Single dad trying to take back home occupied by OWS

[Carol]

link
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002171984)This devolves into an arguing match with everyone taking a different view and arguing amongst themselves.

hack89 (12,583 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

View profile

Single dad trying to take back home occupied by OWS

Last edited Sun Jan 15, 2012, 02:01 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Occupy Wall Street protesters announced with great fanfare last month that they moved a homeless family into a “foreclosed” Brooklyn home — even though they knew the house belonged to a struggling single father desperately trying to renegotiate his mortgage, The Post has learned.

OWS leaders and Brooklyn Councilman Charles Barron, an OWS supporter, met with Ahadzi before the press conference to discuss the future of his property, he said. Ahadzi hoped that the group would help him regain his footing.

“Why can’t you fight for me?” he asked them.

“They told me I don’t qualify,” he said. “So my lawyer asked what the qualifications are. I have to be with an organization and they’ll deal with the bank and you have to be homeless.

“They said they couldn’t help me,” he added.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/ows_home_invasion_z9ApqDP6Q0boFviq8CjvAL

This is pretty fucked up.
9



Star Member RKP5637 (17,170 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
2. Agree! "This is pretty fucked up."

Star Member Aerows (6,313 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
30. Sure

View profile
Can you post a source that isn't either Rupert Murdoch run or a right winger site?

Please don't sit there and claim that Murdoch and Murdoch controlled media are not known to twist the truth, or outright tell lies.

Star Member nadinbrzezinski (100,988 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
129. I can certainly understand why partisans (on both sides) may feel this way

View profile
By the way, here is a serious mistake you are making... I am willing to bet, from the OWSers I personally know, they are among the most politically aware and informed people I know. Low information is not precisely the term I would use. Now that is a term I would use with Tea Parties RIGHT NOW... and one reason the T Party is going away is precisely that these people are starting to realize how far they were used.

The problem for PARTISANS (on both sides) is that they cannot harness the energy in this social movement. And let's be honest, OWS is a direct challenge to the system... but that gets me into a whole different discussion. See my sig.

But I get it... why partisans (on both sides) feel that way.

If you want equivalents, well the Bonus March is a good example. They were non partisan either. Oh yes, before you say it, they got mowed by the army... and their camp was burned... but you know what? It was due to THAT that Americans became aware of a lot of shit... and you know what is even better? The New Deal is partly their doing. If they were at home starving to death there would have been zero pressure to do anything in DC... silly shit that happens with social movements.

You want to know ANOTHER non partisan movement? The Suffragettes...

Then there is the anti slavery movement...

Women's Rights, while right now mostly trending dem, did not start that way.

Civil rights, DITTO.

It is not my fault most people are quite ignorant of the damn arc... but I get it, why you feel this is just shit and wasted energy. Your predecessors felt the same way with many other social movements. I am so damn glad I am NOT a partisan. Makes looking at life not as a team sport much better. And this is particularly the case when it comes to politics. LOL, to liberals not having huge crowds in the streets means that the Tea Party is "going away" and isn't influential. Let them believe it, it won't do them any good.

Star Member BumRushDaShow (6,379 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
25. This was done by an off-shoot group

View profile
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/real_estate/occupy_movement_spreads/index.htm

OWS is a diverse conglomeration of folks with a myriad of grievances needing to be addressed. And different sub-groups seem to form to take on a specific problem to focus on and these will plan non-violent actions that they feel will begin to address the grievance... E.g., whether to "occupy" a bank, setup food banks for homeless, or march against state, local, federal government in support of a variety of things (union, public education, anti-war, etc). This sub-group apparently "occupies" previously foreclosed homes (and have apparently done so in a number of cities).

So one cannot just broad-brush the actions of an individual or subgroup with some negative banner because of what that subset did that you don't agree with.

Hell, as an AA, I get broad-brushed 24/7 by the lamestream media every time some knucklehead AA teenage punk knocks down a pedestrian and runs away - and then here come the gasbags on the air, insisting that this one incident was a "black problem". If it goes by the name OWS then it is part of OWS; they can disclaim it all they want but when it is a movement like that they will be judged by what individuals that claim to be part of OWS do.

[Lanie]

So is there a difference between the bank and OWS taking your home other than legality?

[txradioguy]

So is there a difference between the bank and OWS taking your home other than legality?

You really are that stupid aren't you?

[SarasotaRepub]

So is there a difference between the bank and OWS taking your home other than legality?

Come on Lanie!!! If #OWS takes it, it's FOR THE PEOPLE!!!! :D

[SarasotaRepub]

Das Nadin spins a good one:




It is not my fault most people are quite ignorant of the damn arc... but I get it, why you feel this is just shit and wasted energy. Your predecessors felt the same way with many other social movements. (Well of course Nadin "Gets" it...she's Nadin the all knowing!!!! :D)

I am so damn glad I am NOT a partisan. Makes looking at life not as a team sport much better. And this is particularly the case when it comes to politics.

(Wait what???? Nadin isn't partisan??? AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!)
(She threw that in at the very end hoping no one would notice...This little gem just shows how delusional she really is.)

[txradioguy]

Das Nadin spins a good one:

The scary thing is she honestly believes that crap!

[Rockntractor]

So is there a difference between the bank and OWS taking your home other than legality?

