• 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!

Does the Occupy Wall Street movement represent the 99%?

Does the Occupy Wall Street movement represent the 99%?

  • Yes, they very much represent their complaints & agenda.

    Votes: 11 14.5%

  • They represent some of their complaints & agenda, but also have their own unique/radical ideas.

    Votes: 20 26.3%

  • Not really, their ideas are more represent the complaints & goals of the poor and radicals.

    Votes: 17 22.4%

  • Not at all! They only speak for a radical fringe!!

    Votes: 28 36.8%
  • Total voters
    76
  • Poll closed .
Zyphlin said:
To my understanding, when a Bank sells your loan to another place it requires your approval of it first? At least that's what I've experienced when my bank sold my loan to another group which then sold it to another.

If that's the case, are you suggesting that the original bank attempting to forclose on your house is wrong because they don't hold the contract with you anymore? In which case, are you basically saying that the entity that does now hold your contract should be the one who is forclosing on you?
Click to expand...



Wachovia sold my loan to someone else, who sold it to someone else, who sold it to wells fargo, who then bought wells fargo. lol...., We pay it off this year. 15 yr fixed 4%
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Avoiding the question as usual? who do you blame? the banks or the government that gave them the money "no strings attached"?
Click to expand...

start another thread and i will join you in that discussion
but since we are in agreement that the lender bonuses and bailouts do not go together, which is something that Occupy also agrees with, then let's not derail this thread in that direction
 
justabubba said:
what's your next objection to the Occupy movement's declaration
Click to expand...

Well, if we want to go by the group of demands Catawba keeps putting out there as a great representation of what the Occupy movement is about...how about reinvestigating the 9/11 attacks? ;)
 
justabubba said:
start another thread and i will join you in that discussion
but since we are in agreement that the lender bonuses and bailouts do not go together, which is something that Occupy also agrees with, then let's not derail this thread in that direction
Click to expand...



I accept your concession. I offered to go post by post, you agreed, by bullet 2 you backed out. Noted.
 
Zyphlin said:
Well, if we want to go by the group of demands Catawba keeps putting out there as a great representation of what the Occupy movement is about...how about reinvestigating the 9/11 attacks? ;)
Click to expand...

referring to an online poll to decide what OWS's goals are, is very silly.
 
Zyphlin said:
To my understanding, when a Bank sells your loan to another place it requires your approval of it first? At least that's what I've experienced when my bank sold my loan to another group which then sold it to another.

If that's the case, are you suggesting that the original bank attempting to forclose on your house is wrong because they don't hold the contract with you anymore? In which case, are you basically saying that the entity that does now hold your contract should be the one who is forclosing on you?
Click to expand...

no, the bank doesn't require your approval.
 
Zyphlin said:
To my understanding, when a Bank sells your loan to another place it requires your approval of it first? At least that's what I've experienced when my bank sold my loan to another group which then sold it to another.

If that's the case, are you suggesting that the original bank attempting to forclose on your house is wrong because they don't hold the contract with you anymore? In which case, are you basically saying that the entity that does now hold your contract should be the one who is forclosing on you?
Click to expand...

great point: if Bank of America loans you a mortgage, but then sells off this loan for 10,000 little pieces all over the world, what gives BoA the right to foreclose on your home if you can't pay the loan?
 
Thunder said:
referring to an online poll to decide what OWS's goals are, is very silly.
Click to expand...

I agree.

However, its been used as a reference routinely through this thread by some posters so I'm utilizing their reference.
 
Zyphlin said:
I agree.

However, its been used as a reference routinely through this thread by some posters so I'm utilizing their reference.
Click to expand...

change your IP, and you can vote again...and again..and again.

clearly, that poll is worthless.
 
liblady said:
no, the bank doesn't require your approval.
Click to expand...

Then the question goes, can a contract such as a loan be legally exchanged to a different party. If so....then, yeah, tough tits. If the party owns your contract and are legally able to do so and you don't fulfill your contract they can take your house.

In regards to justabubba's fraud case...well yes, that's bad. That's fraud. That's illegal. Few people will argue that an illegal actoin like that is bad. Trying ot make it out that such illegal action is the norm, the majority of forclosures, or the main thing OWS people are talking about with regards to banks and mortgages is just ridiculous however.
 
Zyphlin said:
Then the question goes, can a contract such as a loan be legally exchanged to a different party. If so....then, yeah, tough tits. If the party owns your contract and are legally able to do so and you don't fulfill your contract they can take your house.

In regards to justabubba's fraud case...well yes, that's bad. That's fraud. That's illegal. Few people will argue that an illegal actoin like that is bad. Trying ot make it out that such illegal action is the norm, the majority of forclosures, or the main thing OWS people are talking about with regards to banks and mortgages is just ridiculous however.
Click to expand...



