Demonstration at Bank of America 500 Griswold 12 Noon- Moratorium on all Foreclosures

**Islandman** · October-21-11, 12:53 PM

Comrades, Danny, comrades...

**RaumVogel** · October-21-11, 01:02 PM

I don't think Danny understands his mis-pronunciation of "comrade". As a "Conrad", I'd like to see reform...but blatant Anarchy with no purpose is stupid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k43cUXXMdtk&feature=related

We must not be sheep

**Gistok** · October-21-11, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Goose

so your reply to his long winded diatribe about personal experience only is a long winded diatribe about your feelings on what you heard about foreclosures?

First of all, as you probably can't guess, I was in a bad mood earlier today...and I do appologize to Mike in Brooklyn for my diatribe... I know of several people who lost their homes to BOA. Now as for you... well you've been in a sour mood in every post since you arrived... so I won't waste my time arguing...

**bailey** · October-21-11, 02:43 PM

This thread and every other that devolves into this subject should be moved to non Detroit where you can all fling Daily Kos and National review quotes at eachother. Not one person anywhere in the Detroit branch being protested or at the actual Michigan HQ out in Troy has any say in what happens with BofA foreclosures. The only result from walking around in circles in front of a branch is inflicting minor inconveniences on people with business there and those who work in the branch.

This will end foreclosures about as effectively as bible humpers standing along side the road with "honk if you hate abortion" signs ends abortion.

**Gistok** · October-21-11, 02:50 PM

^^^ Bible humpers??? Now that is blasphemy!!

**Detroitnerd** · October-21-11, 03:07 PM

I love how opponents of the Occupy movement spend many words decrying the movement, then say, "It's ineffective." If it's ineffective, what mention it? If it were effective, you'd say it was ineffective." And, don't forget:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead.

**Gistok** · October-21-11, 03:33 PM

DN... just read that the number of people who are now in support of the OWS movement has climbed to over 37%... from the single digits a month ago...

**BShea** · October-21-11, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

I love how opponents of the Occupy movement spend many words decrying the movement, then say, "It's ineffective." If it's ineffective, what mention it? If it were effective, you'd say it was ineffective." And, don't forget:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead.

Just like the U.S. Social Forum was going to change things, and they were doing to stick around Detroit and have a real impact.

**gnome** · October-21-11, 03:55 PM

For all you sideline sitters, I was there today, strolled down Woodward with the Occupiers, swarmed across all the traffic lanes and then made a left to the Guardian.

A cross section of Americans were in the group. Aged out beatniks, gummy hippies, hipsters and wannabees; but also middle aged folk from all compass points. A few Republicans joined as well.

This thing looks like it is gaining speed, and unlike mr. Shea, I didn't see a ton of outsiders from the Social Forum crowd. Maybe they were there, maybe they drove their Priae in from their communes, but I didn't see any.

A lot of average, suit and tie guys/gals were sprinkled throughout the crowd and I would say they were largely festive in demeanor.

Not a cur in the crowd.

Have to hand it to Detroit, they know how to do marches. Practice pays off.

**Gistok** · October-21-11, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by BShea

Just like the U.S. Social Forum was going to change things, and they were doing to stick around Detroit and have a real impact.

Funny, I don't remember reading about that in the media.... I guess social forums and conventions just don't interest the media folks as much as protests do... it just doesn' make its' way into the media... and by default onto the national stage...

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · October-21-11, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

First of all, as you probably can't guess, I was in a bad mood earlier today...and I do appologize to Mike in Brooklyn for my diatribe... I know of several people who lost their homes to BOA. Now as for you... well you've been in a sour mood in every post since you arrived... so I won't waste my time arguing...

Hey Gistok, there is no need to apologize. I sometimes [[NOT ALWAYS) write my blurbs when I am pretty worked up. I believe what I write, but I can come across a little harsh. I do have sympathy for people who are in a tight spot. I just get agitated because it seems like no one wants to assume responsibility for their own lives. If I couldn't pay my bank loan it would never dawn on me that it was their fault. I live be the creed that the problems in your life are your fault!

