Here's What's Happening At New York's Occupy Our Homes Protest Right Now en-us Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Fri, 26 Dec 2014 03:51:12 -0500 Linette Lopez and Robert Johnson Sharmaine Mayner Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:00:36 -0500 Keeping the party inside my residence had been the best exciting lead to it had become simply my friends. In case you web host a new party you find a amount of a gold distributed, as well as my own, personal, to ensure that was obviously a definite reward. When i learned a lot about gold, as well. Lila Hershelman Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:10:33 -0500 Trader Joe's seaweed snacks come from Korean waters haven't bought them for months! Tuan Bunner Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:01:57 -0500 The facts really are astonishing, the stakes are usually substantial, it's tricky to speak about and even more difficult to do something about it. Technologies, guidance, communicating... they all compete with human nature. Along with each and every situation is different. Luana Sella Mon, 02 Jan 2012 19:35:44 -0500 The statistics really are astonishing, the stakes tend to be substantial, it is hard to talk about and even tougher to do something about it. Technology, therapy, communicating... each of them compete with human nature. In addition to each and every situation is unique. HD adult movies Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:56:12 -0500 Hmm Well I was just searching on yahoo and just came across your site, in general I just only visit sites and retrieve my needed info but this time the useful info that you posted in this post urged me to post here and appreciate your diligent work. I just bookmarked your site. Thank you again. irqlfvggr Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:06:45 -0500 3AuFYW bevklcknhdbr, [url=<a href="" target="_blank"></a>]vjwkpqdvloqe[/url], [link=<a href="" target="_blank"></a>]vechiowknksg[/link], <a href="" target="_blank"></a> Cool Breeze Fri, 09 Dec 2011 11:20:29 -0500 I'm talking past you because you're still unable to get over your psychological hurdles. Of course people come to a bank with their hands out. That's how banks create (again, out of thin air) and then profit from (interest) money. You have established that in today's system, people need to borrow money to pay for things, duh...If you're unwilling to revisit the origins of the human construct of 'money' and the creditor/debtor relationship then we'll still be circling back to your assumptions about the way the world works, which in reality, is but a blip on the radar of human history. The global housing bubble and ensuing burst were designed and executed to perfection. Only decades of deep, heavy conditioning to lead any sane and even minimally inquisitive person to conclude anything otherwise. Keep in mind that a lab rat is not aware he is part of an experiment. Let's revisit the situation in 6 months when the real austerity ripple effects begin to show themselves. It's going to make the current protests seem like a boy scout jamboree. It's also important to note that collapsing societies throughout history all had one thing in common, a monopoly issued debt-based currency. Several times in these cases a "debt jubilee" was issued to stave off full collapse and destruction. You wont learn about that working in a bank, you have to research and study on it. You probably think money was created as a "medium of exchange" to facilitate the limitations of a barter economy (a long-held economic myth). The creditor class has done a wonderful number on you. Cool Breeze Fri, 09 Dec 2011 11:07:57 -0500 I'm talking past you because you're still unable to get over your psychological hurdles. If you're unwilling to revisit the origins of the human construct of 'money' and the creditor/debtor relationship then we'll still be circling back to your assumptions about the way the world works, which in reality, is but a blip on the radar of human history. The global housing bubble and ensuing burst were designed and executed to perfection. Only decades of deep, heavy conditioning to lead any sane and even minimally inquisitive person to conclude anything otherwise. Keep in mind that a lab rat is not aware he is part of an experiment. Let's revisit the situation in 6 months when the real austerity ripple effects begin to show themselves. It's going to make the current protests seem like a boy scout jamboree. An Economic Parable Usury both generates today's endemic scarcity and drives the world-devouring engine of perpetual growth. To explain how, I will begin with a parable created by the extraordinary economic visionary Bernard Lietaer entitled "The Eleventh Round," from his book The Future of Money. Once upon a time, in a small village in the Outback, people used barter for all their transactions. On every market day, people walked around with chickens, eggs, hams, and breads, and engaged in prolonged negotiations among themselves to exchange what they needed. At key periods of the year, like harvests or whenever someone's barn needed big repairs after a storm, people recalled the tradition of helping each other out that they had brought from the old country. They knew that if they had a problem someday, others would aid them in return. One market day, a stranger with shiny black shoes and an elegant white hat came by and observed the whole process with a sardonic smile. When he saw one farmer running around to corral the six chickens he wanted to exchange for a big ham, he could not refrain from laughing. "Poor people," he said, "so primitive." The farmer's wife overheard him and challenged the stranger, "Do you think you can do a better job handling chickens?" "Chickens, no," responded the stranger, "But there is a much better way to eliminate all that hassle." "Oh yes, how so?" asked the woman. "See that tree there?" the stranger replied. "Well, I will go wait there for one of you to bring me one large cowhide. Then have every family visit me. I'll explain the better way." And so it happened. He took the cowhide, and cut perfect leather rounds in it, and put an elaborate and graceful little stamp on each round. Then he gave to each family 10 rounds, and explained that each represented the value of one chicken. "Now you can trade and bargain with the rounds instead of the unwieldy chickens," he explained. It made sense. Everybody was impressed with the man with the shiny shoes and inspiring hat. "Oh, by the way," he added after every family had received their 10 rounds, "in a year's time, I will come back and sit under that same tree. I want you to each bring me back 11 rounds. That 11th round is a token of appreciation for the technological improvement I just made possible in your lives." "But where will