Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Occupy Wall Street      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 926
Occupy Wall StreetPage 38 of 53    (13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53)

All of congress has that same number.....BTW.....If you want us to take your stats seriously you need to use unbiased sources.

That is a far left university at best.


All these are the GOP approval ratings....

Pew Research=23%..."Do you approve or disapprove of the job the Republican leaders in Congress are doing?" If "depends": "Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the job the Republican leaders in Congress are doing?"

CCN/ORC Poll=21%...Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republican leaders in Congress are handling their job?"



FOX News Poll=22%...."Do you approve or disapprove of the job Republicans in Congress are doing?"




 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 927
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 5:52:10 PM

I guess you forgot to post the ratings for the democrats............



The only reason to even show these poll ratings is to show just how low the political peadership is thought of in the US. Not really any appreciable difference between congressional or presidential ratings. Which is about right. But if you really want to compare poll ratings, its hard to beat the democrat 13%....................




Approval poll rating for Democrats:

CNN/ORC=29%

Quinnipiac=24%

Pew=30%

FOX News Poll=29%
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 928
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 6:18:45 PM
Paul, AIG was "SORTA" wrong? You place more blame on the home buyer than AIG? Seriously? Are you that deluded?

AIG and other KNEW they were selling a pig in a poke, to the home buyer (As evidenced by MANY Home apps that were falsified by the banks and the brokers), and to everyone they sold those puffed up pieces of crap and slapped AAA ratings on them (ratings they KNEW were lies, which, where I come from is called FRAUD) and then, of all things, bet AGAINST those securities they sold as AAA, knowing damn good and well they would fail, and fail spectacularly. You can rant against the small amount of people who allegedly bought their homes with no intent to pay for them (and seriously, how many people can that honestly be? It's going to be a far smaller number than the fraudulent banksters.), but the fact is, AIG and all those other "too big to fail" scumbags committed outright and illegal FRAUD. THEN, after being bailed out by the taxpayers, they set about stealing homes they had no rightful claim to!

Yer pointing your anger at the wrong people. Some blue collar guy with a high school education believed his broker when the broker said, "Yes, you can afford this house", and HE'S the bad guy because he got played?

Unbelieveable.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 929
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 6:21:50 PM
Ahhh Irish, I see we have some wah-wah wah facts! Don't you love when people gloat!

While IMO, poll numbers can be an indicator, they aren't always accurate until just before the election. Though I would question a lot could change between now and then.

Would it surprise me if Obama lost, well, if we base our thoughts on history, then no.

I see our pal wah-wah put up all kinds of numbers, cept the one I think counts, Herbert Clark Hoover(1928-1932). Now admittedly he made some silly moves(what would you expect from a republicant?) but in measuring his loss, his actual popularity was 39.7%, since that was what he received as a percentage of votes.

Since we have no other comparable stats in terms of recessions that deep. Although he had a 23.6% unemployment rate. So if you are going to compare anybody up for reelction it should be someone mired in the same sh1t sandwich. Now keep in mind, while Obama has been president for 3 years, it was shrub who dug this ditch.

As for polls, he11, no one knows for sure if they are registered voters, or will even vote. To tell the truth Irish, I bet I could phrase a poll among the women of POF that would vote wah wah wah, the most attractive on here! It may be a small sampling of blind women, but still...

At any rate, whether he wins reelection and gives you guys a christmas present and allof us another 4 years of taking it up the a.. from either the newtster or jello roomney can't be said yet.

But if he is one term president, it wasn't failed policies, or because of his birth certificate, or because the republicants are willing to put the american people through one more year of shit. It was because shrub and paulson played fast and loose with the banks who nearly buried the world economy, and the people wanted life to look like their favorite episode of the Kardisians and everything made wrong over 8 years, was fixed in less than 4, just like a TV episode.

Remember though, even taking everything into account. 2 years of failed policies by Hoover, 8 years on new deal by FDR, the only real thing that got our can out of the ditch, was world war 2.

On wall street we had a saying, when they raid the whorehouse, they take all the ladies.

