Occupy Needs a Spokesman

[blueballs]

Maybe they should draft Dave Ramsey...

http://www.daveramsey.com/article/dear- ... 1920111325

[Grizalltheway]

No, what Occupy needs is this:

That episode immediately came to mind every time I heard an interview with one of the occupiers.

[AZGrizFan]

And Chris Hedges would be the one if he wasn't so frumpy.

The whole interview is a pretty good beat down of the CBC conk douchebag counterpart but for short attention spans, go to the 5 minute mark for a very concise explanation of what's wrong.

[youtube]http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri= ... 8Eb6LGj3bY[/youtube]

This guy has been reading moveon.org and dailykos too much. The CBS conk douchebag was right....he IS a left wing nutbar.

[JohnStOnge]

Ok I watched the whole thing and the only way one would think he did anything to support his point of view is if one had his point of view to begin with and just enjoyed hearing it expressed. The other guy should not have resorted to name calling. I agree with that. But that thing about banks "shoving subprime mortgages." That was pretty bad. The United States government encouraged that and even pressured banks into doing it.

That guy was nothing special and he did nothing special to make the case for the Occupy Wall Street Movement. He spoke mostly in generalities and when he did get into specifics the specifics were questionable.

Probably the best possible point he made was about the difference between the Canadian Banks and US Banks. But one would have to research that. Even so, the whole point of Wall Street is to gamble. You invest your money at higher risk in hopes of obtaining higher returns. That is not hidden from anybody. Everybody knows that right up front.

Also, the guy is a wuss. He can't take being challenged. The comment about not going on Fox News was telling. Fox News may have a slant but it does give people of liberal leaning chances to express their views if you go into the right forum. He strikes me as someone who is afraid to show up in cases where he's going to get resistance and people aren't just going to fawn over him and take what he says as Gospel.

[JohnStOnge]

And that thing about needing to "break the backs of corporations." Really? Even if you're just talking about Wall Street corporations do you REALLY think that's a good idea? An awful lot of people depend on those corporations. That's why we bailed them out. It wasn't just to be nice to them.

I don't agree with the bailout. But it didn't happen because Government was in their pocket. It happened because people thought it would be a disaster if they collapsed.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, his opponnent missed an excellent opportunity. When he said "they oughta be prosecuted" his opponent should have siezed upon that and asked what laws they violated. Then go down that road and bog him down. I doubt if he was prepared to discuss specifics because he was just spouting the standard Occupy Wallstreet general platitudes.

I gotta say this again: Banks would not have been issuing risky sub prime mortages without government encouraging them to do so. A bank is not going to willingly issue a loan to someone when it thinks there is a high risk that someone is going to pay the bank back. Banks do not WANT to deal with foreclosure properties. To act as though banks enticed people who they knew probably could not pay loans back into taking out loans just for the heck of it is ridiculous.

If banks wanted to buy houses they's just buy houses. They wouldn't trick people into getting mortgages they can't afford so they could foreclose.

[Bronco]

-
Howard Stern maybe found one

[youtube][/youtube]

[kalm]

BTW, his opponnent missed an excellent opportunity. When he said "they oughta be prosecuted" his opponent should have siezed upon that and asked what laws they violated. Then go down that road and bog him down. I doubt if he was prepared to discuss specifics because he was just spouting the standard Occupy Wallstreet general platitudes.

I gotta say this again: Banks would not have been issuing risky sub prime mortages without government encouraging them to do so. A bank is not going to willingly issue a loan to someone when it thinks there is a high risk that someone is going to pay the bank back. Banks do not WANT to deal with foreclosure properties. To act as though banks enticed people who they knew probably could not pay loans back into taking out loans just for the heck of it is ridiculous.

If banks wanted to buy houses they's just buy houses. They wouldn't trick people into getting mortgages they can't afford so they could foreclose.

I know it's not in your DNA to find fault with the private sector and the "free markets" but it amazes me that someone as cynical as you when it comes to every scientific poll, fails to recognize the fraud in our system. The financial services industry invested $5 billion into the campaign funds of both parties to get things deregulated in the 90's and they are still the biggest players today. This is also why you don't see any prosecution of financial crimes surrounding the crisis. The SEC and the Treasury and Wall Street have revolving doors. You are simply naive on this one.

MATT TAIBBI
I’m always amazed at these people who think the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 caused the Housing and Credit Crisis of… 2007. You’d have to be as dumb as a bag of hammers to think that a law gets passed in 1977, magically does not affect the housing market adversely for 30 years, and then suddenly explodes in toxic leverage and brings down the entire international financial system a generation later.

For the last time: the Community Reinvestment Act DID NOT FORCE BANKS TO LEND TO UNWORTHY BORROWERS. It did not force banks to open branches in bad neighborhoods or rescue “burned out” communities. It did not actually force banks to do anything at all, as a matter of fact. All the act did was specify that if you wanted to get FDIC insurance, you had to actually lend to the people whose deposits you held. And this was not mandated by quotas or numerical targets. There was no specific mechanism for this at all. The act just forced banks to be subject to periodic reviews by the banks’ primary regulator, whoever that happened to be — the Fed, the OCC, the FDIC, and the state banking institutions. These regulators were supposed to look at the banks’ lending history and make sure that they weren’t refusing to lend to their own depositors, a practice that was common in ghetto bank branches through the seventies.

Since we have all seen how completely and totally ineffectual the banking regulators have been in the last fifteen years in enforcing even the most basic criminal statutes, it again strains the imagination to conceive of the mind that would believe that somehow all these different ineffectual regulators ignored all other laws for decades but chose to hammer the banks with the CRA, forcing them all to give out loans to poor black people.

It’s not true and it’s absurd. The CRA, again, did not force anyone to make any kind of loan. I’m going to quote from the Federal Reserve’s own description of the law:

“Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution’s CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.”

This crisis had nothing to do with the CRA and everything to do with the collapse of mortgage underwriting standards, coupled with advances in the technology of securitization, which allowed banks to lend to unworthy borrowers and then sell off these dicey mortgages to secondary buyers. The driving forces in this crisis were bonuses for mortgage brokers and appraisers, underwriting fees for the securitizing firms, and commissions for the institutional fixed-income fund managers who bought this stuff from the investment banks. It was a purely market-driven process and had absolutely nothing to do with government-mandated social engineering.

It blows my mind, the lengths people will go to to blame disasters on liberals and minorities. The really ironic thing is that if you want to blame the Democrats for this stuff, there are plenty of real misdeeds to bash them for. The fact that the Limbaugh/Hannity crowd decided to focus on a basically irrelevant law like the CRA shows that they know their audiences will buy pretty much anything, so long as the punchline is black slobs on welfare breaking the back of hardworking America.


I’ve got to add something else, because this is just so ridiculous, this pegging the financial crisis on the CRA.

First of all, the agencies that conduct CRA examinations have absolutely no enforcement powers. None — zero. Even if you flunk your CRA examination, you cannot be ordered to do anything.

In fact, the government chose to address this issue in 1989 by making the results of CRA exams public. The idea here is that you’d see a little bit of a deterrent here — in the absence of real enforcement powers, banks might at least be embarrassed into lending to their depositors if the fact that they didn’t lend to minorities was explicitly made public.

On the other hand, the government didn’t want CRA exams to be such a huge burden. So in 1999, as part of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, they mandated that CRA exams would only take place once every four or five years for all banks that were deemed “Satisfactory” or better in their exams.

In the period 2002-2008, state member banks evaluated by the Fed scored the following: 15.8% were “outstanding,” 83.7% were “satisfactory,” and only .5% had a “needs to improve” or worse rating.

So according to Boiler, the housing bubble was caused by half of one percent of all banks being so embarrassed by public disclosure of their CRA rating that they went bonkers and started forking over million-dollar mortgages to every crackhead in sight.

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/06 ... -all-time/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For further reading I also recommend Taibbi's pieces "The Great Americab Bubble Machine" and "Why isn't Wall Street in Jail" or this little gem by Michael Lewis:

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/n ... ndex3.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

You are simply naive on this one.

MATT TAIBBI
I’m always amazed at these people who think the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 caused the Housing and Credit Crisis of… 2007. You’d have to be as dumb as a bag of hammers to think that a law gets passed in 1977, magically does not affect the housing market adversely for 30 years, and then suddenly explodes in toxic leverage and brings down the entire international financial system a generation later.

And you simply toe the party line.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/busin ... nding.html

Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

[kalm]

You are simply naive on this one.

And you simply toe the party line.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/busin ... nding.html

Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

You know perfectly well that I have issues with both parties as well as F&F, but nice try. Odd though that you didn't include this information.

Here is the offical white house fact sheet:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives. ... 20617.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bush said" That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership challenge.

And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts."

[89Hen]

You know perfectly well that I have issues with both parties as well as F&F, but nice try. Odd though that you didn't include this information.

I was talking about the party line of putting 100% of the blame on the banks. The gov had as much, if not more to do with the problem than the banks. The banks were the vehicle, people like Barney Frank were the drivers.

