Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Politically tired. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,584
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelsean View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Lanie; 01-17-2012 at 01:03 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Politically tired. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,584
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelsean View Post
    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.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •