"Occupy Wallstreet" Video

[tommy_ed]

here's my thing. you admit this:

No question that some of those people got taken for a trip

but then go on to say it's still their fault because they didn't understand the contract. as said before, your logic also dictates that a murder victim deserves it because they knew better than to trust the murderer, walk down the wrong street, etc

Completely disagree with that. The American dream is just as alive as it ever was, it's just been corrupted by greedy people who want it now and don't want to have to work for it or exercise any moderation.

from what I gathered, most of these people have either already graduated or are currently in college, and were unable to find a good job (a very well known current issue in this country) or have lost a good job and are unable to pay off their debt. (sounds like the opposite of greedy people who want it now or don't want to work) They are saying that when banks and major corporations encounter a similar problem where they are facing bankruptcy, etc. the government will bail them out. So I believe they are asking for the same. Possibly even free education. As you said, their message isn't 100% clear, but I've read through their website and this is what I gather. EITHER WAY, this has nothing to do the current debate of mortgage fraud. The argument is moot...

 

[A.Nonymous]

here's my thing. you admit this:

Did you read the rest of what I said there? I said, "These people got taken for a trip, but they signed up for it." I'm not excusing the banks who made loans to people who couldn't afford them. However, I'm not excusing the people who took out loans they should've known they couldn't afford.

but then go on to say it's still their fault because they didn't understand the contract. as said before, your logic also dictates that a murder victim deserves it because they knew better than to trust the murderer, walk down the wrong street, etc

Were there signs there that said, "If you walk down this street someone will kill you?" By your logic, if I see a sign that says "Bridge out ahead" and I keep driving right over the edge and am seriously hurt, it's not my fault. That's exactly what happened here. People had all the facts and all the paperwork put right in front of them. They chose to ignore all the signs. They drove off the bridge and crashed. But it's not their fault they didn't use common sense and ignored all the warning signs.

from what I gathered, most of these people have either already graduated or are currently in college, and were unable to find a good job (a very well known current issue in this country) or have lost a good job and are unable to pay off their debt. (sounds like the opposite of greedy people who want it now or don't want to work) They are saying that when banks and major corporations encounter a similar problem where they are facing bankruptcy, etc. the government will bail them out. So I believe they are asking for the same. Possibly even free education. As you said, their message isn't 100% clear, but I've read through their website and this is what I gather. EITHER WAY, this has nothing to do the current debate of mortgage fraud. The argument is moot...

The feds shouldn't have bailed out the banks and major corporations. They shouldn't bail these people out either. These people are making the childish argument that if Joey is allowed to eat candy before dinner they should be allowed to do it too.

 

[tommy_ed]

Did you read the rest of what I said there? I said, "These people got taken for a trip, but they signed up for it." I'm not excusing the banks who made loans to people who couldn't afford them. However, I'm not excusing the people who took out loans they should've known they couldn't afford.

yes, i read the rest of it I was simply pointing out that you admit the institutions committed a wrongdoing. Whether the people are naive or not, they are still victims.

Were there signs there that said, "If you walk down this street someone will kill you?" By your logic, if I see a sign that says "Bridge out ahead" and I keep driving right over the edge and am seriously hurt, it's not my fault. That's exactly what happened here. People had all the facts and all the paperwork put right in front of them. They chose to ignore all the signs. They drove off the bridge and crashed. But it's not their fault they didn't use common sense and ignored all the warning signs.

someone knows better than to walk down a dark alley in a certain neighborhood at night. they do it and they get raped/murdered. Is it their fault or the murderer's?
from what I understand, these people are shown certain information, but the information that is actually reported is different. In other words, you might tell the loan officer you make 50K a year, but he writes it up as 75K to get the loan approved. You might think you can afford the payment, but later down the road find out you can't. Some people arent the best with finances that's why these people are supposed to be assessing it for you.

Just like if you buy a car with an engine that's about to blow up. You're not a mechanic, you don't know. But the dealer knows it's going to. Is it your fault that you didn't know, or is it his responsibility to represent his company in an honest demeanor???

The feds shouldn't have bailed out the banks and major corporations. They shouldn't bail these people out either. These people are making the childish argument that if Joey is allowed to eat candy before dinner they should be allowed to do it too.

i think you misunderstood me. I never agreed with it. I was simply telling you your argument is invalid because mortgage fraud isn't what they seem to be protesting.


