OCCUPY WALL STREET

[Dude]

Originally Posted by JAGG

I am going tell you my experience in realestate and forecloures. You read a story about a person. Who got sick or injuried house is in foreclosure and you think we should bail him out. I own an investment business. We buy houses that have been forclosed on . I get to see these cases up close and in person I know the details of the reasons why the house forclosed. I have been doing this for 9 years now.you can say I lack empathy, I say you are naive and lack experience and facts. Here is a real truelife case. Family with 2 kids dad gets hurt can't work. He is a welder hurt his back. Wife works teaches 3rd grade. He can't work they fall behind house goes into forclosure. 3 months later bank takes possestion. They still occupy home. Free for 3 months now . They have at least 7 different notices to vacate they don't . 5 months later bank trys to sell it at auction. We buy it. 8 months they are there for free, we knock on the door to inform them we bought their house they should have been out 8 months. We talk and agree on a plan for them to move out they are usually pretty understanding. We actually pay them 250 dollars to be moved out within the agreed time frame. His wife has a brand newDodge Dakota less than a year old. He had. Dodge ram less than 2 yrs old. And a minivan 5 years old. They were saving it for the 15yr old when he learns to drive. Nice guy we talked about everything he showed me around. He had a 55 in led tv he was. Proud to show me that all its features. And surround sound. Then he shows me the garage where he has 7 dirt bikes. He and his 2 kids, love playing in the mud. 7 dirt bikes? 3 new cars? Really? I wish I had a 55in led with suround sound.
You want to bail this poor guy out? He can't work bad back . Medical condition not his fault long term unemployed , fore closed on , he fits all your criteria. You think he is an acception to the rule? I will tell you he is not. You hear his story in the news, you don't know the facts just the sad story of an innocent family kicked out,into the cold because of unforesseen medical problems. I flipped about 21 houses all but 4 fit your criteria. Out of those 17 I will tell you only 1 fit the real picture, the one the media paints . I will give you more examples later on.

Real story.
My cousin married a very successful top mortgage director guy of some sort.
Six figure income, things were great ,they bought a home ,had two kids.

Several years later he loses his job. His youngest has severe autism and
requires 24/7 care (which requires my cousin to be a stay at home mom)
Now their oldest (12 years old) has been diagnosed with diabetes and
has to have daily insulin shots and medical testing to get her all balanced
enough to attend school.
They gave up their two car's which required payments for two that are paid for.
They need two because driving around in the car sometimes is the only thing they
can do to calm their autistic child when he's having a rough patch.
He has been working 6 days a week for the last two years just so his family can have medical insurance.
They have defaulted on their mortgage and are still there two years later.
For free, as you call it.
All of their toys and fancy shit was sold when the youngest was diagnosed.


I think you lack a great deal of empathy and you can keep coming up
with loser stories who you think deserve to be homeless all day long if thats what makes you feel better.

Some of us are not talking stuff, we are talking about survival.
Go buy your big tv now while things are great for you .That may
not always be the case.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Dude

Real story.
My cousin married a very successful top mortgage director guy of some sort.
Six figure income, things were great ,they bought a home ,had two kids.

Several years later he loses his job. His youngest has severe autism and
requires 24/7 care (which requires my cousin to be a stay at home mom)
Now their oldest (12 years old) has been diagnosed with diabetes and
has to have daily insulin shots and medical testing to get her all balanced
enough to attend school.
They gave up their two car's which required payments for two that are paid for.
They need two because driving around in the car sometimes is the only thing they
can do to calm their autistic child when he's having a rough patch.
He has been working 6 days a week for the last two years just so his family can have medical insurance.
They have defaulted on their mortgage and are still there two years later.
For free, as you call it.
All of their toys and fancy shit was sold when the youngest was diagnosed.


I think you lack a great deal of empathy and you can keep coming up
with loser stories who you think deserve to be homeless all day long if thats what makes you feel better.

Some of us are not talking stuff, we are talking about survival.
Go buy your big tv now while things are great for you .That may
not always be the case.

These are the kinds of people that I really feel for, and who need to get a break.

What do you do when you have kids who are ill, who are disabled, who need you there 24/7? You do the best you can....and one of the biggest failures of our society (I think) is that there aren't enough supports available for people who find themselves in this kind of a situation.

I don't know what the answer is....but a better health care system, better childcare supports (especially for kids with health issues or special needs...who frequently can't access "regular" child care)...certainly couldn't hurt.

[Corkey]

Dear Mr. :

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about campaign finance reform. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that overturns long-standing campaign finance laws and prohibits the government from banning political spending by corporations in candidate elections. The Court’s 5-4 decision held unconstitutional parts of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), (sometimes referred to as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law). It also overturned two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, which upheld the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law’s restriction on campaign spending by corporations and unions.

