEO was the Treasurer they own every dollar you ever even looked at.

[-] 2 points by foundingbaby (15) 2 years ago

Because it is not like you think.

When you got you home, was the broker honest with you?

Millions of people can't afford their homes because they were lied to by crooked brokers.

Do you honestly believe that an honest broker would sell a $200k home to someone making only $35k per year?

Do you honestly believe that an honest broker would sell a home with a mortgage payment that the new-owner could not afford?

"Here, Mr. Buyer, you make $35k a year but your mortgage payment will only be $2000 a month! You can afford that!"

Or perhaps the broker said, "$1000 a month?" Or less? And then six months later the mortgage goes up without warning to more than the buyer can afford.

It is not so simple as you decribe. There was a lot of fraud behind the millions of bad loans.

Housing is a right. Home ownership is not. Just plain housing is.

The goverment had responsibilities here too. Bush II made home ownership for all a goal of his administration. And Barney Frank had said, I paraphrase, "We didn't need to push for homeownership, renting is just as good."

It is not just people "buying more than they could afford."

It was also, a housing bubble, and banks pushed and pushed loans fraudulently.

Then the bubble burst.

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

Isn't it interesting as to how many people who are in the 99% take on the views expressed and pushed forth by the 1%? This "personal responsibility" rhetoric is largely expressed and pushed forth by corporate personnel via their policy institutes. Personally, I think it's dangerous when such policy institutes begin to show great effectiveness in trying to pry people apart in favor of rugged individualism and to drive a wedge between cooperation.

The only thing I can really say is that the 1% brought this on themselves. They brought it on when they began to institute the notion to credit in almost all works of life. Even some employers have begun to check credit ratings on employees as part of the hiring process. Landlords do it. Banks do it. And not only do they do it, they raise the rates if you do have trouble paying. It can be argued that they are protecting themselves for fear one won't pay, but it is also true that it can lead to a severe problem in trying to get out of debt.

Now, when you make decisions on us based on our credit rating that have negative impacts in our lives, and if we can gather enough people to join in, you can bet your life we will be occupying your front entrance!

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

Because you bailed out the banks, so did I, so did we ALL. The institutions that got our tax money, if you can even call "Federal Reserve Notes" money, had more debt in circulation then they had assets to cover it. They keep any profits they make, and when they lose money all of a sudden they become socialists. A place to live, access to clean water, access to food, and medical care are human rights. I should not have to pay another human being for my right to exist. No basic right like a piece of land and a shelter to protect me from the elements should be taxed either.


[+] -4 points by sro2004 (-5) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

OH PEOPLE...YOU ARE AN INSPIRATION! I can only wish beyond wishing and hope beyond hoping that some day I too can shed the responsibilities of a responsible life and simply spend my time raging against this machine! When I was working towards my degree at a prestigous private university, I obviously was doing something VERY wrong, as I did not run up massive student debt. I was a sucker, working 30 hours a week, busting my hump! The only reason it was possible was due to the fact that I busted my ass in high school to maintain good grades, and received a partial scholarship. What a FOOL I was. I didn't realize I could have simply been a slacker and be angry at the "haves" for not providing these basic necessities. YOU HAVE OPENED MY EYES OWS! Why work for something when you can cry, whine and act a fool to get it for free! Why be a man...when you can forever choose to be a child!

[-] 4 points by devnull (18) 2 years ago

I, too, have busted my ass my entire life and paid my way through school out of my hard-earned money, but I completely support this movement. It's not all about free handouts. Its about removing the influence of corporate money from government. Turn off your television, please.

Also, did you know that if you type with capital letters people believe you more? This is news to me.


[+] -4 points by sro2004 (-5) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

If it's about removing the influence of corporate money from government, then WHY are these poor, dim-witted slackers not squating at their local, state or federal seats of government?

I would ask..."are they stupid or something?"...but I already know the answer to that. What a great movement! Bowel movement, that is...

[-] 1 points by evilrobert (1) from Norfolk, VA 2 years ago

Talk about dim-witted slackers.. Proposing a bottom-up change process wouldn't work to fix the problems that STARTED at the top. For every law countered at the state and local level, the Federal law supersedes it. So the change has to be petitioned at the level that started and created the problem.

One would think that 7th grade social studies would have taught you that. The fact that you think everything's peachy keen around this country and anyone who says otherwise is apparently stupid, just goes to show that the basic requirements to have an inverted totalitarianistic government are completely in place.

PS. What is this, /b ? Dookie jokes, really?

[-] 1 points by devnull (18) 2 years ago

Because the problem is that your government, on every level, has been bought by these corporations through lobbyists and outlandish campaign contributions. The government is now simply a symptom of the greed. Stop the corruption at its source. Did you know that Obama has been the highest recipient of Wall Street money ever? But obviously telling him that (through the recent mic check and letters, etc etc etc) hasn't changed a thing. He still hasn't at least acknowledged the fact that people are getting beat across the country. I know for a fact he doesn't support OWS. Just like every other GOP or Dem candidate, once they get in office, they start lining their pockets with money.

