Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They need to look at more positive ways to protest. Thinking about filing a class action suit against all of them. It seems that they are pushing beyond their rights and are starting to infringe on others. Protest all you like under the law. It is your right. It is not your rights to infringe on others. If you want to camp out. There are many legal places to do so. Last but not least. If you are not satisfied with the rules of this country. You do have the right to leave it.
Wall St infringed on us. Not everyone went out and got a McMansion or sold a bunch of bad loans over and over and made the market crash.
Banks asked for taxpayer money but they won't lend to small businesses who were in good standing because of this fear they have for the unknowns they have on their books.
Occupy Wall Street? How about Occupy Washington or Occupy the Street in Front of the Politicians Responsible for Passing Legislation That Tied the Hands of Banks and Lenders? Nah, too long. Seriously, guys. All this impotent and misdirected rage. The housing thing began in the 1990's when the Clinton Administration passed legislation tying the hands of banks and lenders that basically THREATENED them to make loans to people that had no business taking out loans, or else.
I don't know how I can make this any clearer for anyone. If you don't like the kinds of loans and mortgages that those nasty evil banks were "giving out" (as so many are apt to erroneously claim), might I kindly suggest you take a good long look at who you voted into office twice in a row throughout the 1990's and into the very early year of 2000. The banks basically had figurative shackles and handcuffs placed on them by a Federal Government that somehow got it into their head that everyone deserves a stand-alone house, regardless of their ability to pay for said houses and loans, much less the interest incurred. And yes, I will say it: The programs that the Clinton Administration shoved down Banks'/Lenders'/Mortgage companies' throats directly targeted certain ethnic groups and income levels. So what I'd really like to see is a giant unruly crowd of pissed off US Citizens in front of the Capitol Building or the White House, because in terms of what happened with the sub-prime and housing crises, a lot of the blame can be and should be placed at their feet.
Washington forced the banks to lend a small percentage of their money to subprime customers. Banks use the deregulations to give everyone and anyone with a pulse an ARM. Banks hands were tied for 2 hours a day and they had the rest of the day to conduct responsible business an they chose to stay bound because they liked the way it felt.
If I tell you to lend 15% of your money to risky customers and you lend 75% to risky companies it's not my fault if you get burned.
The banks were in shackles? Yeah... Sure.
It's mathematically impossible for the low income ethnic minorities to crash the market. Middle income and the wealthy used just as many sub prime/ARM's if not more.
Last edited by Feltdesigner; 11-20-2011 at 09:13 AM..
Washington forced the banks to lend a small percentage of their money to subprime customers. Banks use the deregulations to give everyone and anyone with a pulse an ARM. Banks hands were tied for 2 hours a day and they had the rest of the day to conduct responsible business an they chose to stay bound because they liked the way it felt.
If I tell you to lend 15% of your money to risky customers and you lend 75% to risky companies it's not my fault if you get burned.
Sorry, no sale. No sympathy from me for those people. "Banks use the deregulations to give everyone and anyone with a pulse an ARM." They couldn't give all those ARMs out unless the other party in the transaction (sub-prime customers short-sighted, ignorant and arrogant enough to ever believe they deserve a stand alone house) willingly looked at the documents and willingly, on purpose put their signature on said documents.
My own bank tried to offer me a loan with fuzzy math. You know what I did? I poured over their documents, did thorough research and spent 20 minutes of my day doing basic arithmetic to discover it would have been a bad deal for me and a scam for their part.
A bank cannot "give" anyone a loan. The other responsible (yes, responsible) party must first agree to the terms and conditions. If people are incapable or unwilling to research what's being offered (not given), then whatever happens in their life and their finances is on them. Not the people they could have stopped from the beginning by exercising the power of "No".
Sorry, no sale. No sympathy from me for those people. "Banks use the deregulations to give everyone and anyone with a pulse an ARM." They couldn't give all those ARMs out unless the other party in the transaction (sub-prime customers short-sighted, ignorant and arrogant enough to ever believe they deserve a stand alone house) willingly looked at the documents and willingly, on purpose put their signature on said documents.
My own bank tried to offer me a loan with fuzzy math. You know what I did? I poured over their documents, did thorough research and spent 20 minutes of my day doing basic arithmetic to discover it would have been a bad deal for me and a scam for their part.
A bank cannot "give" anyone a loan. The other responsible (yes, responsible) party must first agree to the terms and conditions. If people are incapable or unwilling to research what's being offered (not given), then whatever happens in their life and their finances is on them. Not the people they could have stopped from the beginning by exercising the power of "No".
Your right... a bank cannot give a loan but they also don't have to say yes to everyone who comes in to get one.
If you lend more money then you have you are just as guilty as the party who accepts the terms of the loan. You are essentially saying banks were scammed into lending themselves into bankruptcy. I'm not buying it.
It's like saying a bartender can serve patrons all night no matter how drunk the patron appears. If you are responsible enough to say no to the banks why couldnt the banks say no as well?