[D1B]

You know perfectly well that I have issues with both parties as well as F&F, but nice try. Odd though that you didn't include this information.

I was talking about the party line of putting 100% of the blame on the banks. The gov had as much, if not more to do with the problem than the banks. The banks were the vehicle, people like Barney Frank were the drivers.

True.

Also, people like you profited tremendously during the feeding frenzy. You should be ashamed.

[kalm]

You know perfectly well that I have issues with both parties as well as F&F, but nice try. Odd though that you didn't include this information.

I was talking about the party line of putting 100% of the blame on the banks. The gov had as much, if not more to do with the problem than the banks. The banks were the vehicle, people like Barney Frank were the drivers.

Check swing. Did he go around? Appeal to first base...and the first base ump says yessssss. Strike two.

[89Hen]

I was talking about the party line of putting 100% of the blame on the banks. The gov had as much, if not more to do with the problem than the banks. The banks were the vehicle, people like Barney Frank were the drivers.

True.

Also, people like you profited tremendously during the feeding frenzy. You should be ashamed.

Yes and no. I'm very lucky in where I work. My default rate on loans is close to zero. That said, I've certainly enjoyed the large increases in property values which in turn makes for larger loans.

[89Hen]

I was talking about the party line of putting 100% of the blame on the banks. The gov had as much, if not more to do with the problem than the banks. The banks were the vehicle, people like Barney Frank were the drivers.

Check swing. Did he go around? Appeal to first base...and the first base ump says yessssss. Strike two.

Not really. You're pretty much arguing semantics if you agree with Taibbi. He puts the government's blame back on the banks by saying they bought these legislators, hence all the blame really lies with the banks. Is that not where you stand? Taibbi is a huge Liberal, do you disagree?

Taibbi thinks conservatives blame the people the loans were made to... I'd say they share in the blame, but weren't the main culprit. If I had to lay blame for the mortgage mess it would probably be:

Fed/FNMA/FDMC = 40%
Banks = 40%
Borrowers = 20%

I'm guessing Taibbi would put it:

Fed/FNMA/FDMC = 0%
Banks = 100%
Borrowers = 0%

[kalm]

Check swing. Did he go around? Appeal to first base...and the first base ump says yessssss. Strike two.

Not really. You're pretty much arguing semantics if you agree with Taibbi. He puts the government's blame back on the banks by saying they bought these legislators, hence all the blame really lies with the banks. Is that not where you stand? Taibbi is a huge Liberal, do you disagree?

Taibbi thinks conservatives blame the people the loans were made to... I'd say they share in the blame, but weren't the main culprit. If I had to lay blame for the mortgage mess it would probably be:

Fed/FNMA/FDMC = 40%
Banks = 40%
Borrowers = 20%

I'm guessing Taibbi would put it:

Fed/FNMA/FDMC = 0%
Banks = 100%
Borrowers = 0%

Foul ball. You might have had a single if a bunch of money hadn't been made off the defaults. The money lost in those 401k's went somewhere. Whether or not you think that was by design depends on your level of cynicism. But there is no arguing with the fact that Wall Street wrote the legislation. So they were either extremely greedy, naive and lucky, or they knew what they were doing. This transcends party, that's why the government takes less of the blame. Going back to Graham-Leach-Bliley which was passed by a R congress and signed by a D president, it doesn't really matter who is in power.

[89Hen]

This transcends party, that's why the government takes less of the blame.

Bullshit. You can say both parties are to blame, but not that government takes less of the blame.

BTW, we can probably discuss this without the baseball play by play.

[AZGrizFan]

This transcends party, that's why the government takes less of the blame.

Bullshit. You can say both parties are to blame, but not that government takes less of the blame.

BTW, we can probably discuss this without the baseball play by play.

kalm has a short attention span. It's what keeps him engaged.

[kalm]

Bullshit. You can say both parties are to blame, but not that government takes less of the blame.

BTW, we can probably discuss this without the baseball play by play.

kalm has a short attention span. It's what keeps him engaged.

What? Huh?

[rebla 49er]

Other groups have far superior leadership.

[JohnStOnge]

(1) For the last time: the Community Reinvestment Act DID NOT FORCE BANKS TO LEND TO UNWORTHY BORROWERS . (2) It did not force banks to open branches in bad neighborhoods or rescue “burned out” communities. (3) It did not actually force banks to do anything at all, as a matter of fact. (4) All the act did was specify that if you wanted to get FDIC insurance, you had to actually lend to the people whose deposits you held. (5) And this was not mandated by quotas or numerical targets. (6) There was no specific mechanism for this at all. (7)The act just forced banks to be subject to periodic reviews by the banks’ primary regulator, whoever that happened to be — the Fed, the OCC, the FDIC, and the state banking institutions. (8) These regulators were supposed to look at the banks’ lending history and make sure that they weren’t refusing to lend to their own depositors, a practice that was common in ghetto bank branches through the seventies.

