Occupy

[nectarsis]

People need to make decisions for themselves and take responsibility if it doesn't work out.  If the car dealer gets me to bite on the $1000 rust proofing and fabric protection, whose fault is that?

Maaaan, I'm an adult!  I throw your salesmanship on the ground!

If people could think for themselves and take responsibility, then we wouldn't have churches.

Religion threads over here ;)    

https://www.pcengine-fx.com/forums/index.php?topic=1166.0

Funny that people send so much time ranting about religion (even if it has no bearing on the topic at hand) they're just as "bad" as the overly religious zealots.

Necro is right though.  WAY to many people take the easy way out....blame "the man", and anyone else possible rather than take any real responsibility for their actions.  No one had a gun to peoples head to live beyond their means, or force them to sign anything without reading.  THEY made that choice, while the lenders have some responsibility, it's far from ALL their fault.  Just to easy for people to blame the banks, etc. than shoulder any of the fault.

[nectarsis]

2.  This wouldbe less than the OWS demand that all consumer debt be forgiven.

And they wonder why some people look at many aspects of OWS as batshit crazy ;)

[OldRover]

Nope, I'm going to assign equal blame on this one. I don't care if someone thinks "it's just people being lazy" or "it's just people looking for handouts"... doesn't mean jack shit. Reality is reality whether someone wants to believe it or not. The reality is that people were deceived and directly lied to, and the house of cards came tumbling down on both sides of the coin. And who got the safety net? The banks... not the people. So both sides pull off something stupid, and who gets saved? The ones who initiated the stupidity to begin with... the banks. The banks should have been allowed to crash and burn.

But really, this is just one tiny facet in a long list of interconnected problems, a tremendous cause-and-effect that stems back way further than people can see (or care to see). Forget about seeing the forest for the trees... to fully understand why this sequence of events has taken place, you'd need to be able to spot individual insects eating the leaves of the trees and then know where they took their last dump.

[Nazi NecroPhile]

And who got the safety net? The banks... not the people. So both sides pull off something stupid, and who gets saved? The ones who initiated the stupidity to begin with... the banks.

Nothing for the people but loan modification programs and banks writing off big chunks of their debt.

[Joe Redifer]

So who here thinks that all consumer credit card debt should be forgiven?

[VestCunt]

So who here thinks that all consumer credit card debt should be forgiven?

If I may drop my usual agnosticism for a moment, I think this is where the Jews, Christians, and Dante have it right: forgive all debts every 49 years (Jubilee) and send dead usurers to the seventh circle of Hell!  

[OldRover]

Nothing for the people but loan modification programs and banks writing off big chunks of their debt.

I know of not a single person who got a whit of leniency on their loans. And I know a lot of people who owe money to big banks.

[TheClash603]

I work as a credit underwriter for a living.  I know some of the credit card limits of my friends and family members, and they are all absurd, and I would never issue credit in the amounts these people have.

The same goes for mortgages.  There are so many mortgages out there for people who should have never gotten them.  This goes back to the banks, and the banks should take these losses.  When someone can't pay a loan they shouldn't have gotten, it's not their fault.

I work for a company which has a more conservative view of credit, and this credit approach should be adopted business-wide.  If I were to approve a loan that was too large, and if the borrower went into default, that is 100% my fault.

I am on the inside of this system, for a company that I believe is doing things right.  I see a lot of other companies that are doing things wrong, and these banks are to blame, not the individual.  People should've never gotten these loans at all.  Once you are given something, or course the average person will think they can fully utilize their credit, why else would they have gotten it?  It shouldn't be expected that mechanics, cooks, construction workers, etc. need to know about finance and cash flows and abilities to pay.  If the controls were in place at the top, the credit crisis would not exist.

[OldRover]

You can thank Bush for destroying those controls to begin with.

[Emerald Rocker]

It shouldn't be expected that mechanics, cooks, construction workers, etc. need to know about finance and cash flows and abilities to pay.

Every adult living in the USA is expected to know about finance and abilities to pay.  For one thing, every adult is personally accountable for accurately reporting their income to the federal government on an annual basis.  For a second thing, money/bartering/trade has been the cornerstone of human interaction and human advancement for thousands upon thousands of years.  It's socially irresponsible to forgive peoples' debt simply because they're dumb.  (Also - I can't speak for mechanics and cooks, but many construction workers are pretty smart when it comes to budgets)

I do sympathize with people who obtained mortgages, budgeted and paid each month, then got hit with an unexpected calamity (laid off of job, hospital emergency, etc) and lost their home.  That's a crappy life event.  However, fixing their lives is not the bank's responsibility.  The bank has two responsibilities:
1) do their best to ensure they're not giving loans to irresponsible loonies (note: this does NOT mean the loonies are guilt-free)
2) when someone defaults -- whether it's a sympathetic reason or not -- cut their losses.
The whole point to a bank is that it's a safe place for people to store their money.  If banks give out loans and don't cut their losses when those loans default, then they are failing at their primary responsibility of safeguarding peoples' money.

When people hit rock bottom, they should rely on friends and family to help them through.  I'll give $500 so a friend can keep his apartment.  But I won't give that money to a stranger.  Selfish?  Maybe -- but it's also a reason to treat people right.  That way, you'll make good friends who will help you through hard times.  There's no such incentive if my money is anonymously funneled to people through banks or the government.

If you want to blame a president for weakening the banks' controls, then there are others to blame besides Bush.  For example, we could blame Clinton.  He "encouraged" banks to provide mortgages to unworthy people, too.  Politicians from both parties have a habit of making bad policies.

I once heard that Occupy Wall Street is about holding the people who destroyed our economy responsible.  I can get behind that.  The companies that took bailout money and spent it on executive bonuses should absolutely be condemned.  The companies that secured $500 million loans from Obama's administration and shut their doors after wasting that money should be condemned.  And the people who secured mortgages without responsibly budgeting should be condemned.

When we're done condemning the people who wasted money, THEN we can start condemning the establishments who gave them money.

After that, we can condemn the lobbies, politicians, unions, and voters who wanted those establishments to give away that money.

And when we realize just how many damn people we've just condemned, then maybe we'll all start watching our own wallets a bit more.

[Nazi NecroPhile]

There are so many mortgages out there for people who should have never gotten them.  This goes back to the banks, and the banks should take these losses.

I'll agree with this for the most part.  I don't have a problem with the banks taking it in the shorts for issuing shit loans, my problem is with the owners thinking they're owed a handout so they can keep the house they can't afford.

[OldRover]

I want someone to actually devise some solutions. It's easy to point the finger at the problem, but worthless to do so unless you have a solution that will fix the problem you're pointing out. Otherwise, you're just bitching, which is largely what the Occupy people are doing anyway.

[TheClash603]

There are so many mortgages out there for people who should have never gotten them.  This goes back to the banks, and the banks should take these losses.

I'll agree with this for the most part.  I don't have a problem with the banks taking it in the shorts for issuing shit loans, my problem is with the owners thinking they're owed a handout so they can keep the house they can't afford.

I am pro-occupy, but I will agree with this.

I want someone to actually devise some solutions. It's easy to point the finger at the problem, but worthless to do so unless you have a solution that will fix the problem you're pointing out. Otherwise, you're just bitching, which is largely what the Occupy people are doing anyway.

Look back a few pages, I posted some solutions.  A lot of other people have as well.  There just isn't one set universal solution, but the conversation is out there.

[Emerald Rocker]

So far, there's only one thing I've thought of that ANYONE can do.  It doesn't require corporate clout, or demanding debt forgiveness, or lobbying politicians, or changing your lifestyle:

Stop using credit cards.

[Joe Redifer]

And start writing checks?  Only women write checks.  I love how people who write checks hold up the line at stores.  Using a card is awesome because you can swipe it before the cashier is done ringing you up.  It rules.  It makes you a badass and makes women wet for you.

Bottom line:  Don't buy shit you can't afford just because you have a credit card.  Use some common sense.

[OldRover]

Fuck credit cards. Debit cards are better. Checks are so 1983. Of course, I always carry cash.

[Nazi NecroPhile]

Fuck debit cards - they've all the drawbacks of a credit card and none of the advantages.

What would it accomplish if I were to stop using mine?

[OldRover]

Debit cards are better because they don't allow you to spend money you don't have, unlike credit cards. Or at least that's the way they are supposed to work.

[VestCunt]

Credit cards offer better protection for merchant disputes and fraudulent charges.  You also don't have to worry about your checking account being locked.

I'm not saying they're not evil, but this is what NecroPhile was probably alluding to.

[Joe Redifer]

Debit cards are better because they don't allow you to spend money you don't have, unlike credit cards.

Yes they do.  It's called OVERDRAFT and it sucks ass.

[OldRover]

Not at my bank.

[Joe Redifer]

I'm definitely surprised to hear that as it is a good way for banks to make money.  Personally, I'm with a credit union.

[Emerald Rocker]

What would it accomplish if I were to stop using mine?

Credit cards siphon money from every transaction in which they're used.  Credit cards also put both parties at risk -- the buyer at risk of default, and the seller at risk of chargeback.  In either case, the bank collects.  The instant you use a credit card, you are indebted to the bank... it's just that they give you an interest-free grace month to pay them back.  Debit cards are a cash substitute; credit cards aren't.

If you're cool with the status quo, then there's no reason to stop using them.  Credit cards are convenient and powerful tools in the hands of honest, responsible people with reliable incomes.  But for people who self-identify with the "99%", it's hypocritical to KNOWINGLY indebt yourself to the "1%" and feed them free money, while simultaneously bitching about how much money they have.

[OldRover]

Credit unions do seem to have some advantages over mainstream banks... at least in the USA proper. Here, credit unions are amazingly slow and have really weird-ass policies. If I ever move back to the mainland, I'm getting in with a credit union.

[blueraven]

12 Years now with the Credit Union. I've already been screwed by the big banks enough and have told them permanently to fuck off.

[Joe Redifer]

The problem with banks is that they usually have expensive CEOs and shareholders to satisfy.

[VestCunt]

The whole point to a bank is that it's a safe place for people to store their money. 

The whole point of a bank is to make money.  http://www.mercurynews.com/central-coast/ci_19310560

[VestCunt]

News Corporation continues smear campaign

[Emerald Rocker]

The whole point to a bank is that it's a safe place for people to store their money. 

The whole point of a bank is to make money.  http://www.mercurynews.com/central-coast/ci_19310560

Aside from being about banks, in what way does this article relate to anything I said?

[VestCunt]

Your post painted a naive, Norman-Rockwell picture of banks.  So when I stumbled across yet another indication of their endless machinations I thought I'd post some food for thought.

Big banks are a bunch of crooks.  Predatory lending is a real thing.  Yeah, people can share some of the blame, but it's kind of like blaming my poor mother-in-law who recently got fleeced for two grand in an online scam: she should have known better, but c'mon, she's sixty.  A lot of good people just aren't equipped to deal with this shit.  Banks are in it for the money.  Saying that they care about providing people with safe investments is like saying prostitutes care about giving lonely people companionship.  Corporate banks are thieves with endless resources at their disposal to create legal loopholes and confusing PR trickery.  Meanwhile, they give money to Tea Party candidates who annihilate our remaining consumer protections, eliminate jobs, and freeze taxes, which increases property taxes and raises mortgages and causes the working poor to default on their loans.

[Emerald Rocker]

No, my post painted a picture of how bank loans theoretically work.  And aside from weakened mortgage controls (imposed by administrations from both parties), that's how they DO work.  You're coming in with something totally unrelated, in an effort to "prove" that bank CEOs are crooks (which I don't think anyone was disputing, anyway), as though that somehow means my post about how bank loans should work is wrong.

If you re-read my post, crooked/uncrooked has no place in there until the very end, when I switch topics and start talking about holding people responsible for destroying our economy.  Holding people responsible for destroying our economy does NOT mean we should forgive peoples' mortgage debts or other bank loan defaults. Doing that would be an insane "solution" that would crush our economy even further.

On a separate note:
* Freezing taxes wouldn't be a problem if the government wouldn't spend more than its budget.  When a new type of tax is imposed, it never goes away.  I do NOT want new taxes created to recoup the money Obama's administration wasted by providing prime-rate loans to his corporate buddies.  Obama is one of Occupy's worst enemies.  But anyway, raising property taxes is safer for consumers' budgets than creating new taxes, although I hadn't heard that property taxes in general are rising.
* There are many types of consumer "protections", championed by both sides of the aisle.  I'm not sure which ones you're referring to, but there's certainly some truth that the Tea Party wants to remove certain protections.  On the other hand, the Democratic Party wants to remove other protections.
* When someone talks about "eliminating jobs", I think about how the Democratic Party has set the wheels in motion to destroy multiple entire career fields in the healthcare business.  That goes beyond "loss of jobs" -- there will be 40-somethings and 50-somethings whose last two decades of work history are useless because their careers simply won't exist anymore.

[OldRover]

Neither side of the political spectrum has any fucking clue as to how to really fix things. When you build up one sector, you take from another. I don't agree with the Democrats' side, but there's no way in hell I'd ever support the Republicans' side. The last year has been more than enough to prove to me why I could never support the Republicans, leaving the Democrats as the only viable party. Both sides have been fucking things up for years, but to really fuck things up, you need to be Republican.

Everyone wants to get ahead in life. And having these sweet deals promised to people... well, they thought that they could finally get ahead. But this was all just classic "get rich quick" scamming. Now, the divide between the rich and the poor has grown to enormous proportions, and even though some of these people are probably out for unjustified entitlements, most of them aren't... most of them just want to live a decent life without getting screwed by unscrupulous business practices that were enabled by Republican rule.

Fuck 'em both. Both parties suck ass.

[TheClash603]

Banks and oil companies, the two most corrupt businesses there are.  I have missed some of the posts for the last week, but I see that no one brought this gigantic bomb up.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-01/bank-of-america-derivatives-transfer-draws-lawmaker-scrutiny.html

Anyone who reads this and says that "that's good, banks need to make money," is completely out of their fucking mind!

[Emerald Rocker]

Banks don't need to make tons of money -- they just need to make enough to stay solvent (after all, they've got employees to pay).   I'm all for government investigations to raise public awareness, and I'm all for the people rising up against perceived greed.  The problem is that when the government tries to legislatively limit corporate profits, they have historically done so in short-sighted ways that kill smaller companies, but allow bigger companies to become even bigger.  The government also lies a lot.

The threat of competition is a great way to keep greed in check.  On the other hand, imposing legislative red tape in an effort to contain "greed" makes it harder for competitors to enter the market.  It's popular for politicians to be reactionary -- it looks like they're doing something -- but reactionary legislation is the last thing we should want from our politicians right now.

[VestCunt]

Best OWS article yet:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy

[PCEngineHell]

Meh....This "movement" still going on?

[blueraven]

Yeah I'll be posting some photos soon. They're on a memory card that is currently MIA.