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/forums/meghan.jpg

[JB]

So is there a difference between the bank and OWS taking your home other than legality?http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6107/6224561169_e9c3bf65b3_z.jpg

[Lanie]

Come on Lanie!!! If #OWS takes it, it's FOR THE PEOPLE!!!! :D

Sounds like a bunch of hypocrites to me. Not that I don't want that homeless guy to get a home, but come on. It's off the back of another struggling person.

I do believe a lot of rich people are exploitative and will use those with less money to keep getting their way. Well, OWS has accumulated quite a bit of money. They're doing the same thing.

[Dan D. Doty]

The scary thing is she honestly believes that crap!

Its what we around these here parts call a FANATIC.

[michaelsean]

Sounds like a bunch of hypocrites to me. Not that I don't want that homeless guy to get a home, but come on. It's off the back of another struggling person.

I do believe a lot of rich people are exploitative and will use those with less money to keep getting their way. Well, OWS has accumulated quite a bit of money. They're doing the same thing.

They are? Can I see the document where they loaned money to the homeowner to buy the house? The bank loans you money and the house is collateral so that if you can't repay them, they get the house. Now explain to me how that is the same as what OWS is doing.

[Novaheart]

As an aside: Read up on squatter rights and adverse possession. These are some interesting and very old areas of the law. Not surprisingly, they were not created in some ancient manifestation of socialism, they were created in a way to enforce capitalism and productivity.

[Lanie]

They are? Can I see the document where they loaned money to the homeowner to buy the house? The bank loans you money and the house is collateral so that if you can't repay them, they get the house. Now explain to me how that is the same as what OWS is doing.

Well, the banks could work out a different agreement (as this bank is trying to do with the current owner, but that doesn't always happen). Instead, they'll sell the house for as little as a thousand dollars. Why?

I'll tell you why. They know the government will bail them out. If the government didn't bail them out, then they'd be forced to either negotiate a different payment plan, foreclose and sell the house for way higher than a thousand dollars, or not sell houses with certain prices to begin with. They'd also stop selling to people who they know good and well can't pay for a house. They do this KNOWING that they can sell the house for a thousand dollars later and be bailed out by the government.

Now, back to OWS.

OWS is using one struggling person and putting them against another. I believe that's what Marx accused rich people of doing. That's what OWS is doing. (Note: I am not a Marxist, but I do sometimes think he had a point about "workers" being pitted against each other by those with more power).

The banks are putting one person wanting a house (the one who got forclosed) against another (the one willing to buy at a really low price). OWS is putting one struggling person against another. They're doing this as a group of people who have accumulated some capital and want to use it for their purposes.

If you can't see what's so unethical about that, then there's a problem. It's funny. Conservatives speak out against government help when it's individuals, but when banks do it, they're quiet.

Now, the OWSers are breaking the law, and that needs to be dealt with. Ethically speaking though, it's all the same.

[michaelsean]

Well, the banks could work out a different agreement (as this bank is trying to do with the current owner, but that doesn't always happen). Instead, they'll sell the house for as little as a thousand dollars. Why?

I'll tell you why. They know the government will bail them out. If the government didn't bail them out, then they'd be forced to either negotiate a different payment plan, foreclose and sell the house for way higher than a thousand dollars, or not sell houses with certain prices to begin with. They'd also stop selling to people who they know good and well can't pay for a house. They do this KNOWING that they can sell the house for a thousand dollars later and be bailed out by the government.

Now, back to OWS.

OWS is using one struggling person and putting them against another. I believe that's what Marx accused rich people of doing. That's what OWS is doing. (Note: I am not a Marxist, but I do sometimes think he had a point about "workers" being pitted against each other by those with more power).

The banks are putting one person wanting a house (the one who got forclosed) against another (the one willing to buy at a really low price). OWS is putting one struggling person against another. They're doing this as a group of people who have accumulated some capital and want to use it for their purposes.

If you can't see what's so unethical about that, then there's a problem. It's funny. Conservatives speak out against government help when it's individuals, but when banks do it, they're quiet.

Now, the OWSers are breaking the law, and that needs to be dealt with. Ethically speaking though, it's all the same.


Please tell me you aren't serious. Unless they plan on paying off the mortgage, what the hell does it matter if OWS has capital? How is it ethically the same? It's not their house. They didn't take out a loan for it, and they didn't give a loan for it. It in no way or form is theirs to do anything with anymore than your house is. I can't believe this is even a discussion.

[Lanie]

Please tell me you aren't serious. Unless they plan on paying off the mortgage, what the hell does it matter if OWS has capital? How is it ethically the same? It's not their house. They didn't take out a loan for it, and they didn't give a loan for it. It in no way or form is theirs to do anything with anymore than your house is. I can't believe this is even a discussion.

We have legal issues and then there are ethical issues.

My comments were originally meant to be a slam against OWSers, but since we need the rich to be considered the good guys, that wasn't good enough. Whatever. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I understand that the OWSers are legally stealing which makes what they're doing worse. I'm saying though on a moral basis, they're not really that different than some of these banks that PURPOSELY sell to those who they KNOW can't afford a house and then take a GOVERNMENT bailout instead of working with the customer. You can say they're morally superior if you want to, but they're totally not.