BITD, before 2008, mortgages were considered secured loans.
There was no penalty for giving the home back to the bank.
The bank got whatever you had already paid, plus a house which most likely had increased in value.
I'm just suggesting that all of the above except for the last one could have been greatly minimized by some simple and easy to understand due dilligence....if someone disagrees with this we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Every major city has a public library, free and/or sliding scale legal advice and free/affordable classes on buying a home.
just so I'm clear, your position is: if a crime can be proven in the case of individuals, they should be prosecuted, but additional regulation or legislation of the real estate and financial industries is not necessary; as a taxpayer, you do not have a problem with the way the government has spent your money with respect to its various housing agencies and programs. People just need to hit the library, take some classes, or find a free lawyer so they can make better decisions. Am I misstating your argument?
You're close but I'll spell it out.
Yes, if a crime has been committed by either individuals or corporations they should be charged and prosecuted.
No, I do not support the bail-outs and stated such earlier in the thread. I understand why they had to happen but I don't ever want to see them happen again and if that means legislation that prevents any future Fanny Mae's or Freddy Mac's I'm on board.
Yes, I STRONGLY suggest that any person purchasing a house spend the necessary time and effort to make sure they understand exactly what they are getting in to. If you can't take the time, spend the money or understand on your own what you're going to sign on the dotted line for I suggest you don't sign.
The latter is the easiest, quickest and most effective way to protect yourself and your investment in a home in 2011.
Everyone I know has made bad decisions in their life.....my mentality is that you and you alone are responsible and accountable for your bad decisions.
I heard a horrific sounding stat yesterday stating that more than 40 million Americans currently use food stamps to augment food purchases. At a cost of more than 50 billion to taxpayers per year.
I heard a horrific sounding stat yesterday stating that more than 40 million Americans currently use food stamps to augment food purchases. At a cost of more than 50 billion to taxpayers per year.
The mind doth boggle.
So is this horrific because 40 million Americans (approximately 13.03% of the population) have been reduced to using food stamps to get by or that tax payers have to shell out 50 billion to to it?
Here are few interesting things about how spouting out this number with no context boggles the mind:
1) The Food stamps program is by far the best bang for the buck when attempting to stimulate the economy. This is basic Micro/Macro Economics. While folks wail about wasteful "spending" and want to kill this program it is most effective use of government money, hands down. For every $1 spent $1.73 dollars (As of 2008) is generated in the economy. In comparison making the Bush tax cuts permanent only generates $0.29 per dollar spent.
For a breakdown of the effectiveness of various spending and tax policies see the following: http://www.accuracy.org/release/1917-effective-stimulus-food-stamps-vs-tax-cuts/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier
This jibes with my economic text books and lecture notes from 2009.
2) As FrankieMeltzer pointed out we subsidize farms at a much higher rate to keep our food prices low (we can't do what the Romans did and have actual Bread and Circuses). It can be argued that by subsidizing farms we are strategically stabilizing our food prices, but this flies in the face of the "common wisdom" that the invisible hand of the market will cure all ailments (including arthritis). We also throw huge amounts of money to industries that don't need it. Oil companies (unarguable the most profitable on the planet) get $4 billion from the US government.
3) Companies like Walmart use existing programs to keep their employment costs low, essentially using public programs as backdoor subsidizes. One of the first things a new Walmart employee is given is paperwork to apply for food stamps. Think about this. Walmart doesn't pay its people enough to live on, so they help get public assistance for their employees so tax payers can help them meet their payroll goals and maximize their profits.
Full disclosure. My wife has been out of work for over a year, I am working part-time and going to school part-time and if we were not living with my mom and receiving her help, we would both be on food stamps to survive. In all likelihood I would have had to stop school (I am an Accounting major) and work multiple part time jobs rather than get myself into a solid well paying profession by next year.
It does not surprise me that folks are angry and unless we as a country (and by extension the politicians who represent us) don't pull their heads out of our collective asses and start figuring out how to put people to work, the media and conservatives will know the real meaning of class warfare. America is at a crossroads and our decision help or hinder those folks in their pursuit of the American dream will determine the social and political stability of our country for the next decade.