What that means is no one has a lock, on what will happen next year, no matter who's poll you watch or who's TV station. If the people are pissed enough, they may turn out the president and much of congress, saying we have had enough of all you political sh1theads who did nothing.
 Damselffish
Joined: 10/15/2011
Msg: 930
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 6:27:58 PM
So, am i to assume that most DO think obama is a chia pet
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 931
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 8:27:48 PM
Blade don't bother, wah wah wa wah, never answers questions, always asks for you to prove his error than never acknowledges it.

Please don't waste your time feeding the troll, he will only leave little non facts, then deny he said them. or do and waste your time like I have for the last 15 pages.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 932
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 3:01:50 AM
Anyway...going past the ad homenim meltdown...
A banker comes clean on the corruption in the system that led to the housing meltdown.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/opinion/kristof-a-banker-speaks-with-regret.html?_r=1&src=tp&smid=fb-share


If you want to understand why the Occupy movement has found such traction, it helps to listen to a former banker like James Theckston. He fully acknowledges that he and other bankers are mostly responsible for the country’s housing mess.

As a regional vice president for Chase Home Finance in southern Florida, Theckston shoveled money at home borrowers. In 2007, his team wrote $2 billion in mortgages, he says. Sometimes those were “no documentation” mortgages.

“On the application, you don’t put down a job; you don’t show income; you don’t show assets,” he said. “But you still got a nod.”

“If you had some old bag lady walking down the street and she had a decent credit score, she got a loan,” he added.

Theckston says that borrowers made harebrained decisions and exaggerated their resources but that bankers were far more culpable — and that all this was driven by pressure from the top.

“You’ve got somebody making $20,000 buying a $500,000 home, thinking that she’d flip it,” he said. “That was crazy, but the banks put programs together to make those kinds of loans.”

Especially when mortgages were securitized and sold off to investors, he said, senior bankers turned a blind eye to shortcuts.

“The bigwigs of the corporations knew this, but they figured we’re going to make billions out of it, so who cares? The government is going to bail us out. And the problem loans will be out of here, maybe even overseas.”

One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.

Theckston, who has a shelf full of awards that he won from Chase, such as “sales manager of the year,” showed me his 2006 performance review. It indicates that 60 percent of his evaluation depended on him increasing high-risk loans.
More at link..
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 933
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 4:38:46 AM
Oh I see now, so the minority borrowers were FORCED by gun point, lives threatened to sign mortgage papers to buy a home now? Got it now.

Dude you seriously need to stop, nobody is innocent in this whole mess, Ive often said EVERY BODY is to blame, from the crooked mortgage brokers( not all) just the crooked, Mortgage brokers, bankers,regulators, Agencies,Lawyers, Appraisers down to the Politicians
Every one has a hand in this mess.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 934
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 5:33:18 AM
Ice is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. In fact, I think that some large part of WHY the whole OWS thing got going, is because a lot of people realized that everyone WAS to blame, but that a large segment of the power structure, especially of the U.S., was (and still is) insisting that ONLY the lower echelons PAY for the mess that was made.

Hence the core of the OWS gripe: " THOSE GUYS" seem to be walking away from it all with full pockets, paid for in large part, by all us peasants.

The movement is on it's last legs now, by the way. At least I think so. Even if the various city managers HADN'T begun their cleanup procedures on the protesters, winter would have driven most of them back in doors.

The problem with unfunded and unguided protests IS that once their main goal is accomplished (i.e. bringing attention to their concern, and venting a bit about it), unless there is an ongoing BATTLE being waged, the participants lose interest, or have to head back to their real lives to get on with things.
 unYOUsual
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 935
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 5:35:07 AM
Being realistic doesn't coincide with the Liberal agenda..have to blame evil corporations for everything..just like the Occupy Wall Street protesters, it's everybody elses fault that they haven't succeeded...Liberalism seems to be about personal freedom without personal responsibility...
 trinity818
Joined: 9/1/2006
Msg: 936
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 5:44:49 AM

Some blue collar guy with a high school education believed his broker when the broker said, "Yes, you can afford this house", and HE'S the bad guy because he got played?