I agree, I will also state it does not absolve one of ones debts.
 
Zyphlin said:
To my understanding, when a Bank sells your loan to another place it requires your approval of it first? At least that's what I've experienced when my bank sold my loan to another group which then sold it to another.
Click to expand...
no. unless there is a provision in your contract which establishes that the loan cannot be sold/transferred to another party, then an assignment of interest can be made

If that's the case, are you suggesting that the original bank attempting to forclose on your house is wrong because they don't hold the contract with you anymore? In which case, are you basically saying that the entity that does now hold your contract should be the one who is forclosing on you?
Click to expand...
yes. the process of accepting an outstanding loan is by acquiring an assignment of interest. that assigns to the new lender the rights and responsibilities as has been established by the Note and other instruments of hypothecation for the loan. the old lender (normally) no longer has an interest once such assignment has been made. thus, the new lender would hold the loan documents and receive loan funds. it is when they do not make sure the trailing documents for that loan have been received that complications arise. without those loan documents they are unable to meet the provisions of the mortgage (deed of trust) which describes what must be evident to the court to prove they hold a legitimate interest in the loan
being without those original loan and assignment of interest documents, lenders have resorted to robo signings to give the appearance that they have the necessary documents, when in fact, they do not
that is fraud
that is what Occupy is objecting to
 
Catawba said:
Racist???? I made no such suggestion.

You said: "Ows is out of touch with mainstream America, their behavior shows it."

And I said,

"That's exact same thing that was said about the Civil Rights movement, and the Vietnam war protests at the time."

Where from that do you get I am implying you are a racist???

I am comparing one non-violent mass protests (OWS) with two other historic non-violent mass protests, the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War Protest.

How are comparing 3 historic non-violent mass protests implying that you are racist??? I assumed you were against the OWS protest because of the ultra conservative views you have presented, not because you were a racist.
Click to expand...

I said "Whether you intend to or not you are implying that I am an racist". The Civil Rights movement was all about racism, by comparing my views to the opposition of the Civil Rights movement that implicates me as an racist. And the internet is full of Liberals accusing Conservative's of being racists. It is like you are trying to pretend that reality does not exist just so you can claim that you didnt imply racism to discredit my assertions that you were unable to retort.

My views are in no way ultra Conservative. I think that you are getting confused and assume that just because I am opposed to the OWS movement that I must be an Conservative.
I already told you that I am not an Conservative, why fall back into the, if you are not with me than you must be one of them mantra? Am I supposed to bend my views now to avoid being labeled an Conservative by you?

I have not asserted any adherence to the status quo and I have spoke of corruption in our Government. My views on OWS are acquired from observing OWS as the information presents itself. The links that I have provided you are mostly in not all from sites claimed by OWS as their official sites. One could say that my view has progressively been shown to me by the protesters.

It is interesting though that you chose to call my views "ultra conservative". I believe that your observation is designed for conflict only. You obviously were getting no where with your case so time to regress into an ad hominem point of view that resides in the us and them theme of politics. It is the infighting between the Republicans and the Democrats that has worked rather well for corruption. OWS is not apart from this infighting, in fact much like the Tea Party is accelerating the conflict. OWS stands on Leftist status quo as their moral foundation. OWS leaves absolutely no room for anything but ideas from the Left (on many different levels). OWS is in fact Anti-Right and is not shy about asserting that the Right must leave American politics. Me recognizing those assertions does not make me on the Right.

I have been asking OWS supporters and all refuse to answer this question: 'What is plan of the occupy movement for what to do with all of the Americans who do not subscribe to Left leaning political philosophies?' Until someone from the occupy movement can answer that question honestly I will continue to think of OWS as an failed Leftist attempt at taking over the country. Of course if that supporter asserts that all Right leaning policies must end then my opinion will not have changed.

It would be extremely blind to try to to assert that OWS is not Left leaning in its entirety. Again OWS is not acting in the best interest of the 99% as they claim. OWS is acting in their best interest to universally ban anything leaning to the Right from this country. And if you believe that fighting for Constitutional rights is "ultra Conservative" then you are in store for some big disappointments. Dont ever underestimate the resolve of Americans, we will not go willing into Fascism no matter who is proposing it. OWS wants the left to be the only option forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.
 
justabubba said:
yes. the process of accepting an outstanding loan is by acquiring an assignment of interest. that assigns to the new lender the rights and responsibilities as has been established by the Note and other instruments of hypothecation for the loan. the old lender (normally) no longer has an interest once such assignment has been made. thus, the new lender would hold the loan documents and receive loan funds. it is when they do not make sure the trailing documents for that loan have been received that complications arise. without those loan documents they are unable to meet the provisions of the mortgage (deed of trust) which describes what must be evident to the court to prove they hold a legitimate interest in the loan
being without those original loan and assignment of interest documents, lenders have resorted to robo signings to give the appearance that they have the necessary documents, when in fact, they do not
that is fraud
that is what Occupy is objecting to
Click to expand...

