"Occupy Wallstreet" Video

[Vihzel]

I actually work in the real estate market and you're either not calculating it correctly or your lender didn't calculate it correctly. Your lender was probably incompetent and should have NEVER approved (are you sure it wasn't "pre-approved"?) you to borrow a loan where 50-60% of your net income would go directly to mortgage payments.

Unless you have some kind of extreme unconventional loan, PITI (principal, interest, taxes, and insurance) must not be more than 25-28% of the borrower's monthly gross income.

Total monthly expenses (including housing expenses) must not be more than 33-36% of the borrower's monthly gross income. Monthly expenses are expenses that you must pay (ex. car payments, credit card payments, etc), so it doesn't include stuff like cable TV and internet.

I'm sorry... I think your lender was trying to get you. I have never heard of anyone being approved to spend 50+% of their net income or even their gross income on PITI. That would be evidenced of a subprime mortgage lender but not conventional mortgage lender.

The only way that I can see one spending 50%+ of their net income is if that person is adding expenses not calculated in loans like gym membership, cable, internet, cellphone, food, and so forth. That's not relevant to loans though and the underwriter never looks at those expenses when determining how much one is approved for.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I misspoke. It was about 50% of my Net, not my Gross. Nevertheless, the lender would've happily given me a 30 yr conventional loan where payments made up half of my net income. Not a single lender I talked to even asked what my other monthly expenses were. They wanted to find out my FICO score and they wanted a pay stub to prove I was employed. That was it.

My current house payment is about 25% of my net income. I was approved for a loan for a house costing twice as much as my current house.

 

[RiverOfIce]

This was not from a sub-prime lender either. This was from Countrywide.

I am sorry, you lost the argument right there.

The NUMBER ONE sub-prime lender, ever, with 97.2 BILLION dollars in sub prime loans was countrywide.

Your lender was the number 1 bank that caused most of this problem. The reason they offered you twice, was because that was pretty standard issue for them.

But ignoring all that. The banks created the mortgage crisis. They started to price the housing market way above what was normal. They causes a 60,000 dollar home to become a 260,000 dollar home.


You really should stop now.

 

[Vihzel]

I googled Countrywide to learn more about it and found this:

BofA May Face HUD Fraud Claims for Soured Countrywide Loans - Businessweek

 

[OutofDate1980]

How is it the fault of the banks and stock brokers that people who make $40-50k a year struggle to make it? How is that Wall Street's fault that those people borrowed too much money, are swimming in debt and live above their means? There's no reason in the world someone making $40-50k a year should struggle to make it if they manage their money well. The Median Income in my state (KS) is about $50k in the latest census. There is no reason for people making the median income to struggle to make ends meet unless they have made foolish decisions on their own.

It's a bit more complicated, folks were encouraged to buy homes at inflated prices, based on a criminal manipulated perception of fear of rising home prices. From a related post.

Post #48 http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/145843-u-s-falling-apart.html

"This must be stressed: a small number of specialist firms and short sellers deliberately created financial weapons of mass destruction that they knew would destabilize the banks and the American economy. As U.S. Senator Carl Levine stated (singling out

 

[A.Nonymous]

I am sorry, you lost the argument right there.

The NUMBER ONE sub-prime lender, ever, with 97.2 BILLION dollars in sub prime loans was countrywide.

Your lender was the number 1 bank that caused most of this problem. The reason they offered you twice, was because that was pretty standard issue for them.

But ignoring all that. The banks created the mortgage crisis. They started to price the housing market way above what was normal. They causes a 60,000 dollar home to become a 260,000 dollar home.


You really should stop now.

The loan they offered me was not a sub-prime loan. It was a conventional 30 year loan at prime rates. They weren't offering me 8% interest or anything insane like that.

Nevertheless, you can't excuse the people who took out those loans and claim that they're victims. They're not. We are talking about legal adults of sound mind who signed contracts that they had every opportunity to read before they signed. They should've known their finances better than some stranger and they should've been well aware of what they could afford and what they couldn't.

You know why I didn't buy a house for what I was offered? Because I knew I couldn't afford it. If I had signed up for that loan and it made me bankrupt, it's my fault. Plain and simple. Is the bank an idiot for giving me a loan that big? Absolutely. But I am just as much an idiot and just as greedy as they are for taking it.

You have people on that site who blame the banks and wall street and everyone else for everything going on in their lives. They blame everyone except themselves. They are drowning in student loan debt, but it's not their fault even though they chose to go to school. They are drowning in mortgage debt and it's not their fault even though they signed the papers. They can't afford their mortgages because it's too big a percentage of their net income but that's not their fault. They can't afford to buy a decent car, but that's not their fault. They have never saved a single dime in their lives and have absolutely nothing in their retirement accounts, but that's not their fault. I'm sorry, but personal responsibility has to come into play here.

 

[RiverOfIce]

Nevertheless, you can't excuse the people who took out those loans and claim that they're victims. They're not. We are talking about legal adults of sound mind who signed contracts that they had every opportunity to read before they signed. They should've known their finances better than some stranger and they should've been well aware of what they could afford and what they couldn't.

\\

Once again, I 100% agree, the people that wanted to pursue the American dream are idiots. The American dream is dead.

But in a strictly legal category, we are a society that refuses to blame the victim. By your logic and in a legal setting, a woman that gets raped, had it coming. She knew that a rape could happen and did not do enough to prevent it. A person that gets into a traffic accident caused by a drunk driver is 100% at fault, because they knew the dangers of driving on the road with a drunk driver. In every case, where we blame the victim, the legality of that it becomes in question in the court.

But you are ignoring the major cause of the finical melt down. About 70% of the people that defaulted on their loans, could afford them. Sub prime was not the going rate. But the vast majority, took out a loan. The banks said they made 6,500 dollars a month, they only made 3,500 dollars a month. They could pay for their loan. When the market crashed and the recession hit, the bank ceo's took millions in pay outs. The guy that owned his own home, that made 3,500 dollars a month, and can afford the home, was now with out a job and a home that is worth 1/3rd it value. He nows gets is home taken away by the banks that created this mess.


You are stating that the only victims are the ones that have taken subprime loans. When the victims also include real people, with smart thinking, getting boned by banks that out and out lied.

 

[Frisco]

There is detailed information in loan contracts about the business dealings of the banks backing the loan?

 

[A.Nonymous]

\\

Once again, I 100% agree, the people that wanted to pursue the American dream are idiots. The American dream is dead.

Completely disagree with that. The American dream is just as alive as it ever was, it's just been corrupted by greedy people who want it now and don't want to have to work for it or exercise any moderation.

But in a strictly legal category, we are a society that refuses to blame the victim. By your logic and in a legal setting, a woman that gets raped, had it coming. She knew that a rape could happen and did not do enough to prevent it. A person that gets into a traffic accident caused by a drunk driver is 100% at fault, because they knew the dangers of driving on the road with a drunk driver. In every case, where we blame the victim, the legality of that it becomes in question in the court.

The people who took out these mortgages are NOT victims. They're not anything close to being a victim. If the woman signs a form where she agrees to have sex and she agrees to all the consequences of having sex, she's not a victim. This assumes that she's of legal age and sound mind of course. She can complain later on that the guy took advantage of her and raped her all she wants. It's not true. She consented to it. She signed the forms.

These people are not victims at all. Not anything close to it. No one held a gun to their head and forced them to sign up for these mortgages. No one conned them into signing up. No one forged their signatures. If any of those things happened, all they'd have to do is go to court and the contract would be nullified. Instead, these people walked into these mortgages with their eyes wide open. They could've turned around and walked out at any time. Maybe they did get taken for a trip, but they walked in with eyes wide open and signed up for it.

But you are ignoring the major cause of the finical melt down. About 70% of the people that defaulted on their loans, could afford them. Sub prime was not the going rate. But the vast majority, took out a loan. The banks said they made 6,500 dollars a month, they only made 3,500 dollars a month. They could pay for their loan. When the market crashed and the recession hit, the bank ceo's took millions in pay outs. The guy that owned his own home, that made 3,500 dollars a month, and can afford the home, was now with out a job and a home that is worth 1/3rd it value. He nows gets is home taken away by the banks that created this mess.

So this guy had no savings whatsoever? He made no plans for the possibility that he would lose his job? Who's fault is that? Sounds like he was living on the edge of what he could afford to begin with. Again, I'm not saying the banks are faultless here. I'm saying these people are just as much at fault as the banks are. They're hardly "innocent victims".

You are stating that the only victims are the ones that have taken subprime loans. When the victims also include real people, with smart thinking, getting boned by banks that out and out lied.

No, I'm stating that there are no victims here at all only guilty parties. These people signed up for the trip they're on and they knew it or at the least they should've known it. If you sign something and have no clue what it is, that's your fault, not the banks.