What...they don't teach basic math skills in high school anymore? How can you say he got played? He should know how much he can afford to pay on a mortgage. Unless the guy is mentally disabled, how can you state that someone doesn't know they cannot afford the monthly payment? I really don't get that.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 937
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 7:47:30 AM
So let me get this straight, none of you have ever been oversold by a salesman?

I'm not talking about just houses, just anything? You mean to tell me, you never walked into a store looking for X and to spend Y, and had a salessman up-sell you? Yeah right!

None of you have walked into a RE agents office and said I want to spend 150, and they showed you some disappointing shit..but then said "gee if you were looking a little higher I have this beauty at 180." Now if your that idiot you guys keep claiming who doesn't own a home, they tell him about the "tax breaks" and the deduction.

Then they work the "just add one more dependent to your w-4" and how it will be a little tight the first year, but the tax refund will get you through next year, then you can sell! Of course nobody tells them about the reset on the rate, in the adjustable mortgage.

I guess none of you have known simple people, who just wanted a house, not even an outrageous one. but didn't understand the finances of the process. You guys keep going on about how this person, with no financial skills whatsoever, was trying to game the system! For what exactly?

To live in a house for 16 months, until the he was underwater and couldn't make the payment? That he meant to pay the lawyers fee, the inspector's fee, the RE fee, the mortgage app fee and closing costs, then a moving truck, so he could end up on the street 16 months later. Plus lose any down payment he made.

Ahhh, what's the use.

Let's talk about a real crook for a while, not someone who gave back a 250K or 300K house they were oversold.

Let's talk Eugene Isenberg. He is or was CEO and Chairman at Nabors Inc. His claim to fame is he saved the company from bankruptcy in 87. Well that was then and now is now.

Eugene made 71.9 million in 2008, 23.2 million in 2009, and 13.5 million in 2010. Well it seems they are going to make a change, Eugene is stepping down as CEO. So the company is giving him a one time payment of $100 million! Oh, he is still remaining Chairman.

Of course there are a few little problems, seems Eugene used the private corporate jet for personal use to the tune of almost 3/4 of a million, and just let the company pay for it. The company is under investigation now.

One last thing...the stock is down 40% in the last 5 years...way to go Eugene!

But you guys keep harping on the poor schmuck who's life was thrown in the gutter, cause he didn't know he wasn't goona make it, and gave back a 250K house! Hahaha! I suppose this is YOUR kinda guy unYOU! Hahahaha!!!
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 938
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 8:00:34 AM
OY, you find the best shyte:

Mr. Isenberg has long been one of the highest-paid executives in the U.S. Not counting the latest sum, he has made almost $750 million since 1992, including the value of his exercised stock options, according to Standard & Poor's ExecuComp. In a Journal ranking, which used a slightly different formula, he was the nation's seventh-highest-paid U.S. executive over the decade ended in 2009, with compensation of $518 million, including salary, bonuses, the vesting of restricted stock and gains on the exercise of stock options.

In 2009, the Corporate Library, a corporate-governance research firm that is now part of GovernanceMetrics International, listed Mr. Isenberg as one of the previous year's five highest-paid, worst-performing U.S. executives.

The stock of Nabors has fallen 19% this year, and has underperformed the S&P 500-stock index for the prior one-year, five-year and 10-year periods. On Friday, the shares were up 1.7% at $19.05 in 4 p.m. trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

"I think shareholders will have some issues" with this latest payment to Mr. Isenberg, said Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. Mr. Elson said $100 million was exceptionally large for a severance-type payment, and almost unheard of when an executive is staying on as chairman, in theory a company's highest post.