I assumed he meant that it is horrific because 40 million Americans need SNAP (food stamps) to get by.
I agree with him.
Google suggests that:
In Texas a family of 2 will get about $92 a week.
In California it is only $67 a week.
Here in Oregon I think it is $101.
I am not sure why it is so low in Cali.
These are doable sums (except Cali) but will keep you close to the bone.
I also agree that having 40 million folks on SNAP in one of the richest countries in the world is shame. It says a lot about our national character that we will put up with economic disparity.
I lived in Colombia in the 80s and I can tell you that the extremes between the have and have nots is crazy large. I never thought that my own country would think this a virtue via its economic policies. But I was 18 years old and Regan had been president and we were settling in for Bush Sr. tenure, what did I know at that point.
Collier County, Florida -- Have you heard the one about a homeowner foreclosing on a bank?
Well, it has happened in Florida and involves a North Carolina based bank.
Instead of Bank of America foreclosing on some Florida homeowner, the homeowners had sheriff's deputies foreclose on the bank.
It started five months ago when Bank of America filed foreclosure papers on the home of a couple, who didn't owe a dime on their home.
The couple said they paid cash for the house.
The case went to court and the homeowners were able to prove they didn't owe Bank of America anything on the house. In fact, it was proven that the couple never even had a mortgage bill to pay.
A Collier County Judge agreed and after the hearing, Bank of America was ordered, by the court to pay the legal fees of the homeowners', Maurenn Nyergers and her husband.
The Judge said the bank wrongfully tried to foreclose on the Nyergers' house.
So, how did it end with bank being foreclosed on? After more than 5 months of the judge's ruling, the bank still hadn't paid the legal fees, and the homeowner's attorney did exactly what the bank tried to do to the homeowners. He seized the bank's assets.
"They've ignored our calls, ignored our letters, legally this is the next step to get my clients compensated, " attorney Todd Allen told CBS.
Sheriff's deputies, movers, and the Nyergers' attorney went to the bank and foreclosed on it. The attorney gave instructions to to remove desks, computers, copiers, filing cabinets and any cash in the teller's drawers.
After about an hour of being locked out of the bank, the bank manager handed the attorney a check for the legal fees.
"As a foreclosure defense attorney this is sweet justice" says Allen.
Allen says this is something that he sees often in court, banks making errors because they didn't investigate the foreclosure and it becomes a lengthy and expensive battle for the homeowner.
so...is this going to keep growing?....seems like its been picking up rather swiftly
It sure has grown.
I have a young friend who helped get things going here and lived there for the first 2 weeks.
Friday he gave me the tour. It is really impressive what they have done, and what they are doing.
Went back Saturday afternoon for a bit, and then Saturday night spent a little time in Jamison Square, which later made the national news.
People, in this country, have a right to protest. Oakland police have been trying to take away that right.
One protester was hit in the head by an exploding chemical weapon canister and hospitalized.
Was that protester a snotty nosed kid? No, he was an Iraq war veteran. A man who had fought for the right of the Iraqi people to do what he was denied at home. Another veteran was beaten by Oakland police. All this happened before any alleged rock throwing incidences.
The simple truth is that days ago the Oakland police responded to peaceful protests with violence. The people, some with snotty nose, some with clean noses, have fought back.
In a battle between the police trying suppress first amendment rights, and the people attempting to assert their Constitutional rights, I will side with the people.
As to the first video, did any one see any projectiles flying toward the police? I didn't.
Did any one see the police taking action to avoid projectiles? I didn't.
What I saw was some one video taping the police and that person being shot by the police.
Oakland police say they have video of the rock throwing and the police response, but refuse to share those public recordings with the public.
In the 2nd video when she says chemical weapons she is quoting the police.
The police use the term chemical weapons because it is an accurate term.
The only time the US government uses tear gas or pepper gas is against it's own people.
