A perfect example of what the Occupy Rallies are all about

[lawgator1]

I realize we have a general thread on the rallies, but this is so significant I think it deserves its own thread.

Here is an article about a possible fund being set up to handle "faulty" mortgage foreclosure practices by the major lenders.

Banks Plan $20 Billion Fund To Resolve Flawed Foreclosures -Fox Business

Apparently, the DOJ and the banks have been meeting and are discussing a $20 billion fund to offer write-downs and modifications to people affected by these practices. The current catch? The banks in exchange for ponying up the dough want immunity from being sued.

I don't know the numbers, but believe I have heard on occasion that the amount involved in these types of practices as it related to mortgages is way more than $20 billion.

I understand the banks' argument. They cannot recover unless there is some certitude to their exposure in this mess. If they could reach a deal and be sure than whatever their share might be ends the problem and caps their losses, then that gives them the ability to move forward with much more stability. From their perspective, that makes a lot of sense and they can make a good argument that it would help the economy, too.

But look at it through the eyes of those who got run over by the foreclosure train in the last couple of years. They lost their home, plenty of cash, and had their credit ruined. Sure, some borrowed way more than they should. Sure, they are at least partly to blame.

But we now know that a lot of these foreclosures were terribly mishandled, often intentionally. Sol the banks will buy their way out of it for far less than their real exposure and in exchange the government will make sure that no one can sue, individually.

The penalty paid by the banks relative to their role is tiny compared to the individuals affected by this and now the banks and the government are working towards a a sweetheart deal that basically is another bailout for the banks via capping their exposure and insulating them ????

Its this kind of thing that is the root cause of the rallies.

 

[sjt18]

Big gov't to the rescue of big banks... right?

The banks should be sued. They should lose. They should suffer badly or even go belly up... and by that action/reaction the free market regulates itself. Instead, a "fund" will be created and big, unethical, or even outlaw banks will be protected by the politicians and bureaucrats they own.

More of the same Progressive interference in the free market as got us into this mess. Same non-sense and the hole just gets a little deeper.

 

[utvolpj]

But look at it through the eyes of those who got run over by the foreclosure train in the last couple of years. They lost their home, plenty of cash, and had their credit ruined. Sure, some borrowed way more than they should. Sure, they are at least partly to blame.

partly? Where are the many stories out there of people losing their home when they're current on their payments?

Also this part:

"But who will get the loan modifications? What are the standards? No one knows yet, and whether this will be done fairly," says a Citi source. Another question: Not all banks committed improper mortgage practices and/or robosigning to the same degree as others. Will their payments into the fund be prorated according to guilt?

says it will be a cluster. Congrats, this is the govt you voted for

 

[lumberjack4]

So why don't you protest the DOJ and the government who is giving the banks an out instead of vowing to re-elect them?

 

[lawgator1]

Big gov't to the rescue of big banks... right?

The banks should be sued. They should lose. They should suffer badly or even go belly up... and by that action/reaction the free market regulates itself. Instead, a "fund" will be created and big, unethical, or even outlaw banks will be protected by the politicians and bureaucrats they own.

More of the same Progressive interference in the free market as got us into this mess. Same non-sense and the hole just gets a little deeper.

That's what the protests are about. The government again coming to the aid of the banks or big business and at the cost to the consumers who might well have a legitimate claim.

 

[sjt18]

I hold neither banks nor loan applicants responsible when gov't forced banks to issue loans on faulty risk assessments to accomplish a social, politically correct agenda.

 

[volinbham]

I don't remember your criticism of Dodd-Frank which preserves too big to fail. Here's another example of the administration you stand behind doing exactly what the protesters you stand behind are against.

If you look at the Ryan plan you'll see he proposed the most comprehensive approach yet to remove business special interests from government yet you stick with the Crony Capitalism Extreme administration while lecturing you know what the OWS is really all about.

Why not put your money where your mouth is and get behind the Ryan plan and denounce all the crony capitalism current and planned of the Obama Admin?

 

[utvolpj]

That's what the protests are about. The government again coming to the aid of the banks or big business and at the cost to the consumers who might well have a legitimate claim.

then why aren't the protests focused on DC?