I'm not saying a bank shouldn't take the oppurtunity to make money on customers who were greedy or wanted more then they could afford. However, when a bank lends money or buys up loans that threaten their own well being its not just the customers fault.
You can't blame 15% of the transactions for the other 85% of bad transactions you've made. It's like blaming your neighbors for borrowing all your lawn tools and never returning them or making good on their promise to repair you with interest. You didn't have to lend all your tools to everyone who knocks on your door.
So it seems that if someone that is camping and looking for a KOA campground, they should be able to just pitch a tent on city property anywhere without haveing to worry about the expense? That is great. A campsite with a city view. People pay big bucks for a hotel room with a skyline view. Looks like money is being wasted on hotels and KOAs. You even get fresh air when camping. I'm going to Gnaders to buy some camping gear.
It seems sad that the organizers of the "occupy" of different cities are spending over $700 per night to stay in 1st class hotels in various cities when they could be out there too.
"The chief executives of the country's nine largest banks had no choice but to accept capital infusions from the Treasury Department in October, government documents released (in May 2009) have confirmed....
Banks that were initially required to accept the funds were Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., State Street Corp., Bank of New York Mellon, and Bank of America Corp., including the soon-to-be-acquired Merrill Lynch."
Last edited by lowercountry; 11-20-2011 at 12:18 PM..
When the top 400 people in this country own more wealth than the bottom 150 Million, there is just no way our economy can function. Greed, pure greed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feltdesigner
Washington forced the banks to lend a small percentage of their money to subprime customers. Banks use the deregulations to give everyone and anyone with a pulse an ARM. Banks hands were tied for 2 hours a day and they had the rest of the day to conduct responsible business an they chose to stay bound because they liked the way it felt.
If I tell you to lend 15% of your money to risky customers and you lend 75% to risky companies it's not my fault if you get burned.
The banks were in shackles? Yeah... Sure.
It's mathematically impossible for the low income ethnic minorities to crash the market. Middle income and the wealthy used just as many sub prime/ARM's if not more.
Your right... a bank cannot give a loan but they also don't have to say yes to everyone who comes in to get one.
If you lend more money then you have you are just as guilty as the party who accepts the terms of the loan. You are essentially saying banks were scammed into lending themselves into bankruptcy. I'm not buying it.
It's like saying a bartender can serve patrons all night no matter how drunk the patron appears. If you are responsible enough to say no to the banks why couldnt the banks say no as well?
I'm not saying a bank shouldn't take the oppurtunity to make money on customers who were greedy or wanted more then they could afford. However, when a bank lends money or buys up loans that threaten their own well being its not just the customers fault.
You can't blame 15% of the transactions for the other 85% of bad transactions you've made. It's like blaming your neighbors for borrowing all your lawn tools and never returning them or making good on their promise to repair you with interest. You didn't have to lend all your tools to everyone who knocks on your door.
Fair enough, they played their part. I'm not so dense as to completely ignore that fact in your arguments. However, I think the point I was trying to drive home the most was that all those sub-prime loans couldn't have ever been made in the first place if people who knew damn well they had no business taking out a mortgage when all they could afford was rental, had never walked into the branches and knowingly allowed said banks to lend to them. Yeah, it was kind of a crap move/policy for the banks themselves to lend to all the kinds of people we're talking about, I can dig that. However, as a Libertarian, I place the responsibility to know what you're getting into as an individual, above the supposed responsibility of the banking institutions to tell you of their own will beforehand. I think what rubs me the wrong way about OWS and their associated satellite protest cities is that they've completely thrown personal accountability and responsibility under the bus. A "Debt is Slavery" banner? Really? Life isn't fair, this isn't Utopia, the world has only so much to go around. So if you want more, or to go to an Ivy League upper crust school, you'd better do something to demonstrate why you should earn more or get to go to that Ivy League school.
People can't choose the income bracket they're born into, they can't choose who they're born to. But all of us have the capacity within us to better ourselves, our lives and our financial situations. Is it harder than it ever has been in most of recorded US history? You're darn right it is. But shouldn't that provide even more incentive to get out there and "make it"? When I look at the OWS crowd, I see a decided lack of desire to do any of those things, yet those same people still want to live in a top floor condo with high speed internet, drive a fancy car, buy the latest iDevice and for a lot of them, can't even temporarily stop doing drugs long enough to get past the pre-employment screen that all jobs worth having will make you take.
When the top 400 people in this country own more wealth than the bottom 150 Million, there is just no way our economy can function. Greed, pure greed.
May I ask this: how's it greed? Just because they have it should they be compelled to give it away? Sounds like envy, pure envy. If it was obtaining illegally, then prosecute; otherwise I don't see how we have a right to take it from them.
May I ask this: how's it greed? Just because they have it should they be compelled to give it away? Sounds like envy, pure envy. If it was obtaining illegally, then prosecute; otherwise I don't see how we have a right to take it from them.
How is it greed??? Are you kidding me?
No one is suggesting take it from them, where did you get that idea? I don't even think you are in the same thread that I am.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
