it's pretty excessive for cock-fighting too, in all honesty.

But yeah, my gripe is that failure to disperse is handled in the same line as failure to disperse a riot. Especially when other misdemeanors have about a $100 charge with them. Seems excessive. And the definition of a riot seems pretty suspect. And of course, there's also the issue of some of them being held for a few days while being processed.



[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 11:02 PM. Reason : ]

12/6/2011 10:59:49 PM

^again, do we have documented proof that they indeed used this 'disperse from a riot' charge in these cases?

or are you assuming based on our tww-research of an LA county PDF that we have 100% identified the charge

that's still an assumption at this point until we have evidence of the actual charge and not just a media report or 'tww research'

12/7/2011 8:12:41 AM

^^, ^^^

Yeah, a lot of those amounts seem pretty insane. I couldn't find any statutory amounts for NC (apparently bail is always at the discretion of the judge), but some counties have guidelines. In one case, I found that Alamance county recommends that bail for a Class 2 Misdemeanor (failure to disperse) be capped at $500, with the judge capable of going above or below that amount as they see fit.

That said, I imagine that bail amount for such a charge in LA is based more on the fact that LA has a history of rioting (real honest to god riots) and that when someone is charged under 409, they're charged with failure to disperse from a riot, not failure to disperse from an unlawful gathering.

There's also the fact I assume that there is a lot more money flowing about LA than NC so some of the bail amounts are probably set as high as they are because of that.

^ Until evidence surfaces to the contrary, or you find another failure to disperse charge in the statutes, it's a reasonable assumption that the charge listed in the paper is the charge we found, and the charge they faced. But both you and JHC seem really hung up on the word riot. The law, as I have said before, covers more than just riots.

12/7/2011 9:45:10 AM

^yeh i'm basically rhetorically asking him that because he's being purposefully ignorant of your statement that the charge covers all unlawful assembly including riots.


he doesn't like that OWS is technically defined as a riot and therefore mentally clears these criminals of their charge since he doesn't agree with the definition of 'riot' in LA, and therefore keeps prodding the term.

12/7/2011 10:44:49 AM

haha some protesters are starting to use this as an opportunity to pass out resumes-

some are getting employed ON WALL STREET while their compatriots call them traitors and sellouts.

but i thought getting jobs was one of their objectives?

what a bunch of clueless goons- kudos to those who used this as a springboard though.





(HLN is really enjoying this story today- made better with robin meade's chest)

12/7/2011 11:05:32 AM

Occupy our Homes is awesome! After all the people who took on huge mortgages (that banks WERE being predatory about as well) on tiny salaries should be absolved from their stupidity completely!!

12/7/2011 1:29:29 PM

^^ Many occupiers do have jobs already. Sure there is a general goal of increasing employment overall, but working for the scum that created the mess we are in is tough for some to swallow.

12/7/2011 1:49:21 PM

so who replaces the scum?

12/7/2011 2:08:32 PM

Quote :

"That said, I imagine that bail amount for such a charge in LA is based more on the fact that LA has a history of rioting (real honest to god riots) and that when someone is charged under 409, they're charged with failure to disperse from a riot, not failure to disperse from an unlawful gathering."

I get that. I previously thought that a simple "failure to disperse" charge would have been different from a "failure to disperse from riot" charge. Knowing that they're likely the same changes things. But the definition of riot seems to be thrown around pretty loosely here, and that's not really fair. You could classify every NC State tailgate as a riot as surely there are enough drunk asses causing a minimal amount of damage to meet the standard (what was it, doing something lawful boisterously?). That's pretty bogus, if you ask me. The law is designed to suppress assemblies.

Quote :

"Occupy our Homes is awesome! After all the people who took on huge mortgages (that banks WERE being predatory about as well) on tiny salaries should be absolved from their stupidity completely!!"

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/01/379332/former-banker-subprime-pushed/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-02/angelo-mozilo-settles-lending-suit-for-6-5-million.html

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2009/06/08/172810/wells-fargo-subprime-bank/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/foreclosure-plan-obama-harp-refinancing_n_1028554.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/opinion/kristof-a-banker-speaks-with-regret.html?_r=2

Ever go into a sports talk thread and think, "goddamn, this dude doesn't know enough to be entitled to his opinion? Why does he keep holding on to his opinion when there's a mountain of evidence in front of him showing the opposite?" I find it funny that you threw in the predatory lending qualifier, and still somehow think the brunt of the burden should be placed on the borrower who more than likely wasn't versed enough in the complex mortgage language. The snake oil salesmen who sold it to them, though, they're just shrewd businessmen and shouldn't be punished for their success.





