Tuesday, December 6, 2011
News Occupy Atlanta disrupts Fulton County foreclosure auction
Posted by Gwynedd Stuart @gwynnstu on Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:57 PM
- Joeff Davis
- Occupy Atlanta demonstrator Ari Te tries to disrupt this morning's foreclosure sale by shouting "Shame!" on the steps of the Fulton County Courthouse.
Drums and chants reverberated off the Fulton County Courthouse steps as nearly 200 Occupy Atlanta protestors — I'm going with CBS's estimate, because I'm incapable of estimating — gathered to disrupt a monthly foreclosure auction.
The noise drew a lady named Michelle to the rally. She joined in as the protestors began chanting, "Shame, shame, shame ..." and clipboard-wielding bankers and investors tried their best to continue selling and purchasing the discounted properties despite the melee. Incidentally, Michelle's home was foreclosed on this year. She started to cry as she described driving past the house she was forced to abandon after losing her job at Lowe's. "I was supposed to grow old in that house," she said. "My kids were supposed to inherit it. Now it's just sitting there with a 'For Sale' sign in the yard."
Civil rights icon Joseph Lowery was escorted up the courthouse steps and addressed the crowd. (Fulton County Sheriffs officers initially told Lowery's handlers he couldn't speak from the courthouse steps — he'd have to move onto the sidewalk — but were apparently convinced otherwise.) Speaking into a bullhorn's mouthpiece, Lowery said he was "saddened by the number of citizens suffering because of the economic crisis," and called for a six to nine month moratorium on bank foreclosures and evictions. "Banks are going to have to help poor people," Lowery said, "or we're not going to support them."
Robbie Baron, VP and owner of an Alpharetta cabinetry company, stood on the sidewalk outside the courthouse laughing and shaking his head. "This is ridiculous," he said. "What do they think happens if you don't pay your bills?"
Brown said his company has gone from 140 employees to 30 employees in four years, and that he lost $3 million in the same amount of time. Still, he doesn't sympathize with the Occupiers. Quite the opposite, in fact. "This is what's wrong with our country," he said. "There's nothing wrong with helping people, but if you're broke, don't go to Macy's and charge $5,000."
Of the occupiers, he said, "I guarantee if you went up to these people, half of them don't even have jobs or own homes. They're just here to cause problems."
And they did cause problems. Franzen wrote on his Facebook page about an hour ago, "We have totally disrupted the home auctions on the steps of the [Fulton] county courthouse. [S]imilar disruptions went down in gwinnett and dekalb. We give the gift of housing, happy holidays Atlanta!"
Occupy movements all over the country focused on the foreclosure crisis today, part of a national day of action. Occupy Atlanta is also moving into two area homes to prevent the residents from being evicted by their respective mortgage holders.
CL's photographer, the intrepid Joeff Davis, snapped plenty more pictures at today's courthouse demonstration. Check 'em out here.
Related Stories
-
Occupy Atlanta saves a home from the auction block 33
The group says the selling of occupied foreclosed homes in Georgia is nasty business
-
Occupy Atlanta takes a simplistic view of foreclosure sales 38
Auctions of vacant homes help the public, not hurt
Comments (53)
Showing 1-50 of 53
Haha...Amazing.
So the protestors think it's better that these homes sit vacant on lots, falling into disrepair, weighing on values of nearby homes (that are occupied by people who actually pay their bills), and preventing the market for residential home prices to find a level of certainty that is drastically needed? Brilliant plan!
I'd like to feel sorry for Michelle, but I just can't. Really, I'd like to, but as someone who understand the elementary relationship between paying bills and owning assets/being privy to services, I just can't.
Oh, and Mr. Lowery - that's a fantastic trade you've offered. The one where you suggest that poor people stop supporting banks, if they pursue their rightful legal remediations against people who don't pay their bills. But I think you've forgotten one thing - poor people don't support banks to begin with....so, yeah. Oh, and if you actually have enough money to justify a bank account, you're going to put it in a bank - instead of your mattress - so good luck finding a better alternative.
And as far as Franzen goes - you "give the gift of housing"? Do you think that just because you disrupted the foreclosure process today, that the banks are going to call the old tenants and offer them a free place to live. What kind of fantasy world are these dipshits living in!?
like
dislike
"Robbie Baron" is too close to "robber baron" for my tastes.
Just like the crowd that wants free heathcare: they smoke, they are obese and they all have i-phones! Then they expect you and I the (average insurance rate payer) to pay more and pay for them! It makes me more libertarian everyday! Make your bed...
Man, the picture gave me hope this would be an AO story without Franzen, since there was no red cap. But no, the leader of the leaderless movement showed up in the story. Drat.