In fact, watch this: I agree with you, Anonymous. I don't think ANYONE should get bailed out. (Not sarcasm, I really do agree) See? It's not always about "winning" we can debate the issue for what it is and not worry about being "right"... take notes!

 

[A.Nonymous]

yes, i read the rest of it I was simply pointing out that you admit the institutions committed a wrongdoing. Whether the people are naive or not, they are still victims.

No. They're not victims. Let's say I'm a bad guy. I blow up a bridge with the idea that people will drive over it to their deaths. Now, you see that the bridge had blown out and you put up signs and road blocks up and down the road telling people that the bridge is gone and they will die if they continue down the road. Someone ignores all the signs, drives around all the roadblocks, ignores you waving and screaming at him to stop and drives off the bridge and is severely injured. Am I at fault for this? Sure. I blew up the bridge. Is he some innocent victim? No. It's his fault as well. He ignored all the warning signs and got hurt for it. He's not a victim at all. That is exactly what happened here. Greedy banks loaned people money they had no chance of paying back and greedy people took the money without even considering if they could pay it back or not. There are no victims here.

from what I understand

, these people are shown certain information, but the information that is actually reported is different. In other words, you might tell the loan officer you make 50K a year, but he writes it up as 75K to get the loan approved. You might think you can afford the payment, but later down the road find out you can't. Some people arent the best with finances that's why these people are supposed to be assessing it for you.

If the loan officer did that (which I'm sure happened in some cases) that's the bank's fault. But these people still signed the loan papers. These are legal adults of sound mind. No one forced them to sign the papers. Figuring out if you can afford the payment or not is not hard. This is 5th grade math. I'm sorry. The "I'm stupid" defense doesn't fly here. Knowing how much you bring home every month vs how much you pay out is simple math and it's something everyone should know. No excuses.

Just like if you buy a car with an engine that's about to blow up. You're not a mechanic, you don't know. But the dealer knows it's going to. Is it your fault that you didn't know, or is it his responsibility to represent his company in an honest demeanor???

Expecting everyone to be an expert on car engines is not reasonable. Expecting everyone to know how much money they take home and how much money they spend every month is 100% reasonable.

 

[tommy_ed]

No. They're not victims. Let's say I'm a bad guy. I blow up a bridge with the idea that people will drive over it to their deaths. Now, you see that the bridblahblahblah

soooo literally, by your definition there's no such thing as mortgage fraud.

 

[A.Nonymous]

soooo literally, by your definition there's no such thing as mortgage fraud.

Mortgage fraud is a crime perpetrated by a borrower, not a lender. Mortgage fraud, by definition, is when a borrower deliberately misrepresents their financial situation in order to obtain a loan for which they would not otherwise qualify. In a mortgage fraud case, the lender is the victim and the borrower is prosecuted. Are you saying that's what happened here?

 

[stewdog1]

I was just perusing this thread and all the talk about sub-prime mortgages, etc.

No one has brought up the fact that Congress pressured banks into giving sub-prime mortgages in order to allow poor, minorities, etc to live the "American Dream" as one would say.

Here's a pretty good timeline I found on wikipedia. Of course your mileage may vary.
Subprime crisis impact timeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As Herman Cain said, these protesters need to take their "occupation" to Washington DC.

 

[Frisco]

Mortgage fraud is a crime perpetrated by a borrower, not a lender. Mortgage fraud, by definition, is when a borrower deliberately misrepresents their financial situation in order to obtain a loan for which they would not otherwise qualify. In a mortgage fraud case, the lender is the victim and the borrower is prosecuted. Are you saying that's what happened here?

The Bank Fraud Victim Center

Help is just around the corner.

Kidding aside, A.Nonymous, banks and other lenders perpetrate mortgage fraud routinely. It is just now beginning to surface, and we're seeing the tell tale extremism which most often obscures the simple realities of that issue.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Predatory lending != mortgage fraud. They are two separate things. At least in the legal sense if not in the colloquial sense. Is still doesn't change the fact that these are adults who signed contracts they had every opportunity to read and have evaluated by experts they trusted before signing them.

 

[tommy_ed]

someone has a SERIOUS problem admitting they're wrong....


Predatory Lending

read towards the bottom about homeowner scams:

A homeowner needs a new roof or structural repairs, and approaches a contractor. Or maybe he has a long-held dream, a second bath or a new kitchen. Often he isn't shopping, just dreaming. Then the doorbell rings. A contractor 'working in the neighborhood' has equipment already on site and can offer a deal on any project. AND, his company can finance it (the paper will then be sold to a predatory lender) or he has a 'friend' in the mortgage business who has a spiffy new home improvement program. Snap goes the trap. The homeowner agrees, the papers are signed; the work begins immediately, often before the three day loan cancellation right ends. The work is overpriced, shoddy, and often done without proper permits that would require inspection by the local building inspector.

note, there isn't going to be anything in the contract about shoddy work, etc. You can read that contract through and through and still get screwed. Can we agree there's a victim there?

 

[A.Nonymous]

Predatory lending is not the same as mortgage fraud in any legal sense. Colloquially people use the two interchangeably, but they shouldn't.

 

[TileSpin_gamer]

The police are going to be coming down on both men and women as the Occupy (insert city name here) revolution continues. Boston already got hit hard last night.

 

[TileSpin_gamer]

It's good for the people to want a revolution if they want change, but the problem is that they don't know exactly what the vision of their desires really looks like and how it will come. Take the unrest in Egypt as an example... sure, they overthrew Mubarak and celebrated, then the other day they took to Tahrir Square again because the results they wanted did not come to fruition.

 

[tommy_ed]

The police are going to be coming down on both men and women as the Occupy (insert city name here) revolution continues. Boston already got hit hard last night.

if they're simply holding up picket signs, this sounds like a violation of constitutional rights to me...

 

[tommy_ed]

Predatory lending is not the same as mortgage fraud in any legal sense. Colloquially people use the two interchangeably, but they shouldn't.

correct. we've basically been talking about predatory lending but improperly calling it mortgage fraud, considering mortgage fraud is committed towards banks.

SO, let me rephrase that: So by your definition, there's no such thing as a victim in predatory lending? This includes the example I gave for predatory lending via home improvement loans.

 

[A.Nonymous]

In the case you cited it's not predatory lending. It's a straight out scam. The scam contractor promised something that he didn't deliver and didn't have any intention of delivering. A small claims court would hold up the home owner's case hands down.

In the cases of these mortgages, people were given exactly what they signed up for. The lender agreed to give them X dollars at Y interest rate and the payment was Z a month. The borrower knew all of the terms of the loan right from the start. The lender up held the terms of the loan as written. There is no fraud here at all from the lender's side. The borrowers here are not victims. The terms are laid out ahead of time and they had the option to agree to them, reject them or attempt to negotiate different terms. They chose to agree to the terms. They got exactly what they agreed to. How are they victims if they got exactly what they signed up for?

 

[tommy_ed]

In the case you cited it's not predatory lending. It's a straight out scam. The scam contractor promised something that he didn't deliver and didn't have any intention of delivering. A small claims court would hold up the home owner's case hands down.

actually in this case, it's a team operation between the predatory lender and the contractor. you didn't read the article I take it.

The classic operation is a team thing. A homeowner needs a new roof or structural repairs, and approaches a contractor. Or maybe he has a long-held dream, a second bath or a new kitchen. Often he isn't shopping, just dreaming. Then the doorbell rings. A contractor 'working in the neighborhood' has equipment already on site and can offer a deal on any project. AND, his company can finance it (the paper will then be sold to a predatory lender) or he has a 'friend' in the mortgage business who has a spiffy new home improvement program.
Snap goes the trap. The homeowner agrees, the papers are signed; the work begins immediately, often before the three day loan cancellation right ends. The work is overpriced, shoddy, and often done without proper permits that would require inspection by the local building inspector.
Of course, the double whammy comes with the loan. It will be a poster child for predatory lending

 

[tommy_ed]

Here are some examples of very similar situations with your logic applied to them:

A doctor. You are about to undergo a major surgery. The doctor just so happens to be an illegal kidney harvester. Let's say he for some reason or another actually puts that he will be taking one of your kidneys in the pre-surgery release form. You sign the paper (he's your doctor, so are you really going to read through something you don't understand, or just trust him like 98% of people would)... so he harvests your kidneys. By your logic he shouldn't be prosecuted because it's your fault.

A mechanic. You take your car in to get worked on. Your mechanic tells you your transmission and entire exhaust system needs replaced, a costly repair. He hands you a repair order and you sign it. After the repair you find out he had charged you an extra $500 to install brakes when you didn't really need them, even though he purposely never told you he was going to. Most people would call that a scam.