Do you not realize that sentences 1, 2 and 3 of that paragraph are contradicted by sentences 4, 7, and 8 of the same paragraph? I am wondering how that author could write that with a straight face.

And it goes farther than that. There is no WAY banks were free to restrict loans just to who they considered low risk. There is no WAY they could just develop risk models and let the chips fall where they may have fallen.

Surely you don't believe they could have. The Race thing comes to mind. Do you think that if "Black" showed up as a "significant" factor in an objective risk model a bank would've been free to consider that? Please.

There is no advantage for a bank in giving a big loan to a high risk borrower. They wouldn't have done it without government involvement. No way.

Just use your own head. Are you goint to loan $250,000 dollars to somebody to buy a house if you don't think they can pay you back? So if they don't pay you back you get the house. Still, are you doing to do that? Why do you think foreclosure homes go for way less than market value? Banks do not, on average, make money on foreclosure situations. And they're in business to make money.

Good grief. I can't believe that there are people who actually believe banks were rubbing their hands together just WAITING to issue bad loans.

[Mr. Potter]

(1) For the last time: the Community Reinvestment Act DID NOT FORCE BANKS TO LEND TO UNWORTHY BORROWERS . (2) It did not force banks to open branches in bad neighborhoods or rescue “burned out” communities. (3) It did not actually force banks to do anything at all, as a matter of fact. (4) All the act did was specify that if you wanted to get FDIC insurance, you had to actually lend to the people whose deposits you held. (5) And this was not mandated by quotas or numerical targets. (6) There was no specific mechanism for this at all. (7)The act just forced banks to be subject to periodic reviews by the banks’ primary regulator, whoever that happened to be — the Fed, the OCC, the FDIC, and the state banking institutions. (8) These regulators were supposed to look at the banks’ lending history and make sure that they weren’t refusing to lend to their own depositors, a practice that was common in ghetto bank branches through the seventies.

Do you not realize that sentences 1, 2 and 3 of that paragraph are contradicted by sentences 4, 7, and 8 of the same paragraph? I am wondering how that author could write that with a straight face.

And it goes farther than that. There is no WAY banks were free to restrict loans just to who they considered low risk. There is no WAY they could just develop risk models and let the chips fall where they may have fallen.

Surely you don't believe they could have. The Race thing comes to mind. Do you think that if "Black" showed up as a "significant" factor in an objective risk model a bank would've been free to consider that? Please.

There is no advantage for a bank in giving a big loan to a high risk borrower. They wouldn't have done it without government involvement. No way.

Just use your own head. Are you goint to loan $250,000 dollars to somebody to buy a house if you don't think they can pay you back? So if they don't pay you back you get the house. Still, are you doing to do that? Why do you think foreclosure homes go for way less than market value? Banks do not, on average, make money on foreclosure situations. And they're in business to make money.

Good grief. I can't believe that there are people who actually believe banks were rubbing their hands together just WAITING to issue bad loans.

Only that fool George Bailey loans money to rabble who can't pay it back. Man's afraid of his own success. Confound it.

[Grizalltheway]

@ Mr. Potter.

[oldsloguy]

I don’t know why you seem to be having trouble with the concept on this, but the OWS crowd does indeed have a spokesperson, Barack Obama! It seems pretty clear to me that this is a Democratic Party operation to energize the base for the coming elections. The unions are leading the effort, setting up kitchens to feed them, storing supplies in their offices, setting up websites, opening bank accounts, collecting donations and you can’t figure out who is behind it! Huh!!!!

[kalm]

(1) For the last time: the Community Reinvestment Act DID NOT FORCE BANKS TO LEND TO UNWORTHY BORROWERS . (2) It did not force banks to open branches in bad neighborhoods or rescue “burned out” communities. (3) It did not actually force banks to do anything at all, as a matter of fact. (4) All the act did was specify that if you wanted to get FDIC insurance, you had to actually lend to the people whose deposits you held. (5) And this was not mandated by quotas or numerical targets. (6) There was no specific mechanism for this at all. (7)The act just forced banks to be subject to periodic reviews by the banks’ primary regulator, whoever that happened to be — the Fed, the OCC, the FDIC, and the state banking institutions. (8) These regulators were supposed to look at the banks’ lending history and make sure that they weren’t refusing to lend to their own depositors, a practice that was common in ghetto bank branches through the seventies.

