OCCUPYWALLSTREET REINFORCEMENTS!

[ygmir]

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

Yeah, I have been wondering about this recently. Foreclosures seemed to have happened suddenly, and all over. It's just so convenient. The rich cats now own the properties, as well as the equity that the peons put into them. Are there any documents relating to this, or do we have to wait a decade before the truth comes out?

I suppose, on a base level, my question is:

if you borrow money, and don't pay it back, what should the lender do?
Whether it's "your fault" or not, for being able to re-pay, if you borrow money from me, what am I to do if you can't/won't repay?

I'm not ok with predatory foreclosures, first off.
I'm also not ok, with lying to people to get them to get loans.

But, I'm also not ok, if you don't go so far as to realize, maybe, your income won't support the payments, etc on a house at a certain level, but, you buy it anyway, making use of liberal lending policies. Then, decide you can't/won't pay and then get pissed you lost it.

How many foreclosures, are due to people "walking away" from a house they're "upside down" in?
That number is, I'm sure, added to the foreclosure totals. But, in that case, a lender, is "stuck" with the place, probably at a substantial loss.
Is that ok?
Do the lenders "deserve" it, because they made money on other loans, or "they can afford it".........

I dunno........I think it's way more complicated than folks want to admit.

Are you saying, if I don't have "the paper" regarding a loan to you, that, you shouldn't have to re-pay?
I mean, if you borrowed money, paper or no, shouldn't you pay it back? Doesn't decorum and integrity, dictate that you repay a loan, that you chose to take?

just some thoughts

flame suit on

[moonrise]

Think TARP funds, the banks got theirs I guess.

When this recession began and lending was still liberal, someone (a non-burner) told me they went out, bought a better house (with a simming pool and etc!!) at a much much lower price and then simply walked on their original 'overpriced' house. It trashed their credit, but they didn't care and told me the bank (or it might've been a private lender party) couldn't do a thing about it. Ballsy!!

[Boijoy]

If you posess something you didn't pay for it's STEALING. the end.

The "Banks" don't want to own these properties. ( i have a certain amount of credability here ) Once the banks take back property in foreclosure they are lucky to re-sell them @ 35 cents on the dollar. Thats called a loss & it's going to hurt us all. Were their "preditory loans" ? yes. But the "law" allowed them. This is what happens when you deregulate the banking industry. You can thank Bill Clinto & his republican congress for that one. & btw.. Banks aren't the only ones who loaned money on property. There are alot of private lenders that are getting screwed as well. Some private landers have to walk away from loans because they can't afford the cost to foreclose.

It's just a big fat circle of SUCK!

[Elderberry]

No, you shouldn't; not in this particular situation. The way the laws are written in most states (at least many, or the one's I'm familiar with) have no recourse for the collection of money lent on a mortgage because it has always believed that taking back the house was more than enough compensation to the original lender. Both the buyer and the seller are aware of this going in. The only consequence to defaulting was hurting your credit. But with the housing market being what it is, a ding to your credit is a small price to pay to dump (legally) a property that is worth many times more than you owe on it with no chance of ever getting any equity in the property no matter how long you own it.

This is just good "business".

Hell, the reason the banks can't legally foreclose on those properties is because they were playing fast and lose with the rules; this time, it had an unintended consequence when it backfired on them.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

Yeah, I have been wondering about this recently. Foreclosures seemed to have happened suddenly, and all over. It's just so convenient. The rich cats now own the properties, as well as the equity that the peons put into them. Are there any documents relating to this, or do we have to wait a decade before the truth comes out?

I suppose, on a base level, my question is:

if you borrow money, and don't pay it back, what should the lender do?
Whether it's "your fault" or not, for being able to re-pay, if you borrow money from me, what am I to do if you can't/won't repay?

I'm not ok with predatory foreclosures, first off.
I'm also not ok, with lying to people to get them to get loans.

But, I'm also not ok, if you don't go so far as to realize, maybe, your income won't support the payments, etc on a house at a certain level, but, you buy it anyway, making use of liberal lending policies. Then, decide you can't/won't pay and then get pissed you lost it.