It is against the Geneva conventions to use them in warfare and even GW Bush didn't use them in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Comments
There was no penalty for giving the home back to the bank.
The bank got whatever you had already paid, plus a house which most likely had increased in value.
You're close but I'll spell it out.
Yes, if a crime has been committed by either individuals or corporations they should be charged and prosecuted.
No, I do not support the bail-outs and stated such earlier in the thread. I understand why they had to happen but I don't ever want to see them happen again and if that means legislation that prevents any future Fanny Mae's or Freddy Mac's I'm on board.
Yes, I STRONGLY suggest that any person purchasing a house spend the necessary time and effort to make sure they understand exactly what they are getting in to. If you can't take the time, spend the money or understand on your own what you're going to sign on the dotted line for I suggest you don't sign.
The latter is the easiest, quickest and most effective way to protect yourself and your investment in a home in 2011.
Everyone I know has made bad decisions in their life.....my mentality is that you and you alone are responsible and accountable for your bad decisions.
The mind doth boggle.
So is this horrific because 40 million Americans (approximately 13.03% of the population) have been reduced to using food stamps to get by or that tax payers have to shell out 50 billion to to it?
Here are few interesting things about how spouting out this number with no context boggles the mind:
1) The Food stamps program is by far the best bang for the buck when attempting to stimulate the economy. This is basic Micro/Macro Economics. While folks wail about wasteful "spending" and want to kill this program it is most effective use of government money, hands down. For every $1 spent $1.73 dollars (As of 2008) is generated in the economy. In comparison making the Bush tax cuts permanent only generates $0.29 per dollar spent.
For a breakdown of the effectiveness of various spending and tax policies see the following:
http://www.accuracy.org/release/1917-effective-stimulus-food-stamps-vs-tax-cuts/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier
This jibes with my economic text books and lecture notes from 2009.
2) As FrankieMeltzer pointed out we subsidize farms at a much higher rate to keep our food prices low (we can't do what the Romans did and have actual Bread and Circuses). It can be argued that by subsidizing farms we are strategically stabilizing our food prices, but this flies in the face of the "common wisdom" that the invisible hand of the market will cure all ailments (including arthritis). We also throw huge amounts of money to industries that don't need it. Oil companies (unarguable the most profitable on the planet) get $4 billion from the US government.
3) Companies like Walmart use existing programs to keep their employment costs low, essentially using public programs as backdoor subsidizes. One of the first things a new Walmart employee is given is paperwork to apply for food stamps. Think about this. Walmart doesn't pay its people enough to live on, so they help get public assistance for their employees so tax payers can help them meet their payroll goals and maximize their profits.
Full disclosure. My wife has been out of work for over a year, I am working part-time and going to school part-time and if we were not living with my mom and receiving her help, we would both be on food stamps to survive. In all likelihood I would have had to stop school (I am an Accounting major) and work multiple part time jobs rather than get myself into a solid well paying profession by next year.
It does not surprise me that folks are angry and unless we as a country (and by extension the politicians who represent us) don't pull their heads out of our collective asses and start figuring out how to put people to work, the media and conservatives will know the real meaning of class warfare. America is at a crossroads and our decision help or hinder those folks in their pursuit of the American dream will determine the social and political stability of our country for the next decade.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/from-farm-to-fridge-to-garbage-can/
http://www.livescience.com/5919-americans-toss-40-percent-http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/from-farm-to-fridge-to-garbage-can/food.html
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20041024002637data_trunc_sys.shtml
So, to a great degree, our farm subsidies are subsidizing garbage.
I agree with him.
Google suggests that:
In Texas a family of 2 will get about $92 a week.
In California it is only $67 a week.
Here in Oregon I think it is $101.
I am not sure why it is so low in Cali.
These are doable sums (except Cali) but will keep you close to the bone.
I also agree that having 40 million folks on SNAP in one of the richest countries in the world is shame. It says a lot about our national character that we will put up with economic disparity.