According to the Court’s majority, restricting corporations from directly participating in elections violates the right to free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. By holding that corporations have the same constitutional right to free speech as individuals, this ruling represents a fundamental doctrinal shift. Although the full extent of the ruling’s impact is not yet known, this is a significant decision that many believe could reshape the political landscape by increasing the power of corporate special interests and the role of money in politics. Those with the deepest pockets, such as Wall Street, Big Oil and insurance companies, may have a greater influence in future elections.

President Obama, some Members of Congress and legal scholars have criticized the ruling as overreaching and setting a dangerous precedent. Others believe the ruling accurately interprets the First Amendment. I strongly believe that our democracy hinges on fair and transparent elections, and I will continue to advocate for limiting the influence of corporate special interests in politics.

In response to the Citizens United decision, S. 3295, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act was introduced in the Senate on April 30, 2010. The DISCLOSE Act, of which I was a cosponsor, would place controls on the flood of special interest money in elections by requiring new disclaimers on all television advertisements that are funded by special interests, including an appearance by the CEO of the corporation running the ad. It would also prevent government contractors and corporate beneficiaries of TARP from spending money on elections. Moreover, the DISCLOSE Act would close loopholes and prevent foreign-controlled entities from spending unlimited amounts of money through their US-based subsidiaries and require all corporations and advocacy groups that make political expenditures to establish easy-to-track campaign accounts.

On both July 27 and September 23, a revised version of the bill, S. 3628, came before the full Senate for consideration. In both instances, I joined many of my colleagues in voting to proceed with consideration, but the measure did not garner the necessary 60 votes. In order for this legislation to be considered by the full Senate, it must be reintroduced in the 112th Congress, which began on January 5, 2011. As always, I appreciate your views, thoughts and concerns as they assist me in understanding what is important to the people of Pennsylvania.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

[atomiczombie]

http://www.occupytogether.org/

This is kind of a central hub for the various Occupy branches of the movement.

[atomiczombie]

This is an older article but still has some good stuff:

http://www.alternet.org/economy/1524...'_movement

[JAGG]

Originally Posted by Dude

Real story.
My cousin married a very successful top mortgage director guy of some sort.
Six figure income, things were great ,they bought a home ,had two kids.

Several years later he loses his job. His youngest has severe autism and
requires 24/7 care (which requires my cousin to be a stay at home mom)
Now their oldest (12 years old) has been diagnosed with diabetes and
has to have daily insulin shots and medical testing to get her all balanced
enough to attend school.
They gave up their two car's which required payments for two that are paid for.
They need two because driving around in the car sometimes is the only thing they
can do to calm their autistic child when he's having a rough patch.
He has been working 6 days a week for the last two years just so his family can have medical insurance.
They have defaulted on their mortgage and are still there two years later.
For free, as you call it.
All of their toys and fancy shit was sold when the youngest was diagnosed.


I think you lack a great deal of empathy and you can keep coming up
with loser stories who you think deserve to be homeless all day long if thats what makes you feel better.

Some of us are not talking stuff, we are talking about survival.
Go buy your big tv now while things are great for you .That may
not always be the case.

Again go back and read my post and tell me where I said this guy deserves to be homeless. You're ok with paying his mortgage when he isn't willing to sell a car? Sell some dirt bikes? He could have sold 3 of the 7 dirt bikes and paid his mortgage for a year. Sold the minivan and paid his mortgage for almost 2 years. He isn't willing to take personal responsibilty to honor his obligations , but I'm supposed to be okay funding a program to honor his obligations for him. Well I'm not okay with that. You want to say I lack empathy for that? Go ahead I will wear your false title like a badge of honor. I'm getting a little tired of your personal attacks and jabs and insults. Stick to the facts and your point of veiw on things. If you disagree, fine you disagree . I'm not going to allow you to disrespect my opinion with your personal assaults. Also this guys was not a loser in any way shape or form, he was a very nice guy and seemed like a great dad. He just has his priorities screwed up, and is financially irresponsible.

[Corkey]

I think the point is being missed. No, you aren't funding the programs for this particular guy, when in fact this particular guy abused the system. The programs are there for the people like Dude's friend, and Julie's friend, a me and any other person who is in true need. There will always be the few who abuse the system, but throwing out the baby with the bath water doesn't seem very empathetic now does it.

[JAGG]

Originally Posted by Corkey

I think the point is being missed. No, you aren't funding the programs for this particular guy, when in fact this particular guy abused the system. The programs are there for the people like Dude's friend, and Julie's friend, a me and any other person who is in true need. There will always be the few who abuse the system, but throwing out the baby with the bath water doesn't seem very empathetic now does it.

I have no problem under the sun funding a program for people in need. People who truely are ill or penny less by no fault of their own. I'd give my last penny to help someone. Gladly.
I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. But you could save money on diapers that way.