A cell phone company. You go in to get a phone plan. The rep tells you you can get two phones for 100 dollars a month. However unbeknownst to you he is just quoting the base price of minues, not counting text, email and web, and insurance. BUT you obviously have these included in your contract. You ask the rep again. So my plan is 100 dollars a month? Yes, he says. So you sign. You find out later the 100 only covered your base price, and that your actual price is 180 dollars a month. Is it his fault for misrepresenting the information in order to get a sale or yours for believing him?

These people are all people representing a company. It's their job to provide us with the information we need. That's what they're there for. If we all already knew how to read through and come up with these things on our own, most of them wouldn't have jobs. If I go to a loan officer and he tells me my monthly payment will be $150 a month, but neglects to tell me after 6 months it jumps to $250, he's misrepresenting information in order to get the loan. Yes, maybe the person might have been naive for trusting the person at their bank (whom most people do trust) but they are STILL A VICTIM OF PREDATORY LENDING.

 

[tommy_ed]

In fact, here are a few court cases:

Nearly 1600 hundred Washington homeowners get back hidden fees and higher rates


Subprime Lenders Keep Churning Out Bad Loans


STEALING HOMES:Some people unknowingly sign away ownership

The Home Equity Theft Reporter Cases & Articles


The wiki article, this paragraph in particular cited with two references, one from the Fanny Mae Overview of Predatory Lending and another from the Federal Trade Commission states this:

One less contentious definition of the term is "the practice of a lender deceptively convincing borrowers to agree to unfair and abusive loan terms, or systematically violating those terms in ways that make it difficult for the borrower to defend against."[2] Other types of lending sometimes also referred to as predatory include payday loans, credit cards or other forms of consumer debt, and overdraft loans, when the interest rates are considered unreasonably high.[3] Although predatory lenders are most likely to target the less educated, lowest incomes, racial minorities, the elderly, victims of predatory lending are represented across all demographics.[4][5

 

[A.Nonymous]

actually in this case, it's a team operation between the predatory lender and the contractor. you didn't read the article I take it.

No, I read the article, but the loan part is a red herring. It's irrelevant to the situation. Let's say you pay the guy in cash and he comes in and delivers shoddy workmanship, doesn't get permits, bad materials, etc... You've been scammed. You have a small claims case.

The loan is irrelevant. You saw the terms of the loan before you signed it. You signed anyway. I'm sorry, but the "I was stupid" case rarely, if ever, holds up in court.

Here are some examples of very similar situations with your logic applied to them:

A doctor. You are about to undergo a major surgery. The doctor just so happens to be an illegal kidney harvester. Let's say he for some reason or another actually puts that he will be taking one of your kidneys in the pre-surgery release form. You sign the paper (he's your doctor, so are you really going to read through something you don't understand, or just trust him like 98% of people would)... so he harvests your kidneys. By your logic he shouldn't be prosecuted because it's your fault.

You signed a form agreeing that the guy could harvest your kidney without reading it. But that's not your fault. That logic is insane. I can sign whatever I want, but as long as I don't read it, it's not my fault? Also, I never said the banks weren't at fault. I said the borrowers were just as guilty as the banks are.

A mechanic. You take your car in to get worked on. Your mechanic tells you your transmission and entire exhaust system needs replaced, a costly repair. He hands you a repair order and you sign it. After the repair you find out he had charged you an extra $500 to install brakes when you didn't really need them, even though he purposely never told you he was going to. Most people would call that a scam.

He replaced your brakes and charged you $500 and you did not agree to that before hand? Yes. That's a scam. You were charged $500 and didn't agree to those charges. If the brakes and that $500 charge were on the repair order you signed, then you have not been scammed.

A cell phone company. You go in to get a phone plan. The rep tells you you can get two phones for 100 dollars a month. However unbeknownst to you he is just quoting the base price of minues, not counting text, email and web, and insurance. BUT you obviously have these included in your contract. You ask the rep again. So my plan is 100 dollars a month? Yes, he says. So you sign. You find out later the 100 only covered your base price, and that your actual price is 180 dollars a month. Is it his fault for misrepresenting the information in order to get a sale or yours for believing him?

Both. His for misrepresenting the info. You for not reading the contract before you signed.

These people are all people representing a company. It's their job to provide us with the information we need. That's what they're there for. If we all already knew how to read through and come up with these things on our own, most of them wouldn't have jobs. If I go to a loan officer and he tells me my monthly payment will be $150 a month, but neglects to tell me after 6 months it jumps to $250, he's misrepresenting information in order to get the loan. Yes, maybe the person might have been naive for trusting the person at their bank (whom most people do trust) but they are STILL A VICTIM OF PREDATORY LENDING.