"It's obviously governed by the contract, but from an outside standpoint this doesn't seem to be a severance event," Mr. Elson said. "Severance means you're leaving the company."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204528204577007932167790556.html
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 939
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 8:05:53 AM
That's it. I've reached my limit. Tinfoil hat time. OWS is not wrong. It's just about as accurate as the Anti-Trust complaint against MS back in the day. An internet browser wasn't where the monoploy was.




http://www.wikileaks.org/the-spyfiles

WikiLeaks: The Spy Files

Mass interception of entire populations is not only a reality, it is a secret new industry spanning 25 countries

It sounds like something out of Hollywood, but as of today, mass interception systems, built by Western intelligence contractors, including for ’political opponents’ are a reality. Today WikiLeaks began releasing a database of hundreds of documents from as many as 160 intelligence contractors in the mass surveillance industry. Working with Bugged Planet and Privacy International, as well as media organizations form six countries – ARD in Germany, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism in the UK, The Hindu in India, L’Espresso in Italy, OWNI in France and the Washington Post in the U.S. Wikileaks is shining a light on this secret industry that has boomed since September 11, 2001 and is worth billions of dollars per year. WikiLeaks has released 287 documents today, but the Spy Files project is ongoing and further information will be released this week and into next year
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 940
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 11:39:33 AM
Nicholas Kristoff has an editorial in today's NY Times which should help explain why it's Occupy Wall Street:

If you want to understand why the Occupy movement has found such traction, it helps to listen to a former banker like James Theckston. He fully acknowledges that he and other bankers are mostly responsible for the country’s housing mess.

As a regional vice president for Chase Home Finance in southern Florida, Theckston shoveled money at home borrowers. In 2007, his team wrote $2 billion in mortgages, he says. Sometimes those were “no documentation” mortgages.

“On the application, you don’t put down a job; you don’t show income; you don’t show assets,” he said. “But you still got a nod.”

“If you had some old bag lady walking down the street and she had a decent credit score, she got a loan,” he added.

Theckston says that borrowers made harebrained decisions and exaggerated their resources but that bankers were far more culpable — and that all this was driven by pressure from the top.

“You’ve got somebody making $20,000 buying a $500,000 home, thinking that she’d flip it,” he said. “That was crazy, but the banks put programs together to make those kinds of loans.”

Especially when mortgages were securitized and sold off to investors, he said, senior bankers turned a blind eye to shortcuts.

“The bigwigs of the corporations knew this, but they figured we’re going to make billions out of it, so who cares? The government is going to bail us out. And the problem loans will be out of here, maybe even overseas.”

One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.

Theckston, who has a shelf full of awards that he won from Chase, such as “sales manager of the year,” showed me his 2006 performance review. It indicates that 60 percent of his evaluation depended on him increasing high-risk loans.

In late 2008, when the mortgage market collapsed, Theckston and most of his colleagues were laid off. He says he bears no animus toward Chase, but he does think it is profoundly unfair that troubled banks have been rescued while troubled homeowners have been evicted.

When I called JPMorgan Chase for its side of the story, it didn’t deny the accounts of manic mortgage-writing. Its spokesmen acknowledge that banks had made huge mistakes and noted that Chase no longer writes subprime or no-document mortgages. It also said that it has offered homeowners four times as many mortgage modifications as homes it has foreclosed on.

Still, 28 percent of all American mortgages are “underwater,” according to Zillow, a real estate Web site. That means that more is owed than the home is worth, and the figure is up from 23 percent a year ago. That overhang stifles the economy, for it’s difficult to nurture a broad recovery unless real estate and construction revive.

All this came into sharper focus this week as Bloomberg Markets magazine published a terrific exposé based on lending records it pried out of the Federal Reserve in a lawsuit. It turns out that the Fed provided an astonishing sum to keep banks afloat — $7.8 trillion, equivalent to more than $25,000 per American.

The article estimated that banks earned up to $13 billion in profits by relending that money to businesses and consumers at higher rates.

The Federal Reserve action isn’t a scandal, and arguably it’s a triumph. The Fed did everything imaginable to avert a financial catastrophe — and succeeded. The money was repaid.

Yet what is scandalous is the basic unfairness of what has transpired. The federal government rescued highly paid bankers from their reckless decisions. It protected bank shareholders and creditors. But it mostly turned a cold shoulder to some of the most vulnerable and least sophisticated people in America. Last year alone, banks seized more than one million homes.

Sure, some programs exist to help borrowers in trouble, but not nearly enough. We still haven’t taken such basic steps as allowing bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of a mortgage on a primary home. Legislation to address that has gotten nowhere.