I was 1 week behind on my Bank of Americal Home Loan. I called to "inform" them I had missed the payment but would make it mid-month. THEY (not me) asked if I would like a 45 day defferal to ease a temporary situation. I accepted this "repayment plan" (spreading the payment over the next 5). 3 payments in I missed the payment date (which was different from my normal payment date). the 3 payments were then all applied toward priciple and I was already automatically in foreclosure. B of A had started foreclosure while I was on the repayment plan. I was then offered a modification (as I was now in default) under "Making Homes Affordable" (for which they received bailout money). The modification was never worked and in fact my loan was sold just as I was about to be worked for a modification to another company. That company (Seterus) could not speak with me for a month because they were selling the loan back to B of A the next month!! this was totally a sell-and-buy-back to avoid modifiying my loan. I was promised a case manager 3 separate times, filed the paperwork 3 seperate times, and called to tell my story over and over uncountable times. I am still facing foreclosure and can not pay them as they keep the amount due secret until the last 7 days before -- in October Seterus noted the total due (including my 3 repayments) to be 5,000. Somehow when B of A bought back Nov 1st (date of sale that I managed to have postponed) My total due jumped to nearly 10,000 because of there sale off and buy back making it impossible for me to pay! This is not just happening to People who "dont pay". I would have been better off to have just been late and caught myself up without informing the bank
The only part that distrubs me is the people who say the people who are having their homes Foreclosed on should pay their bills That is not always the case. I have a dear friend that her husband got really sick and passed away. She tried to pay her house payments. but in the end she got 3 months behind. So where does she fall into this. Pay their bills Make large charges at macys?? Not sure what that is about. Not everyone is a deadbeat. Futhermore I will never use that Cabinet company. Now that I know how that owner feels.
Nobody thinks that EVERYONE who fails to pay their bills is a deadbeat. However, when you don't pay your bills, regardless of the reason, you lose the right to property, services, etc. if extenuating circumstances were a valid reason to delay, or altogether absolve oneself of, payment then no bill would ever get paid. So sure, it sucks that someone's spouse died, and they didn't buy life insurance (or have enough to cover a couple mortgage payments). However, that's life sometimes, and one person's bad fortune - or in other cases, bad decisions - cant just be passed on to someone else.
Maybe some folks didn't hear that Wall Street has been manipulating home prices and betting against underwater mortgages. The whole system is rotten and no one needs to lose their home because of it.
I dont get it...
Do you guys not realize that part of the terms of BAILING OUT THE BANKS was that they would use federal money to provide mortgage modifications, something that many banks have failed to do?
The banks are the deadbeats that weren't able to cover their liabilities and had to be 'bailed out', and now they, generally, are not living up to their end of the bail out which was that they would do mortgage modifications.
"However, that's life sometimes, and one person's bad fortune - or in other cases, bad decisions - cant just be passed on to someone else."
i agree, the banks should give the US government back seven trillion plus dollars which they borrowed and still have to cover the massive implosion of their actual holdings following greed-based fuckery
not to mention that it's borderline criminal to forcibly evict people when housing stock is so vacant anyway. the banks are just trying to prove a point - they can afford to let perfectly good housing sit vacant and waste money while poor people have to deal with an inflated rental market
"However, when you don't pay your bills, regardless of the reason, you lose the right to property, services, etc."
except when you can hire armies of lobbyists
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/11…
if you're a human being with a family and you refuse to pay your bills, faceless organizations sic the police on you and you get kicked around for a while. if you're a faceless organization and you refuse to pay your bills, you get lauded as a hero and senators buy you free drinks
Sorry to jack the threan, but when is CL going to talk about the crime wave sweeping the city?
That Robbie Baron is a clueless, fucking moron. Does he have any clue that the banks and mortgage companies led us to this financial disaster by screwing people over with crooked subprime loans and mortgages, and then repackaging them and selling them for a profit to investment banks? The movie 'Inside Job' spells it out pretty clearly. The banks and mortgage companies kill off the economy and instead of sending them to prison, we bail them out with 800 million dollars and send the protesters to jail. Complete fucking genius. It is an absolute disgrace that the banks have not been prosecuted for what they've done to the economy.
Is there a city election this year? Regardless of how many crimes actually happen, "crime waves" only occur when there are people going to the polls. Kind of funny how that happens. But Lemmings always was a fun game.
SDV, CL just did an article on the large increase in rapes. If you can find similarly high increases in other crimes, then it is appropriate to call out CL for not doing an article. Until then, seems like a red herring to distract everyone from seeing just how much OA has become a means unto itself.
listen man. I'm a homeowner that was recently layed off from a bank....yeah you can guess which one and you'd be right. my loan is not through the bank i worked with. there are some things that i think people dont understand:
1. when given the amount i could take for a loan, i was given a max amount way above anything i could afford. take some personal responsibility...DONT TAKE THE MAX. Take what you can afford.
2. as someone that worked at a bank, you have to understand these banks or in some cases investment banks are run by criminals. not your everyday i'm gonna kill this mutha fucka for $10 but this is a highly orchestrated group of people that work with the government to max out their profitsl. you have to realize these banks SOLE goal is to make profit for shareholders. Once you grasp this simple fact you will then understand they will go to any lengths to maximize these profits by any means necessary, while working with "lawmakers" ie congressmen to have laws that benefit them.
cliff notes: banks are run by criminals because of the way the system is set up. they have no other choice but to be criminals. and you'll continue to elect people that will force them to be criminals because you are little sheep..........
On the plus side I hear housing prices in NYC and Washington D.C. are doing quite well.
It never fails to amaze me when people vote against their own best interest and defend those that look at them as merely a rubes and dullards.
I guess every janitor believes that one day they will own the factory.
@ Pfeif - "i agree, the banks should give the US government back seven trillion plus dollars which they borrowed"
Many of them have, plus interest. And the number was billions, not trillions...an obligation doesn't make a bailout.
@ Metito
"Does he have any clue that the banks and mortgage companies led us to this financial disaster by screwing people over with crooked subprime loans and mortgages, and then repackaging them and selling them for a profit to investment banks"
Yeah, I guess the individual home owners who took out mortgages they knowingly couldn't afford had nothing to do with it huh? While I'm sure there were mortgage companies who fraudulently led consumers into bad loans, they shouldn't be used as a scapegoat for a globe of bad decisions.
"The movie 'Inside Job' spells it out pretty clearly"
And this is the quality of opinion that pervades you, Pfeif's, and everyone else's frame of mind. I know it's very convenient to have cinema deliver the news to you, but it's not accurate.
what is inaccurate about that film, AA? If you're going to poison the well, you need to do better than that.
AA,
I bought my house in 2008. I got an ok deal but if i would have waited a year i would have paid at least 30k less. Either way i bought a house i could afford and now that my wife is gainfully employed we can more than afford it. Here is the thing though. We were approved for a loan for over $100k of what we landed up buying. Im in sales. I work with numbers. I understood what I could afford. But being approved for numbers that were nowhere close to my middle class salary is downright wrong. Just because someone is not that bright does not mean they should not be able to own a home. When going through the home buying process for the first time the people i dealt with were my guides. You rely on them right or wrong. Its absolute bullshit that i would be approved for a loan that the bank knows full well i could not afford. These people went to fucking college just to learn to crunch these numbers. You want people to take responsibility for taking on loans they could not afford. At least they can claim ignorance. The loan officers and the banks can only claim greed.
@ Cent, I totally agree with you about election year crime waves. I was really be funny asking about the crime wave. If this were a municipal election year surely there would be stories about the GT robberies and hair weave bandits. Now back to OA....
"Many of them have, plus interest. And the number was billions, not trillions...an obligation doesn't make a bailout."
bullshit. you're a parasite
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-2…
"Yeah, I guess the individual home owners who took out mortgages they knowingly couldn't afford had nothing to do with it huh? While I'm sure there were mortgage companies who fraudulently led consumers into bad loans, they shouldn't be used as a scapegoat for a globe of bad decisions. "
you're assuming people knew they couldn't afford these loans
the lenders should have known better than the lendees. do you blame patients when the doctors botch a surgery that the patient didn't need anyway?
"And this is the quality of opinion that pervades you, Pfeif's, and everyone else's frame of mind. I know it's very convenient to have cinema deliver the news to you, but it's not accurate."
i'd like to notice that while decrying 'the quality of our opinion' you provide nothing of substance in terms of a rebuttal
you are a lazy bitch
AA - read a newspaper you propaganda spewing dipshit. It was 7.7 TRILLION. Pfeif helped you out by giving you a link. Now all you have to do is click on it and read from left to right, top to bottom.
@ Zeds - First, I don't think the movie was a bad movie. I think it was actually quite good. My point was more rooted in the fact that using a movie as your basis for factual argument is a bad place to start. That said, I do think there were a handful of inaccurate portrayals. First, the misconception is that the gov't was bailing out these banks, and selfishly setting up sweetheart deals for them. That wasn't the case at all. That's how it's portrayed, but that's not the case. Second, there was very little attention paid to congresses hand in all of this. Third, if I remember correctly, there was no attention paid to the consumers who knowingly took on loans they couldn't repay. So, it's not that the movie is total garbage, it's that it doesn't do the situation justice, and if that's where you're getting your news, you're missing a lot of pertinent and accurate details.
