Getting robbed blind... and we can't do squat

UGRev · Jan 15, 2010

or maybe it's we won't do squat or maybe it's we just can't organize and get angry enough to do squat.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1861-WE-THE-PEOPLE-Have-Had-Enough.html

Let's look at the facts.

The testimony being put before the FCIC - the investigatory panel charged with looking into how the housing and foreclosure mess came about, and how our economy was stripped clean by the vultures that infest the banking business in this nation is a matter of record. I, and others, have been documenting this for more than two years. READ THE MISSION STATEMENT AND TESTIMONY OF PEOPLE LIKE MIKE MAYO.

THE FBI has been warning of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud since 2004. The banks knew this. Indeed, in 2004 their lobbyists convinced The Bush Administration to SUE to prevent state regulators from protecting YOU, THE CONSUMER, from predatory and unfair loans.

Since 2006 there have been published stories that stated income loans were laced through-and-through with fraud:
One lender recently compared 100 stated-income loans with the borrowers' tax returns and found that only 10 of the borrowers were telling the truth about their wages, according to Mortgage Asset Research Institute, a division of data firm ChoicePoint Inc. (September 2006)

The Wall Street and large commercial banks did not include these disclosures in their offering circulars for securitized debt.

Wall Street entities knew they were at risk but bought "protection" (CDS, or "credit default swaps") from firms who they knew or should have known could not pay, including but not limited to AIG. This "allowed" them to consider assets they knew or should have known were rife with fraud as "money good".

Wall Street and "big lender" loan programs in the housing market during the years 2000-2007 all "assumed" that house prices would rise forever at a rate higher than inflation. The key point is that even if they had, which is mathematically impossible, it doesn't change the fact that the borrower, that is you the citizen, still was going to lose their house when they reached the limit of their borrowing capacity. The bank's only concern was designing a program that they would be protected by - not whether it was suitable for you nor whether you would have (or continue to have) a home.

None of this was a "mistake" or an "accident". It was not an "unforseen event."
Click to expand...

Ivan · Jan 16, 2010

now now, you wouldn't be implying that we should breach the bankers sacred right to free trade with their private property would you?

that would be... terrible.

Log in or Sign up

Getting robbed blind... and we can't do squat

UGRev Get on with it!

Ivan Monkey++

Log in or Sign up

Getting robbed blind... and we can't do squat

UGRev Get on with it!

Ivan Monkey++

Useful Searches