Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

What is Occupy Wall Street?


  • Please log in to reply
178 replies to this topic

#1 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 02:13 AM

http://www.newjersey...upy-wall-street

The Occupy Wall Street Movement claims to be about the 99 percent. They say they are about the members of the struggling middle class affected most by the recession, while the wealthier one percent, represented in their eyes by Wall Street, has all of the cash.

The website We Are the 99 Percent says,

#2 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 02:19 AM

I think I understand, but there are so many holes in the logic that is surprises me how naive this all is.


I think they are asking for more government accountability, failure of any corporation even if it costs another 25 thousand jobs, and for the big time CEO salaries to be outlawed (the other 1%)?

#3 DancingBearly

DancingBearly
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,917 posts
  • LocationQuiet Corner

Posted 06 October 2011 - 02:26 AM

China posted this after being down there.
wait, are the marchers back out there???

anyway, i came back to share this with robbery. an official list of demands:

CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. The repeal of provisions of the Glass

#4 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 02:29 AM

BTW it was not all big banks /wall st's fault for the melt down. Yeah they fed into it and exacerbated the problem. But ultimately the banks were wrong in giving out all the credit and managed it poorly. But that credit is based on a system where the public pays there bills. Once people started defaulting at extremely high rates the market collapsed because the other creditors were looking for their money and then came the trickle down effect of peter paying paul.

So when the banks were like hey Paul you want some credit? You want to buy a house? You want a 3rd flat screen or a 2nd car. Well here is the money for it. We know you are good for it. Well Paul was not good for it and so were many other people. See above for the effect of "paul's" credit default.

It is advanced crazy macro economics but that is ultimately led to the 2008 stock market crisis and still holds it hostage today with the European credit crunch now coming into full picture.

The 99% make under 250K a year and that is why Obama used that number. Tax the rich for their poor job, but please make the message a little more clear and I will be behind you.

#5 DancingBearly

DancingBearly
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,917 posts
  • LocationQuiet Corner

Posted 06 October 2011 - 02:29 AM

USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.
#

CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. This legislation should also RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.
#

CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.
#

CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.
#

CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS. Vote Here
#

CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control. Vote Here
#

ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status". It'll blow your mind. The 14th amendment was supposed to give equal rights to African Americans. It said you "can't deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law". Corporation lawyers wanted corporations to have more power so they basically said "corporations are people." Amazingly, between 1890 and 1910 there were 307 cases brought before the court under the 14th amendment. 288 of these brought by corporations and only 19 by African Americans. 600,000 people were killed to get rights for people and then judges applied those rights to capital and property while stripping them from people. It's time to set this straight.

#6 DancingBearly

DancingBearly
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,917 posts
  • LocationQuiet Corner

Posted 06 October 2011 - 02:31 AM

That's a start plus they have half a page of grievances too.

#7 jg

jg
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,035 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 02:49 AM

NYPD will try to clear out Zuccoti tonight. Don't let them do it. #OccupyWallStreet

Could be an interesting night....

#8 robberry

robberry
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,219 posts
  • LocationNew York

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:03 AM

That's a start plus they have half a page of grievances too.


I think this is the element that takes away from the "actual" message, and is hurting the movement because a lot of folks, including myself, feel it has been watered down immensely.

You can't attack Wall Street, ask for the governments help, and then attack the government. Have faith in the government, or join in the revolution to overthrow it. You can't have both...

#9 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 01:36 PM

USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.
#


See my post above. Yes they managed the money poorly, but it was Main Street that defaulted not the Investment banks. Stock prices went down when people realised how bad the defaults were. The investment banks figured out that their would be defaults and tried to sell their defaults to someone else. Bad practice, but the capitilaist system we live in.

CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. This legislation should also RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.
#


I am OK with this.


CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.
#


I am ok with this.


CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.
#


Good luck with this. But is more goverment regulation really what we need? Independent regulation is what is needed. Government is not capable of do this correctly.



CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS. Vote Here
#


They have done this already, and yet the lobbyist have found loop holes in this and still are just as effective as they were before the new law.

CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control. Vote Here
#


I am ok with this, but in a purely capitlism system, why would we stop anyone from working anywhere? Free market is a free market.


ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status". It'll blow your mind. The 14th amendment was supposed to give equal rights to African Americans. It said you "can't deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law". Corporation lawyers wanted corporations to have more power so they basically said "corporations are people." Amazingly, between 1890 and 1910 there were 307 cases brought before the court under the 14th amendment. 288 of these brought by corporations and only 19 by African Americans. 600,000 people were killed to get rights for people and then judges applied those rights to capital and property while stripping them from people. It's time to set this straight.


OK with this.


Again. Make these demands public knowledge. Do not veer off message with over simplifications of "the system". Admit it is complicated, and say we want to work with the government to get these X number of things done.

Otherwise you are just protesters making noise for noise sake.

Have a real message and purpose.

#10 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,015 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 01:54 PM

The federal reserve played no part in the mortgage bubble? They didnt adjust lending rates to illusory lows and then raise them again? I think it is beyond foolish to dump the entire problem on the wall st. Crew and the banks. This isnt capitalism. Its fiat currency secretive monetary carteling.

#11 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 02:23 PM

The federal reserve played no part in the mortgage bubble? They didnt adjust lending rates to illusory lows and then raise them again? I think it is beyond foolish to dump the entire problem on the wall st. Crew and the banks. This isnt capitalism. Its fiat currency secretive monetary carteling.


Huh? Currncy secretive monetary cartelling? So your saying the fed was basically laundering money as the cartels do? What are you saying there in the end?

No the Fed did not have "extrodianry" low interest rates, until 2008 when the crash hit. On 12/31/2007 the interest rate was low yes, at around 4% (source http://www.federalre...s/h15/20071231/), but the Fed interest rate now 0%. Rasing that now would kill the stock market and thousands of jobs.

Of course the Fed played a part, they were the ones who pushed higher loan rates (at what ever interest rate the lender wanted BTW). Pushing more money into the economy, more home ownership. This was the idea. Defaulting was not part of their equation.

They should have seen that. You know, some one making 50K, living in a 400K and 5000 sq feet home. Probably above their means.

Who is to blame for this? The bank for lending the money or people who lived above their means for repaying these loans and or credit cards?

There is plenty blame to go around, but to blame the wall street as a whole is not fair.

And BTW many companies did fail. Lehman? Recently Circuit City, Borders.

#12 Shake Yer Bones

Shake Yer Bones
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,447 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 02:28 PM

.... You can't attack Wall Street, ask for the governments help, and then attack the government. Have faith in the government, or join in the revolution to overthrow it. You can't have both...


This is the part I think is funny about all of it. Get rid of corporations and rich people, but let me use my iPhone to record my revolution. And then I'll post my video on Facebook and Twitter, on how evil big corporations and companies are.

#13 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 02:39 PM

This is the part I think is funny about all of it. Get rid of corporations and rich people, but let me use my iPhone to record my revolution. And then I'll post my video on Facebook and Twitter, on how evil big corporations and companies are.


This!

:gop:

#14 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,015 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 02:55 PM

They inflated the supply of money, then manipulated it to appear still worth a certain amount. . Which has been their mo since day one. Elastic, debased paper money that they can print up whenever the need arises. If you think fiat currency controlled by a cartel of bankers that work largely in secret is going to end in prosperity and growth.....take a look around.

Fiat currency doesnt work in the long run. Never has and it ends devastatingly for the people.

#15 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 02:56 PM

Andy, it is the LENDERS fault to make loans to people who obviously couldnt pay back the loan. You can say the borrower was at fault for defaulting, but the LENDER should be more careful, as they MAKE THE LOAN. Im not blaming joe-shmo for defaulting...im blaming these "educated" bankers with college degrees who made terrible business decisions with other peoples money!!!

#16 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 03:26 PM

They inflated the supply of money, then manipulated it to appear still worth a certain amount. . Which has been their mo since day one. Elastic, debased paper money that they can print up whenever the need arises. If you think fiat currency controlled by a cartel of bankers that work largely in secret is going to end in prosperity and growth.....take a look around.

Fiat currency doesnt work in the long run. Never has and it ends devastatingly for the people.


The fed does not print money when ever they feel like it. Congress has to approve the printing or release of more money into the economy.

How do they work largely in secret? When the Fed does anything the market reacts. Implying they are more transparent than you give them credit for.





Andy, it is the LENDERS fault to make loans to people who obviously couldnt pay back the loan. You can say the borrower was at fault for defaulting, but the LENDER should be more careful, as they MAKE THE LOAN. Im not blaming joe-shmo for defaulting...im blaming these "educated" bankers with college degrees who made terrible business decisions with other peoples money!!!