No, they are idiots. I would love to see these people go to court, stand up in front of a judge and say, "Your honor, I should not be required to honor my commitments in this contract because I didn't read it before I signed it." That is not going to fly.

In fact, here are a few court cases:

Nearly 1600 hundred Washington homeowners get back hidden fees and higher rates


Subprime Lenders Keep Churning Out Bad Loans


STEALING HOMES:Some people unknowingly sign away ownership

The Home Equity Theft Reporter Cases & Articles


The wiki article, this paragraph in particular cited with two references, one from the Fanny Mae Overview of Predatory Lending and another from the Federal Trade Commission states this:

Again, all cases of people not reading what they signed. Do you really think, "I didn't read what I signed" should be a valid legal defense? 'Cuz if you do, then you can invalidate pretty much any contract you ever enter into. How do you prove that the signer really read the contract? Yes, they signed something at the bottom that said they read and understood, but that is meaningless apparently.

 

[Frisco]

You're hinging your stance on this issue at the point of consumer "reading and understanding what they sign."

No document stands alone, not at point of being signed and not in a court of law. The very demeanor and verbal spiel of the contract writer/presenter is quite admissible in court and has everything to do with defrauded consumer's successes in some cases.

Fraud often begins at the point of consumer need, not at the point of signing a contract.

 

[A.Nonymous]

You're hinging your stance on this issue at the point of consumer "reading and understanding what they sign."

No document stands alone, not at point of being signed and not in a court of law. The very demeanor and verbal spiel of the contract writer/presenter is quite admissible in court and has everything to do with defrauded consumer's successes in some cases.

Fraud often begins at the point of consumer need, not at the point of signing a contract.

Fair enough. But in the vast majority of mortgages going into default or close to going into default, the above is not the case. I have met people who signed up for adjustable rate mortgages/interest only mortgages figuring they would sell their house before the rate adjusted or the payment jumped up. Then the real estate bubble burst or they lost their job, or they had a kid and their spouse came home to take care of the kid or life happened to them in some other way. Then they couldn't sell the house, the mortgage adjusted and now they're in default. Those are the typical people who are screaming about mortgage fraud and they're wrong. They signed up for that loan from the start.

 

[TileSpin_gamer]

I went to Occupy SD last night just to see what the vibe was like in person, and it was mostly homeless and out-of-work youth asking for group handouts. They are trying to organize a group where all are represented equally, but at the same time they are already forming a hierarchy. Doesn't look like a representation of the 99%... more like the 9.1% (unemployment rate).

 

[tommy_ed]

Fair enough. But in the vast majority of mortgages going into default or close to going into default, the above is not the case. I have met people who signed up for adjustable rate mortgages/interest only mortgages figuring they would sell their house before the rate adjusted or the payment jumped up. Then the real estate bubble burst or they lost their job, or they had a kid and their spouse came home to take care of the kid or life happened to them in some other way. Then they couldn't sell the house, the mortgage adjusted and now they're in default. Those are the typical people who are screaming about mortgage fraud and they're wrong. They signed up for that loan from the start.

you were claiming that people in predatory lending schemes weren't victims, not people who had a regular mortgage then lost their job, etc. I def. agree with your above statement, they knew what they were getting into and that's life sometimes!

I think the people in the "occupy" protests might somewhat of a good idea, but a lot of their message is really vague. I don't think we should get any kind of bailout for normal circumstances, but I do think it's wrong for the government to bail out corporations. As for the education aspect, it wouldn't be a bad idea to somehow offer a cheaper route for the less-fortunate. But that being said there are already a lot of grants and scholarships to try and take advantage of, it's easy to get a college loan, and it's up to you if you think you need one. So meh, the whole message they're preaching almost seems moot. If they want people to pay attention I think they need a solid message to get across with a specific goal or goals in mind. Just my opinion

 

[A.Nonymous]

Apparently these protesters have started their own underground newspaper called The Occupied Wall Street Journal. I'm still unclear what their demands are. I see several web sites with several sets of demands. Many of them are pie in the sky (elimination of all debt) to be optimistic. The others seem to be extremely unrealistic. The one many seem to agree on is arresting the people on Wall Street for ruining the economy. It is unclear exactly who they propose to arrest and exactly what crimes they plan to charge them with though.