http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/next-step-loan-strike/Content?oid=10809798It's an... Interesting proposal. Bypass the government altogether and go straight to the banks. Preoccupy instead of occupy. Thoughts?
next step: loan strike!
- Thread starter Josh Oakley
- Start date
Running through the article quickly, it is a dumb proposal. This post is not addressed to regular folks who are doing the right thing by taking care of their business in the most responsible way possible. Instead, it goes to the people who think this idea is a good one. If you took a mortgage, or a student loan you owe it, and you need to do your best to repay it. No one tricked you into going to college or trying to buy a home, you knew the short and long term risks, if you didn't, there is nothing anyone could do to help you. In the article:
Loans that the people who didn't go to college have to pay when the people in foreign countries pay for their kids to go to college. If you took a huge loan to study English and discovered teaching jobs are few and far between, you either put in more time till a job opens up or go into another field. You still owe the money that was lent to you in good faith, to not pay it back is wrong, and forces someone else to pay more for future loans.
Loans that the people who didn't go to college have to pay when the people in foreign countries pay for their kids to go to college. If you took a huge loan to study English and discovered teaching jobs are few and far between, you either put in more time till a job opens up or go into another field. You still owe the money that was lent to you in good faith, to not pay it back is wrong, and forces someone else to pay more for future loans.
the above proposal also let's Santa Claus ( the government ) off the hook for it's responsibility. The reason the author wants to go to the banks is because they don't want the government to stop giving bailouts to corporations by greedy politicians because they want greedy politicians to stop that behavior. No, they want the greedy politicians to change who gets the money that they take from people through taxes and give it to the more deserving greedy people, the OWS types. They need to go to the corrupt politicians, the ones who are voting for the corrupt deals and occupy their offices and picket their homes.
They won't. These politicians will punish the people who do that and the OWS is about getting freebies from the same politicians who caused the problem in the first place. You don't make Santa Claus angry. He has a list and he checks it twice, and he holds a grudge like no one else.
They won't. These politicians will punish the people who do that and the OWS is about getting freebies from the same politicians who caused the problem in the first place. You don't make Santa Claus angry. He has a list and he checks it twice, and he holds a grudge like no one else.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #4
Interesting rebuttal. Any proof that bailouts is what the occupiers want?
They've called loudly for 1) All debt to be forgiven 2)Student loan debt to be forgiven and 3) Mortgage debt to be forgiven
oftheherd1
Senior Master
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 4,685
- Reaction score
- 817
The first real mistake was removing the safeguards put in place to reduce the size of monoplies. If you have 10 businesses that compete with each other, and one goes south, the other 9 can take up the slack and another smaller will rise to the size of one of the ten. That's an oversimplification of course, but the idea is that nobody is big enough to sink the US economy when its greed sends it spiraling down.
Another mistake was letting brokers talk the public into accepting the paradigm that constant buying and selling of stock as one seemed a few cents over another in value for sales, rather than dividends over the year. The only ones who consistanly profited well from that were the brokers.
Then we come to lobbyists. Poor guys just trying to make a living of course. But their job is to buy support for legislation favorable to the companies they represent. Congress (who benefits from that) has agreed to that support system. There is little ideal of what is good for the country, but only the bottom line.
Mr. billcihak - I tend to be conservative in most of my values. However, when big business is allowed to run amok, you get what we now have. They have lobbyists to help buy their way out of problems. The common man only has the vote, a commodity the common man seems to have forgotten he has. But big business has simply run amok. Like I said, I am conservative. But I don't want to have to pay for education or bad loans either. Let the businesses pay for the bad loans they made. While I agree that people who take on financial obligations are duty and legally bound to pay them, the playing field needs to be level. They take money from the government to stay in business, but don't make better business deals to stay in business. They don't reinvest that money to reduce debt to where people can pay for them. They now have the money to stay solvent and survive defaults, while having properties which will sell for more later, or student loans the government will pay.
Personally, I don't agree with that way of doing business. Eventually, I have to pay for all that debt if we are going to keep bailing everyone out at current rates of interest. Mind, I don't think anybody made a promise to all these college students they would get better jobs, except the colleges themselves. Does anyone have a letter of promise from the federal government to the contrary? But of course that was the hope of the college students. Why shouldn't we restructure the loans so they can be paid for? The companies are getting money from the government on one side, and demanding paid up loans on the other side. They say we can't operate the way things are, but everybody else should.
No sir!
Another mistake was letting brokers talk the public into accepting the paradigm that constant buying and selling of stock as one seemed a few cents over another in value for sales, rather than dividends over the year. The only ones who consistanly profited well from that were the brokers.
Then we come to lobbyists. Poor guys just trying to make a living of course. But their job is to buy support for legislation favorable to the companies they represent. Congress (who benefits from that) has agreed to that support system. There is little ideal of what is good for the country, but only the bottom line.
Mr. billcihak - I tend to be conservative in most of my values. However, when big business is allowed to run amok, you get what we now have. They have lobbyists to help buy their way out of problems. The common man only has the vote, a commodity the common man seems to have forgotten he has. But big business has simply run amok. Like I said, I am conservative. But I don't want to have to pay for education or bad loans either. Let the businesses pay for the bad loans they made. While I agree that people who take on financial obligations are duty and legally bound to pay them, the playing field needs to be level. They take money from the government to stay in business, but don't make better business deals to stay in business. They don't reinvest that money to reduce debt to where people can pay for them. They now have the money to stay solvent and survive defaults, while having properties which will sell for more later, or student loans the government will pay.
Personally, I don't agree with that way of doing business. Eventually, I have to pay for all that debt if we are going to keep bailing everyone out at current rates of interest. Mind, I don't think anybody made a promise to all these college students they would get better jobs, except the colleges themselves. Does anyone have a letter of promise from the federal government to the contrary? But of course that was the hope of the college students. Why shouldn't we restructure the loans so they can be paid for? The companies are getting money from the government on one side, and demanding paid up loans on the other side. They say we can't operate the way things are, but everybody else should.
No sir!
OP
- Thread Starter
- #8
Sorry, I should of clarified that I was asking if there was proof that Occupiers wanted government bailout. Wasn't talking about debt forgiveness. My bad.
Tomato tomato
OP
- Thread Starter
- #10
No, not the case at all. These are two separate topics. The first is debt forgiveness from the banks. The government need not be a party in the transaction at all. In fact, banks and lending institutions can and do forgive debt on occasion with no input from the government. The second is a bailout from the government. Naturally, the government is REQUIRED in such a transaction.
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
Mr. Hayes Ninjutsu branch school in Ann Arbor, MI?
- Latest: isshinryuronin
-
