Occupy Wall Street

[JamesDecker]

thanks sears was just thinking the same thing lol

[BrentMusburger]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... aphic.html

From what I remember....

The Federal Government is running a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit. For the past few years and will be running similar ones for the foreseeable future. U.s GDP is like 13 trillion dollars.

To put this into perspective for you, this current crisis was a 6% drop in GDP. If the U.s balances its budget, it will suck 11% of the GDP away directly (imagine that for a second). When that money is sucked out, GDP would also contract in the private sector as business activity would freeze up. Balancing the federal budget is suicide, and would gaurentee a Depression.


That entire link shows zero understanding of budgeting or how cuts affect revenue streams. For example, say we just cut expenditures in technology and save $20 Billion. Great. It may cost us $300 Billion because we missed out on a future innovation. Cut infrustructure now? Without keeping up on maintenence, it just defers the costs further down and makes them even more costly and disruptive to the economy.


All these talks of cutting schools, or social security, or medicare and there sits the 750 Billion pound elephant in the room.
http://bryant-cpa.com/wp-content/upload ... n-2007.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_II0H7X ... re=related

[acetamino]

[CharlieGiteau]

Really...a NY Times link...they aren't biased...

Clearly you didn't bother looking at the link, **** retard.

LoL, nope, sure didn't. I've just read enough BS from that paper, that when I see it...yeah...

[scorch-]

You want to blame the banks for people borrowing too much? Just because the money is there, doesn't mean anyone had to take it. It's a two way street. You could load a table up with sweets and fattening foods. If I chow down for a decade, do I look in the mirrow and blame myself for being fat, or do I yell at the people who put the food on the table?

The banks were **** reckless, not the people. The people that took the risks and then got eaten alive lost their homes, their lives, etc. They didn't get bailed out. I don't really feel sorry for them or angry at them for taking risks. People do that sort of thing all the time. However, the banks (and the people that run them and invest in them) that lent a lot of money on high-risk investments got bailed out, and that gives them not much reason to remain not reckless 25 years from now.

[BrentMusburger]

The banks were **** reckless, not the people. The people that took the risks and then got eaten alive lost their homes, their lives, etc. They didn't get bailed out. I don't really feel sorry for them or angry at them for taking risks. People do that sort of thing all the time. However, the banks (and the people that run them and invest in them) that lent a lot of money on high-risk investments got bailed out, and that gives them not much reason to remain not reckless 25 years from now.

And you're a lawyer? How...?

You don't blame people for taking out loans that they knew they couldn't afford? Buying a home is one of the biggest decisions you can make in life and a reasonable person does their due dilligence. If they are too ignorant to know, they should have hired someone who DID KNOW. A mortgage loan is a contract. People borrowed money with little to nothing down. They borrowed on variable interest rates. They bought houses when they did not have good jobs. They bought multiple houses to use as passive income investments. They continue to refinance again and again, rolling into larger and larger loans to cash out on equity. You do not think this is wreckless? That's not high risk behavior?

I would argue that debt forgiveness is a form of being bailed out. For tax purposes, it's even considered income. If I get a $10,000 credit card bill or $300,000 morgage wisked away in bankruptcy, it's the same as if someone handed me $10,000 or $300,000 cash. The banks are in trouble because people walked away involuntarily (they couldn't service the debt any more) or voluntarily (they simply choose to walk away from underwater mortgages). If you don't have banks, you don't have an economy. In effect, the defaulters, were subsidized (AGAIN!) by the rest of the taxpayers who still made their mortgage payments and played fair and responsble( bought houses that they could actually realistically afford over the duration of the PMT schedule).

The house became an ATM machine for the consumer, in addition to a place to live. Something you bought, flipped, and made money on. Then slurged with that money. See: The Housing value chart.

I blame the banks (and construction companies/government) 50% for making/forcing these questionable loans (cake and cookies). However, I blame the tax payer the other 50% for taking massive, uniformed reckless risks and expecting that the bill would simply never come due (frosting all over that fat face, and the pounds just stacking on). Is it reasonable to think that one could just live above their means indefinately because their house value was going up? That they could take on more and more debt...roll it into more debt...and come out fine?


I hope you're not a defense attourney.

[acetamino]

I really thought my wildcard post would end this thread.





Sears - why is there no crying emoticon? I want it now! I'm no man without it!'n

Edit - there is. Sorry I personally attacked you

[squatta_leader]

I really thought my wildcard post would end this thread.

Sears - why is there no crying emoticon? I want it now! I'm no man without it!'n

Edit - there is. Sorry I personally attacked you

[BrentMusburger]

I really thought my wildcard post would end this thread.

If there's something you don't want to read or aren't interested in, why not simply not read it? I'll never understand how people across all forums will complain about this. "When is this going to end? Is this really thread worthy?"

[scorch-]

The banks were **** reckless, not the people. The people that took the risks and then got eaten alive lost their homes, their lives, etc. They didn't get bailed out. I don't really feel sorry for them or angry at them for taking risks. People do that sort of thing all the time. However, the banks (and the people that run them and invest in them) that lent a lot of money on high-risk investments got bailed out, and that gives them not much reason to remain not reckless 25 years from now.

And you're a lawyer? How...?

You don't blame people for taking out loans that they knew they couldn't afford? Buying a home is one of the biggest decisions you can make in life and a reasonable person does their due dilligence. If they are too ignorant to know, they should have hired someone who DID KNOW. A mortgage loan is a contract. People borrowed money with little to nothing down. They borrowed on variable interest rates. They bought houses when they did not have good jobs. They bought multiple houses to use as passive income investments. They continue to refinance again and again, rolling into larger and larger loans to cash out on equity. You do not think this is wreckless? That's not high risk behavior?

I would argue that debt forgiveness is a form of being bailed out. For tax purposes, it's even considered income. If I get a $10,000 credit card bill or $300,000 morgage wisked away in bankruptcy, it's the same as if someone handed me $10,000 or $300,000 cash. The banks are in trouble because people walked away involuntarily (they couldn't service the debt any more) or voluntarily (they simply choose to walk away from underwater mortgages). If you don't have banks, you don't have an economy. In effect, the defaulters, were subsidized (AGAIN!) by the rest of the taxpayers who still made their mortgage payments and played fair and responsble( bought houses that they could actually realistically afford over the duration of the PMT schedule).

The house became an ATM machine for the consumer, in addition to a place to live. Something you bought, flipped, and made money on. Then slurged with that money. See: The Housing value chart.

I blame the banks (and construction companies/government) 50% for making/forcing these questionable loans (cake and cookies). However, I blame the tax payer the other 50% for taking massive, uniformed reckless risks and expecting that the bill would simply never come due (frosting all over that fat face, and the pounds just stacking on). Is it reasonable to think that one could just live above their means indefinately because their house value was going up? That they could take on more and more debt...roll it into more debt...and come out fine?


I hope you're not a defense attourney.

I'm not a lawyer. Not sure what that has to do with anything because you're missing the point of my post, but excellent attempt at a personal attack, Mr. Musberger.

Not everyone that took out loans and ended up in default were doing the things you seem to think they were. People, in general, are pretty unaware. When bank loan agents are selling them on these great financial instruments they have without talking about the downside (if the housing market ever stops expanding, you lose everything), it sounds great to the average consumer. There were a lot of people who bought houses bigger than they could afford because the bank sold them on the idea that they COULD afford it, without mentioning that the reason they could afford it was because they were banking on the value of their house increasing over the life of the loan. I'm sure there were people who were in the boat that you're describing and just chose to ignore the risks associated with what they were doing.

The people who defaulted on their loans paid the price required by law. I'm sure the people taking advantage of the system knew exactly what would happen to them if/when the scam fell through, and then they took it.

The banks should have known exactly how risky these loans were. They should have or did know that if the housing market stopped growing, it would be catastrophic. Most obviously, they should have known that the price of housing would eventually plateau or cycle down. The fact that they ignored those risks and then get bailed out is shitty... not because the individuals didn't get bailed out, but because the people behind the banks that participated in these risky investments with their customer's money should not be working in the industry ever again.

I guess I am of the opinion that the banks have a greater responsibility to do the right thing than individual consumers, because the banks are playing with other people's money while the individual consumers are playing with their own livelihoods.