the 11th round come from?" asked the farmer with the six chickens. "You'll see," said the man with a reassuring smile. Assuming that the population and its annual production remain exactly the same during that next year, what do you think had to happen? Remember, that 11th round was never created. Therefore, bottom line, one of each 11 families will have to lose all its rounds, even if everybody managed their affairs well, in order to provide the 11th round to 10 others. So when a storm threatened the crop of one of the families, people became less generous with their time to help bring it in before disaster struck. While it was much more convenient to exchange the rounds instead of the chickens on market days, the new game also had the unintended side effect of actively discouraging the spontaneous cooperation that was traditional in the village. Instead, the new money game was generating a systemic undertow of competition among all the participants. This parable begins to show how competition, insecurity, and greed are woven into our economy because of interest. They can never be eliminated as long as the necessities of life are denominated in interest-money. But let us continue the story now to show how interest also creates an endless pressure for perpetual economic growth. There are three primary ways Lietaer's story could end: default, growth in the money supply, or redistribution of wealth. One of each eleven families could go bankrupt and surrender their farms to the man in the hat (the banker), or he could procure another cowhide and make more currency, or the villagers could tar-and-feather the banker and refuse to repay the rounds. The same choices face any economy based on usury. So imagine now that the villagers gather round the man in the hat and say, "Sir, could you please give us some additional rounds so that none of us need go bankrupt?" The man says, "I will, but only to those who can assure me they will pay me back. Since each round is worth one chicken, I'll lend new rounds to people who have more chickens than the number of rounds they already owe me. That way, if they don't pay back the rounds, I can seize their chickens instead. Oh, and because I'm such a nice guy, I'll even create new rounds for people who don't have additional chickens right now, if they can persuade me that they will breed more chickens in the future. So show me your business plan! Show me that you are trustworthy (one villager can create ‘credit reports' to help you do that). I'll lend at 10 percent-if you are a clever breeder, you can increase your flock by 20 percent per year, pay me back, and get rich yourself, too." The villagers ask, "That sounds OK, but since you are creating the new rounds at 10 percent interest also, there still won't be enough to pay you back in the end." "That won't be a problem," says the man. "You see, when that time arrives, I will have created even more rounds, and when those come due, I'll create yet more. I will always be willing to lend new rounds into existence. Of course, you'll have to produce more chickens, but as long as you keep increasing chicken production, there will never be a problem." A child comes up to him and says, "Excuse me, sir, my family is sick, and we don't have enough rounds to buy food. Can you issue some new rounds to me?" "I'm sorry," says the man, "but I cannot do that. You see, I only create rounds for those who are going to pay me back. Now, if your family has some chickens to pledge as collateral, or if you can prove you are able to work a little harder to breed more chickens, then I will be happy to give you the rounds." With a few unfortunate exceptions, the system worked fine for a while. The villagers grew their flocks fast enough to obtain the additional rounds they needed to pay back the man in the hat. Some, for whatever reason-ill fortune or ineptitude-did indeed go bankrupt, and their more fortunate, more efficient neighbors took over their farms and hired them as labor. Overall, though, the flocks grew at 10 percent a year along with the money supply. The village and its flocks had grown so large that the man in the hat was joined by many others like him, all busily cutting out new rounds and issuing them to anyone with a good plan to breed more chickens. From time to time, problems arose. For one, it became apparent that no one really needed all those chickens. "We're getting sick of eggs," the children complained. "Every room in the house has a feather bed now," complained the housewives. In order to keep consumption of chicken products growing, the villagers invented all kinds of devices. It became fashionable to buy a new feather mattress every month, and bigger houses to keep them in, and to have yards and yards full of chickens. Disputes arose with other villages that were settled with huge egg-throwing battles. "We must create demand for more chickens!" shouted the mayor, who was the brother-in-law of the man in the hat. "That way we will all continue to grow rich." One day, a village old-timer noticed another problem. Whereas the fields around the village had once been green and fertile, now they were brown and foul. All the vegetation had been stripped away to plant grain to feed the chickens. The ponds and streams, once full of fish, were now cesspools of stinking manure. She said, "This has to stop! If we keep expanding our flocks, we will soon drown in chicken shit!" The man in the hat pulled her aside and, in reassuring tones, told her, "Don't worry, there is another village down the road with plenty of fertile fields. The men of our village are planning to farm out chicken production to them. And if they don't agree ... well, we outnumber them. Anyway, you can't be serious about ending growth. Why, how would your neighbors pay off their debts? How would I be able to create new rounds? Even I would go bankrupt." And so, one by one, all the villages turned to stinking cesspools surrounding enormous flocks of chickens that no one really needed, and the villages fought each other for the few remaining green spaces that could support a few more years of growth. Yet despite their best efforts to maintain growth, its pace began to slow. As growth slowed, debt began to rise in proportion to income, until many people spent all their available rounds just paying off the man in the hat. Many went bankrupt and had to work at subsistence wages for employers who themselves could barely meet their obligations to the man in the hat. There were fewer and fewer people who could afford to buy chicken products, making it even harder to maintain demand and growth. Amid an environment-wrecking superabundance of chickens, more and more people had barely enough on which to live, leading to the paradox of scarcity amidst abundance. And that is where things stand