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.
A former insider at the World Bank, ex-Senior Counsel Karen Hudes, says the global financial system is dominated by a small group of corrupt, power-hungry figures centered around the privately owned U.S. Federal Reserve.
The network has seized control of the media to cover up its crimes, too, she explained. In an interview with The New American, Hudes said that when she tried to blow the whistle on multiple problems at the World Bank, she was fired for her efforts. Now, along with a network of fellow whistleblowers, Hudes is determined to expose and end the corruption. And she is confident of success.
I don't think you understand, and I am not sure if we read the same article. It is fairly obvious that the financial system is run by a group of 160 something banks and financial institutions, as it should be. The average person knows next to nothing about finances and has no business giving economic advice. Until I see some details about what these 'crimes' are, I am calling BS. The system works very well and should continue to be run by people who are actually knowledgeable enough to run it.
Additionally I will not cry too hard for people who failed to pay their mortgages and were foreclosed upon because of that. You seem to be indicating that it is somehow a bank's fault that people chose to buy houses that they couldn't afford.
I don't think you understand, and I am not sure if we read the same article. It is fairly obvious that the financial system is run by a group of 160 something banks and financial institutions, as it should be. The average person knows next to nothing about finances and has no business giving economic advice. Until I see some details about what these 'crimes' are, I am calling BS. The system works very well and should continue to be run by people who are actually knowledgeable enough to run it.
Additionally I will not cry too hard for people who failed to pay their mortgages and were foreclosed upon because of that. You seem to be indicating that it is somehow a bank's fault that people chose to buy houses that they couldn't afford.
Did we not bail out half the major banks in this country??
What happens to any other business that fails???
As far as the bold, if you actually read the article you'd see it was the bank's errors that resulted in the foreclosures. And they already reached a settlement admitting their guilt.
Did we not bail out half the major banks in this country??
What happens to any other business that fails???
I was 100% against the bailouts of the financial industry. It did more harm than good. As with most government action, it was a band aid that prevented the market from correcting itself.
Quote:
As far as the bold, if you actually read the article you'd see it was the bank's errors that resulted in the foreclosures. And they already reached a settlement admitting their guilt.
Bury your head in the sand if you want.
I did read the article, and every single foreclosed home was one where the homeowner failed to pay their mortgage. The bank was within every right to foreclose. The spin the author put on a situation where homeowners were irresponsible enough to buy houses they couldn't afford was impressive, however.
I was 100% against the bailouts of the financial industry. It did more harm than good. As with most government action, it was a band aid that prevented the market from correcting itself.
I did read the article, and every single foreclosed home was one where the homeowner failed to pay their mortgage. The bank was within every right to foreclose. The spin the author put on a situation where homeowners were irresponsible enough to buy houses they couldn't afford was impressive, however.
A judge ruled Wednesday that Wells Fargo failed to prove she was actually behind in her payments, which Delores Dingman, 80, attributes to the bank’s simple “accounting errors.”
“I just praise God for it all because I kept praying so many times about this, because I knew I had made the payments, but their accounting errors made it hard,” she said.
The judge heard six hours of testimony and then ruled to cancel the judicial foreclosure.
Dingman and her late husband moved into their four-bedroom home in 1967, 46 years ago.
After her husband, Leland, died in March 2008, Dingman took out a new mortgage with Wachovia while she paid off his medical bills, never missing a payment. Court records show she promised to pay $308,000 plus interest June 16, 2008.
The next year, after Wells Fargo’s acquisition of Wachovia was completed in Jan. 2009, Dingman began receiving foreclosure notices. She believes the bank did not correctly process her payment since around October 2009.
But her bank records show her mortgage payments have been deposited by Wells Fargo. Despite efforts to clear up the mistake and paying more than $12,000 in attorney fees, her home went into judicial foreclosure.
A judge ruled Wednesday that Wells Fargo failed to prove she was actually behind in her payments, which Delores Dingman, 80, attributes to the bank’s simple “accounting errors.”
“I just praise God for it all because I kept praying so many times about this, because I knew I had made the payments, but their accounting errors made it hard,” she said.
The judge heard six hours of testimony and then ruled to cancel the judicial foreclosure.
Dingman and her late husband moved into their four-bedroom home in 1967, 46 years ago.
After her husband, Leland, died in March 2008, Dingman took out a new mortgage with Wachovia while she paid off his medical bills, never missing a payment. Court records show she promised to pay $308,000 plus interest June 16, 2008.
The next year, after Wells Fargo’s acquisition of Wachovia was completed in Jan. 2009, Dingman began receiving foreclosure notices. She believes the bank did not correctly process her payment since around October 2009.
But her bank records show her mortgage payments have been deposited by Wells Fargo. Despite efforts to clear up the mistake and paying more than $12,000 in attorney fees, her home went into judicial foreclosure.
A select few one-off problems does not indicate a massive conspiracy. The fact still remains that the vast majority of those who were foreclosed upon simply bought a house that they couldn't afford. Can we look at national statistics instead of trying to play the emotional "helpless old lady as a victim card"?
A select few one-off problems does not indicate a massive conspiracy. The fact still remains that the vast majority of those who were foreclosed upon simply bought a house that they couldn't afford. Can we look at national statistics instead of trying to play the emotional "helpless old lady as a victim card"?
I'm sorry man, but you work in a corrupt industry.
Close to 1.2 million borrowers, or about 30 percent of the more than 3.9 million households whose properties were foreclosed on by 11 leading financial institutions in 2009 and 2010, had to battle potentially wrongful efforts to seize their homes despite not having defaulted on their loans, being protected under a host of federal laws, or having been in good standing under bank-approved plans to either restructure their mortgages or temporarily delay required payments.
More than 244,000 of those borrowers eventually lost their homes, government data show.
The estimates, disclosed Tuesday, far exceed projections made over the past few years after document abuses known as robosigning gained widespread attention in late 2010.
Close to 1.2 million borrowers, or about 30 percent of the more than 3.9 million households whose properties were foreclosed on by 11 leading financial institutions in 2009 and 2010, had to battle potentially wrongful efforts to seize their homes despite not having defaulted on their loans, being protected under a host of federal laws, or having been in good standing under bank-approved plans to either restructure their mortgages or temporarily delay required payments.
More than 244,000 of those borrowers eventually lost their homes, government data show.
The estimates, disclosed Tuesday, far exceed projections made over the past few years after document abuses known as robosigning gained widespread attention in late 2010.
It sure is easier to blame the big guy than realize that actual people are buying homes they can't afford, isn't it?
And did you even read that article? It said that 1/3 of foreclosures had to battle POTENTIALLY wrongful efforts when they wanted to have their mortgages restructured or payments delayed. So now a family buys a home they cannot afford, they want to change the terms of their legally binding contract, the bank doesn't change the terms and that is corruption in terms of the bank?
You have to actually read the article next time. A bank doesn't have a requirement to change the terms of its contracts when a person can no longer pay. When does the homebuyer take an ounce of responsibility for the home they cannot afford? I know you are 100% in favor of blaming banks for everything (and people for nothing), but that is ridiculous.
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.