 

[A.Nonymous]

There is detailed information in loan contracts about the business dealings of the banks backing the loan?

I don't think there is, but that's irrelevant to the borrower. If the loaning bank goes under the loan simply gets bought by another bank and the terms of the loan don't change.

 

[Frisco]

Nevertheless, you can't excuse the people who took out those loans and claim that they're victims. They're not.

I was responding to that^ ..when I posted the rhetorical, "..info about bank's business dealings.."

When consumers get drawn into anything that is not sound, but appears to be on the surface and/or is implied to be sound, they have been victims of fraud.

It happens all the time and they are routinely successful in litigation.

The difference here is the convoluted, obfuscated path from the point of sale back to the unsound (to say the least) practices of the financial institutions involved.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I was responding to that^ ..when I posted the rhetorical, "..info about bank's business dealings.."

When consumers get drawn into anything that is not sound, but appears to be on the surface and/or is implied to be sound, they have been victims of fraud.

It happens all the time and they are routinely successful in litigation.

The difference here is the convoluted, obfuscated path from the point of sale back to the unsound (to say the least) practices of the financial institutions involved.

In this case it's not fraud. Let's say I run a bank. My bank is teetering on the edge of disaster. I loan you money. A week after I loan you money my bank goes under completely. This doesn't affect you at all. When my banks assets are liquidated, your loan will be bought by another bank. You'll make payments to them under the same terms you and I agreed on. Nothing about your loan changes from your point of view except for who you make payments to. The fact that my bank was on the verge of collapse when I loaned you money is irrelevant.

 

[andruoid]

I'm not big on news like this but, I think this photo speaks 1000 words;

 

[Vihzel]

I'm not big on news like this but, I think this photo speaks 1000 words;

I don't understand that photo. This is Occupy WallStreet. Do you understand why they're targeting WallStreet? Whoever made that mess of a photo obviously is misunderstanding the movement and fabricating lies in that photo.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Many of their demands are targetted directly at corporations. They want to raise taxes on corporations, institute the Buffet rule (which is flat out class warfare anyway you put it) and end corporate personage.

 

[tommy_ed]

i just want to drop in and say this:

first of all as frisco said, many courts have disagreed with you that there are no "victims" in these cases.

another interesting point: To people who don't understand how to read the fine print in a loan contract, they rely on a representative to be honest and forward about the agreement. Just because someone doesn't understand something doesn't mean we have the right to completely take advantage of it and rip them off.... as someone mentioned earlier, if a girl is raped is it her fault because she walked down the wrong street or went to the wrong bar? no... it's still the rapists fault.

wow i'm really seeing a similar pattern here... aren't you the same person who pretty much thought the native americans "had it coming" so to speak? lol

 

[Bob Maxey]

Uneducated/undereducated people without jobs, meet to pull down a system they do not understand and never will understand. Give them what they want, however, and the country is done. People will rant about this and that, but when they finally get their way, they are not happy. They sicken me.

 

[A.Nonymous]

i just want to drop in and say this:

first of all as frisco said, many courts have disagreed with you that there are no "victims" in these cases.

I'm not aware of the courts invalidating many of these mortgages. Some of them were indeed given out fraudulently, but they are the vast minority and the exception, not the rule.

another interesting point: To people who don't understand how to read the fine print in a loan contract, they rely on a representative to be honest and forward about the agreement. Just because someone doesn't understand something doesn't mean we have the right to completely take advantage of it and rip them off.... as someone mentioned earlier, if a girl is raped is it her fault because she walked down the wrong street or went to the wrong bar? no... it's still the rapists fault.

That's not the case here. You really think that these people had no clue how much money they took home every month AND no clue how much their mortgage payments were going to be AND this was the mortgage companies fault somehow? You're saying that if I sign something and have no clue what I'm signing it's not my fault? These people had every opportunity to have someone they trusted look at these documents. They had every legal right to have their own lawyer review what they were signing. They could've walked away any time they wanted to. But they're victims. Apparently, every time I do something stupid and foolish I'm a victim and it's not my fault.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I'm not aware of the courts invalidating many of these mortgages. Some of them were indeed given out fraudulently, but they are the vast minority and the exception, not the rule.