today. Nick Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:34:35 -0500 Look, clearly you read a lot about this stuff. Clearly you have a degree of intellectual curiosity which is a good thing. But there is a difference between reading about something and actually doing it. I have been in banking in finance probably as long as you have been alive. I have spent my entire career doing it. There is very little about credit markets I don't understand or have a history with. If we didn't have provisions to protect ourselves from borrowers skipping town no one would repay. You do this for long enough you lose a lot of regard for human accountability. People come to the banks with their hand out. They want what something the bank owns. Regardless of where it came from it's the banks, not theirs. The bank agrees to lend it to them but only for something in return. It is made plain and clear to the borrower that if they don't repay the house will be taken. They have all the chance in the world to walk away. If they think it is unfair they are under no obligation to take the money. And you know what? They always take the money. Cool Breeze Fri, 09 Dec 2011 08:36:29 -0500 "It doesn't matter where the bank's money comes from...." Really? This is what they call a non-starter...You are going to make a moral judgement about the borrower without even making an assessment of the creditor's source for snatching the high ground in the transaction? What is it in your brain that readily accepts that position? Fascinating. "In spite of the holy promises of people to banish war once and for all, in spite of the cry of millions "never again war" in spite of all the hopes for a better future I have this to say: If the present monetary system based on interest and compound interest remains in operation, I dare to predict today that it will take less than twenty-five years until we have a new and even worse war. I can foresee the coming development clearly. The present degree of technological advancement will quickly result in a record performance of industry. The buildup of capital will be fast in spite of the enormous losses during the war, and through the oversupply [of money] the interest rate will be lowered [until the money speculators refuse to lower their rates any further]. Money will then be hoarded [causing predictable deflation], economic activities will diminish, and increasing numbers of unemployed persons will roam the streets ... within these discontented masses, wild, revolutionary ideas will arise and with it also the poisonous plant called "Super Nationalism" will proliferate. No country will understand the other, and the end can only be war again."--Silvio Gesell (1918) Nick, read this quick chapter on the power of ownership and usury. It will change the way you think about "borrowing" and "lending". We have to take a little trip to the past so we can get past many of the false assumptions you and some of your confused friends here in the comment section continue to use. Seriously, I apologize for the name calling- this stuff gets me riled up, but I'd love to dialogue with you and get your thoughts on this... <a href="" target="_blank"></a> Cool Breeze Fri, 09 Dec 2011 08:22:21 -0500 Unfortunately, working in a bank does not require a fundamental understanding of our global monetary system. In fact, about 98% of our population, including well trained "economists" still think Govt.s need to operate like household budgets. I'm sorry you had to work in a bank most of your life. It explains alot. Please, if this is a "conspiracy theory", I'd love to hear you breakdown where the innacuracies are... Here is how the banker's game works: 1) Get the government to issue some currency (cash -- paper or reserves at the central bank -- reserves are government issued cash central bank deposits). Government issued cash is around 5% of the currency (money) supply. The government issued currency is put into circulation by the government simply spending it. 2) The rest (95%) of the currency is issued by the private banks. Each customer loan is a new bank deposit (i.e., new currency) and increases the currency (money) supply of the economy. Note that this newly created money (currency) is put into circulation by the borrower spending it. Most currency (about 95% America's currency supply) has been borrowed into existence and when bank customer pays the loan back that amount of currency is removed from circulation. The banking system cannot go backwards (fewer net loans) as time moves on because fewer net loans means less currency in circulation in the economy. Accumulation of interest charges on outstanding loans means that the currency supply must constantly increase even if it means giving out lower quality loans. Think of it like a plane flying it must fly at some minimum speed or else the plane (the banking system) will crash (i.e., banking system collapse). 3) The bankers make dam sure that the common public does not understand how the monetary system works meaning that the private banks issue 95% of the currency. This is whole another topic how they do this. 4) The system works until real economic capacity of the economy grows and debts can be serviced and interest charges paid. Most of the time the economy oscillates between boom (growth) and bust (recession) because bust is needed to clear debts and start a new lending cycle. 5) Eventually, one of these cycles goes so deep that currency supply (and demand) falls so low that too many debts become un-serviceable. The recession becomes a depression now. 6) The bankers then have to decide how to "reset" the system. One way to reset the system is to let the depression takes its course. But of course this path is very chaotic because people lose jobs and may become violent. Once most debts are cleared lending can start again and the currency supply is replenished. Wars are a good way to get initial money (currency) into an economy after a depression to get demand going again. This is the great depression scenario. 7) Another way to "reset" the system is to get the government to print too much money and spend and destroy the currency and blame it on the government. This justifies issuance of a totally new currency (note that hyperinflation clears debts) and the lending cycle can start again. 8) The banking system (as is) is setup to maximize the power and influence of the global bankers and NOT for the maximum general well being of people. By the way this is a global game. This is the only system around no matter what country you are in. The global banking cartel makes sure that no competing systems are allowed to exist (so they might be copied and global bankers will lose power). 