[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 3:34 PM. Reason : ]

12/7/2011 3:06:08 PM

thinkprogress / huffingtonpost / nytimes / russian tv seem to be your main news outlets.

<pass>

this is like me refusing to read anything but drudge report for 100% of my news sources.

12/7/2011 4:28:30 PM

We will probably never know how many of those foreclosure documents are fraudulent either

http://news.yahoo.com/robo-signed-mortgage-docs-date-back-1990s-213439564.html

Quote :

""Because of these bad titles, property owners can't prove they own the properties they think they bought, and banks can't prove they had the right to sell them," says Jeff Thigpen, the registrar of deeds in Guilford County, N.C. In Guilford County, where Greensboro is located, a sample of 6,100 mortgage documents filed since 2006 turned up 74 percent with questionable signatures. Thigpen says his office received 456 more documents with suspect signatures from Oct. 1 through June 30. "

http://www.businessinsider.com/mers-bank-fraud-massachusetts-2011-7?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29

Quote :

"O'Brien figures his town lost as much as $22 million in revenue since 1998. To get some of it back he commissioned an audit of 2010 mortgage assignments. -16% of the assignments were valid, 75% were invalid, and 9% were deemed questionable. -Of those that are invalid, 27% were fraudulent, 35% showed evidence of robo-signing, and 10% violated the Massachusetts Mortgage Fraud Statute. -The proper owner of the mortgages could only be determined 60% of the time. "

[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 4:34 PM. Reason : In an ideal world you wouldn't be able to foreclose on someone unless you had legal paperwork]

[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 4:35 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2011 4:30:16 PM

christ almighty

12/7/2011 4:42:18 PM

Quote :

"thinkprogress / huffingtonpost / nytimes / russian tv seem to be your main news outlets."

Don't forget Al Jazeera. They usually have the best work.

You know, I normally don't even bother responding to you, but here you go: Sanitized and watered down reports of the same information by news outlets you probably love.


http://online.wsj.com/article/AP71445dcd6ec545298f1e379d646c14f5.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/15/countrywide-founder-tries-settle-sec-charges/

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/07/20/fed-hits-wells-fargo-with-85-million-mortgage-penalty/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-02/angelo-mozilo-settles-lending-suit-for-6-5-million.html



And it's a shame you didn't bother reading any of the previous links. The Huffpo piece was pretty critical of Obama. You would have loved that.







[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 5:59 PM. Reason : ]

12/7/2011 5:39:23 PM

Quote :

"I find it funny that you threw in the predatory lending qualifier, and still somehow think the brunt of the burden should be placed on the borrower who more than likely wasn't versed enough in the complex mortgage language. The snake oil salesmen who sold it to them, though, they're just shrewd businessmen and shouldn't be punished for their success."

I don't think that at all. Anyone who engaged in fraudulent activity should be punished accordingly and that goes for all levels of the infrastructure. It's obviously a different ballgame for those who were misled illegally compared to those who were just too stupid to realize they couldn't afford their mortgage.

I'm simply saying that far too often people within this movement and in general overlook the fact that there are two parties agreeing to these ludicrous mortgages. It doesn't take a doctorate or even a high school diploma to realize that you shouldn't be taking out a $500k sub-prime mortgage on a $30k a year salary. It's just stupidity and it doesn't matter if some "snake oil salesman" is going to essentially be a loan-shark for you.

12/7/2011 6:08:49 PM

You're right. The business savvy banker who gave a mortgage to the bus driver on a fixed income had absolutely ZERO fiduciary responsibility to disclose the details of the mortgage. Why do that, when he can just turn around, bet against the borrower, and cash-in with his insider information when he knows that person will be unable to make the payment.

Oh, and if they're poor, illiterate, and foreign and can be convinced to take a sub-prime loan even when they qualified for better loan, fuck 'em, more money for the banks.

[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 6:31 PM. Reason : ]

12/7/2011 6:15:34 PM

Can you tell me which of these banks gave out subprime loans and then "bet against the borrowers" as you put it? Selling securitized mortgages to investors is not the same as betting against them. In fact, the lenders were probably the hardest hit when the bottom fell out (followed closely by the Wall Street banks which bought the toxic mortgages), since they couldn't unload their current balance of CDOs and had to write them off.

