Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[georgephillip]

How much money did you make from liars loans?

"For the banks that were in on the scam, liars' loans meant that 'you tell us what your income is, you tell us what your job is, you tell us what your assets are, and we agree to believe you.'

"We won't check on any of those things.

"And by the way, you'll get a better deal from us to the extent that you inflate your income and your job history and your assets. And in many cases this was specifically stated to borrowers before they filled out the loan applications. In the trade, they were called ninja loans -- No Income verification, No Job verification, no Asset verification."

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Wall Street theft on a scale unimagined, and Obama wants to keep it covered up

Way to avoid the question.

So you would scream bloody murder if someone took your iPhone, explain why it is okay for you and others to take houses that you didn't pay for?

Economies of scale? (Or is it really that the iPhone is yours' and you are fine with stealing from others, but it isn't right to steal from you?)

Wall Street banks gorged on an epidemic of mortgage fraud the FBI began warning about in 2004 leading directly to the crash of the global economy in 2008. Millions of Americans lost their jobs because of Wall Street's thievery. Since, for most of us,mortgage payments are much easier to make when we are fully employed, those who crashed the global economy are responsible for their victims' mortgage payments.

As for economies of scale, you might want to ask your rich friends at the Fed about the $16,115,000,000,000 in "broad based emergency programs" which resulted in funding the thieves on Wall Street bonus pool in 2009.

The rich have been looting this planet since the fall of man.
They are about to be crucified on their cross of gold.
Will you whine or shit about that?

 

[georgephillip]

Who said it isn't? Only a Nazi such as yourself would so blatantly use the BIG LIE.

The Shitters and the forum communists have demanded that mortgages be "forgiven," IE that those who occupy homes they didn't and won't pay for, be given those homes.

To normal people, that is theft.

Why do the Shitters support theft? Why do they object if their goods are stolen? Why the hypocrisy?

BTW, I'm pro-capitalism and pro-Israel - dumbfuck.

So was Hitler and Yitzhak Shamir:

"Zionist factions competed for the honor of allying to Hitler.

"By 1940-41, the 'Stern Gang,' among them Yitzhak Shamir, later Prime Minister of Israel, presented the Nazis with the 'Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the War on the Side of Germany'"

BTW.

51 Documents » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[Uncensored2008]

But don't dare tax them, huh? They don't really need the houses, do they, being out there creating jobs and all?

Konrad, I know that you're a "special needs" poster; but do you honestly thing "the rich" pay no taxes on their homes and property?

 

[Uncensored2008]

"A federal court has recently ruled that about half of the mortgage market has indeed been run as a criminal enterprise, for years -- which may well invalidate any potential foreclosure proceedings for about, oh, 60 million mortgages..."

Think any of those mortgages are in Bel Aire?

OpEdNews - Article: Wall Street theft on a scale unimagined, and Obama wants to keep it covered up

Utter bullshit.

Cite the case and I'll look it up at Cornell. The whackjob sites you base your opinions on are full of shit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wall Street banks gorged on an epidemic of mortgage fraud the FBI began warning about in 2004

Whether they did or not in no way changes the fact that a person in a home that they are not paying for has no legal nor ethical right to that home.

For you communists and the Shitters to demand that they keep the homes because you want to destroy the economic system of the nation is a slap in the face of everyone who DOES pay for their homes.

Joe and John each make a yearly salary of $60,000.

Joe buys a home for $300,000 and can comfortably make the $1,500 monthly payment.

John buys a home for $2,500,000 with a 0% ARM and a 4 year balloon option, lying about his income because no one really checks these things. John has no prayer of making the $14,000 monthly payment nor the $200,000 balloon.

When the ARM kicks in, the bank starts proceedings to foreclose on John.

BUT WAIT, you as a communist and the OWS Shitters demand that John not be foreclosed on, in your alleged mind, it's his home. WHY is it his home? Well, he had the foresight to lie and to buy things he couldn't afford. You say that it's only fair that John gets a $2.5 million home without paying for it, because Wall Street has rich people and you hate Republicans.