9) We need a currency system where money is spent into existence and does not need to be lent into existence so the economy is never starved of currency in circulation. Nick Fri, 09 Dec 2011 01:41:18 -0500 It doesn't matter where the banks money comes from. It's the banks money. The borrowers want to use that money. They ask the bank very nicely to use that money and promise to pay it back with interest. The banks say "Sure, but remember that money is ours and if you don't pay it back we are going to take the collateral for the loan, in this case the house you are using the money to buy." You criticize the finance sector for making bad investments and getting a bailout. Yet here, you demand a bailout for borrowers who borrowed too much to buy an overvalued home who's investment value suddenly decreased. That's no different than a leveraged trade and a bank's proprietary trading desk. If you bought a house with a mortgage from 2004 onward it was probably a bad investment. You're such a hypocrite Cool Breeze Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:46:48 -0500 You make me laugh. You don't even acknowledge where the bank's money comes from, THIN AIR! It's all over anyway. Creditors need debtors to stay on their perch. Once you bankrupt everyone there's nobody left to pillage. Look up "perpetual growth" and "artificial scarcity" and study "usury (or interest bearing debt-based money), then you will understand that your versions of "finance" and "economics" are nothing more than high priesthood religion and a perpetual motion scheme uncapable of sustaining itself. Nick Thu, 08 Dec 2011 14:06:07 -0500 I know very well how the business of banking works, I worked at one for quite some time. That's why it's funny to me that you, a person who reads blogs to gain his understanding, think you understand these things better than I do, having done it most of my adult life. You and your silly conspiracy theories and blog sites, I bet you wear tinfoil on your head to keep the government from stealing your thoughts. PS I'm not a libertarian and I think Ron Paul is a quack. I just think if people borrow money they should pay it back Cool Breeze Thu, 08 Dec 2011 12:16:55 -0500 Incorrect. <a href="" target="_blank"></a> Here's how the "business" of banking works (all over the globe, not just here). <a href="" target="_blank"></a> Arguing with Libertarian ideologues is tiresome. Nick Thu, 08 Dec 2011 12:03:42 -0500 Whether or not a borrower falls on hard times is not the banks problem. They have an obligation to pay. They wanted the banks money. They promised to pay it back. They made a deal then promptly broke the deal. No one forced them to borrow that money. You don't seem to grasp that concept. If a friend borrowed 20 dollars......spent it....then refused to ever give back the 20 dollars...they just stole from you. These struggling families you speak of are no better. Had the banks gone boom it would have been a catastrophe. Hundreds of thousands of people would have lost their jobs. Peoples finances would be in disarray. We would have been smack in the middle of another great depression, all because people decided not to pay back their mortgages. Unfortunately you can't learn finance or economics reading blogs. Until you live it, until you actually partake, you are just a backseat driver who doesn't know where he's going. Cool Breeze Thu, 08 Dec 2011 10:57:08 -0500 Economic elitist “libertarians”, meaning pro-gangster ideologues, support coercive hierarchies. If you’re for freedom, you oppose economic coercion, and you oppose “property” and concentrated wealth. You recognize that “property” is a government scam, and that “public” and “private” is a phony divide-and-conquer distinction. You recognize that there’s no distinction other than decentralized power vs. concentrated power. You oppose all concentrated power, period. Everyone knows power, as soon as it concentrates, becomes coercive by its very nature. It does nothing but seek more power. Anyone who denies this, like economic “libertarians” do, is simply a liar Cool Breeze Thu, 08 Dec 2011 10:40:13 -0500 And thank you for proving my points: 1) You broadstroke, generalize, and stereotype the people that are up against foreclosures, un & underemployment, are "one paycheck away" or maybe bent over by a devastating HC bill as "deadbeats and hipsters". You are clearly out of touch with reality. Many of these people played by the rules, are your neighbors- nurses, teachers, working people who lost their pensions to Wall Street gamblers and who had sufficient income to pay for their loans when they took them. 2) In the same breath you excuse what has proven to be systemic white collar crime and corruption in the financial sector. In other words, it's ok to loot and steal as long as it's institutionalized and you have a suit and tie on. If the info doesn't come from Fox News or my supply side, 'tinkle down' professor, it must be "blogger bullshit". The links provided are from widely regarded professors and economists, not weekend op-ed blowhards... 3) Proving a negative "where was Lehman & Merrill's bailout?" Who cares? 2008 was just a bank consolidation and we now know that the Fed was/is giving trillions away to the creditor class (and even to Swiss banks) <a href="" target="_blank"></a>. We now have the same issues consolidated in a higher concentration of power. 4) You readily accept that a bank loan, created out of "thin air", often at 30 to 1 vs. it's actual reserves (and that also gets ulimited backstop from your Govt. even when it is strip mining the working classes and playing casino with guaranteed chips), and get's to charge interest on that thin air loan, has the unquestionable right to kick struggling families out on the street and seize property as if they stand on some creditor moral high ground. Perhaps you are excited for the return of debtor prisons. Yes, we long for a world of empty houses and people on the streets and in permanent detention centers... All hail the counterfeiting creditors! You MUST PAY YOUR BILLS! 5) See all of the above. You own your house and your cars. Congrats, "I got mine"!! Let's see how far that gets you when the fabric of society is shred beyond repair. Nobody in this world "makes money" or "gets rich" without the complex web of relationships of other humans and all the collective advancements preceding them. Not Bill Gates, not Warren Buffet, nobody. You see, you are connected to a web and the well being of others. You do not live on an island (sounds like a good place for you though) no matter how much you love yourself or hate others. You are not special and you are not immune to the growing global money crisis. Hope you have room for a vegetable garden at your house. Nick Wed, 07 Dec 2011 23:57:14 -0500 A predatory liar loan is what a deadbeat calls a loan he can't pay back. See, he blames the bank like they did something wrong. Like they forced him to knock on their door, and held a gun to his head saying "TAKE THE MONEY". How about the banks stop lending? Would you prefer that? Then the only people who could afford homes would be the rich. I can certainly pay cash for a new home. The poor would FREAK OUT. "Why should only the rich be allowed to own homes blah blah blah". Banks don't have some moral obligation to make sure everyone is happy in a home, it's a business. If you borrow their money, regardless of whether you think it's predatory (mind you borrowing is a person's own choice) you are obligated to pay it back. If not, too bad, you lose the collateral Nick Wed, 07 Dec 2011 23:46:53 -0500 If you represent the rest of humanity then I am good where I am at. Let the blips blip. My house is paid for. It's mine, I own it. My car and my wife's car are both paid for. We own them too. I have one kid old enough to drive, but I didn't buy him a car, he had to get one on his own. The last thing I want is for him to grow up a whiney lazy hipster who thinks things should be provided to him. You speak of these unlimited bailouts. Where was Lehman and Merrill's bailout? They were the two biggest buyers of securitized mortgages, they fueled the demand. Merrill was levered up north of 40 to 1! They were the one's responsible and where are they now? Gone. The people who needed to fail failed. The rest were bailed out to stave of a cataclysm. It's funny how everyone screams to tax the rich bankers, they want to share in their success, but are unwilling to share in their failures? That's a two way street. I'm unwilling to share in the failure of deadbeats who borrowed too much and didn't pay their bills. They scream about bank bailouts (which they were responsible for) yet demand a bailout from me? Sorry but no, they chose to walk the path away from prosperity, now they get to live with the destination. Btw thank you for proving my point, i had a feeling your grasp of our financial system came from bloggers who don't get it. Cool Breeze Wed, 07 Dec 2011 22:39:52 -0500 Sorry Nick. If you think the GLOBAL housing bubble/crisis was caused by "irresponsible" borrowers you have to be a total imbocile. <a href="" target="_blank"></a> Now, if you want to pick at nits about the FIRE sector, go ahead. The fact is that the TBTF Banks get unlimited bailouts when they cheat, lie, & steal. But rather than point to this systemic looting, plus accounting control & forclosure fraud in the face of a permanent 20% unemployment economic crisis, you'd rather cast your unfounded ideological blame on those who have been smashed in the face with it. What a coward and what a moron. You may want to ask for a refund on your master's degree from the Barbazon School of Libertarian Bullshit. This just isn't news for anyone paying an ounce of attention. Here's Bill Black who was a key figure in busting open the much smaller S & L crisis and hopefully not too far above your reading level. <a href="" target="_blank"></a> I also recommend a really smart man named Bernard Lietaer in order to understand that your stint in seeking "higher education" in order to "earn plenty of it" is a great way to get a good brainwashing and create what is called a money blind spot. <a href="" target="_blank"></a> I'm guessing you believe that this crisis wont hit you because you're so intelligent and have been such a responsible "rugged individualist" with your money. Good luck with that. I'd love to see the look on your face when all those mystical digital blips in your accounts get zapped in to cyberspace and you realize you can't live off worthless paper fiat. Read "Sacred Economics" by Charles Eisenstein or "Debt, The First 5,000 Years" to get to the heart of what money is ( a mere social arrangement). The majority of human history did not have creditor/debtor relationships that we are conditioned to accept today. Good news though. The old money paradigm is OVER. The transformation has already begun. When you are able to fall out of love with yourself and join the rest of humanity, we will welcome you. Nick Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:38:33 -0500 Educate myself? I educated myself with a masters degree and a long career spent in finance. I know all about what 'money' is. Having earned plenty of it in my life. I've encountered many people like you in my life. I can tell by your language and shakey use of financial jargon than you 'educated' yourself by reading blogs and news rags. Internet University! What do banks trading desks have to do with their commercial lending practices? They are two totally separate and unrelated parts of the bank. Banks levered at 30 to 1.....what does that have to do with these people not paying their mortgage? They wanted that bank money, they signed on the dotted line, they made a deal that they could have the money if they paid it back, if they didn't they lose the collateral (the house). Then they went and broke the deal. It's often the tactic of the ignorant occupy hipster to to use misdirection to direct attention to an unrelated area of finance that casts the issue at hand in a bad light. Main St. stole from Wall St., not the other way around big guy. When you borrow something and don't give it back that's called stealing. So many deadbeats ran off with the loans that it put the whole system in jeopardy. Honest, hard working people were devastated because a few dead beats wanted to live the good life and borrowed more than they could handle. Those losers aren't to be pity, they should be spat upon Cool Breeze Wed, 07 Dec 2011 11:03:13 -0500 Here's how the banker's game works.... <a href="" target="_blank"></a> Cool Breeze Wed, 07 Dec 2011 11:01:39 -0500 Sorry, you got it all wrong Jimmy boy. This isn't a hippy counterculture movement. The money crisis is GLOBAL and is not going anywhere. The next debt bomb (which is a product of our central banks monopoly control of an interest-bearing debt-based money system) will further liquidate whomever you have convinced yourself "the 50%" is. Your fantasies of peasants with pitchforks running on middle class lawns is a cute story but fails to take into account that the 1% are coming for your assets, ole boy. That's right. Watch those little magical fiat accounting blips go disappear into the night. Then we will get to see what your definition of "property rights" are. You should kindly thank the 99% for defending your constitutional rights for YOU and for laying the groundwork to get your hi-jacked democracy back after the creditor class attempts to bend you over from behind. Kindly thank them and move on down the trail to Libertarian Utopia where everybody loves themselves so much and thinks they are homerun hitters when they were probably born on 2nd or 3rd base. Cool Breeze Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:18:50 -0500 Hey Terrance & They wont learn (what an ironic name for you), here's a question for you since you demonstrate a love for banks, a hatred for humans, and a totally misguided understanding of the housing crisis? How did central banks 'earn' the privilege of counterfeiting credit at often 30 to 1, out of thin air, and then attaching interest to it (that requires repayment from a money supply that does not have that interest money in existance)? Can you answer that? Do you know what a predatory liar loan is? Here is a nice simple explanation of how the banking scheme works. See if you can drop your false ideological narratives for a second and wrap your brains around it. <a href="" target="_blank"></a> Cool Breeze Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:06:36 -0500 Add a comment...@Jake & Nick: Oh, the great defenders of systemic foreclosure fraud by the banks. The banks, who have usurped the sacred privilege of currency control at 30 to 1 leverage out of thin air (with interest) from the sovereign/people, and who are the chief drivers of artifical scarcity, and who run reckless financial terrorism schemes with a fully funded Govt. backstop (no matter how horrid the losses), thank you from the bottom of your heart for blindly supporting the "heads we win tails you lose" scheme imposed upon you. Even if we were starting from scratch why would a bank have any more right to a sectioned off piece of 'property' than a family? If I were you I would go back and educate yourselves on what 'money' is. It is a mere social arrangement. For the majority of human history we had community credit systems that did not create usurious debt serfdom at the behest of a handful in the creditor class. You "rugged individualists" probably still believe in magical "free markets". The bansters thank you for your blind loyalty! Found You a Job Gary! Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:35:50 -0500 . Good News! Warren Buffet is looking for someone to fetch cherry cokes for him. Gary, it's a job! It pays real money. You should apply Gary. You can fetch cherry cokes without screwing it up, can't you? Barney Fwank Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:30:25 -0500 I could not have said it better myself. jimmy mactheknife Tue, 06 Dec 2011 23:46:59 -0500 SLO(W) about describes your ability to comprehend that this type of effort was tried by radical liberals back in the sixties and early seventies. It did not work then and it will not work now. Starting with the basic premis that foreclosed home occupiers owe nothing for the residence they occupy and going on to something few of the hapless, headstrong, hopeless and helpless ne'er do wells like yourself fail to comprehend is that those places will require maintenence, utilities and taxes will be due on them commensurate with their value. You see, that is what the 99% do. They pay taxes, they support local charities and civic associations and have earned the right to defend them. And, if you wanna see mama grizzly in action, start taking from individuals whose property rights have been abrogated by you snot nosed, narcissists with a bad case of the gimmee gimmees. If you REALLY want to perturb the top fifty percent of the citizenry who pay federal taxes and want them o so badly to pay attention to you start trampling on their lawns and gardens in a frenetic attempt to occupy their hoods. You will see a backlash the likes of which you will not soon forget-even in your drug induced torpor. Burn in hell, Gary Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:35:28 -0500 It sure whether you've has your daily meal of shit, but you are certainly spewing shit out of your mouth. Nothing new there though, right? Your mother looks down on you with shame. Man did she get a raw deal! Game Over Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:26:46 -0500 By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (MarketWatch) — Forget politics. The 99%, the Occupy Wall Street movement, is not about politics. But politicians don’t get it yet. The Dems sure don’t. And while Bill O’Reilly says the movement is already dead, insider Frank Luntz thinks OWS is not only very alive, but getting dangerously bigger. In fact, he’s very “scared” for his clients. Warning: Will somebody please tell Luntz Occupy Wall Street is not about politics? This is class warfare, a revolution about economic inequality, not about political parties, political policies and political solutions … and it’s not going away any time soon. Click to Play The $300 house The race is on to create the $300 house for use in developing countries. Professor Vijay Govindarajan explains how the competition came about and how reverse innovation is an opportunity for multinational companies in developed countries. Luntz is a conservative pollster so he’s making it all about politics. But he’s missing the point, and misleading his clients. Luntz is author of some great books like “Words That Matter” and “What Americans Really Want…Really.” And in my opinion, he’s one of the America’s best behavioral economists. But his pitch at last week’s Republican Governors Association meeting in Florida suggests he not only doesn’t understand the 99%, he’s misleading 29 state governors with Words That Will Backfire when the occupiers in the encampments see through Luntz’s attempted manipulations. Fortunately, Yahoo News columnist Chris Moody attended this week’s governors meeting and kept some fabulous notes: During Luntz’s talk last week, one question kept coming up: “How can Republicans do a better job of talking about OWS movement?” Luntz solution: 10 new slogans that may do more harm than help for his clients. What’s the big problem? Luntz is blunt: “I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death.” Why the fear? Because Luntz is convinced the OWS movement is “having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.” Politics isn’t the problem, it’s economics, inequality, class warfare Folks, the real problem from the occupiers’ perspective is the inequality gap between the Super Rich and the 99%. It’s economics. It’s behavior. It’s the unfairness of our democracy when the incomes of the 1% increased 265% in the past generation while the incomes of the 99% stagnated. So inventing 10 new “Words That Matter” is dangerous for these governors, because the occupiers are smart enough to pick up not only the insincerity of the rhetoric, but a growing awareness of the widening inequality gap. It’s time to tell Luntz to forget politicians, redeliver his message to their Super Rich donors. They should be “very scared,” not the politicians. Why? Because they have a lot to lose. And not just new taxes. As I predicted a few months ago in “Tax the “Super Rich or Riots Will Rage in 2012” just before OWS launched, the Super Rich better expect a renewed Arab Spring-style revolution here in America in 2012, if they simply ignore the demands of the movement. Read “Tax the Super Rich or riots will rage in 2012.” Reuters Occupy Wall Street demonstrators lock arms as they block Broad Street near the New York Stock Exchange during what protest organizers call a "Day of Action" in New York Nov. 17. We were tracking the OWS plans long before it’s launch. In “Occupy Wall Street will lay siege to U.S. greed” I called it a “global game-changer.” And it will continue long after the 2012 elections, no matter who wins. In fact, after that OWS column at their launch, one of their leaders wrote: “You are the first writer to really understand what is at stake and to persuasively explain it to everyday Americans.” Read “Occupy Wall Street will lay siege to U.S. greed.” And yet, it seemed so obvious. Though not to guys like Luntz who still can’t see the inequality gap is where it was in 1929. But you don’t have to be a genius to figure out what happens next: A catastrophic market crash followed by an economic depression. Still, all this has nothing to do with politics. Not back then. Not now. So here’s how Luntz’s 10-strategy playbook should be annotated for the Super Rich who are the real powers behind Luntz’s political clients. We began with what Yahoo News reporter Chris Moody heard Luntz tell the 29 governors about how to “fight back by changing the way they discuss the movement.” My re-edits shift the focus to the real problem, the growing economic class war between the Super Rich and the 99%. Hopefully to improve the dialogue. Listen: 1. Capitalism is a bad word, don’t say it Luntz admits: “I’m trying to get that word removed and we’re replacing it with either ‘economic freedom’ or ‘free market’.” He admits the public “prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral.” But don’t mention “capitalism?” Impossible: Capitalism is in the genes of these conservative governors. Has been since Adam Smith, the “Wealth of Nations” and 1776. Deny capitalism exists? They’ll sound hypocritical to both occupiers and their base. 2. Taxing the rich is bad. Say government’s taking from the rich Clever, say “taking” not “taxing.” This word play will backfire: Luntz admits “If you talk about raising taxes on the rich,” polls show most voters want to tax millionaires. So shift the focus: Say government’s “taking the money from hard-working Americans?” Luntz is too clever with his Words That Work. He’s also ignoring the fact that billionaires like Buffett, the new Patriotic Millionaires and others see a need for new tax revenues to feed the recovery. 3. Never say middle class: Call them hard-working taxpayers Luntz admits that most Americans know the governors are not defending the middle class. He also knows polls show most Americans don’t trust the Republicans to fight for the middle class. But the advantage shifts when the buzzwords become “defending hard-working taxpayers.” Warning: New buzzwords without new policies will ring hollow to many occupiers who are unemployed, lost benefits, lack job prospects or can’t find a new job for their training. 4. Stop talking about jobs, instead talk about careers Luntz apparently has a very low opinion of the intelligence of occupiers. Folks, the word jobs just is not going away because of our 16% rate of underemployment. And yet Luntz asked his audience: “Everyone in this room talks about jobs,” but who wants a job? Raise your hands, he asked. “Few hands went up.” But then “he asked ‘who wants a career?’ Almost every hand was raised. So why are we talking about jobs?” I wonder how many of the 99% laughed at that cruel joke. It really is “the economy stupid.” We really need jobs. 5. Never say government spending, it’s government waste Luntz’s polling apparently tells him that most Americans are not against government spending, on them. But call it government waste, because that “makes people angry.” 6. Compromise is bad. Never admit you’re willing to compromise The “no-new-taxes” pledge is a must for these 29 governors. Luntz warns: “If you talk about ‘compromise,’ they’ll say you’re selling out.” Your base “doesn’t want you to ‘compromise … replace it with ‘cooperation.’ It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you’re selling out those principles.” Unfortunately, the public, especially the 99%, see past the jargon into today’s economic reality, and an “unprincipled” failure to “cooperate.” 7. Tell occupiers, ‘I get it, you’re angry, we’ll fix it.’ Sound sincere Luntz definitely has chutzpa: “Here are three words for you all: ‘I get it.’ … ‘I get that you’re angry. I get that you’ve seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system.’” Then, he instructed, “offer Republican solutions to the problem.” What, more solutions? Better ones? Different from the solutions the 99-percenters believe are the problem? Warning: America’s problem is not about politics. Not Republican political solutions. Nor Democrat. Too self-destructive. No, this is not about politics. This is a class war, a new American Revolution. Luntz’s sweet talk won’t convince governors. Nor their base. Nor the OWS who’ve been conned too often. So please get it. The 99% will smell the insincerity. 8. Entrepreneur or innovator are bad words, say job creator From a purely behavioral economic standpoint this one is guaranteed to have unintended consequences and backfire. America’s global competitive thrust is driven by innovators and entrepreneurs. Imagine telling Silicon Valley they’re now just “small-business owners” and “job creators.” That’s guaranteed to make them wonder if these 29 states actually support America’s desperately needed “innovation” and “entrepreneurship.” 9. Never ask anyone to sacrifice, especially not millionaires Luntz admits that “there isn’t an American today … who doesn’t think they’ve already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to ‘sacrifice,’ they’re going to be pretty angry at you.” Solution? Luntz says “talk about how ‘we’re all in this together.’ We either succeed together or we fail together.” Afterwards? Once back home in their states, see who still gets the tax breaks … who’s forced to make concessions … who’s still “sacrificing” in a world of politicians who signed that “no-new-taxes-for-the-rich” pledge. 