That's not the case here. You really think that these people had no clue how much money they took home every month AND no clue how much their mortgage payments were going to be AND this was the mortgage companies fault somehow? You're saying that if I sign something and have no clue what I'm signing it's not my fault? These people had every opportunity to have someone they trusted look at these documents. They had every legal right to have their own lawyer review what they were signing. They could've walked away any time they wanted to. But they're victims. Apparently, every time I do something stupid and foolish I'm a victim and it's not my fault.

Pays to read the contracts you sign, that's for sure.

I remember when some publishing contracts were Work-for-Hire agreements which basically meant that the publisher owned ALL RIGHTS to your article(s). The laws were changed so these days, if it is a WFH agreement, it must be clearly stated, and no ambiguity.

 

[Bob Maxey]

So here is my advice. If you are a supporter, find out what they really want. Apparently, nobody seems to know. When you read the demands some proponents want, it will scare you crazy.

Some people are supporting them and I know for an absolute fact they do not really want what some OWS people want. Like a complete wipe-out of all debt, public and private, world-wide; outlaw credit reporting agencies; completely open borders, etc.

Supporting this group is folly if you do not know what they want. And supporting any group populated with undereducated and uninformed people making demands they do not themselves understand is dangerous.

 

[A.Nonymous]

So here is my advice. If you are a supporter, find out what they really want. Apparently, nobody seems to know. When you read the demands some proponents want, it will scare you crazy.

Some people are supporting them and I know for an absolute fact they do not really want what some OWS people want. Like a complete wipe-out of all debt, public and private, world-wide; outlaw credit reporting agencies; completely open borders, etc.

Supporting this group is folly if you do not know what they want. And supporting any group populated with undereducated and uninformed people making demands they do not themselves understand is dangerous.

I have heard several lists of demands. Many of them would have a huge and profound negative impact on the very people who are demanding them. It's like a person with a headache wanting their head amputated so they can live without ever having another headache.

 

[A.Nonymous]

So here is my advice. If you are a supporter, find out what they really want. Apparently, nobody seems to know. When you read the demands some proponents want, it will scare you crazy.

Some people are supporting them and I know for an absolute fact they do not really want what some OWS people want. Like a complete wipe-out of all debt, public and private, world-wide; outlaw credit reporting agencies; completely open borders, etc.

Supporting this group is folly if you do not know what they want. And supporting any group populated with undereducated and uninformed people making demands they do not themselves understand is dangerous.

Many of their demands would have a huge and profound negative impact on the very people who are demanding them. That's the irony of it. You sit back and scratch your head wondering why people are in the streets demanding things that will make their situations far, far worse.

 

[9to5cynic]

I don't understand that photo. This is Occupy WallStreet. Do you understand why they're targeting WallStreet? Whoever made that mess of a photo obviously is misunderstanding the movement and fabricating lies in that photo.

I'm under the impressions that isn't actually 'for' the protests. I get the feeling that it is someone who is sick of the protesters getting in their way or soemthing... not sure.

On a slightly related note, I saw an aerial image from these protests, and the vast majority of responses indicated that this was insanely photoshop'd image (if you can trust these people as having been to the protests themselves...?). Kinda funny.

 

[tommy_ed]

I'm not aware of the courts invalidating many of these mortgages. Some of them were indeed given out fraudulently, but they are the vast minority and the exception, not the rule.

Apparently, every time I do something stupid and foolish I'm a victim and it's not my fault.

i didnt read where anyone said every time. but from what i gathered a lot of the people in this issue were victims of fraud. according to your logic, there is literally be no such thing as fraud, since everyone should know better, right?

and btw i was referring to Frisco's statement earlier:

When consumers get drawn into anything that is not sound, but appears to be on the surface and/or is implied to be sound, they have been victims of fraud.

It happens all the time and they are routinely successful in litigation.

 

[A.Nonymous]

i didnt read where anyone said every time. but from what i gathered a lot of the people in this issue were victims of fraud. according to your logic, there is literally be no such thing as fraud, since everyone should know better, right?

The vast majority of these people were not victims of fraud. They signed up for mortgages that they could not afford. Plain and simple. How is that fraud? Why is there no personal responsibility at all?

and btw i was referring to Frisco's statement earlier:

Which doesn't apply here at all. They knew what they took home every month. They knew what their payments were going to be under the terms of the loan. They signed up anyway. If they didn't know those things, that's their fault as they had every opportunity in the world to find out. You're telling me that every single one of these people (or the vast majority at least) wanted to bring in a 3rd party who they trusted to look at the loan papers before they signed them and the lender refused? I have a hard time buying that.