 

[NEO]

then why aren't the protests focused on DC?

Bingo.

 

[lawgator1]

So why don't you protest the DOJ and the government who is giving the banks an out instead of vowing to re-elect them?

I don't remember your criticism of Dodd-Frank which preserves too big to fail. Here's another example of the administration you stand behind doing exactly what the protesters you stand behind are against.

If you look at the Ryan plan you'll see he proposed the most comprehensive approach yet to remove business special interests from government yet you stick with the Crony Capitalism Extreme administration while lecturing you know what the OWS is really all about.

Why not put your money where your mouth is and get behind the Ryan plan and denounce all the crony capitalism current and planned of the Obama Admin?

I agree with you both. The protests are about both the banks and the government. I think they are being focused in Wall Street because 1) people protest in D.C.all the time and 2) its the banks and the financial industry who have ended up with all the money.

 

[lawgator1]

Bingo.

Wall Street is where the money began and end ended up. As they say, follow the money trail.

 

[utvolpj]

Wall Street is where the money began and end ended up. As they say, follow the money trail.

but it's not where these policies are being put in place. You said yourself

That's what the protests are about. The government again coming to the aid

 

[sjt18]

That's what the protests are about. The government again coming to the aid of the banks or big business and at the cost to the consumers who might well have a legitimate claim.

What is the answer they're asking for? Is it not MORE regulation on top of the mountains of regulation we have now?

How about we throw that convoluted mess out, write and pass governing laws, and enforce them without bias with law enforcement agents who lead violators away in hand cuffs with as much publicity as possible?

No... the solution is more "regulations and regulators" who will be just as corrupt as the ones who went before. They too will meddle in the internal business decisions of these companies making arbitrary decisions that ultimately hurt these same consumers.


All I am trying to get you to understand is that the solutions promoted by the ideology you support with almost 100% allegiance ARE THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE SOLUTION. You cannot empower gov't to make things "fair" as the left defines "fairness" without centralizing power. Once you centralize power, the banks by necessity have to try to influence that power to their advantage. This creates a self-perpetuating and growing cycle of corruption.

The ONLY answer that works is to get gov't out of the business of deciding winners/losers... even if you think things are unfair.

 

[lawgator1]

What is the answer they're asking for? Is it not MORE regulation on top of the mountains of regulation we have now?

How about we throw that convoluted mess out, write and pass governing laws, and enforce them without bias with law enforcement agents who lead violators away in hand cuffs with as much publicity as possible?

No... the solution is more "regulations and regulators" who will be just as corrupt as the ones who went before. They too will meddle in the internal business decisions of these companies making arbitrary decisions that ultimately hurt these same consumers.


All I am trying to get you to understand is that the solutions promoted by the ideology you support with almost 100% allegiance ARE THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE SOLUTION. You cannot empower gov't to make things "fair" as the left defines "fairness" without centralizing power. Once you centralize power, the banks by necessity have to try to influence that power to their advantage. This creates a self-perpetuating and growing cycle of corruption.

The ONLY answer that works is to get gov't out of the business of deciding winners/losers... even if you think things are unfair.

I don't know what they want. I don't think they even necessarily know what the solution is.

 

[BigPapaVol]

That's what the protests are about. The government again coming to the aid of the banks or big business and at the cost to the consumers who might well have a legitimate claim.

bullshiz. This isn't what the protests are about. Listening to the idiots actually protesting, this is purely about income gap, which is dumb as hell.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Wall Street is where the money began and end ended up. As they say, follow the money trail.

No it isn't. You do the math and look at the balance sheets across Wall St.

 

[sjt18]

I agree with you both. The protests are about both the banks and the government. I think they are being focused in Wall Street because 1) people protest in D.C.all the time and 2) its the banks and the financial industry who have ended up with all the money.

You really think WS ended up with all the money or power? Really?

Why was it again that the Obama Admin hasn't sent anyone to jail? Why haven't they busted up Fannie and Freddie which SHOULD BE the front line of any demonstration concerning this stuff?

I hope you will wake up one day and it will dawn on you that liberalism/Progressivism is the problem and not the solution. You would make a fine libertarian if you would work through the internal contradictions in what you claim to believe.

