• 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!

A Victory for the 99%: Police Refuse to Evict 103 Year Old Woman

99% is part of OWS. I typed a response with links to prove this point however it was held for moderation for some reason and has not appeared since :(. Anyway, a quick google search will confirm this.
 
Bitter much?

Not bitter at all. Trust me, I never had any interest in being a Wesylanite or having anything to do with those people. I have very little use for people who have no concept of personal responsibility; especially when it comes to money.
 
Not bitter at all. Trust me, I never had any interest in being a Wesylanite or having anything to do with those people.


Man, those grapes are sour...


I have very little use for people who have no concept of personal responsibility; especially when it comes to money.


Wall Street.

AIG.

GM.

...you know, the 1%....
 
A Victory for the 99%: Police Refuse to Evict 103 Year Old Woman (VIDEO) | Addicting Info

A Victory for the 99%: Police Refuse to Evict 103 Year Old Woman (VIDEO)
November 30, 2011
By Mitchell S. Gilbert

In these difficult economic times, it’s certainly not news to hear of banks evicting people who can’t pay their mortgages. But Deutsche Bank in Atlanta never imagined that the local police and the mover they hired would ever refuse to honor one of their eviction notices.

Yesterday, when police arrived at the home of 103 year old Vita Lee and her 83-year-old daughter, they took one look at the elderly women and simply said, “no way.” Unfortunately, just the sight of the police and movers was a bit too much for Vita’s daughter who was rushed to the hospital.


As the police prepared to leave her home of 53 years, Vita declared: “Please don’t come in and disturb me no more. When I’m gone you all can come back and do whatever they want to.”

Here’s the video:

[video]http://bcove.me/z1nszes1[/video]


I don't think I could have done it either. Law, schmaw, there are some things you just don't do.

I don't see where this has jack **** to do with OWS/"99%" BS though.
 
Wall Street. AIG. GM. ...you know, the 1%....

I agree with you that these business' shouldn't have been bailed out any more than the average citizen should be. You will get no arguement from me on that topic.
 
here's a link to their demands (for some reason, i couldn't get the image to post here) : Occupy Wall Street Proposed List Of Demands

one of the most important demands seems to be the call to reinstate the glass-steagall act and re-regulate the banks.

Perhaps you would like to reconsider this link. It refers to Forum Post: Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! | OccupyWallSt.org which starts off with this:

"Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands."

As I said...how can I know what they want when they don't know themselves what they want?
 
Communities need to handle this sort of thing better.

My Dad owned three old "mill houses" (small frame houses built in the 1930's) that he rented out cheap, just down the road a bit. There was a little old lady I called "Aunt Ola" all my life (though she wasn't actually kin) who rented one from him. She was a widow lady with basically no family who lived on Social Security... she was probably pushing seventy when she rented the place, somewhere around 1969.

As the 1970's went by, he raised the rents on the two houses on either side of her. He kept her rent the same as the day she'd moved in, and really it had been little more than "token rent" even then.

If I remember rightly, he charged her $30 a month. It wasn't much of a house, but he was getting more like $120 a month from the other two houses when she passed away in 1982. (They'd probably cost you $400 a month now.) We'd go and visit her sometimes just to keep her company; take her some food on Thanksgiving and things like that. They used to send me up the road to collect her rent from when I was probably 10, because she liked children and enjoyed seeing me. When I was 15, I asked my parents how she was related to us and they told me "she isn't, we just told you to call her Aunt Ola when you were little, because she likes to think we're like family." I asked my Dad "why do we take care of her and barely even charge her rent, if she isn't a relative?"

He said "Because she's a widow woman with no family, and it's the right thing to do."

Being an inquisitive child, I asked another question: "Why charge her rent at all then? We don't need her thirty dollars a month, do we?"

My Dad, a wise man, said "Because she likes to feel that she is paying her own way, it helps her to keep her dignity." He went on to explain that he'd told her once that if she was short of money she didn't need to pay him, but she'd insisted on it and said "I pay my bills!"

It's a pity things can't be more like that these days.
 
Communities need to handle this sort of thing better.

My Dad owned three old "mill houses" (small frame houses built in the 1930's) that he rented out cheap, just down the road a bit. There was a little old lady I called "Aunt Ola" all my life (though she wasn't actually kin) who rented one from him. She was a widow lady with basically no family who lived on Social Security... she was probably pushing seventy when she rented the place, somewhere around 1969.

As the 1970's went by, he raised the rents on the two houses on either side of her. He kept her rent the same as the day she'd moved in, and really it had been little more than "token rent" even then.

If I remember rightly, he charged her $30 a month. It wasn't much of a house, but he was getting more like $120 a month from the other two houses when she passed away in 1982. (They'd probably cost you $400 a month now.) We'd go and visit her sometimes just to keep her company; take her some food on Thanksgiving and things like that. They used to send me up the road to collect her rent from when I was probably 10, because she liked children and enjoyed seeing me. When I was 15, I asked my parents how she was related to us and they told me "she isn't, we just told you to call her Aunt Ola when you were little, because she likes to think we're like family." I asked my Dad "why do we take care of her and barely even charge her rent, if she isn't a relative?"

He said "Because she's a widow woman with no family, and it's the right thing to do."

Being an inquisitive child, I asked another question: "Why charge her rent at all then? We don't need her thirty dollars a month, do we?"

My Dad, a wise man, said "Because she likes to feel that she is paying her own way, it helps her to keep her dignity." He went on to explain that he'd told her once that if she was short of money she didn't need to pay him, but she'd insisted on it and said "I pay my bills!"

It's a pity things can't be more like that these days.

If I could'a hit "like" twice on this one I would've. I've heard this kind of story many times - past and present. And, yes, I've heard of REO managers at banks who didn't evict people, too. I know a story about a guy who's mom put her house in his name "for planning reasons". Then, he mortgaged it and didn't make the payments for long. When the bank showed up, the mom didn't have any idea what was going on. The bank arranged for a low sale to an investor who gave her a life estate.

This was a fairly sizeable bank with a very active local presence. But, government regulations won't really allow this at all (exceptions are not planned for by Big Gov't). And, the government is who's told us that "everyone" should own a home. A good landlord knows that a tenant who has stayed with him for a long time is a valueable asset at any rent. And, often, a good tenant and landlord will build a relationship that's mutually beneficial to each other.

There are crummy landlords, crummy tenants, crummy lenders, and crummy borrowers - afterall, they're all made of people. But, there are many good ones, too, just like those you described.

The further removed a decision maker is from a situation, the less of a relationship is built and the less the give-and-take exists. It reminds me of the employee/employer relationship issues now compared to 50 years ago. Of course, those most removed from all normal situations are those in Washington DC.
 
If I could'a hit "like" twice on this one I would've. I've heard this kind of story many times - past and present. And, yes, I've heard of REO managers at banks who didn't evict people, too. I know a story about a guy who's mom put her house in his name "for planning reasons". Then, he mortgaged it and didn't make the payments for long. When the bank showed up, the mom didn't have any idea what was going on. The bank arranged for a low sale to an investor who gave her a life estate.

This was a fairly sizeable bank with a very active local presence. But, government regulations won't really allow this at all (exceptions are not planned for by Big Gov't). And, the government is who's told us that "everyone" should own a home. A good landlord knows that a tenant who has stayed with him for a long time is a valueable asset at any rent. And, often, a good tenant and landlord will build a relationship that's mutually beneficial to each other.

There are crummy landlords, crummy tenants, crummy lenders, and crummy borrowers - afterall, they're all made of people. But, there are many good ones, too, just like those you described.

The further removed a decision maker is from a situation, the less of a relationship is built and the less the give-and-take exists. It reminds me of the employee/employer relationship issues now compared to 50 years ago. Of course, those most removed from all normal situations are those in Washington DC.


Extremely well-said, kudos.

Forty years ago, it was a lot more likely that those who made financial decisions that affected you (mortgage/landlord, employer) were people who had at least met you face-to-face and had that "proof" of you as a real person in their mind. Nowadays most of the people making those decisions see you as an account number on a long spreadsheet with hundreds of similar account numbers, not as a person... no shock we've lost some of our humanity in how we treat people accordingly.
 
The title says 99%, not OWS, I don't think they are synonymous.

There is no reason to use the 99% gag without referring to the OWS.
 
Communities need to handle this sort of thing better.

My Dad owned three old "mill houses" (small frame houses built in the 1930's) that he rented out cheap, just down the road a bit. There was a little old lady I called "Aunt Ola" all my life (though she wasn't actually kin) who rented one from him. She was a widow lady with basically no family who lived on Social Security... she was probably pushing seventy when she rented the place, somewhere around 1969.

As the 1970's went by, he raised the rents on the two houses on either side of her. He kept her rent the same as the day she'd moved in, and really it had been little more than "token rent" even then.

If I remember rightly, he charged her $30 a month. It wasn't much of a house, but he was getting more like $120 a month from the other two houses when she passed away in 1982. (They'd probably cost you $400 a month now.) We'd go and visit her sometimes just to keep her company; take her some food on Thanksgiving and things like that. They used to send me up the road to collect her rent from when I was probably 10, because she liked children and enjoyed seeing me. When I was 15, I asked my parents how she was related to us and they told me "she isn't, we just told you to call her Aunt Ola when you were little, because she likes to think we're like family." I asked my Dad "why do we take care of her and barely even charge her rent, if she isn't a relative?"