How many foreclosures, are due to people "walking away" from a house they're "upside down" in?
That number is, I'm sure, added to the foreclosure totals. But, in that case, a lender, is "stuck" with the place, probably at a substantial loss.
Is that ok?
Do the lenders "deserve" it, because they made money on other loans, or "they can afford it".........

I dunno........I think it's way more complicated than folks want to admit.

Are you saying, if I don't have "the paper" regarding a loan to you, that, you shouldn't have to re-pay?
I mean, if you borrowed money, paper or no, shouldn't you pay it back? Doesn't decorum and integrity, dictate that you repay a loan, that you chose to take?

just some thoughts

flame suit on

[ygmir]

No, you shouldn't; not in this particular situation. The way the laws are written in most (at least many, or the one's I'm familiar with) have no recourse for the collection of money lent on a mortgage because it has always believed that taking back the house was more than enough compensation to the original lender. Both the buyer and the seller are aware of this going in. The only consequence to defaulting was hurting your credit. But with the housing market being what it is, a ding to your credit is a small price to pay to dump (legally) a property that is worth many times more than you owe on it with no chance of ever getting any equity in the property no matter how long you own it.

This is just good "business".

Hell, the reason the banks can't legally foreclose on those properties is because they were playing fast and lose with the rules; this time, it had an unintended consequence when it backfired on them.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

I suppose, on a base level, my question is:

if you borrow money, and don't pay it back, what should the lender do?
Whether it's "your fault" or not, for being able to re-pay, if you borrow money from me, what am I to do if you can't/won't repay?

I'm not ok with predatory foreclosures, first off.
I'm also not ok, with lying to people to get them to get loans.

But, I'm also not ok, if you don't go so far as to realize, maybe, your income won't support the payments, etc on a house at a certain level, but, you buy it anyway, making use of liberal lending policies. Then, decide you can't/won't pay and then get pissed you lost it.

How many foreclosures, are due to people "walking away" from a house they're "upside down" in?
That number is, I'm sure, added to the foreclosure totals. But, in that case, a lender, is "stuck" with the place, probably at a substantial loss.
Is that ok?
Do the lenders "deserve" it, because they made money on other loans, or "they can afford it".........

I dunno........I think it's way more complicated than folks want to admit.

Are you saying, if I don't have "the paper" regarding a loan to you, that, you shouldn't have to re-pay?
I mean, if you borrowed money, paper or no, shouldn't you pay it back? Doesn't decorum and integrity, dictate that you repay a loan, that you chose to take?

just some thoughts

flame suit on

well, with that attitude, though, I could see why no one would want to make a loan, or they'd want super interest on huge down payments.......heck,
so:
I want a house, so I come to you and say, "can you loan me the money".
If you do, I get the house.
But, if I decide, it's not worth as much as "I" paid for it, I just say "screw you, I'm not paying you back", and walk away?

Law, or no law, is it not right, to pay back money you borrow?

I mean heck, were I a lender, I'd now look at anyone wanting a mortgage, and make them put a huge down payment up front. And, make them be very, very able to show they are able to afford it.....

ah yes, but then, some one will cry that "you're not being fair, everyone should be able to own a home, and, you make it to hard".....and the gov. would come in (pandering to their base) and make you lower your standards, and or subsidize the purchaser..........

oh wait, isn't that how we got here, at least, in part?......

[Elderberry]

well, with that attitude, though, I could see why no one would want to make a loan, or they'd want super interest on huge down payments.......heck,
so:
I want a house, so I come to you and say, "can you loan me the money".
If you do, I get the house.
But, if I decide, it's not worth as much as "I" paid for it, I just say "screw you, I'm not paying you back", and walk away?

Law, or no law, is it not right, to pay back money you borrow?

I mean heck, were I a lender, I'd now look at anyone wanting a mortgage, and make them put a huge down payment up front. And, make them be very, very able to show they are able to afford it.....

ah yes, but then, some one will cry that "you're not being fair, everyone should be able to own a home, and, you make it to hard".....and the gov. would come in (pandering to their base) and make you lower your standards, and or subsidize the purchaser..........

oh wait, isn't that how we got here, at least, in part?......