Do you not realize that sentences 1, 2 and 3 of that paragraph are contradicted by sentences 4, 7, and 8 of the same paragraph? I am wondering how that author could write that with a straight face.

And it goes farther than that. There is no WAY banks were free to restrict loans just to who they considered low risk. There is no WAY they could just develop risk models and let the chips fall where they may have fallen.

Surely you don't believe they could have. The Race thing comes to mind. Do you think that if "Black" showed up as a "significant" factor in an objective risk model a bank would've been free to consider that? Please.

There is no advantage for a bank in giving a big loan to a high risk borrower. They wouldn't have done it without government involvement. No way.

Just use your own head. Are you goint to loan $250,000 dollars to somebody to buy a house if you don't think they can pay you back? So if they don't pay you back you get the house. Still, are you doing to do that? Why do you think foreclosure homes go for way less than market value? Banks do not, on average, make money on foreclosure situations. And they're in business to make money.

Good grief. I can't believe that there are people who actually believe banks were rubbing their hands together just WAITING to issue bad loans.

Sorry JSO, but you really need to take the blinders off. I had a family member who was a mortgage underwriter at WaMu who saw this coming and was sickened by what they were doing. WaMu was the 6th largest bank in the country at that time and maybe the best example but many others were guilty as well. The problem was systemic from the home buyers to the the property owners to the contractors to the realtors to the lenders. Everyone was incentivized to build, buy, sell, lend and then sell again while kicking the can down the street. Why should the originator of the loan care if it defaulted if their bonus was based on volume and they could sell the loans off anyway? It was all based on free money and the notion of perpetual growth. Kinda like your disdain for the idea that there is some pie that needs to be divided.

[edit]Rise and fall
[edit]"Wal-Mart of Banking"
Chairman and CEO Kerry Killinger had pledged in 2003:[24]
We hope to do to this industry what Wal-Mart did to theirs, Starbucks did to theirs, Costco did to theirs and Lowe's-Home Depot did to their industry. And I think if we’ve done our job, five years from now you’re not going to call us a bank.

Killinger's goal was to build WaMu into the “Wal-Mart of Banking,” which would cater to lower- and middle-class consumers that other banks deemed too risky. Complex mortgages and credit cards had terms that made it easy for the least creditworthy borrowers to get financing, a strategy the bank extended in big cities, including Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. WaMu pressed sales agents to approve loans while placing less emphasis on borrowers’ incomes and assets. WaMu set up a system that enabled real estate agents to collect fees of more than $10,000 for bringing in borrowers. Variable-rate loans — Option Adjustable Rate Mortgages (Option ARMs) in particular — were especially attractive because they carried higher fees than other loans, and allowed WaMu to book profits on interest payments that borrowers deferred. As WaMu was selling many of its loans to investors, it worried less about defaults.[6][24]
[edit]Subprime losses


Washington Mutual's last headquarters, WaMu Center (center left) and its headquarters prior, Washington Mutual Tower (center right) in Seattle.
In December 2007, the subsidiary Washington Mutual Bank reorganized its home-loan division, closing 160 of its 336 home-loan offices and removing 2,600 positions in its home-loan staff (a 22% reduction).[25]
In March 2008, on the same weekend that JPMorgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon negotiated the takeover of Bear Stearns, he secretly dispatched members of his team to Seattle to meet with WaMu executives, urging them to consider a quick deal. However, WaMu Chairman and CEO Kerry Killinger rejected JPMorgan Chase's offer that valued WaMu at $8 a share, mostly in stock.[6][24]
In April 2008, the holding company, responding to losses and difficulties sustained as a result of the 2007-2008 subprime mortgage crisis, announced that 3,000 people companywide would lose their jobs, and the company stated its intent to close its approximately 186 remaining stand-alone, home-loan offices, including 23 in Washington State and a loan-processing center in Bellevue, Washington. It stopped buying loans from outside mortgage brokers — known in the trade as "wholesale lending." WaMu also announced a $7 billion infusion of new capital by new outside investors led by TPG Capital. TPG agreed to pump $2 billion into the Washington Mutual holding company; other investors, including some of WaMu's current institutional holders, agreed to buy an additional $5 billion in newly issued stock. This angered many investors, as TPG's investment would dilute the holdings of existing shareholders, and as WaMu executives excluded mortgage losses from computing bonuses.[26]