You know, for all that we talk and argue and bicker and yell online, I wonder if we pass each other on the street every day. I'm the guy with the Tigers hat. If you see me, say hello.

**Detroitnerd** · October-21-11, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

Hey Gistok, there is no need to apologize. I sometimes [[NOT ALWAYS) write my blurbs when I am pretty worked up. I believe what I write, but I can come across a little harsh. I do have sympathy for people who are in a tight spot. I just get agitated because it seems like no one wants to assume responsibility for their own lives. If I couldn't pay my bank loan it would never dawn on me that it was their fault. I live be the creed that the problems in your life are your fault!

Does that demand for accountability extend to the very richest people who were then bailed out by the taxpayers? When do we hold the criminals at the top accountable? Is tough love only for the people who were deliberately targeted for loser loans?

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · October-21-11, 04:36 PM

Of course it extends to corporate crooks. Lawbreakers should be punished. I have not heard very many specific allegations of criminal wrongdoing by banking leaders. Most of the bad lending was legal. Where it wasn't, sure, throw the book at them. I also don't favor corporate welfare at all. If a business can't make a profit by selling it's products or services, it SHOULD go out of business, or into bankruptcy reorganization. Nothing is too big to fail. The federal government, in my opinion, shoud bail out NO ONE, not individuals, not big businesses. Bailouts cause irresponsible human behavior, at both the personal and corporate level.

**Gistok** · October-21-11, 05:01 PM

Hey Mikey... no sweat. I just had an "Avapro" moment [[no that has nothing to do with bladder problems!

)... I've seen so many people affected with mortgage issues... that it's a sore spot. Just the other day I asked the son of one of my friends about his best friend... and the kid said that his friends family lost their house... and they just disappeared... no goodbyes, nothing. It's the kids that I often worry about. They're the ones who suffer silently...

**Detroitnerd** · October-21-11, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

Of course it extends to corporate crooks. Lawbreakers should be punished. I have not heard very many specific allegations of criminal wrongdoing by banking leaders. Most of the bad lending was legal. Where it wasn't, sure, throw the book at them. I also don't favor corporate welfare at all. If a business can't make a profit by selling it's products or services, it SHOULD go out of business, or into bankruptcy reorganization. Nothing is too big to fail. The federal government, in my opinion, shoud bail out NO ONE, not individuals, not big businesses. Bailouts cause irresponsible human behavior, at both the personal and corporate level.

I like the intellectual consistency there, but I do think, if anybody were to get bailed out by our government, it would be us, not the criminal cocksuckers at the top.

That said, one good thing about the protests is they keep putting the heat on the people who committed the crimes. They shouldn't be getting bonuses or bailouts, they should be in another kind of "pinstripes." And yet I don't hear a lot of anger about that from the people criticizing the protesters. Let's highlight that "sympathy for the little guy" -- a wonderfully American trait that I cherish -- and direct our demands for accountability to the top first. After all, the people at the top are the ones who set the tone...

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · October-21-11, 05:14 PM

"not the criminal cocksuckers at the top."

Criminal status be damned. I can speak from personal experience, most corporate suits are not cocksuckers. Unlike me, they tend to fancy the ladies...

**Downtown Lady** · October-21-11, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

Of course it extends to corporate crooks. Lawbreakers should be punished. I have not heard very many specific allegations of criminal wrongdoing by banking leaders. Most of the bad lending was legal. Where it wasn't, sure, throw the book at them.

Hi Mikey,

Regarding specific allegations of criminal wrongdoing by banking leaders, I read this today. These don't necessarily apply to mortgages, but it's eye-opening nonetheless:

The SEC announced yesterday that Citigroup agreed to pay $285 million to settle charges that it misled [[synonyms for that word include deceived; lied to; tricked and defrauded) investors in a mortgage securities deal, telling them it was a good investment when it knew otherwise and was secretly betting it would fail...

Yet once again bank criminals were allowed to walk without admitting anything! Common sense tells us nobody would agree to pay more than a quarter of a billion dollars unless they'd done something very, very wrong. Yet once again the SEC has negotiated a settlement in which the perpetrator "neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing."

"Neither admitted nor denied"? Citigroup has danced this dance before:

When it was forced to buy back $7.3 billion in bonds in 2008 after deceiving investors into thinking these high-risk investments were low-risk, Citigroup "neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing."

When it was forced to pay $1.66 billion in 2008 over its Enron misdeeds Citigroup "neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing."

When Citigroup agreed to pay $2.6 billion over its "improper relationship" with the CEO of WorldCom during the scandals there, it "neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing."

When it was fined $275,000 in 2004 for recommending high-risk securities without fully disclosing that risk, it "neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing."

That's nearly $12 billion that Citi's agreed to fork over without ever admitting wrongdoing! If this bank's not doing very bad things its executives should be fired, because that means they're the worst negotiators in human history.

Citi's not the only one. Take JPMorgan Chase, which just took Citi's crown as "biggest bank in America":

When JPMorgan Chase paid $153 million in 2011 for deceiving investors it "neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing."

When Chase paid $25 million in 2010 over the sale of illegal unregistered securities in Florida, it "neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing."

When Chase agreed to pay $55 million in 2009 after banks "allegedly" misled investors into pouring money into a venture that had already failed, it "neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing."

Even when JPMorgan Chase agreed to a settlement worth nearly three quarters of a billion [[that's "billion," with a "b") over some good old-fashioned, down-and-dirty bribery and corruption charges in Alabama it "neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing."

All the big boys have been allowed to walk away without apologizing, confessing, or doing time: Wells Fargo. Morgan Stanley. Credit Suisse. UBS. Goldman Sachs ... and many, many more. A rogue's gallery of bank crooks paid billions in settlements - "without admitting or denying wrongdoing."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-esk...b_1023292.html

The article has links to information about each of the incidents cited.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · October-21-11, 06:37 PM

Hey DT Lady,
Like I said, I think that law breaking bankers, whether individuals acting in a criminal manner, or violating industry regulations, should be amply punished. Fine them, and where apllicable under existing law, jailed. But I fail to understand why these examples would relieve someone of the need to repay a loan to the shareholders of the bank. When anyone breaks the law, they should be punished according to the law.

I don't think most bankers are crooks, and most people make their mortgage payments and don't lose their homes. Banks provide a product [[loans) that allow many people to buy homes, pay for education, buy cars, etc. People have an obligation when taking out a loan to pay it back. I don't see why that point can't be agreed upon by everyone. Violations of banking laws by banks does not excuse people not paying their mortgages. Would the SEC accept as an excuse from banks in the cases you cited "well we shouldn't be expected to follow the laws because a small percentage of our mortgage-holders have stopped paying." Of course they'd be laughed off.

**ridgeabilly** · October-21-11, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

Hey DT Lady,
Like I said, I think that law breaking bankers, whether individuals acting in a criminal manner, or violating industry regulations, should be amply punished. Fine them, and where apllicable under existing law, jailed. But I fail to understand why these examples would relieve someone of the need to repay a loan to the shareholders of the bank. When anyone breaks the law, they should be punished according to the law.

I don't think most bankers are crooks, and most people make their mortgage payments and don't lose their homes. Banks provide a product [[loans) that allow many people to buy homes, pay for education, buy cars, etc. People have an obligation when taking out a loan to pay it back. I don't see why that point can't be agreed upon by everyone. Violations of banking laws by banks does not excuse people not paying their mortgages. Would the SEC accept as an excuse from banks in the cases you cited "well we shouldn't be expected to follow the laws because a small percentage of our mortgage-holders have stopped paying." Of course they'd be laughed off.

It's unfair to compare the big banks to organized crime, for the simple fact that organized crime has a code of ethics.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · October-22-11, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by ridgeabilly

It's unfair to compare the big banks to organized crime, for the simple fact that organized crime has a code of ethics.