First, I don't believe that everyone "should" own a home. Second, what is "right" and what is "legal" are sometimes confused. If two people enter into an agreement, all that is required is doing what is legal. So if the lender is playing by the "legal" rule and the borrower is playing by the "do what's 'right'" rule; who do you imagine gets screwed. Don't forget, what the bankers did with the mortgages was not technically legal nor right. There have been two sets of rules...ones for the lenders and a different set for the borrowers. Business doesn't have a conscious; but they know there are lots of people like you that do. Who do you think will win in that situation?

Land/Real Estate and its governing laws are some of the oldest in the world. The bankers couldn't play by those laws and rig the game to make all the money they did if they actually had to pass a paper document around as many times as it was being passed and as quickly. They broke the rules. So you're saying the borrowers should pay the consequences for them? I say both sides need to be smart enough to play by the same set of rules, which is what anyone that decides to default on their mortgage would be doing.

[I am a sock puppet]

what.

[ygmir]

well, with that attitude, though, I could see why no one would want to make a loan, or they'd want super interest on huge down payments.......heck,
so:
I want a house, so I come to you and say, "can you loan me the money".
If you do, I get the house.
But, if I decide, it's not worth as much as "I" paid for it, I just say "screw you, I'm not paying you back", and walk away?

Law, or no law, is it not right, to pay back money you borrow?

I mean heck, were I a lender, I'd now look at anyone wanting a mortgage, and make them put a huge down payment up front. And, make them be very, very able to show they are able to afford it.....

ah yes, but then, some one will cry that "you're not being fair, everyone should be able to own a home, and, you make it to hard".....and the gov. would come in (pandering to their base) and make you lower your standards, and or subsidize the purchaser..........

oh wait, isn't that how we got here, at least, in part?......

First, I don't believe that everyone "should" own a home. Second, what is "right" and what is "legal" are sometimes confused. If two people enter into an agreement, all that is required is doing what is legal. So if the lender is playing by the "legal" rule and the borrower is playing by the "do what's 'right'" rule; who do you imagine gets screwed. Don't forget, what the bankers did with the mortgages was not technically legal nor right. There have been two sets of rules...ones for the lenders and a different set for the borrowers. Business doesn't have a conscious; but they know there are lots of people like you that do. Who do you think will win in that situation?

Land/Real Estate and its governing laws are some of the oldest in the world. The bankers couldn't play by those laws and rig the game to make all the money they did if they actually had to pass a paper document around as many times as it was being passed and as quickly. They broke the rules. So you're saying the borrowers should pay the consequences for them? I say both sides need to be smart enough to play by the same set of rules, which is what anyone that decides to default on their mortgage would be doing.

yeah, and all in all, what gets me is "law vs right".........why, should they be at odds?
Why is it acceptable, to cheat or be dishonest about something, as long as it's "within the law"?
It's the foogin politicians, making so many laws,we can't even begin to know them.
It drives me cynicism........

Sure, walking away from an "upside down" mortgage is legal......but, well, I still don't think it's right.
Of course, if the fact is, you just can't pay it, well, you have no choice.
But, you borrowed the money. The lender agreed to lend it.
With the "walk away" option being valid, it would seem just as valid, for a lender to make your payments higher, if, your house increases in value............same logic, IMHO.

All this OWS, is, to me, a good thing.
It'd be my hope, it would bring things into focus.
People are hurting. Some, through no fault of their own. Some, from being stupid. Some, from being greedy.
Some, from being cheated and lied to.
But, bottom line, is, this may be a great "reality check" for the generations, here, now.
One can hope.

[Elderberry]

yeah, and all in all, what gets me is "law vs right".........why, should they be at odds?
Why is it acceptable, to cheat or be dishonest about something, as long as it's "within the law"?
It's the foogin politicians, making so many laws,we can't even begin to know them.
It drives me cynicism........

Sure, walking away from an "upside down" mortgage is legal......but, well, I still don't think it's right.
Of course, if the fact is, you just can't pay it, well, you have no choice.
But, you borrowed the money. The lender agreed to lend it.
With the "walk away" option being valid, it would seem just as valid, for a lender to make your payments higher, if, your house increases in value............same logic, IMHO.