[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 9:28 PM. Reason : 2]

12/7/2011 9:09:21 PM

fair point. The lenders sold off the mortgages to wall st, who then sold them and bet against them (or, that's my understanding). But some of the original lenders, like Wells Fargo were bailed out, so they didn't really get hit when the bottom fell out. In fact, some were rewarded for their predatory lending.


So when NyM says:

Quote :

" I'm simply saying that far too often people within this movement and in general overlook the fact that there are two parties agreeing to these ludicrous mortgages. It doesn't take a doctorate or even a high school diploma to realize that you shouldn't be taking out a $500k sub-prime mortgage on a $30k a year salary. It's just stupidity and it doesn't matter if some "snake oil salesman" is going to essentially be a loan-shark for you."

It should be met with criticism. The idea that low-income, often minority and/or uneducated borrowers are as much to blame as a financial system that rewarded predatory lending is pretty lame. Were there people who took out loans that they knew they couldn't afford? I'm sure there were. But the articles linked document what seems to be a systemic acceptance and encouragement of predatory lending with CEOs and higher ups being aware of the practices going on and turning the other cheek. Not only that, but there's documented instances of people pushing borrowers into riskier, sub-prime loans (even though they qualified for less risky loans) because it was more profitable to exploit them. So I don't understand why he suggests that all sides should be blamed equally, when it's pretty clear that one side was far more guilty of fraud than the other side was guilty of stupidity.



[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 10:05 PM. Reason : ]

12/7/2011 9:56:18 PM

so can anybody tell me if OWS has yet to make an ultimate goal?

why don't they fight against fracking or something. i'd join them then. but no. they have to keep begging for entitlements, and free shit that backfires in your face.

hell, tell them to argue your points on here JHC. you're finally starting to make some sense. tell your buddies on the streets to follow suit and you might make it worth your while. no lie.

12/7/2011 11:21:38 PM

As long as OWS keeps away from associating with the left then it is a very productive movement.

The minute they get behind the evil Obama empire they will die immediately because no one will take them seriously anymore.

I'm amazed that people actually think these riots will fizzle out quickly. This is only the beginning. I have no idea if OWS will be what we're talking about a few years from now. My guess would be that they fall in line with the democrats in 2012 and that after that we never hear from them again.

But they will be replaced by something much stronger. It's hard to start a sustainable movement, but it's much harder to kill it.

I don't think the American people will tolerate a lot of police brutality or assassinations, honestly.

12/8/2011 12:21:01 AM

If OWS dropped all of the leftist hippy horseshit and focused strictly on undue and dirty corporate influence in Washington, and framed the argument at least from time to time as a promotion of capitalism in the sense that it would free the markets to work properly, as opposed to the crony capitalism often in place now, then I think they would gain a lot more traction by picking up support across most of the political spectrum.

The problem is that's not what OWS is really about, despite what some of its supporters claim. It's a populist, far-leftist movement that happens to prominently be focused on one or two legitimate points (that they then approach in entirely the wrong way).


(I mean, I'm sure there are some individual OWS people who are more or less what I describe in the first paragraph...I'm talking about the problems of the broader, collective group.)

12/8/2011 12:40:29 AM

Quote :

"If OWS dropped all of the leftist hippy horseshit and focused strictly on undue and dirty corporate influence in Washington, and framed the argument at least from time to time as a promotion of capitalism in the sense that it would free the markets to work properly, as opposed to the crony capitalism often in place now, then I think they would gain a lot more traction by picking up support across most of the political spectrum."

yeah so this has been a large thread in the movement since the beginning, and if you're unaware of that then your picture has been distorted by the media

Quote :

"(I mean, I'm sure there are some individual OWS people who are more or less what I describe in the first paragraph...I'm talking about the problems of the broader, collective group.)"

Plenty of libertarians, anarchists, and people who have no idea what the fuck they are too. Simply identifying it as "leftist" because there are unions and SDS involved seems overboard. Unions operate (for laborers) internal to capitalism; I doubt you'll see a lot of them look to overthrow the system that legitimizes them.

[Edited on December 8, 2011 at 8:17 AM. Reason : .]

12/8/2011 8:14:23 AM

Good thing the NCSU school of management students applauded Wachovia when John Stumpf spoke:

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/business/wachovia-to-pay-5875-million-in-settlement

Wachovia Bank, now Wells Fargo, will pay $58.75 million to North Carolina and 25 other states as part of a multistate settlement for its part in a bid rigging scheme that defrauded local governments, hospitals and schools, Attorney General Roy Cooper said Thursday.