Although a re-reading of my post does find a few typos, I cannot find where you think I compared banks to the mafia. I am not aware of banks rubbing protestors out, with delinquent mortgage holders embedded in the foundation of RenCen.

And how could there be mafia in Detroit? Seriously, large-scale mob operations are always tied to corrupt local officials... Oh, wait, that's right.

**softailrider** · October-22-11, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

Or better yet, how about a moratorium on posting long diatribes where all you really know is what your own personal experience is....

The only thing silly here are some of your longwinded comments.

You don't know jackshit about what other people had to go thru with their banks... and it shows.

Banks DO NOT alwasy want to work with you... sometimes the will pull the rug right out from under you without any warning. Or they will reinstate your load with a huge escrow account figure... and then later [[surprise to them) when you do bring your loan up to date... they refund you thousands in excess... because they made a mistake.... but not before you had to jump over an even bigger hurdle than you should have.

I know many people who were blindsighted by their banks... and the horror stories are not for the faint of heart.

So spare us your condescending lecture....

I absolutely agree with you, banks do not always want to work with the borrower. Unfortunately, the folks who get the best treatment are the people with the most money.

As far as being blindsided by a bank, or , having the rug pulled out from under you goes, if you make your payments, it isn't going to happen.

**MikeM** · October-22-11, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by bartock

I didn't think people would take my comments as a misunderstanding of how PMI works. I get it.

...but that sort of goes to my point. The doors WERE open for this, and the banks charge/charged PMI - INSURANCE - to those who could not put down 20%. It was/is insurance against loss, the way most of us have insurance, and the consumer pays the premium for it, as it should be. But again, three layers of protection for the banks...PMI, then the bailout/loan/whatchamacallit of $120 billion, and foreclosure while the banks keep their private profits.

Foreclosure should be a banks remedy. But couple that with multiple other layers of protection in a mix of public/private funding so that the banks are guaranteed not to lose money and free market doesn't run its course, and I can understand why people are pissed. The irony is that the fiscally or otherwise conservative, "capitalist" folks defending the banks don't realize that they are defending a fundamentally socialist structure.

Speaking of PMI...

Like other mortgage insurers, PMI has been able to sell profitable policies in recent years, but the gains from those sales hasn't outpaced losses from policies sold before the housing market collapsed. As flagging home prices have strapped borrowers, the company has had to pay more claims.

The company's shares have traded below $1 apiece since late July, closing on Friday at 31 cents apiece. PMI shares topped $50 in 2007. Since then, the Walnut Creek, Calif. company has posted more than $3.5 billion in losses due to claims paid out on foreclosed homes.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...ona/50870238/1

**Goose** · October-22-11, 05:09 PM

the solution to not having to bail the banks out and not having a foreclosure crisis: deregulate the banks.... no bailouts, the banks won't make risky loans they know will be insured by the government, in return, they will require at least 20% down and near perfect credit scores.. .just like in the past.... unfortunantly the liberals want it both ways, loans to the risky and poor but no public risk to the taxpayers...

**Thames** · October-22-11, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by Goose

the solution to not having to bail the banks out and not having a foreclosure crisis: deregulate the banks.... no bailouts, the banks won't make risky loans they know will be insured by the government, in return, they will require at least 20% down and near perfect credit scores.. .just like in the past.... unfortunantly the liberals want it both ways, loans to the risky and poor but no public risk to the taxpayers...

Unfortunately, the bankers have figured that out, that works for them . So far, they can do the risky loans, because ultimately, they won't be responsible for it. The taxpayers are forced to reimburse them for any and all "losses" with no questions asked. It's sickening.

bartock · October-22-11, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by MikeM

Speaking of PMI...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...ona/50870238/1

Why the fuck is this any different than homeowners who have gone through the same thing? And again, I do not agree or defend those who walk away. I am sure that you do know that insurance companies take premiums and simply invest them elsewhere.