And you base the suggestion that what you're saying, SPECIFICALLY, is the portion of the bank mortgage and forclosure issue that Occupy as a movmeent is objecting to off of.........?
 
Zyphlin said:
And you base the suggestion that what you're saying, SPECIFICALLY, is the portion of the bank mortgage and forclosure issue that Occupy as a movmeent is objecting to off of.........?
Click to expand...
let's examine the exact language of the Occupy declaration and see what you think:
They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
Click to expand...
 
justabubba said:
let's examine the exact language of the Occupy declaration and see what you think:
Click to expand...

Thanks. Good to see someone can actually point to something semi-official for once.

Are there any stats or information about how common this practice is, if any have been brought to court over it, etc?
 
Zyphlin said:
Thanks. Good to see someone can actually point to something semi-official for once.

Are there any stats or information about how common this practice is, if any have been brought to court over it, etc?
Click to expand...
not with any definity. here is an article which tells us how foreclosures have been throttled back substantially with FHA, due to the potential treble damages if the lenders were found using robo signed documents
More on the FHA: Robo-Signing’s Effect - Developments - WSJ
 
Thunder said:
um....

1/3 of Americans living in poverty?
Click to expand...
Government Can't Fix That!


the increasing gap between rich & poor?
Click to expand...
Government Can't Fix That!


the fact that the banks got massive bail-outs but have not returned to pre-Recession lending?
Click to expand...
I was able to get a home loan this year *shrug*

the Bush tax-cuts on the wealthy?
Click to expand...
How does this affect them exactly?

the fact that corporations have record profits but still ain't hiring?
Click to expand...
Its a corporations goal to make profits. If they can go with less people and make better profits, thats business.
Click to expand...
 
justabubba said:
each mortgage contract is a unique document
but it has been established that many lenders proceeded to foreclosure with loan documents that were fabricated to give the appearance the lender actually had an interest in the loan ... here is a cite describing such robo signings of illegitimate documents: Robo-Signing Redux: Servicers Still Fabricating Foreclosure Documents - American Banker Article
Click to expand...


I have a question, you seem to put all the blame on the banks ….. but didn't the home owner also sign a contract … and have a copy of it ? That should be easy to produce … as his/ her record of payments.


Personally I don't give a royal flying f**k who has an interest in the loan, once it has been documented that you have not made payments, then you have not upheld your side of the terms of the contract, and that house no longer belongs to you. If there is confusion as to who holds the note on the property fine .. let those parties fight it out. But if you as the property owner have not lived up to your obligations, then you have lost that home ..


you can try all you want to twist things around to suit your I hate the rich .. and I have no responsibility propaganda … the bottom line is really very simple . You make you payments you keep your home .. you don't make your payment you lose your home .
 
The Barbarian said:
I have a question, you seem to put all the blame on the banks ….. but didn't the home owner also sign a contract … and have a copy of it ? That should be easy to produce … as his/ her record of payments.


Personally I don't give a royal flying f**k who has an interest in the loan, once it has been documented that you have not made payments, then you have not upheld your side of the terms of the contract, and that house no longer belongs to you. If there is confusion as to who holds the note on the property fine .. let those parties fight it out. But if you as the property owner have not lived up to your obligations, then you have lost that home ..


you can try all you want to twist things around to suit your I hate the rich .. and I have no responsibility propaganda … the bottom line is really very simple . You make you payments you keep your home .. you don't make your payment you lose your home .
Click to expand...
your anger is misplaced
no one, especially not the Occupy folks, are saying that you should not be expected to pay your mortgage
what is being said is that government should quit letting the mortgage lender take shortcuts to commence foreclosure
when the lender can evidence default, and the documents required to prove the lender is entitled to sell the underlying collateral at foreclosure sale, then the lender can and should proceed
what should not happen is to allow some lender to sell your property thru foreclosure where that lender is unable to establish before the court, consistent with the Note and mortgage documents, that it possesses the Note and assignment of interest documents proving that bank is entitled to recover against the collateral
prudent lending requires mortgagees to have such documentation present in the event legal action must be taken against the mortgagor
but allowing robo documents to be used before the court, fraudulently "proving" the lender is the legitimate party to proceed with foreclosure sale is something which should not be allowed to happen. the lender should not be allowed to fabricate its "evidence"
that is Occupy's objection. seems more than reasonable
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom