• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Occupy Wall Street protesters refuse to leave for park cleaning

Eighty Deuce said:
Ummmmmm .... and many broke laws, and were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes.

They made sacrifices for something they believed in.

Ultimately, their violation of the law led to bad laws being changed.

Like Jefferson said.
 
What if...? said:
Or be publicly arrested, as is SOP for peaceful protests.

Is the government willing to accept the negative PR that will result from widespread distribution of arrest images that media will surely select to sell papers and commercials?

Peaceful non-violent protest 101 stuff. Goes back years.
Click to expand...

At least as we have seen in the last two days, New York is not yet ready to create that scene. However, there have been flare-ups in both NY and Denver in the last 24 hours where arrests have been made.

As you know, there are points at which law-breaking will be dealt with more harshly, to include arrests. You can bet your bippy that you will see more and more of the OWS'ers finding out where those points are.
 
mtlhdtodd said:
Which I see as a PR and legal cost move. It still doesn't make the free speech argument any less ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The protesters cleaned up. It's a good way to go about it as well, make sure that they limit the damage that is done. But it's foolish to believe that a protest of this scale will not cause some amount of cosmetic damage. I do not think that the damage by itself excuses force against our innate and inalienable rights; particularly where protest and dissent are concerned. These are HUGE rights, rights which must be upheld to their maximum. If we lose the ability to dissent and protest, we will lose whatever little control we have left. There are too many little, petty, superficial laws which are trying to be used to infringe upon protest. And I, for one, see that as exceedingly dangerous. Not even terrorists can affect our rights to this degree.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The majority of all bad loans originated outside of CRA authority. This is a fact.
Click to expand...

Which is a moot point. OBTW, there is no such thing as "CRA authority". It was a policy which the government could use as a basis for prosecution if it chose to. It means nothing if Government does not choose to impose it on banks and lenders. The CRA served as one basis for the expansion of Fannie and Freddie in the 90's, which started the Housing Bubble.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Which is a moot point. OBTW, there is no such thing as "CRA authority". It was a policy which the government could use as a basis for prosecution if it chose to. It means nothing if Government does not choose to impose it on banks and lenders. The CRA served as one basis for the expansion of Fannie and Freddie in the 90's, which started the Housing Bubble.
Click to expand...

It is a valid point because there are some who are trying to excuse the the risk management failure of the financial community and their inability to adequately price these securities.
 
Ikari said:
The protesters cleaned up. It's a good way to go about it as well, make sure that they limit the damage that is done. But it's foolish to believe that a protest of this scale will not cause some amount of cosmetic damage. I do not think that the damage by itself excuses force against our innate and inalienable rights; particularly where protest and dissent are concerned. These are HUGE rights, rights which must be upheld to their maximum. If we lose the ability to dissent and protest, we will lose whatever little control we have left. There are too many little, petty, superficial laws which are trying to be used to infringe upon protest. And I, for one, see that as exceedingly dangerous. Not even terrorists can affect our rights to this degree.
Click to expand...

Again they didn't loose that right they just would've had to move it off the PRIVATE property which the owner has the right to exercise.
Plus the owner was willing to work around the flea baggers they just could not set up camp like before.
 
Last edited:
The hypocrisy on the right is glaring. The right is constantly making appeals to private property rights since people are protesting detrimental, myopic greed, but many of these same people threw private property rights out the window regarding the mosque being built near 9/11.

Remember when the right ardently defended private property rights to build a mosque? I sure don't.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Are you saying that all subprime originated under CRA jurisdiction?
Click to expand...
No, I am saying that the CRA was a generally broad act that was interpreted in such a way as to force the initial bad loans, this led to the derivatives that would eventually cause the bubble, I am not excusing the mortgage lenders but am agreeing with those who say the government is complicit.

liblady said:
no they didn't. cra never forced a bank to make a bad loan. have you seen the regulations of are you just repeating what you've heard?
Click to expand...
Yes they certainly did, they were threatened with investigations and loss of accreditation, they didn't have to make the loans but that would have led to losses on their part.
 
mtlhdtodd said:
Again they didn't loose that right they just would've had to move it off the PRIVATE property which the owner has the right to exercise.
Plus the owner was willing to work around the flea baggers they just could not set up camp like before.
Click to expand...

