Must-read articles:

New York Times: Attorney General of N.Y. Is Said to Face Pressure on Bank Foreclosure Deal
Glenn Greenwald @ Salon: Obama administration takes tough stance on banks
Matt Taibbi @ Rolling Stone: Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal
Yves Smith @ naked capitalism: Corrupt Obama Administration Pressuring New York Attorney General to Support Mortgage Whitewash

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Because you "earn" the income of about 80 people.
Or in otherwords - since the supply of money is limited - you steal the wages of 79 people who would otherwise have an income.
That's called selfish. Plain and simple.
[Not to mention completely cruel & dickish now that we're in a Global Depression]
>> ^pyloricvalve:
Why is it morally justified to impose a higher tax rate on the more highly paid? I'm already paying twenty people's worth.. Why should it be more?



The supply of money isn't limited, per se...it's directly related to the total amount of debt. If people promise to pay more debts (and therefore interest), then there is more money overall. That's a big reason why consumer confidence and the housing market are such huge drivers in the economy. The more people take out loans for stuff/cars/homes, the more money becomes available for banks to loan. Hence, when there are too many defaults and foreclosures, the supply of money shrinks and you get credit crunches, etc.

If anyone's "stealing", they're stealing a relative amount of money compared to everyone else. You've got the right general idea, I think, but it's more like having a piece of a pie when the pie can get bigger and smaller.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'money' to 'money, flower mound, texas, foreclosure' - edited by bareboards2

@marbles

-Yes, Ron Paul is naive when it comes to economics, by putting his faith in neo-liberal doctrinal scripture that has no evidence to support it, nor any basis in the reality of a modern economy. The fact that he believes capitalism to be the embodiment of liberty is the root of this naivety.

Privatization, deregulation, international 'free' trade agreements and austerity -all principles of neo-liberal thought- have caused the lion share of our current economic woes: massive income disparity, high unemployment, wage slavery, inflation, labor abuse, war profiteering, eroding of civil rights, the death of many a small business, massive corruption, environmental harm, etc. Think of all the major economic scandals of the last few decades - The Saving and Loan Scandal, The Foreclosure scandal, Enron, the oil spills, Katrina (the aftermath, not the weather event), etc. All of them are the result of deregulation. I know that government interference is a big boogey man to the capitalist libertarian set, but every single one of these scandals could have been prevented with proper regulation and/or proper oversight.

-Yes, I'm sorry to say it, but Ron Paul does play the game, and he is a part of the two party system.
Check out the damage control here: http://videosift.com/search?q=ron+paul+earmarks

-If you remember 4 years ago, people were saying the same things about Obama that you are saying about Ron Paul today - that he is the answer to all our problems - but then he moved into the White House and was forced to abandon or compromise nearly all of his promises. I warn you against political hero worship. No matter how much you like the guy, no matter how much grandfatherly charm he exudes, he is still a politician who must play by the rules of the broken system.

I could be wrong, and these comments will be here next year to rub in my face in the off chance that America is transformed into Galt Island.

As Sammy Hagar once said in his infinite wisdom, "Only time will tell if we can stand the test of time."

Interesting page on her website.: http://giffords.house.gov/2010/10/us-rep-gabrielle-giffords-calls-for-foreclosure-moratorium.shtml

This might not be related, but consider other people who have stood up to banks: Rod Blagojevich, Eliot Spitzer, Julian Assange, Paul Wellstone.

It would be interesting to compare the rest of the targets on Sarah Palin's hit list: Ann Kirkpatrick (Arizona), Harry E. Mitchell (Arizona), Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona), John Salazar (Colorado), Betsy Markey (Colorado). Allen Boyd (Florida), Suzanne M. Kosmas (Florida), Baron P. Hill (Indiana), Earl Pomeroy (Alabama), Charlie Wilson (Ohio), John Boccieri (Ohio), Kathy Dahlkemper (Pennsylvania), Christopher Carney (Pennsylvania), John M. Spratt, Jr. (South Carolina), Tom Perriello (Virginia), Alan B. Mollohan (West Virginia), and Nick J. Rahall II (West Virginia).

[edit: These people were targeted because of healthcare politics and geographic vulnerability and the shooter seems to be a lone nutjob. I'm withdrawing my conspiracy theory.]

Interesting page on her website.: http://giffords.house.gov/2010/10/us-rep-gabrielle-giffords-calls-for-foreclosure-moratorium.shtml

Other people who have stood up to banks: Rod Blagojevich, Eliot Spitzer, Julian Assange, Paul Wellstone.

It would be interesting to compare and contrast the rest of the targets on Sarah Palin's hit list: http://i.imgur.com/gs0t7.jpg

Targeted Democrats: Ann Kirkpatrick (Arizona), Harry E. Mitchell (Arizona), Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona), John Salazar (Colorado), Betsy Markey (Colorado). Allen Boyd (Florida), Suzanne M. Kosmas (Florida), Baron P. Hill (Indiana), Earl Pomeroy (Alabama), Charlie Wilson (Ohio), John Boccieri (Ohio), Kathy Dahlkemper (Pennsylvania), Christopher Carney (Pennsylvania), John M. Spratt, Jr. (South Carolina), Tom Perriello (Virginia), Alan B. Mollohan (West Virginia), and Nick J. Rahall II (West Virginia).

[edit: These people were targeted because of healthcare politics and geographic vulnerability and the shooter seems to be a lone nutjob. I'm withdrawing my bank conspiracy theory.]

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The bank's job isn't to be your daddy, or to lecture you about whether you should or shouldn't get a loan. If a person walks into a bank, then as long as they qualify under the rules which are established by government then the bank doesn't have much choice. When people qualify, the bank issues the loan or they open themselves to discrimination lawsuits. It's a Catch-22.


I'd be interested to hear your explanation for all the banks that are doing just fine because they didn't buy into the mortgage scheme. I've heard radio interviews where they simply say that they didn't lend to anyone who couldn't be reasonably expected to pay for it. How did they escape your Catch-22?

I have no doubt that there were politicians who pushed for easier mortgages to please their vocal minority constituents, but the people who stood most to gain were the wall street big money handlers. In your estimation, which of these groups tends to get their way in politics most readily? And therefor, which of these groups is more to blame?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'm not condoning the clearly eggregious tactics of some financial houses nowadays... Places pulling shady stunts get no love from me.
But what the heck is with these commentators' attitudes about the borrowers? They talk like people with mortgages bear NO responsibility for keeping track of their accounts. Anyone 'surprised' by a raft of late fees on a mortgage has not checked their account ONCE in at least 2 months. I couldn't sleep nights if I wasn't double checking my account every week.
The banks are being slimy - no questions. But a simple 1-minute check on your account just ONCE a month stops this kind of crap. Are people such helpless, stupid, pathetic sheep now that they can't be expected to even do THAT?


You forget, in America there is a two-way contractual system The bank agrees to loan, taking on all the risks associated with such load. The borrow does the same.

If the bank is shafted, it loses a lot of its investment. If the borrower defauls, he loses his credit score, his house and perhaps can have a default judgment set later...

So, in other words, borrowers say "I will pay, unless i do not, in which case you can penaize me per our contract." Either way, they follow the terms. So, even under default, they still obey the contract.

now, would you loan someone 500 dollars without knowing that person? You say the borrower should check his account, but that is barely his "job: whereas it is the job of the banks.

Misleading title!

The story focuses entirely on foreclosures being more profitable for accounts that HAVE missed payments!

The only even passing reference that could apply to people who never missed a payment is a passing mention of payments that get applied late by the bank/financier. That's a much, much, much smaller story, and one that almost half the people I know have a personal example of. That should normally lead to the customer going in and tearing a strip off the bank for failing to apply the payment that was given to them on time. For it to roll out to a point where the bank is better of foreclosing means late fees have been piling up for a ridiculously long time already.

I feel shocked to agree with you, because I usually don't. Well put.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'm not condoning the clearly eggregious tactics of some financial houses nowadays... Places pulling shady stunts get no love from me.

But what the heck is with these commentators' attitudes about the borrowers? They talk like people with mortgages bear NO responsibility for keeping track of their accounts. Anyone 'surprised' by a raft of late fees on a mortgage has not checked their account ONCE in at least 2 months. I couldn't sleep nights if I wasn't double checking my account every week.

The banks are being slimy - no questions. But a simple 1-minute check on your account just ONCE a month stops this kind of crap. Are people such helpless, stupid, pathetic sheep now that they can't be expected to even do THAT?

Your video, Foreclosures on People Who Never Missed a Payment, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

These borrowers knowingly made bad loans to people who didn't understand the contract. In that case it is the lenders fault and the bank should be forced to restructure the loan and not allowed to go to foreclosure. People should never be put out in the street if the mortgage can be restructured.

Ah, let's just lean back and enjoy the show.

42.91 million now rely on the SNAP. You went from 26.5 to almost 43 million in less than five years. That's 6! (SIX) million more in the last 12 months alone. I was disgusted when it passed the 30 million mark, but when 40 was breached, my inherent cynicism took over. So now it's fun again.

And what about the FED audit?
It's fucking hilarious if you look at it. TALF, PDCF and whatnot, they made sure the casino could keep on playing. There's no denying that all those capitalists are hardcore socialists when their ass is on the line. Deficit, debt, inflation: irrelevant, big money needs its bailout.
And since all is fine now - except for some collateral damage like mass unemployment, mass foreclosure, explosion of the SNAP, etc -, the deficit matters once again. Woe is us if we don't cut social security.

For the grand finale, you need some Tea Bagger to run the show or a proper socialist. Either is fine by me, as long as it's entertaining. Though I do prefer the latter, just to see Goldman Sachs nationalized and then cut down into manageable pieces.

Or how about a race to the bottom, EU vs USA? You're in the lead now, but once Portugal and Spain go down, we might just have a chance.

>> ^Deadrisenmortal:

Is this what capitalism gets you?
The consumer reality...
Real wages have been frozen since the 70s, consumer debt and home foreclosures are at an all time high, and more than 10% of the population is unemployed.
The corporate reality...
Profits have never been higher, more money is spent on advertising than is donated to charities, executive bonuses are in the billions annually.
All of this is clearly evident and still people are more worried about getting $20 off an XBox than they are about the wellbeing of the people around them. We are being sold a lie, materialism is not what benefits the general population, community is what we are missing these days.


You go Chairman Karl Ilyich Stalin! See how far that gets ya.

Yeah, capitalism has a dark side. So what? As a system it's lifted more people out of poverty than any other, AND is also the most charitable. Beats the hell out of food riots and forced labor camps.


>> ^Deadrisenmortal:

Is this what capitalism gets you?
The consumer reality...
Real wages have been frozen since the 70s, consumer debt and home foreclosures are at an all time high, and more than 10% of the population is unemployed.
The corporate reality...
Profits have never been higher, more money is spent on advertising than is donated to charities, executive bonuses are in the billions annually.
All of this is clearly evident and still people are more worried about getting $20 off an XBox than they are about the wellbeing of the people around them. We are being sold a lie, materialism is not what benefits the general population, community is what we are missing these days.