You made a fecal joke. Congratulations! I'll be sending your gold star and cookie in the mail soon. Real mature.


[-] -1 points by Unicron6 (1) 2 years ago

Actually that's not entirely true. Ron Lawl DOES support OWS, but said he doesn't agree with whom OWS is protesting, corporations don't make laws after all. But hey 1 out of 550 ain't bad lol.

Wow I just found out how hypocritical this web site is. When you type in Paul's name, you get lawl. Love the censorship guys, but time for me to say good bye. Too bad, because I was on board.

[-] 2 points by devnull (18) 2 years ago

Be careful of those who preach support. The last thing that needs to happen to this movement is for it to be co-opted like the Tea Party. We all see how that went. Support who you want individually, but as a whole, we need to stay non-partisan.

EDIT: In response to your claim on "censorship," you lack a sense of humor. I like Ron Pau l, but think "Ron Lawl" is hilarious. Quit taking everything so seriously, and life brightens quite a bit.

[-] 1 points by foundingbaby (15) 2 years ago

"corporations don't make laws after all."

They have lobbying firms write laws and influence politicians to get those laws passed.

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

Corporations don't make laws? It is true that lawyers make laws, but corporations most certainly fund think tanks that aim to produce policy in their best interest. In fact, an entire industry is devoted to it: The Public Relations Industry.

You can start with APCO. Aside from what they do on a major level, they even went a step further in a corporate attempt to create the "Advancement of Sound Science Coalition," which started out as an organization designed to help spread propaganda on behalf of the public to rally support for ideas beneficial to the their corporate contributors.

In fact, there are many more corporate front groups than there are actual grassroots groups. Sometimes, corporate personnel band together to start one for some issue and then disband it after the issue is resolved.

Here is a long list of some :


[-] 1 points by sro2004 (-5) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Lawyers make laws? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh my, thank you! You are AWESOME! See...there it is. This person thinks lawyers make laws in this country! Do you people not have ONE F'ing clue?

[-] 2 points by Uzbazbeil (34) 2 years ago

Isn't it interested how so many people are on OWS trying desperately to slander the movement which is a movement based on ethics, not irresponsibility. These people have so much hatred for freedom and equality that they'll even invent an idea that the OWS believes in when they clearly don't and rant about it just to try to sway public opinion about the OWS movement and then deny their intentions like narcissists do to save face and indirectly insult people. It's either that or they are extremely uneducated about the unethical standards of the banking industry.

So let me recapitulate it for you and everyone else. It is NOT about a free ride. It is about common ethics. Understood?

[-] 0 points by DanRand (9) 2 years ago

Au contraire. Uz is all about getting something for nothing. See his screed at http://occupywallst.org/forum/thousands-gather-foley-square/

I looked him up on the internet, and, before he settled in here, he was on a charity site asking to be given a used car and some seed money. He claimed that he lived off disability checks and had a young daughter that he had never supported.

The self-education that he described in those posts has been entirely focused on the esoteric rather than anything practical that might have allowed him to work, even from home, in order to pay some of his own bills. Indeed, back in November 2009, his studies led to a "divine calling" to pull up stakes and move to Sedona, AZ. http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=185724

It appears that, since no free ticket came with that "calling," Uz never made it to Cult Central.

[-] 1 points by Uzbazbeil (34) 2 years ago

Yes, those are my posts. They prove my point exactly. Money is a block to freedom. A person has no freedom to contribute to society, humanity, or love without servitude to money as their priority. I have no shame about not supporting my daughter. It was the government's decisions and unethical laws that created that situation, not mine. I spend my time volunteering to help people where psychologists have failed and get complimented on my ability to help people better than a so-called PHD professional yet I'm not allowed to practice because I don't have a license and it costs money to make money but the banks think I am my credit score that disability destroyed yet I'm not an irresponsible person. I've helped fix marriages in two emails whereas these people when to 'professionals for years' with little progress.

Thanks for proving my point too about the narcissism. You're so desperate to defame my character because you can't argue my logic anymore that you'll scour the internet for any information you can use as ammo to slander and brow-beat a fellow citizen. Thanks dude.

[-] 1 points by DanRand (9) 2 years ago

Uz, whatever you do, don't credit yourself with "logic." And don't belittle the millions of people who manage to support themselves without whining about "servitude."

In this age of transparency, people have a right to whatever facts there may be that would suggest that, for you and many others, OWS is nothing more than the last refuge of the grifter.