@ Pfeif -
"bullshit. you're a parasite"
Nice retort. Regarding your article, it's nice. Really, it is. So, "requiring" money doesn't mean that you actually had a transfer of funds occur. It means that you have exposed positions that require capital backstops of a certain level - those are the requirements, based on fluctuating asset values. They are not actual transfers of money. As I said before, guarantees and lending limits aren't bailouts. If that were the case, then ever since the FDIC started insuring deposits, the banks would have been getting daily bailouts of trillions of dollars, based on the FDIC "guarantees". So, again, nice try, but this is what I'd expect from someone who blindly rails against what's "unfair" rather than what's factual.
"you're assuming people knew they couldn't afford these loans"
Yeah, that's basic responsibility 101. You figure out what you can afford, and you don't borrow more than that.
@ Adam -
"Just because someone is not that bright does not mean they should not be able to own a home"
Sorry, but if you can't understand the terms of your loan, and you can't make the simple decision of 'can I afford this or not', then you shouldn't be owning a home.
@ Girl with big left foot (and clearly a small brain) -
"read a newspaper you propaganda spewing dipshit. It was 7.7 TRILLION."
Learn some general principles of accounting, and then get back to me, ok? Guarantees and lending limits are not bailouts. Money does not exchange hands under these scenarios. If you're going to read the news, you should at least understand it...
These protestors claim nonviolence but blowing a whistle and yelling in someone's face is violent. Not to mention that they were so close to several women who were working that they were chest to chest with them. I personally had to step between these people because they were touching the workers and making them feel threatened. It was completely unacceptable.
Watch out BG91, Pfeif might counter you with something as substantial as "bullshit", and then provide a link that he doesn't understand!
I'm hardly one to defend the cretins running the banks and Wall Street but 7.7 trillion number is being misused. A (very) simple was to think of it was as a backstop to make sure that liquidity ratios remained robust. It did allow the banks and investment houses to make massive profits though despite their bad bets, since at that point they were playing with house money. At this point Wall Street is Vegas minus the Spearmint Rhino. And Government Sachs runs the tables.
"Nice retort. Regarding your article, it's nice. Really, it is. So, "requiring" money doesn't mean that you actually had a transfer of funds occur."
right. so if we don't call it a loan, it's not a loan. brilliant!
"It means that you have exposed positions that require capital backstops of a certain level"
in other words, a loan
note what AA isn't mentioning here: the banks only required 'capital backstops of a certain level' because they fucked around with their pretend fraud assets so hard that when it all fell apart their real assets were threatened
"They are not actual transfers of money."
more horseshit. yeah no cash changed hands, but a government IOU for troubled banks with devalued assets is basically a loan. you and i know that.
calling something 'not a loan' because it was just a government promise to pay doesn't exactly defuse the fact that banks are just as reliant on welfare as the lazy poors when things go ass up
"If that were the case, then ever since the FDIC started insuring deposits, the banks would have been getting daily bailouts of trillions of dollars, based on the FDIC "guarantees"."
you forgot the part where you called FDR a communist dictator. getting lazy there, randroid
and yeah, government guarantees are effectively welfare. you need to admit, one of these days, that your precious free market only exists at the whim of governments and it's immensely hypocritical of you to deny actual people the same benefits that banks receive every day
"Learn some general principles of accounting, and then get back to me, ok? Guarantees and lending limits are not bailouts. Money does not exchange hands under these scenarios."
you're full of shit and you're obfuscating worse than a diuretic squid. cut it out, parasite
"Watch out BG91, Pfeif might counter you with something as substantial as "bullshit", and then provide a link that he doesn't understand!"
it's really cute how defensive you get when people call you out on your only talent, which is to spew mediocre nonsense
"I'm hardly one to defend the cretins running the banks and Wall Street but 7.7 trillion number is being misused. A (very) simple was to think of it was as a backstop to make sure that liquidity ratios remained robust."
and why were we suddenly in a situation where liquidity ratios were disproportionate to the norm????
why did the banks suddenly need big daddy government to come bail them out? why oh why did this ever happen?
adam smith's ethereal pimpslap
"right. so if we don't call it a loan, it's not a loan. brilliant!"
No, if you don't exchange money, it's not a loan. That's what defines a loan, the exchange of money, with a promise to repay in a specified way. You really shouldn't try to criticize things you don't understand.
"in other words, a loan"
Nope. No exchange of money, no loan.
"more horseshit. yeah no cash changed hands, but a government IOU for troubled banks with devalued assets is basically a loan. you and i know that."
Nope, sorry. As I mentioned, it's the same thing as an FDIC guarantee on deposits, even when deposits aren't at risk.
"you forgot the part where you called FDR a communist dictator."
Does your ass get sore when you pull pig piles of nonsense out of it?
" government guarantees are effectively welfare"
Nope, sorry. With a guarantee, no money actually exchanges hands. When that money changes hands, the guarantee becomes a loan, with some sort of promise of recovery (which obviously doesn't always happen that way). With welfare, cash is doled out to people every day, with no expectation of recovery.
"your precious free market only exists at the whim of governments"
I understand this. I don't deny it. A completely unregulated free market isn't a reasonable economic means. A well regulated, "as free as possible, with appropriate restriction" is. I'm not sure why you think that I can't take that stance and also see the value that banks provide to the economy as a whole.
"you're full of shit and you're obfuscating worse than a diuretic squid. cut it out, parasite"
That was good...still doesn't change the fact that you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, and you resort to this kind of bullshit when you're called out on something that you're entirely clueless about - i.e. the basics of finance and accounting. Just because you read a couple of books, and watched a movie that made you angry doesn't mean you know jack shit.
How's that whole unemployment thing going, by the way?
"No, if you don't exchange money, it's not a loan. That's what defines a loan, the exchange of money, with a promise to repay in a specified way. You really shouldn't try to criticize things you don't understand."
and a guarantee to pay if you really need it isn't a loan? what is it, are the banks driving a car daddy government bought them on daddy government's insurance?
the only reason they needed that guarantee is because they fucked up, hard. they created a crisis and suddenly got caught shitting themselves, then daddy government came along and covered them up with His coat and soothingly lead them to the bathroom to clean up
the american people are severely hurting. where is their trillions of dollars in asset guarantees? how come you say people should lose their houses if they make bad deals but you're totally willing to give banks trillions to help them out of bad deals?
what's with the double standard, AA?
You really shouldn't try to criticize things you don't understand? hypocrite. that's essentially all your comments ever are, so don't try to horseshit me and come up with tortured explanations about how a seven trillion dollar bailout isn't welfare
"Nope. No exchange of money, no loan."
right, it's just a government promise to back them up. so totally not a loan
"Nope, sorry. As I mentioned, it's the same thing as an FDIC guarantee on deposits, even when deposits aren't at risk. "
so it's basically a loan
"Nope, sorry. With a guarantee, no money actually exchanges hands. When that money changes hands, the guarantee becomes a loan, with some sort of promise of recovery (which obviously doesn't always happen that way)."
so it's basically a loan
my point being that the government can front eight trillion to the banks but greedy fucks like you freak out when poor people get pennies?
"With welfare, cash is doled out to people every day, with no expectation of recovery."
yeah, better living conditions = no hope of recovery
"I understand this. I don't deny it. A completely unregulated free market isn't a reasonable economic means. A well regulated, "as free as possible, with appropriate restriction" is. I'm not sure why you think that I can't take that stance and also see the value that banks provide to the economy as a whole."
huh, a tabby can change his stripes
now we just need to work on your whole "poor people are horrible and lazy" thing and stage two of randroid deprogramming can commence
"That was good...still doesn't change the fact that you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, and you resort to this kind of bullshit when you're called out on something that you're entirely clueless about - i.e. the basics of finance and accounting."
the moron doth protest too much
you're using a whole lot of irrelevant terminology to avoid the point - banks get tremendous resources from the government and nobody bats an eye, while the people of this country continue to suffer because we aren't worth anything (i.e. can't afford lobbyists)
and you're ok with that
i may not know 'the basics of accounting' or whatever but i do know the difference between a family and a corporation
"Just because you read a couple of books, and watched a movie that made you angry doesn't mean you know jack shit."
what movie? are you making things up again?
"How's that whole unemployment thing going, by the way?"
i'm not unemployed? i know you just make things up sometimes but jeez
"and a guarantee to pay if you really need it isn't a loan? what is it, are the banks driving a car daddy government bought them on daddy government's insurance?"
Nope. It's what's known as a contingent liability. It was a step taken to bolster confidence, and it worked. The banks were in a position where even banks that were liquid and solvent were at risk of collapse due to potential "runs". That, of course, would have been catastrophic for everyone, not just well paid bankers. Again, basic principles of economics, which continue to elude you.
"the only reason they needed that guarantee is because they fucked up, hard"
Nope, sorry, wrong again. A few fucked up hard, and put the entire system at risk. The guarantees were put out there to ensure the entire system didn't collapse because of a few rogue institutions (Lehman, AIG, Fannie/Freddie - who had a guarantee before the crisis).
"the american people are severely hurting. where is their trillions of dollars in asset guarantees?"
Well, if an American citizen goes into bankruptcy, a lot of their assets can be protected through bankruptcy proceedings. Additionally, no american citizen is systematically important. The default of one citizen won't trigger the default of other citizens, bringing the modern economic system to a grinding halt. So, it's no double standard, it's a necessary evil to make sure you can still buy groceries. It sucks that it's that way, but that's life. Of course, that is logical, and doesn't fit your emotional and empty argument, so I don't expect you to see it that way.
