ACORN plans mass revolts
Anon
Posts: 11,175
They say to those who bit off more than they could chew to revolt and protest foreclosures. So since these people were too stupid to know they couldn't afford that huge house and now can't pay the bills are being put into foreclosure, well now that is racist!
Change indeed!
Screw those of use who actually are responsible and pay our bills. We now have to bailout the scum who want MORE handouts.
This country gets worse every day.
Change indeed!
Screw those of use who actually are responsible and pay our bills. We now have to bailout the scum who want MORE handouts.
This country gets worse every day.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I couldn't agree with you more sir but I'm sure we will both get hammered for thinking this way..Can you say SOCIALISIM. :x
Why? they knew what they could afford and what they couldn't...I also think we shouldn't bail out the banks either..
The banks knew they couldn't afford the loans, but still pressured them to take them. They also knew nobody could understand their contracts, not even the people that wrote them, yet they strong-armed people into signing them and then used it to rape them with exploding interest and other terms. Then they sold the loans to other companies so that if people had problems or questions, they could never get someone to speak to them about it and could no longer rely on the local officer at their bank... instead having to explain it to some phone service overseas. The way the banks ran their business is unconscionable.
They tried to screw every middle class, lower class, and poor person that walked in their door, figuring that if they couldn't pay they would kick them out and repo the house and sell it again to make enormous profits. It's like they bought a ship, bought the cheapest crew they could and are now whining that the ship is sinking because their corner-cutting efforts have blown up in their faces.
What they have been doing is unconscionable. If I tried to scam some old white WW2 vet with an e-mail phishing you'd be livid at the way I took advantage of someone that wasn't sophisticated enough to see through it. But since most of these people are poor or black, then it's their fault for being too stupid to see through the scams the banks ran on them. I have no sympathy for the banks... they should have known better. The buyers didn't... they were trusting their banks' expertise to help them make this work, then got left out to dry.
just to make sure I got my definitions right
socialism-bailout the majority
capitalism-bailout the wealthy minority
think I prefer socialism at this point.
then why dont you go live in cuba or N. korea :roll: :roll: do you not believe in free enterprise either? I guess your user name says it all huh?
think about it.
embracing "profit over people" as an economic model was obviously a mistake.
socialisim for the rich? huh ? Dude what the hell are you talking about ?
say a corporation decides to make a new weapon. they gov't hands them tax dollars to think up some new idea. so they get an idea. the gov't gives them billions more to actually build the new weapon. and test it. then hands over billions more for them to produce that weapon. all called grants. and still nothing put in by the company -all tax dollars. if the weapon is considered useful by a branch of the military, the gov't actually buys the weapon (that it paid for with tax dollars to begin with), usually billions more. if not they scrap it. so no risk from the corporation, its all paid for in tax dollars. but if it succeeds, the corporation gets to pocket all the profits. public takes the risk, private corporation pockets the profits. called neo liberalism-basically massive gov't spending in the private sector. corporate handouts in other words.
reagan expanded this idea into other industries, with margaret thatcher. massive gov't spending in the private sector, while the companies keep the profits. he alone shifted over $1 trillion into the private sector. Bush 2 did it again, through the war in Iraq. he spent over a trillion dollars, on this war. he wasn't investing though, he was simply buying and handing it out. giving it to his vp's buddies at haliburton, who charged hundreds of millions of dollars for embassies and barracks and so on.
and its been the so-called conservatives who have been the biggest champions of neo liberalism.
but do you think it should be legal for creditors to take advantages of peoples' ignorance?
Exactly. Nobody seems to ponder this... it's just that the people who took the loans are irresponsible... like we expect everyone to be experts in high finances just to buy a house. I'll literally eat shit if even half the people claiming this crap have read every single word of every contract they ever signed... every lease, every page of ever purchase, all the fine print on their credit card, all the terms and conditions on their phone contract... I guarantee most of them have called a phone company to bitch about how unreasonable the consequences of their phone use were and how unfair it is.
I don't think these people knew they couldn't afford things. I think they probably had reservations... reservations the banks assured them were unfounded as they explained how easy it would be for them to handle the loan and how willing the bank would be to work with them. They exploited these people, plain and simple. They don't tell them that if their payment is mailed under a quarter moon instead of a half moon, then their interest rate will triple from then on. They don't tell them they can sell that mortgage to a third party that can do whatever the hell they want to it without ever letting the loan recipient know, thereby depriving the recipient of the ability to speak personally to the person that talked them into the loan and assured them they'd be there to work with them if there were problems... instead the recipient faces an anonymous voice on a phone from india spouting nothing but legalese at them as they destroy their credit from halfway around the world and the banker says "sorry, I guess maybe I wasn't clear about the terms..."
That's just nuts IMO.. I mean If I go on a car lot to buy a new car and the sales man says to me you know you should let me set you up in this new Mercedes. I know I cant afford that no matter what he says.. Isn't that the same? I think it comes down to Personal Responsibility
Its not what you think S.S. it's what you can prove.. But what about acorn harassing loan officers and banks.isn't there some truth to that?
link....?
I doubt any of them had guns held to their heads to sign. If they can afford a house they can afford the $400 for an attorney, if not then they shouldn't buy. I give them no sympathy.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hea ... 68175.html
I still don't agree with this argument when it comes to buying a house... You're right, no on reads all of the fine print on a credit card or whatever, but when buying a house, if you don't read the whole thing (or pay a lawyer to) then that's the buyer's fault. No one is forcing you to buy a house, do a little research before you do.
I read every single page of every agreement that I signed for our mortgage/house, and while not being a finance expert, it was in pretty clear terms what the interest rate was and the terms of that. And for a few hundred bucks we payed a lawyer to double checked everything as well and answer some questions.