This is a much better discussion.

Well the true fault of this goes back to 1998 when Clinton was president.

The true American dream they argued back then was home ownership, and that this was the backbone of the US economy.

Do you remember how hard it was to get a loan to buy a house before 1998? It was near impossible. If you had a good credit score but still had say 1 outstanding debt, they would not give you a mortgage until that was paid. Example, my uncle bought a house in 1989. Turned out his wife went to Beauty School and still owed 3 grand in tuition. The bank turned them down for this, unless they could pay this off with in 90 days or they would have to reapply. A family memeber ended up lending him the money to pay the bill and buy the house. He paid the money back to the family member over a few years.


So when the purse strings were loosened by congress in 1998, this is when the wheels starting rolling towards 2008. 10 years is a long time for the S to hit the fan.

Well in this time, you heard all the feel good stories of first time home owners. You saw a bubble bust in early 2001 when the fed raised rates and the internet boom pooped the bed.

Sometime around 2002 when people were trying to rebound from the internet bubble and 9/11 the government saw this new law as a way to prop up the economy. Bush liked it because as stated, home ownership is the back bone of the economy.

So the administration at the time started pushing for more loans. Banks readily fell in line as they wanted to increase lending as the fees and interest paid back on these loans are usually HUGE.

Now in 2004 the administration (http://www.msnbc.msn...home-ownership/) see source gave tax relief to new home buyers. I cashed in on this and bought a house in 2004. Sold it in 2007 just in time.

This spurned new lending to people who were unqualified.

Yes the banks should have had more rules, but to lend the money meant getting lots more in return. So yes the banks should have known better, but the blame can not be squarely placed on the Banks, or Main Street Paul. They have to sleep in the same bed together.

Hence the 99% wanting low prices of Walmart, but then rip walmart for taking jobs from locals.

Hence the 99% wanting their latest i device, but not caring that Apple is the biggest corporation in the world.

Hence when the unions join the cause, 99% get happy and think hey we are on the right path. The truth is unions are just as political as our system, and if you do not know the right people, the chances of you getting called in for a job can be slim, and hence why people get mad for having to pay union dues even though they are not working.


So yes, I think the naitevity of the move is glaring, but noble in its own weird way.

#17 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 03:26 PM

Andy, it is the LENDERS fault to make loans to people who obviously couldnt pay back the loan. You can say the borrower was at fault for defaulting, but the LENDER should be more careful, as they MAKE THE LOAN. Im not blaming joe-shmo for defaulting...im blaming these "educated" bankers with college degrees who made terrible business decisions with other peoples money!!!


right...if joe-schmo is getting offered these loans, what joe-schmo is gonna turn them down? a responsible bank is supposed to look at what these folks make and decide whther or not they can trust them to pay it back...to purposely hand out money to people...who the hell wouldn't say yes to a giant loan?...did joe-schmos all over the country let themselves get tricked into this? yes. but they were still scammed. the banks knew what they were doing

#18 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,015 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 03:33 PM

Well, the was giving unlimited credit to the fannies and freddies. Why would lendes make sure they were responsible wheen the credit source was not?

#19 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 03:38 PM

and why would you expect them to? they knew who it was gonna hurt ultimately

#20 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 03:44 PM

I have never and dont understand this idea of you must own a home or property. Why would I enter into "ownership" of anything the is so EXPENSIVE with maintenance and taxes when I can just rent from YOU, who get stuck with that stuff. Why gamble?

#21 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 03:44 PM

Its easier to run out a lease than to sell a house...

#22 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,015 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 03:45 PM

and why would you expect them to? they knew who it was gonna hurt ultimately


Exactly.

#23 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 03:45 PM

right...if joe-schmo is getting offered these loans, what joe-schmo is gonna turn them down? a responsible bank is supposed to look at what these folks make and decide whther or not they can trust them to pay it back...to purposely hand out money to people...who the hell wouldn't say yes to a giant loan?...did joe-schmos all over the country let themselves get tricked into this? yes. but they were still scammed. the banks knew what they were doing



The people who would not say yes to a giant loan are the financially responsible people of the world.

The people who just want more and or bigger stuff fed into the problem with out any concern of how this giant loan would fit into their budget.

It is a "vic"ious cycle. "vic"ious <---:funny1:

#24 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 03:46 PM

I have never and dont understand this idea of you must own a home or property. Why would I enter into "ownership" of anything the is so EXPENSIVE with maintenance and taxes when I can just rent from YOU, who get stuck with that stuff. Why gamble?


And it is usually a 30 year commitment.

#25 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 03:48 PM

Its stupid considering you may not live 30 years...

And people do it ALL THE TIME. What is the "advantage"?

#26 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 03:48 PM

Well, the was giving unlimited credit to the fannies and freddies. Why would lendes make sure they were responsible wheen the credit source was not?


Who was giving Fannie and Freddie unlimited Credit?

The Fed? NOT!

They leant their own money.

Now the government has SINCE (2008) taken over this debt, and they will never see their money returned as many other TARP receipients paid their money back. Fannie Freddie will never get it back because it is almost a trillion dollars.

#27 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 03:50 PM

Its stupid considering you may not live 30 years...

And people do it ALL THE TIME. What is the "advantage"?



Why?

Because after 15 or 20 years, you will have built real equity into your home. Plus the value of your home after this long will surely increase.

Plus if it is yours, you can do what ever you want to the home. If you lease or rent you are always under someone elses watchful eye.

#28 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 03:55 PM

and why would you expect them to? they knew who it was gonna hurt ultimately


I assume you mean the 99%.

Sometimes I think your over simplification gets lost in the big picture of what is REALLY going on.

Like I said this is a Noble cause, but this is such a naive approach for action.

#29 robberry

robberry
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,219 posts
  • LocationNew York

Posted 06 October 2011 - 03:55 PM

Because after 15 or 20 years, you will have built real equity into your home. Plus the value of your home after this long will surely increase.


Are you sure about that?

#30 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 03:57 PM

Equity is debatable since it is not really liquid until you sell, which you are gambling that it will have increased in that time. Meanwhile, you pay ever rising property taxes, plus fluctuating mortgage rates, possible floods, fires, insurence...

I see those as cons that weigh and pin one down financially and physically. id rather call the landlord when the roof needs replacing...or better yet, just move down the block instead...

#31 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 04:01 PM

Are you sure about that?


YES 100%.

After 15 years you should have paid off half of your home on a 30 year mortgage. Implying if you paid 100K towards a 200K house. Now if you try to sell the house and say you only got 175. You are still making 75. Simple easy numbers.

But right now the market is down so it would not be a good time to sell.

You might be missing the point. Over time you pay down your loan, and two have some equity.

If you buy a house today, and in two years you are looking for a home equity loan (which is what was going on at the peak of the lending), then you are losing money in the deal.

If you bought a house in the 70's. Now it is paid off. You bought a house in the 80's it is paid off or very close to paid off. Same for the ealry 90's.

Anything after that, you better hold on to your property until the market bounces back and you get a fair price.

#32 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 04:03 PM

Equity is debatable since it is not really liquid until you sell, which you are gambling that it will have increased in that time. Meanwhile, you pay ever rising property taxes, plus fluctuating mortgage rates, possible floods, fires, insurence...

I see those as cons that weigh and pin one down financially and physically. id rather call the landlord when the roof needs replacing...or better yet, just move down the block instead...


I agree.

But Through out history (until recently), if you held on to a house long enough you made money.

Check 50's, 60's 70's and 80's. Holds true for every decade.

Yes there are downsides and risks, but there are risks crossing the street.

You do what is best for you, not a bank who may be giving you some sort of credit you can not pay back.

#33 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 04:05 PM

Or dont buy property at all. Owning LESS is what I am all about. the less you own, the MORE you are free.

you cannot take it with you, so why own it in the first place?

#34 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 04:07 PM

Life isnt about making money.

#35 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 04:09 PM

Or dont buy property at all. Owning LESS is what I am all about. the less you own, the MORE you are free.

you cannot take it with you, so why own it in the first place?


Something to leave your kids? I do not know.

I only think people who will be happily married for 20+ years should buy, otherwise it is just another asset to split.

Otherwise I agree. Although there is a great feeling of owning a home, I will attest.

#36 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 04:09 PM

Life isnt about making money.


No it is not, but if you do not make money, your life coud be very tough.

#37 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 04:14 PM

Its a false sense of accomplishment. It represents more responsibility, less freedom for a long period of time for a possible monetary gain down the road...

My point is maybe the "own your own home" idea is a harmful illusion that keeps mortgage lenders is business?

#38 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 04:15 PM

And people in debt

#39 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 04:18 PM

Yes and Yes, but I think your attitude is more a reflection on the time we live.

The right clings to the past and the morals of the past. Home Ownership is a large part of past morals.

#40 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,015 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 04:30 PM

Who was giving Fannie and Freddie unlimited Credit?

The Fed? NOT!

They leant their own money.

Now the government has SINCE (20 credit08) taken over this debt, and they will never see their money returned as many other TARP receipients paid their money back. Fannie Freddie will never get it back because it is almost a trillion dollars.


Where did these lenders acquire their money? It was through the fed. Created out if thin air and pumped into the housing market through credit.

Youtube fiat empire and refute it. The federal reserve bank cartel is at the root cause of thesr booms and busts.

#41 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:04 PM

Where did these lenders acquire their money? It was through the fed. Created out if thin air and pumped into the housing market through credit.

Youtube fiat empire and refute it. The federal reserve bank cartel is at the root cause of thesr booms and busts.


No you are 100% incorrect Sir.

They got it through Years of profits. Fannie Mae was found in 1938.

They had enough money in 2006 to fund every drop of their loans.

When they started defaulting they looked to the Fed for support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Ma


This is an hour long, I will refute when I get through the whole thing. But be advised I have a a job.

Would have been easier if you embedded the lin.k here.

#42 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:07 PM

5 minutes in, and yes it matches the definition of a cartel but I think a monopoly is a better term.

Second, the fed can print money, yes, but they did not give it to fannie or freddie or any other bank to give out loans.

Each company used their own money to lend.

#43 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:11 PM

BTW this act was introduced in 1913.

Why has it gone almost a century (almost 2012) with out your kind of outrage?

There have been movements in the past 100 years, why now all the outrage?

#44 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:12 PM

Why not now?

#45 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:16 PM

Ok today is fine, but why not over the past 95 years. There were other stock market crashes through this time. Black friday is a good example in the 1980's.

My point being, this was fine for 95 years. No complaints. But this time it is different? How?

#46 SunshineDrummer

SunshineDrummer

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 12,446 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:18 PM

Its a false sense of accomplishment. It represents more responsibility, less freedom for a long period of time for a possible monetary gain down the road...

My point is maybe the "own your own home" idea is a harmful illusion that keeps mortgage lenders is business?


And people in debt


You can also keep yourself in debt by living beyond your means, like many folks who got swept up in the subprime mortgage mess. Sure, lenders were making bullshit loans to people they knew couldn't afford them. But at the same time, there has to be consumer (i.e. borrower) responsibility as well.

If you're struggling to make a $1000/month rent payment on your apartment, what makes you think that you can suddenly afford a $4000+ per month mortgage payment just because a bank or mortgage broker tells you you can? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out. People saw what they wanted to and believed what they wanted to, including the fact that you could own a million dollar home, 2 cars, etc., etc. on a $50K/year salary. That kind of math doesn't add up unless you just don't want to live in reality.

#47 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:35 PM

I have never and dont understand this idea of you must own a home or property. Why would I enter into "ownership" of anything the is so EXPENSIVE with maintenance and taxes when I can just rent from YOU, who get stuck with that stuff. Why gamble?


i've been arguing this point for about a year now to anyone who suggests i should buy a home...fuck that shit...mortgage is just as much if not more than rent, the landlord pays for water and maintenance, and i'm not stuck in my home for the rest of my life or trying in this shit awful market to try to sell my home...and i have the option to move wherever i want every year or stay put

#48 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:39 PM

Or dont buy property at all. Owning LESS is what I am all about. the less you own, the MORE you are free.

you cannot take it with you, so why own it in the first place?


bingo...i like this guy :joker:

#49 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,604 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:44 PM

I also agree with this point, but this was not the general feeling of the American public in 2006.

In 2006 we were all drinking the BUSH Kool Aid.

#50 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,015 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:44 PM

BTW this act was introduced in 1913.

Why has it gone almost a century (almost 2012) with out your kind of outrage?

There have been movements in the past 100 years, why now all the outrage?


Ive been aware, As many have, of the feds cartel since the early 90s. There have been movements against. It for a long time. Including at the time