The "private" property is not so private. They ceded that to the government through contract in order to obtain permission to expand on another property. It became public at that time. I think it's best to treat it as one would treat any public area as such. They are losing the right in that more and more where ever they go someone shouts "NO! you can't be here because of X". And you gather enough X's and soon you have no ability to protest.

The importance of protest and dissent are too great to overlook for superficial and petty laws such as littering. It must necessarily be upheld to their maximum. It is essential to the overall ability to keep the Republic. Something so important should not be trimmed because of "nuisance". In fact, I would say it must be tolerated under those concerns. This is a consequence of freedom, one that needs to be shouldered and accepted. Free has never been easy, nor particularly safe, but it's better than the alternative. I'd rather we have the protections and abilities to confront government than to see them whittled away under such false pretense as nuisance.
 
mtlhdtodd said:
Again they didn't loose that right they just would've had to move it off the PRIVATE property which the owner has the right to exercise.
Plus the owner was willing to work around the flea baggers they just could not set up camp like before.
Click to expand...

Maybe you skipped over the part about Zuccotti Park being under "public space" law due to 1962 Building Code law?
 
Antiderivative said:
The hypocrisy on the right is glaring. The right is constantly making appeals to private property rights since people are protesting detrimental, myopic greed, but many of these same people threw private property rights out the window regarding the mosque being built near 9/11.

Remember when the right ardently defended private property rights to build a mosque? I sure don't.
Click to expand...

The right never said they didn't have the right to build it, just that it was a very insensitive thing to do and voiced their displeasure at it. Any attempts at restriction are just as wrong. Again they have the right to build it, but that doesn't mean they can force people to help build it.
 
Ikari said:
Not really. Their major concern, which is a real concern, is the entanglement of government and corporate interest. In essence, they're fighting against the corporate capitalist model we now find ourselves under. In that regard, I do agree (though I would probably not agree with their terms to correct it). I also think that people are all too willing to dismiss their point and try to pass it off as whining or something. But rather I see it as people paying attention and having the desire to keep the Republic which we are losing. And corporate capitalism is just one of the symptoms of losing the Republic.

While there are limits to set, particularly when free speech can infringe on such innate and inalienable rights as life; I do not think the limits are unlimited. Given the importance of assembly and protest, I would move to promote and protect those as one of the most important of our innate and inalienable rights. Dissent against the government M



As I understand it, the ceded that part in contract with the government. Opting to turn the land into public land, and thus it is proper to use for assembly and protest. Furthermore, the protesters had even cleaned up, which I think is one thing which spurred the reversal. In the end, I think using petty laws like this in a way to infringe upon dissent, assembly, and protest is well more dangerous than having to clean up a park after protest.
Click to expand...
I am on your side when it comes to free speech, as I understand it the protesters are in the wrong, I haven't necessarily seen enough of a counter here to change my mind on that. I do agree in ending a corporate/government alliance because the two sectors should never have a monetary relationship, but the only way to do that is to shrink the regulatory scope of the government to a point where only the most absolutely necessary standards are upheld, until that happens any business has legitimate reasons to be involved in government. Call that the ultimate catch 22.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Maybe you skipped over the part about Zuccotti Park being under "public space" law due to 1962 Building Code law?
Click to expand...

Nope but you apparently missed the part about the park rules that allow access by all and the flea baggers with their camp and it's lack of cleanliness broke said rules which the responsibility goes back on the OWS crowd.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I am on your side when it comes to free speech, as I understand it the protesters are in the wrong, I haven't necessarily seen enough of a counter here to change my mind on that. I do agree in ending a corporate/government alliance because the two sectors should never have a monetary relationship, but the only way to do that is to shrink the regulatory scope of the government to a point where only the most absolutely necessary standards are upheld, until that happens any business has legitimate reasons to be involved in government. Call that the ultimate catch 22.
Click to expand...

Well that is my solution, one to return to free market. I do think that we have lax regulations where we need strong ones, and strong regulations where we need lax ones. There will always be some amount of government necessary to maintain free market, but it has to be limited. Essentially minimized to allow the market to efficiently perform. The corporate capitalist model, however, is one geared more towards oligarchy and not republic.

I think that in the eyes of the law and what's written the protesters can bee seen as being in the wrong. But I think the law itself is too much and tramples on the spirit of the 1st amendment. Protest and dissent must be allowed maximally. There is no way around that. We MUST have it.
 
mtlhdtodd said:
The right never said they didn't have the right to build it, just that it was a very insensitive thing to do and voiced their displeasure at it. Any attempts at restriction are just as wrong. Again they have the right to build it, but that doesn't mean they can force people to help build it.
Click to expand...

Some Republicans went as far as to call an investigation into the Cordoba House. The overwhelmingly majority of Republicans were not defending the First Amendment or private property rights. Instead, they were too busy being xenophobic and throwing a temper tantrum.

Republicans' appeals to private property rights are shallow at best. They only appeal to them when it is convenient and morally acceptable to them. In this case, it is morally acceptable to them since they are apologetic to the corporate greed that helped fuel this economic mess.
 
Last edited:
mtlhdtodd said:
Nope but you apparently missed the part about the park rules that allow access by all and the flea baggers with their camp and it's lack of cleanliness broke said rules which the responsibility goes back on the OWS crowd.
Click to expand...

And they cleaned it up, which I think is the proper solution. They should be allowed to stay and should be aware enough to clean up after themselves. There's not going to be zero impact, but limiting the impact is a grown up and responsible attitude to have. I just think something like a dirty park is not worth oppression protest, assembly, and dissent rights.
 
LaMidRighter said:
No, I am saying that the CRA was a generally broad act that was interpreted in such a way as to force the initial bad loans, this led to the derivatives that would eventually cause the bubble, I am not excusing the mortgage lenders but am agreeing with those who say the government is complicit.
Click to expand...

This is probably the most informative article in regards to the discussion:


Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown?

As the current financial crisis has unfolded, an argument that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is at its root has gained a foothold. This argument draws on the fact that the CRA encourages commercial banks and savings institutions (collectively known as banking institutions) to help meet the credit needs of lower-income borrowers and borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods.1/ Critics of the CRA contend that the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending.

This article discusses key features of the CRA and presents results from our analysis of several data sources regarding the volume and performance of CRA-related mortgage lending. On balance, the evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA lies at the root of the current mortgage crisis.

Before we turn to our analysis of CRA lending data, we have two important points to note regarding the CRA and its possible connection to the current mortgage crisis.

The first point is a matter of timing. The current crisis is rooted in the poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007. If the CRA did indeed spur the recent expansion of the subprime mortgage market and subsequent turmoil, it would be reasonable to assume that some change in the enforcement regime in 2004 or 2005 triggered a relaxation of underwriting standards by CRA-covered lenders for loans originated in the past few years. However, the CRA rules and enforcement process have not changed substantively since 1995.2/ This fact weakens the potential link between the CRA and the current mortgage crisis.

Our second point is a matter of the originating entity. When considering the potential role of the CRA in the current mortgage crisis, it is important to account for the originating party. In particular, independent nonbank lenders, such as mortgage and finance companies and credit unions, originate a substantial share of subprime mortgages, but they are not subject to CRA regulation and, hence, are not directly influenced by CRA obligations. (We explore subprime mortgage originations in further detail below.)

The CRA may directly affect nonbank subsidiaries or affiliates of banking institutions. Banking institutions can elect to have their subsidiary or affiliate lending activity counted in CRA performance evaluations. If the banking institution elects to include affiliate activity, it cannot be done selectively. For example, the institution cannot "cherry pick" loans that would be favorably considered under the law while ignoring loans to middle- or higher-income borrowers.

In the next section, we discuss the data analysis we undertook to assess the merits of the claims that the CRA was a principal cause of the current mortgage market difficulties. The analysis focuses on two basic questions. First, what share of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA? Second, how have CRA-related subprime loans performed relative to other loans? We believe the answers to these two questions will shed light on the role of the CRA in the subprime crisis.
CRA-related lending volume and distribution

In analyzing the available data, we consider two distinct metrics of lending activity: loan origination activity and loan performance. With respect to the first question posed above concerning loan originations, we determine which types of lending institutions made higher-priced loans, to whom those loans were made, and in what types of neighborhoods the loans were extended.3/ This analysis therefore depicts the fraction of subprime mortgage lending that could be related to the CRA.

Using loan origination data obtained pursuant to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), we find that in 2005 and 2006, independent nonbank institutions—institutions not covered by the CRA—accounted for about half of all subprime originations. (See Table 1.) Also, about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, populations not targeted by the CRA. (See Table 2.) In addition, independent nonbank institutions originated nearly half of the higher-priced loans extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas (share derived from Table 2).

In total, of all the higher-priced loans, only 6 percent were extended by CRA-regulated lenders (and their affiliates) to either lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders' CRA assessment areas, which are the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. The small share of subprime lending in 2005 and 2006 that can be linked to the CRA suggests it is very unlikely the CRA could have played a substantial role in the subprime crisis.

To the extent that banking institutions chose not to include their affiliates' lending in their CRA examinations, the 6 percent share overstates the volume of higher-priced, lower-income lending that CRA examiners would have counted.4/ It is possible, however, the examiners might have considered at least some of the lower-income lending outside of CRA assessment areas if institutions asked that it be considered in their CRA performance evaluations. No data are available to assess this possibility; however, the majority of the higher-priced loans made outside of assessment areas were to middle- or higher-income borrowers. In our view, this suggests it is unlikely that the CRA was a motivating factor for such higher-priced lending. Rather, it is likely that higher-priced lending was primarily motivated by its apparent profitability.

It is also possible that the remaining share of higher-priced, lower-income lending may be indirectly attributable to the CRA due to the incentives under the CRA investment test. Specifically, examiners may have given banks "CRA credit" for their purchases of lower-income loans or mortgage-backed securities containing loans to lower-income populations, which could subsequently affect the supply of mortgage credit.

Although we lack definitive information on banks' CRA-induced secondary market activity, the HMDA data provide information on the types of institutions to which mortgages are sold. The data suggest that the link between independent mortgage companies and banks through direct secondary market transactions is weak, especially for lower-income loans. (See Table 3.) In 2006, only about 9 percent of independent mortgage company loan sales were to banking institutions. (Figure not shown in table.) And among these transactions, only 15 percent involved higher-priced loans to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods. In other words, less than 2 percent of the mortgage originations sold by independent mortgage companies in 2006 were higher-priced, CRA-credit-eligible, and purchased by CRA-covered banking institutions.......................

Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
Well that is my solution, one to return to free market. I do think that we have lax regulations where we need strong ones, and strong regulations where we need lax ones. There will always be some amount of government necessary to maintain free market, but it has to be limited. Essentially minimized to allow the market to efficiently perform. The corporate capitalist model, however, is one geared more towards oligarchy and not republic.

I think that in the eyes of the law and what's written the protesters can bee seen as being in the wrong. But I think the law itself is too much and tramples on the spirit of the 1st amendment. Protest and dissent must be allowed maximally. There is no way around that. We MUST have it.
Click to expand...
I see where you are coming from. My argument about the way things are is from the legal side not the ethical side not necessarily where my opinion is on the issue. I think the protesters started to clean up to stay in the park, which is a no-harm, no-foul argument and is legitimate. Still, the professional crews know the exact things that need to be done whereas the protesters do not, there may be things that need to be washed or supported due to various issues, etc. and they must be allowed to perform their duty.

As far as the government corporate stance you held here, I agree fully.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
This is probably the most informative article in regards to the discussion:


Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown?
Click to expand...
They are trying to use the two years of the bubble burst as primary sample data, that is problematic as the burst didn't cause the problem but was a final result. The article I provided dates back all the way to the Carter years and especially focuses on the '90s where the bubble was allowed to form.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
At least as we have seen in the last two days, New York is not yet ready to create that scene. However, there have been flare-ups in both NY and Denver in the last 24 hours where arrests have been made.

As you know, there are points at which law-breaking will be dealt with more harshly, to include arrests. You can bet your bippy that you will see more and more of the OWS'ers finding out where those points are.
Click to expand...

And all of those points will stem from violation of laws that place reasonable limits on free speech, yes.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I see where you are coming from. My argument about the way things are is from the legal side not the ethical side not necessarily where my opinion is on the issue. I think the protesters started to clean up to stay in the park, which is a no-harm, no-foul argument and is legitimate. Still, the professional crews know the exact things that need to be done whereas the protesters do not, there may be things that need to be washed or supported due to various issues, etc. and they must be allowed to perform their duty.

As far as the government corporate stance you held here, I agree fully.
Click to expand...

I was happy to see them actually clean up. It was a good move, and what I would consider to be proper compromise. The day we have so many rules as to make it functionally impossible to protest properly is the day we're left with no other choice than to revolt. Which will cause significantly larger amounts of property damage.

I don't want to be at the beck and call of the government. I believe that it necessarily must be the opposite in order to maintain a free state.
 
Ikari said:
I was happy to see them actually clean up. It was a good move, and what I would consider to be proper compromise. The day we have so many rules as to make it functionally impossible to protest properly is the day we're left with no other choice than to revolt. Which will cause significantly larger amounts of property damage.

I don't want to be at the beck and call of the government. I believe that it necessarily must be the opposite in order to maintain a free state.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, we are already under "Free Speech Zones" during conventions and a great many places restrict speech with overbearing obsenity laws and other restrictions that are suspect. So yes I do agree that the constitutional protections must be reinforced, I just don't think in this case the location is worth the fight because of the convoluted issue of who is maintaining and where ownership lies.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
This is probably the most informative article in regards to the discussion:


Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown?
Click to expand...

That article is near to complete BS. It is analyzing the years 2005-2006. The bubble was near to full inflation at that point. It had its own impetus ..... housing inflation, that being prices skyrocketing.

The Housing Bubble, that being the beginnings of when inflationary price increases in housing began to outstrip the normal inflation rate, began in 1997, and then gained momentum through 2000, at which time the slope of its upward trajectory was set. You need to look at what happened in those years to see what got it all started, and how this varied from past housing influences.

Two main and unique factors:

1) The influx of sub-prime buyers
- this was a result of pressure by government, to include lawsuits filed by the DoJ, to have lenders make sub-prime loans which they had prior refused to make. The DoJ used the CRA and alleged discriminatory lending patterns to compel the settlements that included the agreements to make more risky loans.

2) The growth of Fannie and Freddie, essentially underwriting and enabling these riskier loans. That was the part of the deal Cuomo didn't tell everyone about. It made it easy for the banks to agree to "settle".

The Bubble was born at that moment. Research it libs. I am tired of posting all the links over and over.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Fair enough, we are already under "Free Speech Zones" during conventions and a great many places restrict speech with overbearing obsenity laws and other restrictions that are suspect.
Click to expand...

I despise those! I say that America is a free speech zone. Why pen us up like animals blocks away from the convention? It's only to remove them from the public eye and so that the politicians do not have to deal with protesters and dissenters. But those are the VERY people they should have to deal with.

I think "free speech zones" are criminal.

LaMidRighter said:
So yes I do agree that the constitutional protections must be reinforced, I just don't think in this case the location is worth the fight because of the convoluted issue of who is maintaining and where ownership lies.
Click to expand...

I believe our rights and liberties are ALWAYS worth the fight.
 
What if...? said:
And all of those points will stem from violation of laws that place reasonable limits on free speech, yes.
Click to expand...

Actually, I suspect more along the lines of tresspassing, obstruction of traffic, vandalism, destruction of property, and actual assault ..... etc.

I do not see those as lines drawn against excesses in freedom of speech. To put it as you did is too noble IMMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom