Can the little guy really fire back anymore?...
...so, let's get away from moping over a married woman, and get to moping on the bad economy and the crooks that brought us here!
But, there is proof that some people are actually working for the "little guy" (even if that little guy had enough money to buy a house outright).
Seems a man named Warren Nyerges had his Florida home foreclosed on by Bank of America for non-payment of their mortgage. There's only one problem: Nyerges didn't have a mortgage on his home; he had, in fact, paid for the house in full with cash. The case went to court, and when the facts came out, BofA dropped the case. The judge ordered them to pay the Nyerges' legal fees, a total coming to over $2,500. Small change to a bank, right? Except BofA hadn't paid them yet.
Cut to Friday, when the Nyerges' lawyer entered the local bank's branch backed by two sheriff's deputies with an ultimatum: Cut them a check for the legal fees, or the moving crew outside will start hauling out every piece of furniture in the place to be sold at a public auction. Desks, chairs, lobby sofas, everything would go.
BofA, wisely, cut them a check.
This, however, is just one incident in the multitudes of stalling practices and mismanagement in the wake of the original housing bubble. And now there's word that the housing market is dipping again. Now, I don't call this a double-dip. Why? Because you have to fully get out of the first crisis before you can call it a double-dip. And we're still immersed.
I really think that we need to give anyone who holds a mortgage an ultimatum: Show us every mortgage you hold to be perused by the public, or have every mortgage you hold become null and void right then and there. Most of these mega-corps will go on about how this will wreck the economy...
...to which I say, "The economy's wrecked either way. Your own board members have seen to it."
See, my philosophy with most decisions is that anything you can't control and will happen with any choice you can make is thus irrelevant to the choice at hand. Eventuality of something makes that something fully irrelevant. For example, if you can save one person from dying, but not two, the fact that someone is going to die is irrelevant to the choice of which one to save. (Of course, superheroes have that annoying tendency to compromise the eventuality of death, but for us normals...) The choice has several factors, but "SOMEONE'S GONNA DIE!" is not one of them.
Likewise, right now, the economy is going to let go, sooner or later. Every option anyone has tried to throw at it that would not make this an eventuality has been shot down by those who have a vested interest in making the economy's collapse an eventuality. Therefore, now, any decision we make should not be made on whether it will cause the economy to collapse. That's an eventuality becuase it has been made so. Meaning that we have carte blanche to make the big corporations help as many "little guys" as possible.
My ultimatum is this: Every entity that holds any mortgages or loans will make every such morgage or loan publicly available for perusal. Then, every one of those mortgages can be disputed for whatever reason (like, for example, I never had a mortgage or a loan, or I don't even own a house.) If a mortgage turns out to be fraudulent, the entity is penalized for what has already been paid into the mortgage (and only the entity, no matter how many entities had it before they got it), and the mortgage is considered fulfilled. Sure, it might mean a few entities go out of business, but then, they shouldn't have been playing with the fire that burned us in the first place.
If an entity does not agree to this public availability, a class action lawsuit for fraud will be opened on every mortgage or loan it currently has. Then, the reverse happens: They must provide proof that each loan is legitimate. It works out the same in the end: each truly fraudulent loan is reimbursed and forgiven. But this, then puts the onus on the entity to defend every single loan it currently has on its books, meaning that they spend more money and are more likely to go out of business. But yet again: they shouldn't have been playing with the fire that burned us, and they should've been forthright when they had the chance.
Of course, this won't happen. The same people in power that will benefit from a wrecked economy have the power to insure it goes off without a hitch, unless drastic action is taken by somebody. But the Republicans are in league with these people, and a few of the Dems are, and those that aren't are painted as though they "hate freedom" whenever they say we might wanna, y'know, rein in a few of these mega-corps that are destroying Main Street, the only street worth worrying about. Because the economy is screwed, because the rich get richer and richer and sit on money, meaning the economy doesn't have nearly as much money flowing as it did in the good times. And then, the government foolishly cuts taxes and keeps them low in the middle of it, ensuring the broken down economy doesn't have any fluidity. And then the cascade happens: Unless something happens to increase fluidity, the economy is going to stay depressed as it has been (nevermind the fat cats that are making more money than ever; they have also willfully taken themselves mostly out of the economy at large as well), and it will burrow through the "rock bottom" that was claimed shortly after the President took office. When that happens, even the clever ones won't have the money to do anything anymore.
So, here's my final question today to those of you who are jealous of teachers' pay and benefits, and yell that they should be cut "for the good of the budget": Is it really for the good of the budget, or is it because you don't make as much as they do because you lost your job and the only new one you could get doesn't permit you to unionize? Is it really other workers' fault that you were laid off, or did the CEO of your company buy a yacht that cost just about as much as the yearly salaries of you and everyone else they laid off shortly afterwards? Is your anger really with teachers, police, firefighters, and other state workers...or should it be with the private fat cats who made the pay of teachers, police, firefighters, and other state workers look good by comparison?
But, there is proof that some people are actually working for the "little guy" (even if that little guy had enough money to buy a house outright).
Seems a man named Warren Nyerges had his Florida home foreclosed on by Bank of America for non-payment of their mortgage. There's only one problem: Nyerges didn't have a mortgage on his home; he had, in fact, paid for the house in full with cash. The case went to court, and when the facts came out, BofA dropped the case. The judge ordered them to pay the Nyerges' legal fees, a total coming to over $2,500. Small change to a bank, right? Except BofA hadn't paid them yet.
Cut to Friday, when the Nyerges' lawyer entered the local bank's branch backed by two sheriff's deputies with an ultimatum: Cut them a check for the legal fees, or the moving crew outside will start hauling out every piece of furniture in the place to be sold at a public auction. Desks, chairs, lobby sofas, everything would go.
BofA, wisely, cut them a check.
This, however, is just one incident in the multitudes of stalling practices and mismanagement in the wake of the original housing bubble. And now there's word that the housing market is dipping again. Now, I don't call this a double-dip. Why? Because you have to fully get out of the first crisis before you can call it a double-dip. And we're still immersed.
I really think that we need to give anyone who holds a mortgage an ultimatum: Show us every mortgage you hold to be perused by the public, or have every mortgage you hold become null and void right then and there. Most of these mega-corps will go on about how this will wreck the economy...
...to which I say, "The economy's wrecked either way. Your own board members have seen to it."
See, my philosophy with most decisions is that anything you can't control and will happen with any choice you can make is thus irrelevant to the choice at hand. Eventuality of something makes that something fully irrelevant. For example, if you can save one person from dying, but not two, the fact that someone is going to die is irrelevant to the choice of which one to save. (Of course, superheroes have that annoying tendency to compromise the eventuality of death, but for us normals...) The choice has several factors, but "SOMEONE'S GONNA DIE!" is not one of them.
Likewise, right now, the economy is going to let go, sooner or later. Every option anyone has tried to throw at it that would not make this an eventuality has been shot down by those who have a vested interest in making the economy's collapse an eventuality. Therefore, now, any decision we make should not be made on whether it will cause the economy to collapse. That's an eventuality becuase it has been made so. Meaning that we have carte blanche to make the big corporations help as many "little guys" as possible.
My ultimatum is this: Every entity that holds any mortgages or loans will make every such morgage or loan publicly available for perusal. Then, every one of those mortgages can be disputed for whatever reason (like, for example, I never had a mortgage or a loan, or I don't even own a house.) If a mortgage turns out to be fraudulent, the entity is penalized for what has already been paid into the mortgage (and only the entity, no matter how many entities had it before they got it), and the mortgage is considered fulfilled. Sure, it might mean a few entities go out of business, but then, they shouldn't have been playing with the fire that burned us in the first place.
If an entity does not agree to this public availability, a class action lawsuit for fraud will be opened on every mortgage or loan it currently has. Then, the reverse happens: They must provide proof that each loan is legitimate. It works out the same in the end: each truly fraudulent loan is reimbursed and forgiven. But this, then puts the onus on the entity to defend every single loan it currently has on its books, meaning that they spend more money and are more likely to go out of business. But yet again: they shouldn't have been playing with the fire that burned us, and they should've been forthright when they had the chance.
Of course, this won't happen. The same people in power that will benefit from a wrecked economy have the power to insure it goes off without a hitch, unless drastic action is taken by somebody. But the Republicans are in league with these people, and a few of the Dems are, and those that aren't are painted as though they "hate freedom" whenever they say we might wanna, y'know, rein in a few of these mega-corps that are destroying Main Street, the only street worth worrying about. Because the economy is screwed, because the rich get richer and richer and sit on money, meaning the economy doesn't have nearly as much money flowing as it did in the good times. And then, the government foolishly cuts taxes and keeps them low in the middle of it, ensuring the broken down economy doesn't have any fluidity. And then the cascade happens: Unless something happens to increase fluidity, the economy is going to stay depressed as it has been (nevermind the fat cats that are making more money than ever; they have also willfully taken themselves mostly out of the economy at large as well), and it will burrow through the "rock bottom" that was claimed shortly after the President took office. When that happens, even the clever ones won't have the money to do anything anymore.
So, here's my final question today to those of you who are jealous of teachers' pay and benefits, and yell that they should be cut "for the good of the budget": Is it really for the good of the budget, or is it because you don't make as much as they do because you lost your job and the only new one you could get doesn't permit you to unionize? Is it really other workers' fault that you were laid off, or did the CEO of your company buy a yacht that cost just about as much as the yearly salaries of you and everyone else they laid off shortly afterwards? Is your anger really with teachers, police, firefighters, and other state workers...or should it be with the private fat cats who made the pay of teachers, police, firefighters, and other state workers look good by comparison?