 

[MG1968]

I don't know what they want. I don't think they even necessarily know what the solution is.

and yet you chide us for not taking them seriously

 

[dreVol]

It's still unclear to me why the focus of these "protests" is "Wall Street," or why the solution they're callin for is more government involvement. The problem is cronyism. Apparently the inconvenient fact is that their savior is also in bed with the bankers the protesters so detest. I can't see any other reason why they aren't occupying D.C.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[lawgator1]

What were the negative consequences for the financiers whose reckless gambles played a pivotal role in the financial crisis? Effectively none. In fact, their average bonuses went up in the year of the bailouts, dipped a bit in 2010, and are projected to go up at a very fast clip for this year.

Meanwhile, people can't find work, have lost their jobs, and are facing loss of the safety net provided for by programs like SS and Medicare.

How can this be so? Easy. The bank and corporate execs own the politicians. Of both parties.

This is the main issue driving the protests.

 

[lumberjack4]

I agree with you both. The protests are about both the banks and the government. I think they are being focused in Wall Street because 1) people protest in D.C.all the time and 2) its the banks and the financial industry who have ended up with all the money.

But they aren't protesting DC. They want an Administration that has been on the side of the people they claim to hate to be re-elected.

 

[dreVol]

What were the negative consequences for the financiers whose reckless gambles played a pivotal role in the financial crisis? Effectively none. In fact, their average bonuses went up in the year of the bailouts, dipped a bit in 2010, and are projected to go up at a very fast clip for this year.

Meanwhile, people can't find work, have lost their jobs, and are facing loss of the safety net provided for by programs like SS and Medicare.

How can this be so? Easy. The bank and corporate execs own the politicians. Of both parties.

This is the main issue driving the protests.

Then why aren't they in D.C. en masse? Why aren't they protesting against the crap legislation like Dodd-Frank that preserves the status quo?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BigPapaVol]

What were the negative consequences for the financiers whose reckless gambles played a pivotal role in the financial crisis? Effectively none. In fact, their average bonuses went up in the year of the bailouts, dipped a bit in 2010, and are projected to go up at a very fast clip for this year.

Meanwhile, people can't find work, have lost their jobs, and are facing loss of the safety net provided for by programs like SS and Medicare.

How can this be so? Easy. The bank and corporate execs own the politicians. Of both parties.

This is the main issue driving the protests.

They all got fired. Their recklessness and eventual demise was nothing close to the recklessness of the borrowers. Your silliness about their bonuses is pure ignorance. You flat out have no idea what you're talking about.

People have lost jobs and it has little or nothing to do with Wall St, unless you consider crap like Fannie and Freddie Wall St problems.

Politics is now a career path and we're reaping the rewards. Obama is literally the poster child for modern politics.

The main issue in the protests is income disparity and most griping are too stupid to understand the disparity isn't necessarily a bad thing. The crux of their argument is that the government should distribute the funds of the wealthy to those who don't have the ability to make similar money.

 

[sjt18]

What were the negative consequences for the financiers whose reckless gambles played a pivotal role in the financial crisis? Effectively none. In fact, their average bonuses went up in the year of the bailouts, dipped a bit in 2010, and are projected to go up at a very fast clip for this year.

Meanwhile, people can't find work, have lost their jobs, and are facing loss of the safety net provided for by programs like SS and Medicare.

How can this be so? Easy. The bank and corporate execs own the politicians. Of both parties.

This is the main issue driving the protests.

But you cast stones at the Tea Party, right? You cast stones at genuine conservatives who oppose the establishment wing of the GOP, right? You even said those who opposed the establishment Republicrat cabal were the problem, didn't you?

I am very glad that you are finally seeing that big business and big gov't are not balancing antagonists to each other. Now... I just wish that you would see that their Progressive advocates in the two political parties (liberal Dems and establishment Reps) aren't either. It is groups like the Tea Party that upset their apple cart. Why do you think the establishment GOP struggled so hard to veil its disdain for the Tea Party?

 

[MG1968]

It's not helping OWS that their thuggish behavior is being aided and abetted by SEIU and other union types.