BUT, what about Joe? Oh, I guess fuck him for being so stupid that he was honest and played by the rules, huh?

This is the basic position of you communists, wanting to take a shit in the face of every American who has acted in an honest, rational and responsible manner.

leading directly to the crash of the global economy in 2008. Millions of Americans lost their jobs because of Wall Street's thievery. Since, for most of us,mortgage payments are much easier to make when we are fully employed, those who crashed the global economy are responsible for their victims' mortgage payments.

As for economies of scale, you might want to ask your rich friends at the Fed about the $16,115,000,000,000 in "broad based emergency programs" which resulted in funding the thieves on Wall Street bonus pool in 2009.

The rich have been looting this planet since the fall of man.
They are about to be crucified on their cross of gold.
Will you whine or shit about that?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So was Hitler and Yitzhak Shamir:

No George, Adolf Hitler was a socialist who ran a command economy where the government dictated what would be produced and in what quantity. Hitler controlled the means of production.

"Zionist factions competed for the honor of allying to Hitler.

"By 1940-41, the 'Stern Gang,' among them Yitzhak Shamir, later Prime Minister of Israel, presented the Nazis with the 'Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the War on the Side of Germany'"

BTW.

51 Documents » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Scratch a communist, find a Nazi - EVERY fucking time. You know why? Because you and the Nazis are all the same group. You have the same goals and the same methods.

 

[georgephillip]

"A federal court has recently ruled that about half of the mortgage market has indeed been run as a criminal enterprise, for years -- which may well invalidate any potential foreclosure proceedings for about, oh, 60 million mortgages..."

Think any of those mortgages are in Bel Aire?

OpEdNews - Article: Wall Street theft on a scale unimagined, and Obama wants to keep it covered up

Utter bullshit.

Cite the case and I'll look it up at Cornell. The whackjob sites you base your opinions on are full of shit.

"Since a sale isn't legal unless there's full transfer of the physical note, a lot of the sales of mortgage-backed securities were not entirely legal, since the actual notes were often not transferred. So what are these millions of mortgage-backed securities now worth if the mortgaged houses in question cannot be foreclosed upon? Could their worth be negligible, or nearly negligible? And if so, what are the implications for the U.S. economy?

What does Cornell say about that, fascist.

OpEdNews - Article: Wall Street theft on a scale unimagined, and Obama wants to keep it covered up

Why do you swallow Wall Street shit whole and ask for seconds?

 

[georgephillip]

So was Hitler and Yitzhak Shamir:

No George, Adolf Hitler was a socialist who ran a command economy where the government dictated what would be produced and in what quantity. Hitler controlled the means of production.

"Zionist factions competed for the honor of allying to Hitler.

"By 1940-41, the 'Stern Gang,' among them Yitzhak Shamir, later Prime Minister of Israel, presented the Nazis with the 'Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the War on the Side of Germany'"

BTW.

51 Documents » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Scratch a communist, find a Nazi - EVERY fucking time. You know why? Because you and the Nazis are all the same group. You have the same goals and the same methods.

How many communists did Hitler kill?

Stern Gang: Solution of Jewish Question and Participation in the War on the Side of Germany (1941)

 

[Katzndogz]

The liar loans were supposed to help the "poor" with no or a poor credit history get into home ownership. It was the way to the American Dream of home ownership for DA PO FOLK. It worked out real well didn't it.

 

[georgephillip]

So why were most defective mortgages sold by institutions not covered by the CRA?

Most of them were granted under CRA/LMI - nearly ALL of the toxic loans were CRA/LMI.

Like most authoritarians I'm sure you think your views don't require proof.
For those of us who see tools like you as apologists for the 1%, how 'bout some links?
While your at it, tell us if Countrywide or Ameriquest were subject to CRA/LMI
Which Wall Street banks were funding Countrywide and Ameriquest?

FHA?

"Btw, if anyone is interested in knowing what happens to a public agency committed to homeownership in the middle of a housing bubble, that is not run for profit, then they should look to the Federal Housing Authority (FHA).

"While far from perfect, the FHA did not get caught up in the irrational exuberance of the bubble years. Its market share fell from around 10 percent in the late 1990s to 2 percent in 2005."