[-] 1 points by Uzbazbeil (34) 2 years ago

All of those millions of people who do support themselves got into that position by having been given what they needed to get into the position to be able to support themselves. We're all born naked and without any money at all and so someone had to have helped you and every single other person out there. Not everyone has been blessed with that and the economic system, government laws that force people to live by the dollar have any compassion or understanding of that situation. I've wanted to become a spiritual teacher but if you look at just about any spiritual teacher they're just people who peddle information which is a violation of the laws of love so even the laws of the land violate the laws of love and ethics because money is more important than human life and happiness. And who established that? The banking industry, government, corporations that could never survive if freedom truly existed. They would have to give up their trillions of dollar empires if freedom really existed. By the definition of the laws of love you cannot expect anyone to give you something in return for helping people, but if you look at just about any company who says "we're here to help you" they're totally lying. They are there to get your money. Anyone who works in marketing knows you can't tell the truth or you won't sell anything. This energy drink will cause diabetes. An army billboard by my house says "make lifelong friends". Truth is "become a global murderer/terrorist for a multi-national corporation and get PTSD or killed". "Skinny Cow" ice cream insinuating that you can maintain weight by eating garbage with chemicals in it. If all the basic necessities of life were free (housing, food, building supplies, transportation) how many people do you think would ever choose to work for Wal-Mart or the government? No one! Unethical institutions could never survive without slavery aka creating a society that fears their survival if they choose not to become servants of money. There's more people than there are jobs so you know what the solution is? Kill them. Create a company that makes food products that makes people people sick and contract diseases or health conditions that will eventually kill them and force them to have to go to some health clinic for 'treatments' just to survive. That's how monetary system creates jobs, by killing people slowly and not educating them about life. Just about most people with exception of local organic farmers that work in the food industry and modern medicine are people who are a part of genocidal programs that our government and corporations obviously know about. They don't give one iota of care or compassion for life. They will kill you slowly if it can make them a dollar. And that is the system and great country of America. How many people do you know who are sick with some disease like AIDS, Cancer, MS, Diabetes that have been eating nothing but raw/living foods? Virtually no one. How do you solve healthcare? Eliminate everything but raw/living/organic foods and then hospitals will be virtually empty. It is that simple, but our government and money making institutions don't value life. They need their lifestyle and power trips and are willing anyone who gets in their way. Both A Lincoln and JFK were trying to create independent money systems and they just so happen to be the only presidents killed. How interesting. Why is it that people who help people like Rick Simpson of Canada are now in prison for 'trafficking marijuana' when he was processing it into a sticky resin that terminally ill cancer patients with only weeks to live can use to cure their cancer by putting it under their lip!? So I believe the OWS has a very VERY good reason for protesting government and wall street and any institution that banks off of any unethical practice. So I would have to disagree with your belittling and insulting comment about the OWS.

[-] 1 points by DanRand (9) 2 years ago

I tip my hat to you. You are truly the King of the Loons.

By the way, Garfield and McKinley are offended that you have erased them from history to advance your claims.

[-] 2 points by Uzbazbeil (34) 2 years ago

Tell me, in 12 years of schooling, how many high school graduates know how to build a house, grow organic foods, do qigong to maintain health, learn about necessary psychological conditions that give rise to unethical behavior like domestic abuse and teach about cognitive distortions like blame proneness, minimizing, maximizing (aka mental filters that delude our perceptions), and the concepts of delusional thinking. Instead we have sports that promote competition and that fosters beat each other up to get ahead mentality as opposed to team-work, debate which is learning how to argue your agenda or perception without regard to truth.

When you graduate high school the only thing you can really do is work for slave wages while going in debt going to college to learn how to propagate a sick and demented system. Manly Palmer Hall said that colleges and universities do not educate but rather indoctrinate people to support an unhealthy and non intelligent society. I agree with that assessment. That's why a pscyhologist takes years without much progress to help someone whereas it only takes me months to help someone. Or if you take a brain surgeon who can't operate on a tumor. His education is meaningless. All you need to do is change your diet to reflect living foods and remove all of the government approved industrial waste in the water (filter it properly), minimize stress, include moderate exercise, and, if necessary, assist the process with reiki healing and emotional processing. That's all that's necessary. But the American Cancer Society which takes in approximately $900 million per year can't figure that out. All they do is try to figure out ways to make money off of the suffering and unfortunate. On top of that there's books on Amazon.com titled How To Cure Cancer. lol Society is just so insane.

Dan, anytime anyone anywhere tries to argue with truth, ethics, love, and virtuous value they simply publicly proclaim how much they don't value love, life, humanity, ethics and what really matters in life. I hope someday you and everyone who buys into this unethical system will see the light.

[-] 1 points by shifty2 (117) 2 years ago

Can you read, What about the millions out of work and can't find a job, You must live in a part of the country that isn't that bad, But there are more poor now than ever and most people would rather pay their bill's but through no fault of their own they lose their job's and have a family to feed Don't you realize we are in a bad rescission, Where is your compassion for your neighbors. What about the politicians that make the law's to suit themselves, Like inside trading and there are many more. Read this throw them all out,Maby it will help you understand what's going on in this country.