dre Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 Yep, especially so long as the protestors keep behaving like hooligans. That makes no difference to anyone with a brain. This isnt about the protesters, its about whether the things we are doing in our economy (massive wealth concentrate, massive fraud, massive currency debasement, and massive perpetually growing debts) are sustainable or not. And a lot of people have their doubts. Our financial system has been around for less than 40 years and the moment it created it began concentrating wealth, and accumulating debt. Thats simply how its designed. Whether the protesters are choir boys or drug addicts has absolutely no bearing on any this stuff. Its just a chance for kids on a forum to play personality politics. Same thing left wingers tried to do to the teaparty. Made fun of them, mocked them, and made a big deal over every little thing they said, or did, or wore, or wrote on a sign. It didnt work because some of their concerns resonated with people. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 ...Whether the protesters are choir boys or drug addicts has absolutely no bearing on any this stuff. Correct...the OCCUPY protesters will have no lasting impact on any nation's financial system or monetary policies. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 Oh, who cares about a blocked highway. Apparently, I do. Stop and smell the roses every now and then. Can't. Rose garden is on the other end of the highway Quote
Bonam Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 That makes no difference to anyone with a brain. This isnt about the protesters, its about whether the things we are doing in our economy (massive wealth concentrate, massive fraud, massive currency debasement, and massive perpetually growing debts) are sustainable or not. And a lot of people have their doubts. Our financial system has been around for less than 40 years and the moment it created it began concentrating wealth, and accumulating debt. Thats simply how its designed. Issues with the economy are one thing, and are certainly worth reasoned debate. And we were debating them on this forum and they have been debated in many circles for a long long time. The protestors, on the other hand, are nothing but a nuisance. Quote
dre Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 Issues with the economy are one thing, and are certainly worth reasoned debate. And we were debating them on this forum and they have been debated in many circles for a long long time. The protestors, on the other hand, are nothing but a nuisance. I dunno. I see quite a bit of discussion on these economic issues coming as a result of these protests. Our local papers are full of it. Some of its just people either expressing an opinion on the protesters themselves, but a lot of it is about the actual economic issues. Im seeing these issues discussed more in the news as well, and in the political system as well. These protests are one factor keeping it front and center. The teaparty is another. The economic catastrophuck was another. Im hoping the frog marching of some of the big houses of fraud in front of the SEC on investor fraud charges will be another. And ALL protesters area nuisance. Thats pretty much the entire point. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
BubberMiley Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 Luckily I'm a bit older than their demographic. I find that hard to believe. If you were older, you would find them quaint and not threatening and scary at all. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
BubberMiley Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 I'm beginning to think that OWS might represent the worst of our society, and if they disappeared tomorrow, everybody would be the better for it. Based on your current status report, you're gunning to be even worse. Bring any bananas to hockey games in London recently? Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 I find that hard to believe. If you were older, you would find them quaint and not threatening and scary at all. I don't find them threatening or scary. I find them disgusting. Quote
GostHacked Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 I don't find them threatening or scary. I find them disgusting. This is coming from a Sarah Palin and Anne Coulter supporter. That's disgusting. Quote
Shady Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 This is coming from a Sarah Palin and Anne Coulter supporter. That's disgusting. They're not asking for bailouts for themselves, and they're not illegally occupying parks in my city and turning them into open sewers. Quote
GostHacked Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 They're not asking for bailouts for themselves, and they're not illegally occupying parks in my city and turning them into open sewers. You know who else is not asking for a bailout? The 99%. Quote
Shady Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 You know who else is not asking for a bailout? The 99%. I wish that were true. Quote
jacee Posted November 9, 2011 Author Report Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) You know who else is not asking for a bailout? The 99%. True. The people with subprime mortgages just wanted to negotiate terms they could manage. Instead, all subprime mortgages were foreclosed because the 1%'rs had figured out an easier, faster way to make megabucks on them with 'hedge' funds that made it more lucrative for the mortgages to fail.My personal experience with a subprime mortgage was a) the bank illegally insisted on mortgage insurance and b') when I later complained about that and demanded that those illegally collected insurance fees be applied to my mortgage, they foreclosed. I personally believe that foreclosure was the purpose of subprime mortgages, to maximize profits to the 1%'rs Edited November 9, 2011 by jacee Quote
Shady Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 True. The people with subprime mortgages just wanted to negotiate terms they could manage. Instead, all subprime mortgages were foreclosed because the 1%'rs had figured out an easier, faster way to make megabucks on them with 'hedge' funds that made it more lucrative for the mortgages to fail. My personal experience with a subprime mortgage was a) the bank illegally insisted on mortgage insurance and b') when I later complained about that and demanded that those illegally collected insurance fees be applied to my mortgage, they foreclosed. I personally believe that foreclosure was the purpose of subprime mortgages, to maximize profits to the 1%'rs Complete nonsense. Sub-prime loans were created and pushed by the government to foster home ownership for lower income people. How'd that work out for you? Quote
Boges Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 My personal experience with a subprime mortgage was a) the bank illegally insisted on mortgage insurance and b') when I later complained about that and demanded that those illegally collected insurance fees be applied to my mortgage, they foreclosed. You actually agreed to a sub-prime mortgage? BTW how is mortgage insurance illegal? CMHC forces you to get it if you don't have a 20% down payment, and if you had 20% you wouldn't need a sub-prime mortgage. Or are you American? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 I wish that were true. Yea...that's laughable...just ask Lee Iacocca, Chrysler, and the UAW. Hell, I remember when the Penn Central railroad was gonna go tits up without a bailout, and loss of "99%" jobs. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
CPCFTW Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) You actually agreed to a sub-prime mortgage? BTW how is mortgage insurance illegal? CMHC forces you to get it if you don't have a 20% down payment, and if you had 20% you wouldn't need a sub-prime mortgage. Or are you American? There's nothing wrong with a sub-prime mortgage. Why would anyone not agree to it? A mortgage is just a loan and prime is just an interest rate.. Everyone who borrows money to buy a home is going to try to minimize their interest expense. The problem was sub-prime mortgages with no money down for people who could barely qualify for a prime + 15% credit card. Yes calling mortgage insurance illegal is laughable when it's part of the terms for receiving your mortgage. Don't mind jacee, she's not all there. Edited November 9, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote
jacee Posted November 9, 2011 Author Report Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) You actually agreed to a sub-prime mortgage? BTW how is mortgage insurance illegal? CMHC forces you to get it if you don't have a 20% down payment, and if you had 20% you wouldn't need a sub-prime mortgage. It's illegal for them to refuse you a mortgage unless you buy THEIR mortgage insurance, if you already have your own. Edited November 9, 2011 by jacee Quote
jacee Posted November 9, 2011 Author Report Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) There's nothing wrong with a sub-prime mortgage. Why would anyone not agree to it? A mortgage is just a loan and prime is just an interest rate.. Everyone who borrows money to buy a home is going to try to minimize their interest expense. The problem was sub-prime mortgages with no money down for people who could barely qualify for a prime + 15% credit card. Yes calling mortgage insurance illegal is laughable when it's part of the terms for receiving your mortgage. Don't mind jacee, she's not all there. See above. My point is that I believe banks were prevented from renegotiating subprime mortgages as they were planned for foreclosure so investors in the associated 'hedge' funds would make megabucks on them, and the banks would also get the houses to make money on. They didn't count on (or need) the bank bailouts too so they used them for their own bonuses! It was a scam. Edited November 9, 2011 by jacee Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 It's illegal for them to refuse you a mortgage unless you buy THEIR mortgage insurance, even if you don't need it. OK...so you have a personal beef with your ex-mortgage holder and it's none of our business. But that doesn't mean your particulars should drive the overall debate or policies, particulary in other nations. Canada is suppose to have far fewer defaults on mortages because the lending qualifications are much tighter. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Boges Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 It's illegal for them to refuse you a mortgage unless you buy THEIR mortgage insurance, even if you don't need it. You clearly need it if you got foreclosed on. Why would it be OK for you to be insured by a 3rd party? They're the ones left holding the bag if you default. I suspect Mortgage Insurance is one of the things that kept Shit from hitting the fan in Canada. You know those regulations Left-wingers love. Did you seek Mortgage insurance elsewhere? Quote
jacee Posted November 9, 2011 Author Report Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) You clearly need it if you got foreclosed on. Why would it be OK for you to be insured by a 3rd party? They're the ones left holding the bag if you default. I suspect Mortgage Insurance is one of the things that kept Shit from hitting the fan in Canada. You know those regulations Left-wingers love. Did you seek Mortgage insurance elsewhere? I had my own insurance. They refused to accept it. THAT is illegal. When I found that out FROM THEIR OWN WEBSITE I refused to pay my mortgage until they returned my ILLEGAL insurance premiums. They foreclosed. If you don't know the law, don't argue this topic. Thank you. Edited November 9, 2011 by jacee Quote
Boges Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) I had my own insurance. They refused to accept it. THAT is illegal. When I found that out FROM THEIR OWN WEBSITE I refused to pay my mortgage until they returned my ILLEGAL insurance premiums. They foreclosed. If you don't know the law, don't argue this topic. Thank you. That's the most bone-headed thing I've ever read in my life. The proper course of action would have been to sue them. But instead you Fubared you're credit rating to make a point. Good Job! Edited November 9, 2011 by Boges Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 9, 2011 Report Posted November 9, 2011 ...But instead you Fubared you're credit rating to make a point. Good Job! Daaaaaamn....that's hard core. What next...burn the house down? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jacee Posted November 9, 2011 Author Report Posted November 9, 2011 That's the most bone-headed thing I've ever read in my life. The proper course of action would have been to sue them. But instead you Fubared you're credit rating to make a point. Good Job! Don't care. Not paying court costs because of them. Pissed them off big time. Got what I wanted. Please address the REAL point: Subprime were a bank scam, set up to fail. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.