My daughter and I are reading Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath” aloud to each other, and those Depression-era injustices seem so familiar today. That’s why the Occupy movement resonates so deeply: When the federal government goes all-out to rescue errant bankers, and stiffs homeowners, that’s not just bad economics. It’s also wrong.

Wall Street brought the country to the brink - Wall Street got bailed out. It's important to recognize that over a quarter of houses are still under water: over 25% of responsible mortgage holders are making payments on houses that are worth less than they owe on them. And this was caused solely because of Wall Street greed.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 941
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 11:58:55 AM

Wall Street brought the country to the brink - Wall Street got bailed out. It's important to recognize that over a quarter of houses are still under water: over 25% of responsible mortgage holders are making payments on houses that are worth less than they owe on them. And this was caused solely because of Wall Street greed.
oh bull shit, seriously now this is getting old , You know what pal, nobody put a gun to any of these borrowers head, most were greedy, bankers would writing mortgages with their eyes closed, every one is too blame, its that simple.

They played the Musical Real estate game , the music stop and 25% was left holding the bag, between 2001 and 2007 when most of these people were making tons of money, buying and refinancing the wall street bankers were looked upon as God's but as soon as a " correction" came in bingo, now the wall street bankers, brokers are all crooks, thieves, dogs, scoundrels, pigs etc etc etc, bull shit.

Spin it all you want bottom line is nobody put a gun to the borrowers head, the " I don't understand the mortgage contract" or " you shouldn't of lent me money" excuse doesn't fly some of that Wall street did was Immoral yes, but not illegal.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 942
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 12:17:54 PM
Did you miss the part where the number of homes "underwater" went up from 23% to 28% in the last year? Are you really going to try to argue that they are new mortgages on houses for more than they are worth?

The ones continuing to make payments on houses they owe more on than the houses are worth are those that are just regular Joes and Janes who have watched their houses go down in value. They are victims of Wall Street greed.
 Lint Spotter
Joined: 8/27/2009
Msg: 943
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 12:23:24 PM
The ones continuing to make payments on houses they owe more on than the houses are worth are those that are just regular Joes and Janes who have watched their houses go down in value. They are victims of Wall Street greed.
Oh give me a break. I don't have a degree in Economics or Finance; I'm pretty much just a regular consumer and even I know that you're stupid to buy when the market is peaking.

Congrats to those that sold at that time, shame on those that bought... it's simple as that.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 944
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 12:24:11 PM
Oh sorry cdn, OK let's assume and treat both as equal wrongs shall we?

Those freakin idiot homebuyers were nothing but greedy schmucks, who wanted a home, and didn't want to pay for it.

Now those freakin greedy bankers made those loans to those greedy schmucks who wanted those houses.

Now lets throw those sobs out of those houses they bought. Screw their credit and let them rot!

Now as to those greedy fuking bankers well...oopps...can't seem to apply the same thing now can we? They first went to the FED window and got 7 trillion between 07 and march of 09. Then they went up the hill to congress hat in hand just having stepped off their private jets and said "hey buddy can you spare some billions" and came away with TARP for another 700 billion.

Then went out and paid the HIGHEST bouses in the history of wall street in 2010!

Now if you read the papers, a boatload of homeowners, who whether unknowingly or by deceit or by fraud, got foreclosed on. I mean MILLIONS! In fact they were so busy forclosing, in some cases they even foreclosed on some who were NOT deliqeunt or worse the wrong house all together.

So half of the are group certainly got their azzes handed to them now didn't they?

But what of the other half? They've skated along as merry as can be. Oh sure they cut some jobs, pared the staff, closed some units of operations. Yes they still own some of those forclosed on houses. Some of these banks may go out of business, or have to restructure.

But not one of the higher ups, the policy makers at these banks, the ones that made and make the BIG buck$, have missed a lunch, or are out of a job or home.

I'm sorry, blame the guys who bought the houses all you want. I'm fine with that. But these guys KNEW they would never make the payments or be able to, when their lawyers held the closings. These guys KNEW they were going to go and bundle these bags of sh1t and sell them to any fool who'd buy them. These guys KNEW they had a backstop by the federal government. They also KNEW they would get money I PAID IN TAXES to bail them out.

Now do what you want, but please show me where ANYTHING I said was untrue.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 945
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 12:26:14 PM
So, it must have been 2006 and I wanted to repave my driveway...and thought a small home equity might be a nice easy way of doing that...so, I called up a friend who is a VP of a local bank (not a national)...anyway, she tries to get me to refi my whole house...cash it out completely...gives me the big easy money pitch.. (not what I owed at the time-I owned 75% of my house at the time and the bank owned 25%)....I told her I would get back to her and went to my credit union and got the smallest home equity I could and repaved my drive...I never called my friend back.

The point of this story is that others would have taken the sales pitch to cash out their home and did.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 946
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 12:26:57 PM
Halftime, Did you miss the part where most of them refinanced their homes to take advantage of the equity, sorry " inflated" equity during that time?

Gone were the days where one had to have a beacon score of 620, and 20% down,then a lot of them came in with a beacon score of 520 and financed 100% or more, which drove up the prices of homes between that period.

I'm sorry I don't feel sorry for people like that played the game and lost, I feel for the person who did it the right way, 20% down, lost their jobs, couldn't make the payments , couldn't sell especially after the down turn in the economy, but unfortunately a lot of those people the banks couldn't do anything with them because they sold their mortgage portfolio to the idiot investment bankers that set up special entities and so on.

Those are the true victims of Wall street, not the ass hole that gambled , lost and now looking to take a pound of flesh for his or her own inadequacy

The true legitimate victims they have a beef, and I would be more than glad to stand by their side and fight but those are a small percentage.



So, it must have been 2006 and I wanted to repave my driveway...and thought a small home equity might be a nice easy way of doing that...so, I called up a friend who is a VP of a local bank (not a national)...anyway, she tries to get me to refi my whole house (not what I owed at the time-I owned 75% of my house at the time and the bank owned 25%)....I told her I would get back to her and went to my credit union and got the smallest home equity I could and repaved my drive...I never called my friend back.

The point of this story is that others would have taken the sales pitch to cash out their home and did.
Ahhh Irish, but the point is YOU DIDN'T FALL FOR IT, yes there are lot of folks that fell for it and got caught, maybe they wanted to consolidate debts, etc.... the point was we have a choice, we have to be responsible for our choices.

23 years ago, I lost some serious cash when a certain stock tanked, I learned a valuable lesson and blamed ME, MYSELF and I, the lesson I learned was Understand what you are investing 100% , not 90% or 96.% 100% .
I would never buy a stock without reading a Proxy statement, Balance sheet,annual reports ,knowing the Book value, earning per share, P/B ratios knowing who management is and their track record etc and the damn company better be paying Uncle Iceman a dividend .

 lotustemple
Joined: 10/23/2011
Msg: 947
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 12:38:20 PM
They are upset at some corporations laying off people while the CEO's are making huge bonuses, some of them are upset because they are struggling for a living and the 1% population isn't, they want more regulations , but fails to understand more regulations will accomplish nothing...... what will more regulations accomplish? except making lawyers and accountants richer because they will figure out ways around the regulations.

The banks lawyers have figured out a way around Basel II and now Basel III, they want the government to provide more regulations on top of the bull shit regulations they came up with in the first place.



We should be teaching our children, godchildren, grand children, the youth, teens about Wealth creation , teaching them about how the system works and some of these " young " folks can be a system of change, I have no faith in baby boomer generation for the most part, except for the entrepreneurs, the ones that believe in Capitalism and not this crap about the government / my employers should look after me , people who say " to hell with this working for someone else" Im working for my self, I want to be wealthy I want to contribute to society and profit from it, none of this working for someone who pays me what they think Im worth, therefore struggling financially in life, no financial education etc.


Cdn Iceman,
Excerpts from your fabulous post. Thanks for insight on more regulations not being the answer. I like your model of wealth creation too....wouldn't take much to come about on a broad scale if kids were taught this in school. It would be a huge leap from the current employment model however change is in the air. You should write a book....and don't forget to insert all the silly fried chicken analogies.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 948
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 1:01:04 PM
2 things my friend.

"I feel sorry for the person who did it the right way, 20% down"

I feel for them as well, frankly I feel for anybody who owned a home by the end of 07, with the exception of the flippers(speculators). With possibly the exception of Manhattan and some other select places(probably DC), everyone took a hit to their equity in their home value. Whether they went under or not. I had sold mine in 06, because of some changes I was contemplating(move to atl. or elsewhere).

"YOU DIDN'T FALL FOR IT"

Well if we're gonna debate that, we need to return to the 60's when VISA &MC came about. before that it was diner's club and american express, bills due at the end of the month.

Then we had the slide and pitch "why wait? get it now, just put your shit on VISA and make low monthly payments!"

Yes americans learned to luv that instant gratification of credit cards! New TV, no problem whip it out, new sofa no problem, same with vacations, same with all kinds of shit. Yeah credit was sold to the public n they took to it like crack cocaine!

Then when they had maxed out the cards, came the only resource they had left the house! I remember you couldn't watch a TV show without 3 ads for 2nd mortgages or home equity loans running on it.

Then the rallying cry became "clear those credit card debts! Why pay those high rates of interest?(even though it was the same bank, different division) come in tomorrow and we can close on your equity line usually in 48 hours!"

Of course the schmuck went right out and ran the credit cards up again!

No one was teaching anybody to live within their means! Get it now pay later! You'll be able to pay it off with your next couple of raises! What friggin raises? What happens when you can't? What if you lose your job? What happens if you get sick and can't work?

But nooooooo, commericals with the beautiful people at islands, disneyworld, grand canyon and ALL ON CREDIT!
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 949
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 2:21:35 PM
Oy Vay , you know this so its going to be old news to you my friend and since you brought up Visa , MC and credit cards , it makes one wonder why Middle America is in so much trouble today?

The government/financial institutions encourages Americans/Canadians/Brits etc to borrow borrow borrow .

Years ago, the Old saying Cash is king , has gone by the way of the dinosaurs and the twist.
Today if you don't have credit you cant rent a apartment, get financing, leasing you name it.

I don't know what its like in the states, but up in my province ( Ontario) The financial institutions pull your credit to decide if they will open up a bank account for the person.

Most Rental building requires a credit bureau, and back in the day, most folks got a credit bureau for emergency purposes, today is a different story, I had a client that was turned down for financing a while back because she didn't use her credit card much, she had a Royal Bank Visa for 7 years but used its maybe 9 times, and the banker couldn't or wouldn't lend her money because not enough time on her credit bureau, bizarre isn't it, she buys something, pays if off and doesn't use it.

I tell my clients go put a tank of gas on your card and pay it off at the end of the month to maintain your rating, I'm sure its the same way in the States, I hear down there they pull your credit bureau to see if they will let you have a margin account.

They send you card after card after card, you spend, spend spend, which is good for the economy but then the person gets overwhelmed in debt, then has to get a consolidation loan, and depending on your credit will be the difference of Prime rates to Usury rates and the cycle goes on and on.

In Canada they are fighting with the credit companies to lower the interest rates and for transparency of the cards, the transparency I agree with but lowering the rates? well if you don't carry a balance you shouldn't worry about the rate? but if you're living off the card I can see why one will be concerned.

Not enough financial literacy out there, folks would rather sit home and watch the Kardashian, or X factor or American Idol, Canadian Idol, Iraqi Idol or what ever vs taking a financial course and learn about financial things so they can improve their lives, instead of living reality they rather watch it and blame others that takes actions .
 lotustemple
Joined: 10/23/2011
Msg: 950
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 12/1/2011 3:12:45 PM
I moved funds to a local bank but they didn't want to give me a debit card since i have zero credit history, never been in debt. Assests were irrelevent to the bank manager and he was sorry.... bank rules.

So i lectured him(in a nice way) on how i have refused to use a credit card to develop credit history, because its would be compromising my integrity. I didn't care if the whole frikken world lived on credit i wasn't playing the game, period. But a debit card with a visa or mastercard insignia was important for travelling etc...

I went on and on for a while and he picked up the phone, said something about wanting permission based on a hunch and then gave me the dang card.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Occupy Wall Street