I feel for people who lose jobs or have some sort of healthcare issue which wipes out their money, but for the people making $30,000 a year who bough a $250k house because the interest only payments were affordable or banking on the house to increase in value so they could sell for a profit, I don't have much sympathy for them.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
If I see a mentally retarded person and I scam them out of giving me $10, would you say they can't complain and that they should have exercised personal responsibility?
I know you're going to say that's ridiculous, but it's not if you think about it. The knowledge gap between Joe menial worker and a bank loan officer is astounding. I have an undergrad degree from a major university and I'm one semester away from a law degree, and I am only scratching the surface of understanding of the complexity of these kinds of contracts. When a young couple who maybe have some community college and a good job walk into a bank looking into a loan, they get the shakedown. They don't know high finance and there they have a guy in a suit and tie with a dozen degrees showing them what they can afford (often based on the BANKER'S estimate of what they COULD be earning in the next few years), so they look in that price range.
It's a sick sad world when we all say "well, the should have known the bank would try to screw them and hired an attorney." Why is that ok? When did we decide there was nothing wrong at all with banks hiding between mountains of legalese and using it to destroy people's lives for their own profit? When did it become ok to take advantage of those without the means or education to defend themselves? If these people aren't sophisticated or wealthy enough to understand the ramifications of the housing contract, why would we assume they have the money and knowledge to run the whole thing by a lawyer?
Yes, they bear ultimate responsibility for signing, but that does not absolve the banks of shitty, cynical practices that prey upon unsophisticated buyers for personal profit.
And now we've got a mess because the banks did this to so many people that they are going down with them. Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the banks. Why do you say "the people should have known not to sign?" Where is the comment that "the bank should have looked at this person's income and realized there's no way they could pay it and shouldn't have given the loan?" The banks have the expertise to realize that, the buyers didn't... so why is the buyers' sole responsibility? But the banks didn't do that, they gave the loan anyway, figuring if they couldn't pay it, they'd repossess the house and sell it again. Lots of money to be made by destroying people's finances and flat out lying to your customers.
So what do we have now? Bail outs. The proposal being suggested is that yes, these people fucked up. So did the banks. How can you be ok with the banks being given boatloads of taxpayer money and then scream bloody murder about paying off mortgages? What happened to personal responsibility for the banks and their shitty business practices?
It seems like a foregone conclusion that bailouts are happening because the only other option is catastrophe. When you bail out the bank, it does nothing for economy. People aren't going to open new business in an economy like this where nobody's buying. Banks aren't going to give loans to businesses when they're already in over their heads in bad loans. You can't invent demand by trying to increase the supply. That's absurd. We've got way more supply than demand already, that's the problem. All a bank bailout does it insure the bank's profit. We could give a bailout to home owners right now and the problem would be over. The banks would have those bad loans paid off and erased from their books with only minimal damage, freeing them up from dead weight and making them better able to lend again. In addition, the consumers become free from debt they will never be able to pay off can start spending again. This is good for everyone, even those who say they "did all the right things" but still might lose their job.
The ONLY reason banks don't want to do this is because they're STILL focused only on profit, which is what got us here. If the mortgages are paid off, the banks break even and become solvent and disaster is averted... but that's not good enough for them. They want to keep the consumers strapped in order to ensure that they still get high interest on their loans and have the profits to buy more jets and CEO/shareholder bonuses. They're basically asking the government to underwrite their hard times to keep them paying out bonuses while they hopes that somehow these mortgages will all miraculously get paid. It won't happen.
Bank bailouts do nothing. We have two choices:
1. Do nothing, let them crash, and hope we survive after the dead weight has been cleared away.
2. Try to fix the problem through some form of bail out.
I'm ok with number #1, but my only point is that if you're going to go with #2, bank bailouts do nothing to solve this problem and the only way to fix things is to bail out the homeowners.
I agree with you on the home owners that were taken advantage of.
what kind of law will you be practicing?
Nothing remotely tied to finance or bankruptcy if I can help it. Probably employment or maybe trademark protection. I'd like to do criminal work, but it doesn't pay very well and I've got a mountain of debt to work off!
ha ha ha...I bet you're a drama major...
when I read the term "mass revolt" I picture 1000's taking to the streets and causing chaos and mayhem...I see that maybe 100 people may sit it and carry signs...
ha ha ha...mass revolt, my ass...
1) Lost of income due to Outsourcing of jobs.
2) Lost of income due to Closing of plants and factories to move to Mexico or offshore
3) Lost of income due to Cosing of military bases
4) The lost of small family businesses to Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Cosco
5) Lost of health care and benefit packages to workers when plants/factories closed.
6) Layoffs due to period during the height of the raising gas prices
7) Raising property taxes and state taxes to offset the lost of plants, factories.
8) Wall street
9) All the Blank checks given the Bush Administration that sent us into a 9 trillion dollar deficit.
Nobody held a gun to their heads to sign these mortgage papers. Nobody was forced to get into these mortgages. No sympathy from me.
okay going out to dinner now, cuz I saved up some extra cash for tonight.. I mean, Obama sent me some stimulus so I can go out and eat and drink on the taxpayers dime.
www.seanbrady.net
what about the banks that gave these risky loans in the first place? some of these banks were handing out money, its no surprise that many of these people can't pay them back. why should banks be bailed out for bad lending practices? its bad business.[/quote]
these banks should not be bailed out, I don't think we should have bailed out the Autos either
www.seanbrady.net
Most of which happened on Clinton's watch. NAFTA is an evil thing.
so...do nothing is your answer to the economic crisis? we should just sit back and watch it crumble?