All this OWS, is, to me, a good thing.
It'd be my hope, it would bring things into focus.
People are hurting. Some, through no fault of their own. Some, from being stupid. Some, from being greedy.
Some, from being cheated and lied to.
But, bottom line, is, this may be a great "reality check" for the generations, here, now.
One can hope.

After reading your opening sentence I had already decided to reply with "what do you think they're occupying wall street for?"

After reading your closing paragraph, a more appropriate reply would be "I totally agree."

[Boijoy]

btw. Just because you "walk away" from your upside down home doesn't mean your off the hook. The lender can still go after a Deficiency Judgement & attach that judgement to any of your assetts.

[Elderberry]

btw. Just because you "walk away" from your upside down home doesn't mean your off the hook. The lender can still go after a Deficiency Judgement & attach that judgement to any of your assetts.

Depends on the state. And, though they can, they usually don't. Too much work and expense. That's why they decided to hire people to forge the foreclosure documents.

[Ugly Dougly]

Meh, I was just asking if there were any leads from the conspiracy angle. It just seemed to be a big coincidence.

Anyway, see y'all at Tahrir Square!

[theCryptofishist]

Or 101 Market street...

[Sola Gangsta]

I wish people would stop calling it "home ownership". You're using the language of the oppressors people! How can you hope to get out from under their domination if you keep thinking the way they want you to think? The revolution starts within your own mind first. That's how things begin to change.

[Elderberry]

Nothing wrong with home ownership per se. At least not if you can just plop down the cash for it. It's the financing that gets people into trouble.

I wish people would stop calling it "home ownership". You're using the language of the oppressors people! How can you hope to get out from under their domination if you keep thinking the way they want you to think? The revolution starts within your own mind first. That's how things begin to change.

[theCryptofishist]

Mortgages worked for a couple of generations. They weren't available to everyone but in the 20th century you could be a hard working factory hand and own your own home in 25 years. Back when a house was a home, rather than an "investment" that you sold when you divorced or you got a raise or you moved to another town to follow a job or whatever.

Renting is okay, but if you want to build weird stuff in your yard, it better not to have to fight the landlord as well as the neighbors and the city...

[Sola Gangsta]

Nothing wrong with home ownership per se. At least not if you can just plop down the cash for it. It's the financing that gets people into trouble.

I wish people would stop calling it "home ownership". You're using the language of the oppressors people! How can you hope to get out from under their domination if you keep thinking the way they want you to think? The revolution starts within your own mind first. That's how things begin to change.

If you think you own your home, stop paying the taxes and you will soon find out who really does own your place. Therefore it is not really "ownership". You are in the same relationship to the government as a tenant is to the landlord. Only the price / value is different. The idea that you "own your home" is a little mental poision added to keep you from thinking straight about the real relationships of power and to keep you in their control. The language of banking is full of these deceptive little ploys to make you into a consumer sucker.

[Elderberry]

[Sola Gangsta]

I know someone in NY whose property taxes went up 85% in the last year. So much for "owning your home". When strings like that are attached, the home is a way for the government to own you.

[MOOP_Czar]

I know someone in NY whose property taxes went up 85% in the last year. So much for "owning your home". When strings like that are attached, the home is a way for the government to own you.

I was once told that there are 3 types of lies:
Lies
Damn lies
and statistics.

The taxes on my home jumped close to 400%!!

Part of that is that the last time a tax level was assessed was 40 years ago when the owners I purchased it from originally purchased it. They paid $9,000 cash for this home. I pain $90k. By the math - My taxes should have increased by 1000%. I just boned the man for 600% on my taxes...

Taxes suck.

Paying them doesnt make me a slave.

Paying them makes me a responsible adult.

If they jump another 400% next year - well then - I will change my tune.

[Sola Gangsta]

Some people made out big time in this foreclosure market. Any time your property taxes jump 85% in one year, they deserve riots! And yes, you are owned through your home in that case. I know its not the same for everybody (being an old fart I've seen a lot), but there is rampant injustice here. If it wasn't so, OWS would not even show up on the radar.

At this point being a "responsible adult" may really mean not paying your taxes. If everybody did this then the imperial American agenda to bomb the heck out of foreign countries would be forced to stop.

[Elderberry]

Believe me, there are a lot more important issues than property taxes, which support such things as neighborhood schools, parks, and other things that help keep your property values up and your neighborhood a pleasant place to live, to complain about.

[ygmir]

yeah, SG, don't confuse property taxes, which mostly stay local, with income and other taxes, that go to the fed gov.
Taxes, are a necessary evil of government. The only argument, is, (IMHO), at what levels they are applied, and what they are spent on.
Unless you want to live in a hut on Hudson Bay, walk to catch your fish or out run a polar bear, and, use smoke signals to communicate, you'll have to pay for it.

the only "rights" we have, are natural.............

[Sola Gangsta]

I'm well aware of the various taxes. I don't have time to explain all the different ways the world is fucked up, but local taxes aren't all valid either. For example:

Most of my relatives live in upstate NY between Syracuse and Watertown. Recently they just passed a new water district without proper notification to all the home renters which will add more fees even though it wasn't needed in the area due to wells and sump pumps already being there, etc. The resolution was passed with less than 200 votes. Those who were voting in favor were those who were properly notified and they were the ones in on the project to profit from the windfall that the taxes would generate. The rest weren't notified. When others found out about it, there was a lot of anger because they didn't properly notify everybody about it before they passed it. Nearly everybody had running water all ready. But this gives the county and excuse to add water taxes which are useless in the area. It is as if I tell you "you're going to buy my software whether you like it or not, give me your wallet so that I can extract the correct amount - thank you very much".

Just one example of the nepotism / corruption of the area, but this sort of thing is rampant everywhere.

[Sola Gangsta]

I know someone in NY whose property taxes went up 85% in the last year. So much for "owning your home". When strings like that are attached, the home is a way for the government to own you.

Taxes suck.

Paying them doesnt make me a slave.

Paying them makes me a responsible adult.

Maybe paying them turns you into "cattle"...

[youtube][/youtube]

[Elderberry]

Frankly, I don't consider you're situation a "better" alternative. But whatever floats your boat. How about I don't call you "homeless" and you don't call me "cattle"?

[MOOP_Czar]

*blink*
*blink*
*yawn*

mmrmph...

Dear SG,

Please keep posting. I am trying to figure this out.

Your single-minded commitment to a single way of thinking and the degrading of any and all opposing thoughts or feelings by smug and superior posts is indicative of something.

Just trying to zero in on it.

Most everybody who has attemtped to engage in a conversation with you and who have, for the most part, agreed with you in part are met with further arguments as to why they are cattle, slaves, or some other subservient insult for not agreeing with you.

You have a problem even acknowlidging the validity of other people's thinking.

Feel free to continue to meet this with your expected single-minded determination to prove that all people who pay taxes and decide to live in society and not chose to be a free human being by leading a nomadic life-style off the grid are less wise or mentally developed than you are.

To you sir, I say-

Take a moment to take a step b-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ack and to at least try to not be a superior soundiing ass.

Unless that is your intention.

To which I say - Bravo! You are quite good at it.

Love,
MC

edited for typo and to add epithet

[Sola Gangsta]

Frankly, I don't consider you're situation a "better" alternative. But whatever floats your boat. How about I don't call you "homeless" and you don't call me "cattle"?

I'm not calling people "cattle" to belittle them, but to hopefully open your eyes as to the nature of our existence. If you choose it already having this perspective, so be it. I'm fine with being called homeless. Being homeless does not make me "less" than one who has a home. I had a home and chose to leave it because too many strings were attached to it by my masters. Conversely being "cattle" does not make you inferior to me. But you should at least be aware that there are people at the top (politicians, etc) who understand social control as "human farming". This is nothing more than a fact. Trust me that I am trying to do nothing more than open your eyes. It is not some bogus ego trip. Good luck to you.

[Elderberry]

I guess what it all boils down to then is whether or not we can afford the nature of the existence we choose to live. Having sufficient resources cuts through all of the strings and makes one the master of their life.

[MOOP_Czar]

I guess what it all boils down to then is whether or not we can afford the nature of the existence we choose to live. Having sufficient resources cuts through all of the strings and makes one the master of their life.

Sir, you would make Ghandi jealous.

((((APPLAUSE))))

Seriously.

Bravo.