10. Blame Washington, and never take responsibility No, Luntz does not get the OWS movement yet. These guys are natural enemies. Governors are also in a class war with occupiers. Yet Luntz tells them to tell the 99-Percenters: “You shouldn’t be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington … occupy the White House because it’s the policies over the past few years that have created this problem.” Warning, the 99% have long memories, they recall the Bush years, the massive war spending. They remember the 2008 meltdown. They see Wall Street greed unabated, their spending hundreds of millions fighting reforms. They know this is not about politics. America is in a class war, the Super Rich versus the 99%. And the occupiers are not going away, vanishing into the cold winter nights. They’re already planning their version of an Arab Spring in 2012. Finally, a little bonus … never, never say bonus! Luntz also warned his state governors not to use the word bonus if they give staffers any extra money this holiday season. Why? The rest of America is sacrificing. “If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you’re going to make people angry.” Reframe your bonuses, call them “pay for performance.” Yes, Luntz remains one of the greatest behavioral economists ever. He could rewire, debug and reprogram individual and collective brains with just a few verbal flip-flops. Here’s what I said in 2007: “Luntz is the guy who reframed much of the political rhetoric since 2000: In this new fantasy land ‘oil drilling’ magically becomes ‘energy exploration,’ the ‘estate tax’ becomes the ‘death tax,’ ‘logging’ becomes ‘healthy forests initiative.’ But after Wall Street’s 2007 meltdown, a new battlefield emerged. And unfortunately, Luntz just keeps fighting his old “War of Words” on familiar turf. Except now it’s class warfare. And Luntz is losing. Charlie M. Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:46:55 -0500 I was glad to hear from my friend in the NYPD that there was unanimous consent that all of his NYPD colleagues agreed these people were fools. Not a single one supported them amongst his peers. Not a one. That was a bold statement. Gary is an idiot Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:32:06 -0500 your shitty posts? Yeah, preventing that would be great. Terrance Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:44:36 -0500 I don't know if you've ever bought a house. You almost make it sound like its a consignment deal. It is not. The borrower has the responsibility to pay back the loan, according to the terms they agreed to with the bank. If they stop paying back the loan, you are right, the bank can foreclose and take back the house. The bank will then sell it to try and repay the loan. In some areas that allow it, the borrower may have a non-recourse loan, where they don't owe the bank any shortfall on the loan after the house was sold. The borrower is still out their downpayment, any payments they did make, and a foreclosure indicated on their credit ratings. If the borrower would just make the payments like they promised in the first place, none of this would have to happen. Gary Anderson Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:05:52 -0500 Preventing blight is a good thing. Unless you are a banker, right? John G. Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:48:27 -0500 I don't know if you've ever actually bought a house before, but the bank doesn't give the borrower the money. The borrower gets a house and promises to either make all the loan payments or return the house. That last part was designed by government to keep banks from lending more than a house is worth. Nick Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:18:02 -0500 I know exactly why they were foreclosed on. They didn't pay. Why would a bank foreclose prematurely on a loan that was paying? They lose interest revenue that day. Rest assured it was in the banks best interest to foreclose and the only way its in the banks best interests to take over an illiquid asset which it does not specialize in is if the people weren't making payments. I know that this is a tough concept for you left coasters to grasp but possession is not 9/10 of the law. Just because you live in a house doesn't make it yours. Its yours when and only when it's paid for. Terrance Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:09:54 -0500 Well, they promised to pay the money back to the bank. What are they doing with the money instead? John G. Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:58:51 -0500 Which the money or the house? (Most contracts stipulate either.) Ponderous Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:50:02 -0500 It's not a question of fairness, maybe I should rephrase - "Should entities with free access to dilute the money supply be able to hold assets that insulate them from their actions?" Peter Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:49:59 -0500 The title may be mixed up in some paperwork pile, but we can all be pretty sure that if this guy was paying off the loan today, they'd find the title pretty quick. Somehow, I doubt he was looking to pay it off and take ownership. Peter Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:38:06 -0500 Why not? You think it's unfair? Terrance Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:37:34 -0500 None of this would have happened if these deadbeat borrowers had just kept sending in their mortgage checks each month like they promised. But instead, these greedy, selfish people kept the money each month for themselves and ruined things for everyone. They took the money to buy the house, now why won't they give it back? Ponderous Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:35:18 -0500 Should entities with access to the discount window be allowed to hold real assets? Nick Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:33:27 -0500 Don't you love how the article says "to let a family of four back into their home" with out ever noting the small but very important detail that it isn't actually THEIR home. That home belongs to the bank. The bank lent them money with they did not pay back. PART OF THE DEAL when these people voluntarily borrowed the banks money was that if they did not pay back the banks money (akin to stealing) the bank would foreclose on their house. Don't feel sorry for these people. They broke the deal. The took money that wasn't theirs and never gave it back. Time to #occupythehomelessshelter Spam Alert! Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:28:00 -0500 The jerk is back! Spam Alert! Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:28:00 -0500 The jerk is back! GOP 2012 Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:10:43 -0500 Adam corolla is right..these people are losers next time read the fine print before you get the mortgage <a href="" target="_blank"></a> Jake Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:10:31 -0500 Actions like this will doom the Occupy movement. Protesting against Wall Street is something everyone can get around because those MOFOs f'd up the country. With Fannie and Freddie owning most of the mortgages, this serves only to hurt the taxpayer (ie. the 99% or maybe the 50% of them who actually pay some taxes).