Washington Post Helps Senator Corker Spread the Big Lie on Fannie and Freddie | Truthout

 

[georgephillip]

The liar loans were supposed to help the "poor" with no or a poor credit history get into home ownership. It was the way to the American Dream of home ownership for DA PO FOLK. It worked out real well didn't it.

For some, i.e., DA RICH FOLK on Wall Street.

"Among all the rescue programs set up by the Fed, $7.77 trillion in commitments were outstanding as of March 2009, Bloomberg said. The nation’s six largest banks — JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — borrowed almost half a trillion dollars from the Fed at peak periods, Bloomberg calculated, using the central bank’s data."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/business/secrets-of-the-bailout-now-revealed.html?_r=2&=&utm_campaign=5994b9b6ea-DD_12_5_1112_5_2011&utm_medium=email&adxnnl=1&utm_source=Daily%20Digest&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1323136908-QZj0uOXacHrk5AAb/G6zjA

Why did most of the liar loans originate from institutions like Countrywide and Ameriquest (with major funding from Wall Street banks) who were not subject to CRA regulations?

Why did most of their victims live in middle class neighborhoods instead of poor communities?

 

[Katzndogz]

I wish the unqualified had not gotten loans. Or that Countrywide wasn't in the home loan for poor people business.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv17n4/vmck4-94.pdf

The CRA is the heart of the housing collapse.

 

[georgephillip]

I wish the unqualified had not gotten loans. Or that Countrywide wasn't in the home loan for poor people business.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv17n4/vmck4-94.pdf

The CRA is the heart of the housing collapse.

Most of us agree it's wrong for someone who is physically stronger to beat another and take his/her money. Why do you think so many very smart people think it's permissible to take someone's money who isn't as smart or well educated as they are?

 

[Katzndogz]

I wish the unqualified had not gotten loans. Or that Countrywide wasn't in the home loan for poor people business.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv17n4/vmck4-94.pdf

The CRA is the heart of the housing collapse.

Most of us agree it's wrong for someone who is physically stronger to beat another and take his/her money. Why do you think so many very smart people think it's permissible to take someone's money who isn't as smart or well educated as they are?

The CRA was a mandate telling lenders they had to do it.

Why do we have tax collectors taking someome's money because they aren't as powerful as the tax collector?

The people who applied for these liar loans had no intention of ever paying for them. The property was another rental, where they move in and never pay the rent hanging on until the eventual eviction. Sometimes it was people in stable homes, refinancing to take out the equity for a real good time. Then they find out that they can't pay it back.

This is pure Cloward-Piven at work. Overwhelm the system with bad loans until it collapsed. It worked.

 

[Katzndogz]

When my son was looking to buy a house at the height of the CRA craze, he at $400,000 as a down payment. He and his wife both had long term stable jobs. They applied to three lenders all of whom had so much money tied up meeting the CRA quotas that they couldn't even make good loans. Countrywide was one lender.

Had it not been for a major wildfire tha damaged the house they were trying to buy, they might not have been able to get in one at all. Fortunately the damage wasn't extensive. Part of the roof and a back bedroom. That's when the loan was suddenly approved.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Since a sale isn't legal unless there's full transfer of the physical note, a lot of the sales of mortgage-backed securities were not entirely legal, since the actual notes were often not transferred. So what are these millions of mortgage-backed securities now worth if the mortgaged houses in question cannot be foreclosed upon? Could their worth be negligible, or nearly negligible? And if so, what are the implications for the U.S. economy?

So the claim that a "federal judge ruled that 60% mortgage lenders are criminals" was an outright lie and cannot be defended, just as I said. All you have is an editorial from a hate site.

What does Cornell say about that, fascist.

I'm not Barack Obama, I don't support the merging of Kaiser and Blue Cross with the federal government in the establishment of a fascist government.

And Cornell can say nothing, because there is no case, the hate site doing your thinking for you was lying, as is the usual case.

Why do you swallow Wall Street shit whole and ask for seconds?

I have been to numerous Tea Party protests against Wall Street AND the government who holds their leash.