The settlement resolves allegations that Wachovia defrauded cities and counties, schools, colleges, hospitals and other entities that purchased a type of investment through the bank called municipal bond derivatives.

Wachovia will pay $54.5 million in restitution to affected municipalities, school districts and not-for-profit organizations. In addition, the bank will pay a $1.25 million civil penalty and $3 million for fees and costs of the investigation to the settling states.

Under the settlement, governments and non-profits that were affected by the scheme will get money back, including Barton College, Blue Ridge Health System, the City of Charlotte, Dare County, Orange County, Cumberland County, Fayetteville Memorial Hospital, the Goldsboro Housing Authority and the RDU Airport Authority.

The states’ settlement is part of a global settlement worth $148 million that Wachovia is entering into with the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Internal Revenue Service, according the state's AG's office.

Read more: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/business/wachovia-to-pay-5875-million-in-settlement#ixzz1fyHRkHXr

[Edited on December 8, 2011 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

12/8/2011 2:01:26 PM

This probably deserves it's own thread, but what a completely and totally fucked statistic.

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/29/2012_gop_money/

Quote :

"More than 80 percent of giving to Super PACs so far has come from just 58 donors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics analysis of the latest data, which covers the first half of 2011. The Republican groups have raised $17.6 million and the Democratic groups $7.6 million. Those numbers will balloon, with American Crossroads, the main Republican Super PAC, aiming to raise $240 million.)"

Democracy = the richer you are, the more your vote counts.

12/14/2011 1:23:40 PM

I was on a job site yesterday and a homeless guy that we'd previously paid to do odd jobs walked by.

He said that he'd been camping out with Occupy Raleigh.

12/14/2011 1:27:17 PM

Quote :

"As long as OWS keeps away from associating with the left then it is a very productive movement."

let me know when that happens.

Quote :

"Democracy = the richer you are, the more your vote counts."

you forgot something:
Rich = the smarter you are, the more rich you become, therefore (there are outliers just like in everything but this holds true far more than not)




[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 2:19 PM. Reason : ,]

12/14/2011 2:16:54 PM

is OWS still going on?

12/14/2011 2:48:42 PM

Quote :

"Rich = the smarter you are, the more rich you become, therefore (there are outliers just like in everything but this holds true far more than not)"

So what? Even if this were as true as you think, we're supposed to live in a Democratic Republic, not a Technocracy. Being smarter does not mean your vote should count more, smart people disagree on politics just as much as dumb people anyway.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 3:40 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 3:38:38 PM

So the only way to satisfy you is to have a society without money.

I don't see any other way to solve the fundamental problem you present. It takes energy and knowledge and power(aka work?) to become president. (Just like any other job???)

We just transfer resources and knowledge through credits called 'money'.

12/14/2011 4:05:07 PM

Quote :

"Democracy = the richer you are, the more your vote counts."

I was not aware that votes were tallied with regard to income. surely you have evidence for this. or you'll just admit that this is occupy dumbass rhetoric with no actual basis.

12/14/2011 10:02:45 PM

"remember when that one democrat was paid out to vote for the oil pipeline since the oil company offered him and his family so much money?"

just an example. but shit. if this is happening.... we need to research the fucks we are voting into office and not just vote in some schmuck who will sell his soul and the nations for a few bucks for him and his family

12/14/2011 11:54:25 PM

Quote :

"Democracy = the richer you are, the more your vote counts."

12/14/2011 11:56:55 PM

Quote :

"So the only way to satisfy you is to have a society without money."

No, I could as easily be satisfied by publicly funded elections, or perhaps bans on corporate money in campaigns, plus limits on individual contributions.

Quote :

"I don't see any other way to solve the fundamental problem you present."

That's because you have a small and uncreative mind.

Quote :

" It takes energy and knowledge and power(aka work?) to become president. (Just like any other job???). We just transfer resources and knowledge through credits called 'money'."

So you're actively promoting literal rule by the rich at this point? Don't you there's a bit of conflict of interest there, when the richest members of a (supposedly meritocratic) society set the rules for that society? You don't think that might distort things a bit, like letting the person with the largest empire in Risk control the rules for getting armies each turn?

Quote :

"I was not aware that votes were tallied with regard to income. surely you have evidence for this. or you'll just admit that this is occupy dumbass rhetoric with no actual basis."

Comon, you're not this stupid. Why do you think campaigns would spend so much time raising money if it didn't have a drastic influence on the election outcome? Maybe they just like having nice things while campaigning?

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 10:13 AM. Reason : .]

12/15/2011 10:13:10 AM

hey str8foolish... lets do an experiment... i like xbox. pretend like you like playstation str8 and hate xbox, and let's just replace nouns and have a lexical party lol.



QED: if you don't 100% agree with str8foolish he resorts to simple childish insults. i guess that's because of his extreme confidence on the issues. lol

12/15/2011 10:16:23 AM

A bloo blooo blooooooooooooooo ;_;

12/15/2011 10:39:00 AM

Need a reason for the existence of Occupy?

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/12/fbi-estimates-80-of-mortgage-fraud-involved-industry-insiders/

12/15/2011 11:39:23 AM

That the managers decided to cut the fraud detection budget is grounds to fire them, but is not fraud by itself. The federal government cuts its own medicare fraud detection department on occasion, should members of congress be arrested?

12/15/2011 11:46:12 AM

and what if fraudulent lending was a part of the business plan?

12/15/2011 11:53:27 AM

Then arrest and charge with fraud.

12/15/2011 1:24:49 PM

and wouldn't you agree that, given the 80% figure in the link above, as well as the links I posted a few posts above (75% of mortgages on the books were fraudulent/invalid) that the Department of Justice should be peeling back the facade of every major bank in the US, most especially those that received bailout funds? Shouldn't we be hiring more investigators to comb through every transaction since the mid-90's? Its unfortunate that this is not how our system works.

Instead the SEC tiptoes around and sometimes slaps people on the wrist. It handed out one of its largest fines ever to wachovia/wells fargo, but most of the analysis I've seen put wells fargo still making 3x the settlement amount from their dealings.

Two things:

-This is basically Obama's Iraq war moment IMO; atleast until the DOJ gets off its fat ass and actually attempts to bring evidence against someone (I realize they've tried to prosecute one person so far, but thats laughable). Its a concious decision by his administration to only use the SEC (which has no bite, business as usual etc) instead of sending some of these crooks to jail. So why in the hell are people that are anti-obama at nearly every turn not bringing this up constantly, but are instead all "nothing to see here, just a few bad apples"? Is it because they are more pro-business than anti-obama? A hard choice to make, for sure

-Can we finally admit that atleast some (if not a majority) of the responsibility for the crisis belongs to the banks? Its becoming increasingly obvious that there were huge incentives for them to extend shitty loans (both incentives for executives and the mortgage industry in general). eyewall41's link says it more eloquently then I:

Quote :

"Liar’s loans were done for the usual reason – they optimized (fictional) short-term accounting income by creating a “sure thing” (Akerlof & Romer 1993). A fraudulent lender optimizes short-term fictional accounting income and longer term (real) losses by following a four-part recipe: A. Extreme Growth B. Making bad loans at a premium yield C. Extreme leverage D. Grossly inadequate loss reserves Note that this same recipe maximizes fictional profits and real losses. This destroys the lender, but it makes senior officers that control the lender wealthy. This explains Akerlof & Romer’s title – Looting: The Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit. The failure of the firm is not a failure of the fraud scheme. (Modern bailouts may even recapitalize the looted bank and leave the looters in charge of it.) The first two “ingredients” are related. Home lending is a mature, reasonably competitive industry. A lender cannot grow extremely rapidly by making good loans. If he tried, he’d have to cut his yield and his competitors would respond. His income would decline. But he can guarantee the ability to grow extremely rapidly by being indifferent to loan quality and charging weaker credit risks, or more naïve borrowers, a premium yield. "

12/15/2011 3:06:20 PM

Quote :

"the Department of Justice should be peeling back the facade of every major bank in the US, most especially those that received bailout funds? "

Nah, the real threat to this country is terrorism. So instead of going after financial crooks, we should be allocating those resources to defense so that we can wiretap citizens without a warrant, suspend habeus corpus, and indefinitely detain American citizens.

12/15/2011 3:45:47 PM

Quote :

"Comon, you're not this stupid. Why do you think campaigns would spend so much time raising money if it didn't have a drastic influence on the election outcome? "

That's entirely different than saying that the weight of a person's vote being proportional to his income is codified into law.

Quote :

"Can we finally admit that atleast some (if not a majority) of the responsibility for the crisis belongs to the banks? Its becoming increasingly obvious that there were huge incentives for them to extend shitty loans (both incentives for executives and the mortgage industry in general)."

I'll happily admit that some of the responsibility lies on banks extending loans to people who couldn't afford the loans, across all income spectrums. But, I'm not willing to say that the blame lies solely or even mostly with the banks. Their behaviour was influenced by gov't action on several fronts.

12/15/2011 4:36:59 PM

Quote :

"and what if fraudulent lending was a part of the business plan?"

An interesting question. I would draw the line at the initiation of the event. If I don't care if my insured car is stolen so I go to a friends house in a bad neighborhood every-night for dinner and someone steals my car, I have committed no fraud. However, if I want the car stolen and purposefully leave it in a neighborhood I have no justification for being in, then I have defrauded my insurance company. However, we need to draw the metaphor a little differently. Let us say the car had no insurance and I dumped it in a bad neighborhood to be stolen. Has a fraud been committed? Could the car thief really sue me for this?

Here, the lenders did not initiate the mortgage, the lying borrower initiated it. All the lenders did was not thoroughly check the application for fraud, something they have no legal obligation to do, just as I have no legal obligation to keep my car away from dangerous neighborhood. Even if this did rise to the level of fraud, it would certainly NOT be a fraud against the lying borrower, but a fraud against the lender's creditors which got bailed out and therefore didn't lose a penny.

No matter how you look at it, no crime was committed here. Lots of bad behavior is perfectly legal. We usually fix this by letting people suffer the financial effects of bad financial behavior. The bailouts have prevented this.

12/15/2011 4:53:19 PM

Quote :

"is OWS still going on?"

Occupy Oakland is supposedly shutting down the west coast ports a week from today.

Quote :

"Need a reason for the existence of Occupy? http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/12/fbi-estimates-80-of-mortgage-fraud-involved-industry-insiders/"

That led me to find this video of William K. Black speaking at Occupy L.A.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_AuvLTJNh0

12/15/2011 5:42:06 PM

Quote :

"Here, the lenders did not initiate the mortgage, the lying borrower initiated it. All the lenders did was not thoroughly check the application for fraud, something they have no legal obligation to do, just as I have no legal obligation to keep my car away from dangerous neighborhood."

What if the lender was coaching the borrower to lie or went behind the borrower and falsified their claims so that they knew the loan would go through? What if the lender falsified W-2s and lease agreements and supervisors/district managers actively encouraged that behaviour while whistleblowers were canned? Then investors were misled by company executives on how risky the loans were? Those are all accusations that were leveled against Countrywide in 2008 and a lot of those cases have already been settled (with the SEC, not the DOJ).

Does anyone really think countrywide was the only company that participated in that kind of behaviour? I think if someone went looking, they would find this was pretty rampant at all the big banks.

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 5:55 PM. Reason : ^good link]

12/15/2011 5:51:53 PM

Quote :

"Here, the lenders did not initiate the mortgage, the lying borrower initiated it. All the lenders did was not thoroughly check the application for fraud, something they have no legal obligation to do, just as I have no legal obligation to keep my car away from dangerous neighborhood."

How is the borrower any more at fault than the creditor? The creditor's responsibility is to calculate risk and base their interest rate on that. The creditor does this with the knowledge that, if the borrower can't pay back the loan, they're out of that money.

The cancer that is killing us is that the idea that loaning money should be a zero risk proposition for the bank.

12/15/2011 6:10:41 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnx-MiRtngA

[Edited on December 17, 2011 at 8:29 AM. Reason : ]

12/17/2011 8:13:28 AM

Lonesnark you have a chance to redeem yourself. Stop standing up for banks and corporate interests. You can make that decision whenever you feel comfortable.

12/17/2011 10:30:37 PM

^^His remarks about the internet after the 19min mark are great. I'm gonna be dropping "intellectual ghettos" in conversations all the time now

[Edited on December 19, 2011 at 12:43 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2011 12:39:55 PM

How is this still going on? How have these "occupiers" been supporting themselves financially while they lazily protest for reform?

12/24/2011 12:23:08 PM

most of them have jobs they just occupy in shifts.

pretty obvious really...

I didn't think anyone was dumb enough to really believe that the jokes (While funny) were real about them all being jobless.

12/24/2011 12:39:55 PM