I lived in Colombia in the 80s and I can tell you that the extremes between the have and have nots is crazy large. I never thought that my own country would think this a virtue via its economic policies. But I was 18 years old and Regan had been president and we were settling in for Bush Sr. tenure, what did I know at that point.
http://business.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474980538101
Well, it has happened in Florida and involves a North Carolina based bank.
Instead of Bank of America foreclosing on some Florida homeowner, the homeowners had sheriff's deputies foreclose on the bank.
It started five months ago when Bank of America filed foreclosure papers on the home of a couple, who didn't owe a dime on their home.
The couple said they paid cash for the house.
The case went to court and the homeowners were able to prove they didn't owe Bank of America anything on the house. In fact, it was proven that the couple never even had a mortgage bill to pay.
A Collier County Judge agreed and after the hearing, Bank of America was ordered, by the court to pay the legal fees of the homeowners', Maurenn Nyergers and her husband.
The Judge said the bank wrongfully tried to foreclose on the Nyergers' house.
So, how did it end with bank being foreclosed on? After more than 5 months of the judge's ruling, the bank still hadn't paid the legal fees, and the homeowner's attorney did exactly what the bank tried to do to the homeowners. He seized the bank's assets.
"They've ignored our calls, ignored our letters, legally this is the next step to get my clients compensated, " attorney Todd Allen told CBS.
Sheriff's deputies, movers, and the Nyergers' attorney went to the bank and foreclosed on it. The attorney gave instructions to to remove desks, computers, copiers, filing cabinets and any cash in the teller's drawers.
After about an hour of being locked out of the bank, the bank manager handed the attorney a check for the legal fees.
"As a foreclosure defense attorney this is sweet justice" says Allen.
Allen says this is something that he sees often in court, banks making errors because they didn't investigate the foreclosure and it becomes a lengthy and expensive battle for the homeowner.
Move it to the lobby of Bank of America and Goldman Sacks.
im headed up now. fuck it.
get it, i replaced wall street with my nutz haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahah nutz!
It has been many weeks now. They are occupying in the snow.
Are you still shocked?
More than somewhat impressed?
It sure has grown.
I have a young friend who helped get things going here and lived there for the first 2 weeks.
Friday he gave me the tour. It is really impressive what they have done, and what they are doing.
Went back Saturday afternoon for a bit, and then Saturday night spent a little time in Jamison Square, which later made the national news.
This is a good thing, and I support.
I am indeed impressed by the dedication of those who have stuck it out this long.
:nagl:
Hope you would hold the police to a little bit of a higher standard than a few snotty nosed kids Rock.
But to you I guess the videos we both posted are the same thing...
LOL! @ "chemical weapons", as if tear gas is in the same league as Sarin or Mustard Gas.
How do you know it was just a "few snotty nosed kids"?
And what would you consider an appropriate response from the Police if they were pelted with Molotov cocktails?
One protester was hit in the head by an exploding chemical weapon canister and hospitalized.
Was that protester a snotty nosed kid? No, he was an Iraq war veteran. A man who had fought for the right of the Iraqi people to do what he was denied at home. Another veteran was beaten by Oakland police. All this happened before any alleged rock throwing incidences.
The simple truth is that days ago the Oakland police responded to peaceful protests with violence. The people, some with snotty nose, some with clean noses, have fought back.
In a battle between the police trying suppress first amendment rights, and the people attempting to assert their Constitutional rights, I will side with the people.
As to the first video, did any one see any projectiles flying toward the police? I didn't.
Did any one see the police taking action to avoid projectiles? I didn't.
What I saw was some one video taping the police and that person being shot by the police.
Oakland police say they have video of the rock throwing and the police response, but refuse to share those public recordings with the public.
In the 2nd video when she says chemical weapons she is quoting the police.
The police use the term chemical weapons because it is an accurate term.
The only time the US government uses tear gas or pepper gas is against it's own people.
It is against the Geneva conventions to use them in warfare and even GW Bush didn't use them in Afghanistan or Iraq.
I would say the police should allow Americans to protest peacefully.
I would too...but that wasn't the question.
This is another one of your "hypotheticals" that have nothing to do with reality?