You communists think the answer to corrupt government is more government.

Further, you STILL ducked my question.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How many communists did Hitler kill?

Far less than Stalin, less than Lenin as well.

Stern Gang: Solution of Jewish Question and Participation in the War on the Side of Germany (1941)

Yes, I know you're an Antisemite, it is a feature of leftists.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Like most authoritarians I'm sure you think your views don't require proof.

Don't be such a fucking moron, George.

Calling me an "authoritarian" merely reveals you as an ignorant sap.

For those of us who see tools like you as apologists for the 1%, how 'bout some links?

Links to what?

While your at it, tell us if Countrywide or Ameriquest were subject to CRA/LMI

{More concretely, there are three very specific ways in which the CRA nudged Countrywide and other mortgage companies to adopt lax lending standards.

1. The Creation Of Artificial Demand For Low-Income Mortgages. Banks that were regulated by the CRA often found it difficult to meet their obligations under the CRA directly. Long standing lending practices by local loan officers were a big problem. But as banks expanded their deposit bases and other businesses, they often found that they were at risk of regulators discovering they had fallen behind in making CRA loans.

One way of addressing this problem was buying the loans in the secondary market. Mortgage companies like Countrywide began to serve this entirely artificial demand for CRA loans. Countrywide marketed its loans directly to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations. "The result of these efforts is an enormous pipeline of mortgages to low- and moderate-income buyers. With this pipeline, Countrywide Securities Corporation (CSC) can potentially help you meet your Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) goals by offering both whole loan and mortgage-backed securities that are eligible for CRA credit,” a Countrywide advertisement on its website read.

2. The Threat Of Regulation Is Often As Good As Regulation. It is highly misleading to claim that just because mortgage companies were not technically under the CRA that they were not required by regulators to meet similar tests. In fact, regulators threatened that if the mortgage companies didn’t step up to the plate by relaxing lending standards they would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to do so.

Here’s how City Journal explains the dynamic:

To meet their goals, the two mortgage giants enlisted large lenders—including nonbanks, which weren’t covered by the CRA—into the effort. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.” To rebuff the criticism, the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.

3. The CRA Distorted the Mortgage Market. With banks offering mortgages with high loan to value, delayed payment schedules and other enticing features, the mortgage companies would have quickly found themselves unable to compete if they didn’t offer similar loans. The requirement to offer risky loans from banks created a situation where other lenders found they had to offer similar products if they wanted to expand their business.

Of course, Angelo Mozillo didn't need very much prompting on this score. He believed exactly what the CRA regulators believed: that these lax lending practices were the wave of the future, democratizing the glories of home ownership.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-25/wall_street/30086142_1_cra-lending-standards-mortgage-companies#ixzz1flqnioF6}

Which Wall Street banks were funding Countrywide and Ameriquest?

FHA?

"Btw, if anyone is interested in knowing what happens to a public agency committed to homeownership in the middle of a housing bubble, that is not run for profit, then they should look to the Federal Housing Authority (FHA).

FHA bleeds cash - what point are you trying to make?

"While far from perfect, the FHA did not get caught up in the irrational exuberance of the bubble years. Its market share fell from around 10 percent in the late 1990s to 2 percent in 2005."

Washington Post Helps Senator Corker Spread the Big Lie on Fannie and Freddie | Truthout

Truthout isn't a valid source.

Hank Paulson wrote in the left-wing Washington Post;

{A significant root cause of the crisis was the combined weight of government policies promoting homeownership; these are apparent in the housing GSEs, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Federal Home Loan Banks, the federal tax deduction for mortgage interest and various state programs. Homeownership was overstimulated to the point that it was unsustainable and dangerous to the broader economy. }

Hank Paulson - Housing policy must be set on sustainable basis

 

[Uncensored2008]

Most of us agree it's wrong for someone who is physically stronger to beat another and take his/her money. Why do you think so many very smart people think it's permissible to take someone's money who isn't as smart or well educated as they are?

Non Sequitur.

Regardless, those who aren't smart or educated generally don't have any money to take.

Why do YOU think it's permissible to take the money from those who are smarter and more talented than you?

 

[georgephillip]

Like most authoritarians I'm sure you think your views don't require proof.

Don't be such a fucking moron, George.

Calling me an "authoritarian" merely reveals you as an ignorant sap.

For those of us who see tools like you as apologists for the 1%, how 'bout some links?

Links to what?



{More concretely, there are three very specific ways in which the CRA nudged Countrywide and other mortgage companies to adopt lax lending standards.

1. The Creation Of Artificial Demand For Low-Income Mortgages. Banks that were regulated by the CRA often found it difficult to meet their obligations under the CRA directly. Long standing lending practices by local loan officers were a big problem. But as banks expanded their deposit bases and other businesses, they often found that they were at risk of regulators discovering they had fallen behind in making CRA loans.

One way of addressing this problem was buying the loans in the secondary market. Mortgage companies like Countrywide began to serve this entirely artificial demand for CRA loans. Countrywide marketed its loans directly to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations. "The result of these efforts is an enormous pipeline of mortgages to low- and moderate-income buyers. With this pipeline, Countrywide Securities Corporation (CSC) can potentially help you meet your Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) goals by offering both whole loan and mortgage-backed securities that are eligible for CRA credit,” a Countrywide advertisement on its website read.

2. The Threat Of Regulation Is Often As Good As Regulation. It is highly misleading to claim that just because mortgage companies were not technically under the CRA that they were not required by regulators to meet similar tests. In fact, regulators threatened that if the mortgage companies didn’t step up to the plate by relaxing lending standards they would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to do so.

Here’s how City Journal explains the dynamic:

To meet their goals, the two mortgage giants enlisted large lenders—including nonbanks, which weren’t covered by the CRA—into the effort. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.” To rebuff the criticism, the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.

3. The CRA Distorted the Mortgage Market. With banks offering mortgages with high loan to value, delayed payment schedules and other enticing features, the mortgage companies would have quickly found themselves unable to compete if they didn’t offer similar loans. The requirement to offer risky loans from banks created a situation where other lenders found they had to offer similar products if they wanted to expand their business.

Of course, Angelo Mozillo didn't need very much prompting on this score. He believed exactly what the CRA regulators believed: that these lax lending practices were the wave of the future, democratizing the glories of home ownership.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-25/wall_street/30086142_1_cra-lending-standards-mortgage-companies#ixzz1flqnioF6}

Which Wall Street banks were funding Countrywide and Ameriquest?

FHA?

"Btw, if anyone is interested in knowing what happens to a public agency committed to homeownership in the middle of a housing bubble, that is not run for profit, then they should look to the Federal Housing Authority (FHA).

FHA bleeds cash - what point are you trying to make?

"While far from perfect, the FHA did not get caught up in the irrational exuberance of the bubble years. Its market share fell from around 10 percent in the late 1990s to 2 percent in 2005."

Washington Post Helps Senator Corker Spread the Big Lie on Fannie and Freddie | Truthout

Truthout isn't a valid source.

Hank Paulson wrote in the left-wing Washington Post;

{A significant root cause of the crisis was the combined weight of government policies promoting homeownership; these are apparent in the housing GSEs, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Federal Home Loan Banks, the federal tax deduction for mortgage interest and various state programs. Homeownership was overstimulated to the point that it was unsustainable and dangerous to the broader economy. }

Hank Paulson - Housing policy must be set on sustainable basis

Hank Paulson is a big part of this problem, or hasn't that come up at one of your Tea Party protests?

"Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs Are RICO Enterprises

"This New York Times expose on Henry Paulson and Goldman Sachs makes one thing clear: There is now no doubt that Henry Paulson and Goldman Sachs have violate numerous federal laws.

"Paulson laundered several billion dollars of money to Goldman Sachs, through A.I.G. Paulson lied to Congress about the true nature of TARP. Paulson lied to Congress about his role in the Federal Reserve's decision to give over $185 billion to A.I.G. "

Crime & Federalism: Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs Are RICO Enterprises

Paulson and Robert Rubin should be rotting in supermax as we speak.