He said "Because she's a widow woman with no family, and it's the right thing to do."

Being an inquisitive child, I asked another question: "Why charge her rent at all then? We don't need her thirty dollars a month, do we?"

My Dad, a wise man, said "Because she likes to feel that she is paying her own way, it helps her to keep her dignity." He went on to explain that he'd told her once that if she was short of money she didn't need to pay him, but she'd insisted on it and said "I pay my bills!"

It's a pity things can't be more like that these days.

Nice story. I think everyone should pay something - even income taxes no exception, no exemptions. Anyone with income. It might be a pitance for the poor but if any income, something should be paid so everyone contributes. A minimum no-exemptions certainly for those not poor too.

I think only the media has convinced us that common decency is vanishing.

As for some who comment on this thread, the far far right wing and far far left wing sometimes become so lost in platitudes that they become amoral (as opposed to immoral) people. They no longer possess morality, only platitudes and slogans that can lead to indecency - calling it "principle."
 
Nice story. I think everyone should pay something - even income taxes no exception, no exemptions. Anyone with income. It might be a pitance for the poor but if any income, something should be paid so everyone contributes. A minimum no-exemptions certainly for those not poor too.

I think only the media has convinced us that common decency is vanishing.

As for some who comment on this thread, the far far right wing and far far left wing sometimes become so lost in platitudes that they become amoral (as opposed to immoral) people. They no longer possess morality, only platitudes and slogans that can lead to indecency - calling it "principle."


Another way of putting it might be this: Sometimes we put "principle" (or ideology) so high up on a pedestal we forget that real people are involved and lose our humanity towards our neighbors.
 
Last edited:
Communities need to handle this sort of thing better.

My Dad owned three old "mill houses" (small frame houses built in the 1930's) that he rented out cheap, just down the road a bit. There was a little old lady I called "Aunt Ola" all my life (though she wasn't actually kin) who rented one from him. She was a widow lady with basically no family who lived on Social Security... she was probably pushing seventy when she rented the place, somewhere around 1969.

As the 1970's went by, he raised the rents on the two houses on either side of her. He kept her rent the same as the day she'd moved in, and really it had been little more than "token rent" even then.

If I remember rightly, he charged her $30 a month. It wasn't much of a house, but he was getting more like $120 a month from the other two houses when she passed away in 1982. (They'd probably cost you $400 a month now.) We'd go and visit her sometimes just to keep her company; take her some food on Thanksgiving and things like that. They used to send me up the road to collect her rent from when I was probably 10, because she liked children and enjoyed seeing me. When I was 15, I asked my parents how she was related to us and they told me "she isn't, we just told you to call her Aunt Ola when you were little, because she likes to think we're like family." I asked my Dad "why do we take care of her and barely even charge her rent, if she isn't a relative?"

He said "Because she's a widow woman with no family, and it's the right thing to do."

Being an inquisitive child, I asked another question: "Why charge her rent at all then? We don't need her thirty dollars a month, do we?"

My Dad, a wise man, said "Because she likes to feel that she is paying her own way, it helps her to keep her dignity." He went on to explain that he'd told her once that if she was short of money she didn't need to pay him, but she'd insisted on it and said "I pay my bills!"

It's a pity things can't be more like that these days.

This made me tear up a bit. I have family on my mothers side that lived in some of those mill houses and one uncle still lives in what used to be my grandfathers "mill" house.
 
This still doesn't explain how it's a "victory" for the OWS.
 
This is a vicotry for OWS? This is absolutely some of the worst political garbage I've ever seen. Trying to link a normal eviction to OWS is just plain stupidity. There's no proof that they had any influence.
It's just that the police was kind.

I didn't make the OWS link, nor is it a victory for them... The thread's title just says it's about the 99%, OWS is a movement representing 99% of the population based on their income. This woman is obviously part of the 99% and not part of the 1%
 
There is no reason to use the 99% gag without referring to the OWS.

That's not a fair assessment, the phrase 99% has been around a lot longer than OWS. People are going to talk about the 99% and the 1% in political circles and debates as always. Let's not try to make mentioning the 99% a taboo.... mmmkay
 
I think you guys are confusing 99% with OWS...
You are saying the "99%" and the OWS are seperate groups? It would seem people who are against the OWS/99% movement are being deemed a part of it against their wills.
 
Back
Top Bottom