"right, it's just a government promise to back them up. so totally not a loan"
Precisely! You're starting to get it. The government didn't have to give out trillions of dollars to the banks, just like parents sign guarantees for their kids loans or apartment leases, but never wind up paying for them. Good job...it's only taken countless arguments, insults, and lecturing to breakthrough to you! By the way, just saying "it's a loan" doesn't make it one...particularly when the facts say otherwise.
"huh, a tabby can change his stripes"
Nope, I've never said anything to the contrary.
"you're using a whole lot of irrelevant terminology to avoid the point - banks get tremendous resources from the government and nobody bats an eye, while the people of this country continue to suffer because we aren't worth anything"
You mean irrelevant terms such as "guarantee" & "contingent liability"...yeah, those are actually pretty relevant.
Banks get tremendous resources because the do tremendous things. They finance the companies that build the computers that you puke on. They finance the development of apartments we live in. They provide investment services that, despite the wealth destruction over the past couple years, have been a huge net positive to the overall well being of this country. Come back to earth, and come to the realization that you can't do anything without banks.
Thank you Atlanta Advocate! You are the first one I have seen that has said what really happened on tues. The whistles hurt! I have no problem with protest but just because you aren't touching me doesn't mean you aren't hurting me. Oh, FYI all properties scheduled for foreclosure were foreclosed. One man was able to buy his property back after protestors left. Also, in case some of you don't know. Any overage that comes out of a foreclosure goes back to the borrower by law. One more thing, a mortgage is a promissory note and is secured by a DEED to secure debt. If the borrower defaults in GA they waived their rights to a hearing. This whole crisis will lower the inflated prices of houses. Borrowers should walk away and start over. I think that we will see people living with parents longer and saving more money. There are houses out there now priced so low that paying cash is no longer inconceivable. The days of living in the 5 bedroom 3 bath with sep. den, dining and living room are probably over for most. We must live within our means. No more house fulls of rooms to go furniture on credit and 30K cars financed by 2nd mortgages, in the driveway. Almost, all of houses foreclosed on in the past year or so were from mortgages made in 04-06. Legislation made it possible for FHA to offer mortgages with less job verification, higher debt to income ratios, piggyback 2nds bringing the loan to value ratio on the 1st to 80% which means that mortgage insurance is not required. Many mortgages were 1 to 5 year ARMs which made the initial mortgage payment lower and easier to qualify for. As the ARM mortgages began to ripen payments went up. Couple that with Pelosi playing with grain to make ethanol which caused food and gas prices to rise and well you now have one big mess. Foreign countries invested in our mortgage portfolios made up of bad mortgages mostly those 2nd mortgages made for up to 120% of the appraised value of a home. When they realized they had based their entire banking system on blue sky they started closing the bank doors and that is when the real crap hit the fan. Occupy Atlanta, please focus on building new shelters for Atlanta and providing for the mentally ill homeless.
"Nope. It's what's known as a contingent liability. It was a step taken to bolster confidence, and it worked. The banks were in a position where even banks that were liquid and solvent were at risk of collapse due to potential "runs". That, of course, would have been catastrophic for everyone, not just well paid bankers. Again, basic principles of economics, which continue to elude you."
we're just kicking the catastrophe down the road. unless we re-instate the portions of glass-stegall repealed in '99 this is going to happen again. there is no reason why a run on investment banks should necessarily impact non-investors to any meaningful degree
you continue to defend the banking system which lead itself to a point where it is dependent upon government support to survive
if it's good enough for banks, why not people?
"Nope, sorry, wrong again. A few fucked up hard, and put the entire system at risk. The guarantees were put out there to ensure the entire system didn't collapse because of a few rogue institutions (Lehman, AIG, Fannie/Freddie - who had a guarantee before the crisis)."
and the reason the rules were changed to let something like this happen is because banks are far more influential than people
"Well, if an American citizen goes into bankruptcy, a lot of their assets can be protected through bankruptcy proceedings."
this doesn't address my point at all
"Additionally, no american citizen is systematically important."
i beg to differ?
"The default of one citizen won't trigger the default of other citizens, bringing the modern economic system to a grinding halt."
actually high unemployment is one of the leading causes of our economic struggle, sorry to inform you of this
a significant contributor to high unemployment is lack of demand for goods and services (itself influenced by unemployment)
"So, it's no double standard, it's a necessary evil to make sure you can still buy groceries. It sucks that it's that way, but that's life. Of course, that is logical, and doesn't fit your emotional and empty argument, so I don't expect you to see it that way."
caring about people more than banks
that's an 'emotional' argument to you
"Precisely! You're starting to get it. The government didn't have to give out trillions of dollars to the banks, just like parents sign guarantees for their kids loans or apartment leases, but never wind up paying for them. Good job...it's only taken countless arguments, insults, and lecturing to breakthrough to you! By the way, just saying "it's a loan" doesn't make it one...particularly when the facts say otherwise."
it's basically a loan
sorry that your solidly autistic understanding of humanity doesn't process how this rewarded the fraudulent banks for negligent and dangerous behavior
"You mean irrelevant terms such as "guarantee" & "contingent liability"...yeah, those are actually pretty relevant."
only to rationalizing sycophants
"Banks get tremendous resources because the do tremendous things. They finance the companies that build the computers that you puke on. They finance the development of apartments we live in. They provide investment services that, despite the wealth destruction over the past couple years, have been a huge net positive to the overall well being of this country. Come back to earth, and come to the realization that you can't do anything without banks."
really at this point i can't do anything due to banks
you should be clever enough to understand that most people are angry at fraudulent under-regulated investing schemes and not the entire concept of banking in general
but conservatives aren't very good at nuance
i guess the main point is that i think banks should be used for public good and you think they should be used to maximize shareholder value
I work very hard, did what was needed to reach a professional skill level at my job, refrained from purchasing items that I couldn't afford - and often passed up many that I could afford in order to save for the always-present "rainy day." Why should my hard-earned tax dollars go to those who refuse to work hard, spend wisely and don't meet their obligations? If there is a chance that you cannot pay for something, common sense says "Don't buy it."
"i guess the main point is that i think banks should be used for public good and you think they should be used to maximize shareholder value"
Takes a little of both, eh?
"we're just kicking the catastrophe down the road"
No, we're not. Keeping banks that are solvent from enduring a panic driven run is not kicking anything down the road, it's preventing good banks from going bad, because people are behaving irrationally.
"you continue to defend the banking system which lead itself to a point where it is dependent upon government support to survive"
I defend it because we can't live without it. So, while it sucks to have to bail out banks when they fuck up, it's a lot better than the alternative of (i) not having them, or (ii) letting them go bust, and then letting the rest of the economic system follow.
"unless we re-instate the portions of glass-stegall repealed in '99 this is going to happen again"
No disagreement here. Of course, that will sap a lot of general banking customers of potential investment opportunities (and a lot of them took advantage of these), but it's likely worth it.
"caring about people more than banks. that's an 'emotional' argument to you"
Yes, it is. Sometimes things in life aren't nice and pretty and this is one of those things. Banks are necessary. Large financial institutions are necessary. If it weren't for these institutions, all those people that you care so much about would be a lot worse off.
"sorry that your solidly autistic understanding of humanity doesn't process how this rewarded the fraudulent banks for negligent and dangerous behavior"
No, I get that banks that were irresponsible were rewarded. However, your alternative suggests just letting them all go to hell. However, you don't take into consideration that the rest of the banks - even the ones who behaved responsibly would have gone with them, as would everything else. It's not an autistic understanding, it's a deeper understanding.
"only to rationalizing sycophants"
The guy who doesn't understand accounting and finance, is arguing accounting and finance, and when the facts are against him it's "irrelevant terminology" and "rationalizing to sycophants" as defense. I knew you were feeble-minded, but I didn't think you were THAT feeble-minded.
"really at this point i can't do anything due to banks"
If you think banks are preventing you from "doing" things, well, nevermind...this is just getting repetitive.
If you really think is what Lehman and AIG and a few other 'rogue' elements that caused this financial debacle than you should stop believing the official story and take underneath the covers at the inner-working of Wall Street. The story goes back much further than that to, LTCM, the NY Fed., some naked shorting, the infamous bet against Bear, the undue influence of of Goldman, and people buying what they could not afford.
In a word: Greed.
The difference is when the poor get bailed out it allows them to have a food on their plate and roof over the head, when Wall Street does it goes towards billions in bonuses and an obscene amount of profits made for the select few.
Good God, how are your minds this shallow!?
If these banks would have collapsed, you would not have been able to put food on your table. The poor wouldn't have been able to, and nor would the former heads of the major financial institution. How is it so difficult for you to see that if these banks collapsed, the entire modern economy would have followed, and the fallout would have been catastrophic. Logistical operations would have shut down overnight. Manufacturers that rely on short term financing, would have stopped producing goods, energy needs would not be met across the country, etc. So yeah, while it sucks to have to bail anyone out, it was not done so some guy could get a bonus, it was done to keep the country functioning.
"No, we're not. Keeping banks that are solvent from enduring a panic driven run is not kicking anything down the road, it's preventing good banks from going bad, because people are behaving irrationally."
we're not doing anything to prevent this irrational behavior from happening again
the people who caused the crisis weren't even punished
"I defend it because we can't live without it. So, while it sucks to have to bail out banks when they fuck up, it's a lot better than the alternative of (i) not having them, or (ii) letting them go bust, and then letting the rest of the economic system follow."
you don't understand
i'm not saying we can't live without banks
what we can live without are massive predatory investment banks which do nothing but generate wealth without value
we don't need Enrons to function, dude
"No disagreement here. Of course, that will sap a lot of general banking customers of potential investment opportunities (and a lot of them took advantage of these), but it's likely worth it."
i'm glad you agree
"Yes, it is. Sometimes things in life aren't nice and pretty and this is one of those things. Banks are necessary. Large financial institutions are necessary. If it weren't for these institutions, all those people that you care so much about would be a lot worse off."
like the fifth time i've told you this argument isn't about the concept of banking in general
if you have to demonize an argument just to disagree with it you're not rationally debating
"No, I get that banks that were irresponsible were rewarded. However, your alternative suggests just letting them all go to hell. However, you don't take into consideration that the rest of the banks - even the ones who behaved responsibly would have gone with them, as would everything else. It's not an autistic understanding, it's a deeper understanding."
so why didn't we bail out just the banks that didn't have active fraudulent mortgage schemes
the financial system is going to collapse sooner or later. our entire system is on an unsustainable trajectory. it would be better to winnow it down before we had to deal with more serious repercussions in a couple decades
"The guy who doesn't understand accounting and finance, is arguing accounting and finance, and when the facts are against him it's "irrelevant terminology" and "rationalizing to sycophants" as defense. I knew you were feeble-minded, but I didn't think you were THAT feeble-minded."
i'll let you feel smug for once
"If you think banks are preventing you from "doing" things, well, nevermind...this is just getting repetitive."
lighten up duder
"If these banks would have collapsed, you would not have been able to put food on your table. The poor wouldn't have been able to, and nor would the former heads of the major financial institution. How is it so difficult for you to see that if these banks collapsed, the entire modern economy would have followed, and the fallout would have been catastrophic."
bailout and doing nothing are not the only options on the table
government could have done a lot of things to ameliorate a partial banking collapse that didn't resort to handing the crooks a get out of fraud free card
Let me get this right, had Goldman Sachs and numerous European banks not been made whole by US taxpayers on their CDS/CDOs gambles, we wouldn't have been able to put food on the table?
None of the banks were "made whole". They lost a lot of money, and were backstopped by funds from the government to ensure they didn't collapse. There's a lot of land in between "made whole" and "given enough capital to bolster your balance sheet to prevent an irrational run on your bank'. Of course, they started turning profits again, once they marked their assets down, and that's what they're in business to do.
That's a necessary thing too...the banks had to find a bottom, a clearing, for those assets before they could really understand how to approach their business, and start making profits again - which means getting comfortable lending again. The occupiers that are preventing foreclosures are preventing this from happening - they are stopping the foreclosures, and they are stopping the banks from liquidating bad assets and finding a bottom. It's unhealthy...but so is blind ideology.
@AA
The truth can be your friend:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/wha…
http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/25/aig-treas…
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/business…
(keep in mind the Fed fought to keep the details secret including wanting to invoke national security interests as a reason)
Also you never did let us know how the insolvency of investment banks who made (and continue to make) massive leveraged gambles via derivative securities would have lead to widespread starvation for Americans.
Thank you.
I wish the police would arrest people interfering with a lawful foreclosure process. What if they went into a criminal courtroom and yelled over the DA who was trying to prosecute someone? Would that be okay? I can't believe they are allowed to stop a lawful auction.
Please arrest these protesters next month when they protest the foreclosure auction, police department. I agree with their right to quietly protest, but screaming to drown out the auctions is wrong. Civil disobediance is a fine thing, but you should be willing to be arrested, and should be arrested if you prevent the lawful auction. Your right to swing your fists stops where my nose begins...
so you're saying you would like to see the protesters arrested?
These Occupy losers have no credibility. They just want a government which will use its force to pay for their wants at the expense of society's producers. The present economic downturn stems from the federal government's failed attempt at the social experiment of giving everyone a house. It is indeed sad to see people lose homes, but the experience will make them wiser consumers in the future.
Mr. Con: Isn't Occupy Atlanta starting to focus on issues of foreclosures and housing? Why is that a bad thing?
Latest in Fresh Loaf
-
Vernon Jones wants to return to the Gold Dome and other interesting qualification tidbits 1
Qualifying period ends, dust settles, campaigns begin
-
Suspects in Pittsburgh gay bashing slated to go to trial Tuesday
The men accused of beating Brandon White in Southwest Atlanta already headed to court
-
Film Clips: Men In Black 3
Men in black are back, Chernobyl's tourism industry is booming, and music festival romance all this weekend 'at the movies.'
- More »
More by Author
-
Zesto cop shooting revenge related? 17
CBS says police say sniper targeted officer because he was 'angry' at him
-
UPDATE — Rome, GA cartoonist's constructive contribution to the Sandra Fluke controversy 19
Cartoonist Mike Lester nails racism and sexism in one succinct editorial cartoon
- More »
