Occupy movement- remember them??

booom · 13-11-2013 11:56pm #1

I know, I know, it's not Dublin. But to all the naysayers and hedgefund hitlers who were only too happy to deride the occupy movement when it was in full swing, here's a snippet from the Wall St. crowd. A joy to read.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/occupy-wall-street-activists-15m-personal-debt

Godge · 14-11-2013 12:37pm

booom wrote: »

I know, I know, it's not Dublin. But to all the naysayers and hedgefund hitlers who were only too happy to deride the occupy movement when it was in full swing, here's a snippet from the Wall St. crowd. A joy to read.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/occupy-wall-street-activists-15m-personal-debt

They openly admit in that article that they don't know whose medical bills they have paid off.

Given that it is America, and that it is private medical bills they have paid off, what are the odds that they have paid for the cosmetic surgery bills of former bankers and their spouses?

Seriously, they just bought some debt on the secondary markets and wrote it off without a second thought as to whether it was deserved. Just like a government guaranteeing a bondholder without a second thought as to whether it was deserved.

renegademaster · 14-11-2013 3:40pm

booom wrote: »

I know, I know, it's not Dublin. But to all the naysayers and hedgefund hitlers who were only too happy to deride the occupy movement when it was in full swing, here's a snippet from the Wall St. crowd. A joy to read.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/occupy-wall-street-activists-15m-personal-debt

great article but why only mention Occupy Dublin? Occupy Galway was the 3rd longest running occupy camp in the world with 260+ days of Occupation of public space.

with so little support people cracked up in the end. it was such a wasted opportunity for all those effected by the 1%* to gather and force real change, instead we were physically assaulted, berated by so many passers by, media, "politicians"** both local and national. Thankfully enough sane people dropped by to give us advice, have a chat, stay for a cuppa, bring all sorts of food, cakes and general supplies to keep us all warm enough to be able to brave the bad bad conditions we were faced with on so many long days and nights. all this from a group of people who've never done anything remotely like that before and may never do again without a huge upswell in support from those who we all know are suffering in silence hoping against hope they can just get through the day and tomorrow maybe different.

tomorrow will be different alright, just wait til you see how much more can be taken away from you and I and what will happen in the not to distant future to all those who try to stand up for themselves.

* we now know for sure it's less than 1% who inflict all the pain on the 99.9% of over 7,000,000,000 men women and children on the planet.

** not politicians as such but more those who've "fix the road"!!

booom · 15-11-2013 9:22am

Godge wrote: »

They openly admit in that article that they don't know whose medical bills they have paid off.

Given that it is America, and that it is private medical bills they have paid off, what are the odds that they have paid for the cosmetic surgery bills of former bankers and their spouses?

Seriously, they just bought some debt on the secondary markets and wrote it off without a second thought as to whether it was deserved. Just like a government guaranteeing a bondholder without a second thought as to whether it was deserved.

Ahhh, the naysayers.......http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/13/occupy-wall-st-debt-buying-heart-capitalism?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

this article explains that letters were actually sent out to 2693 people, so they must know whose bill they're settling. Something tells me, and of course neither of us know for sure, that bankers spouses do not appear in the list of personal bankruptcies.
Question: why are you so quick to deride, pick holes in and rubbish something which, admittedly, is a drop in the ocean but has real world consequences for people who are in dire financial straits? Sure, some bad eggs may be included in the let-off, but why are you so sceptical- surely if only 50% of those people are genuine cases- the exercise has been worthwhile.

Godge · 15-11-2013 3:51pm

booom wrote: »

Ahhh, the naysayers.......http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/13/occupy-wall-st-debt-buying-heart-capitalism?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

this article explains that letters were actually sent out to 2693 people, so they must know whose bill they're settling. Something tells me, and of course neither of us know for sure, that bankers spouses do not appear in the list of personal bankruptcies.
Question: why are you so quick to deride, pick holes in and rubbish something which, admittedly, is a drop in the ocean but has real world consequences for people who are in dire financial straits? Sure, some bad eggs may be included in the let-off, but why are you so sceptical- surely if only 50% of those people are genuine cases- the exercise has been worthwhile.

Because it is just another group of people being let off their debts with no regard as to whether they deserve it.

Compared to social welfare or foreign aid which have some sort of rationale and democratic support for the aid they give, just paying some randomer's debts doesn't seem logical, fair or accountable.

booom · 15-11-2013 7:02pm

Godge wrote: »

Because it is just another group of people being let off their debts with no regard as to whether they deserve it.

Compared to social welfare or foreign aid which have some sort of rationale and democratic support for the aid they give, just paying some randomer's debts doesn't seem logical, fair or accountable.

To be honest, I can't figure out your thought process- are you saying some people deserve to be let off their debts? or do you envisage a world in which personal debt is something which has an inalienable right over a person until a)it is somehow paid off by them, or b) they die?

I do accept your point about social welfare and foreign aid having some rational but they both originate with the state. This movement have accomplished something without that benefactor (even if they do operate within a system operated by the state).

Lastly, I don't believe you've answered my question: why are you so negative when someone actually gets up off their arse and does something to help someone else? I suggest you take into account Rawls's law of peoples and imagine the shoe on the other foot. If someone like yourself or a family member was in a predicament, through no fault of your own and someone offered to help out- would you stick your hand up and say you're undeserving? Come to think of it, and this is, admittedly, taking this a bit further, would you be so scathing of other forms of charity or goodwill?

Permabear · 15-11-2013 7:44pm

This post has been deleted.

booom · 15-11-2013 8:33pm

Unless I'm mistaken, having your debt forgiven is not the same as defaulting- hence no credit history issue.

Whats the alternative?- suffer in poverty but keep your credit rating? that sounds very similar to the architects of austerity who insist on sharing bad personal debts by a few on the many.

Jonny7 · 15-11-2013 9:59pm

booom wrote: »

Unless I'm mistaken, having your debt forgiven is not the same as defaulting- hence no credit history issue.

Whats the alternative?- suffer in poverty but keep your credit rating? that sounds very similar to the architects of austerity who insist on sharing bad personal debts by a few on the many.

Don't consume goods/services you have no intention of paying for

Realt Dearg Sec · 15-11-2013 10:05pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Don't consume goods/services you have no intention of paying for

Don't "consume" medical care? Great idea.

Jonny7 · 15-11-2013 10:16pm

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Don't "consume" medical care? Great idea.

Medical care is exempt from payment?

Next time you get a scan in the hospital, don't pay for it, ignore all the letters, and when the baliffs are at the door, call "Occupy" and ask for a bail-out.

Because if there's some sort of moral lesson in there, I'll be damned if I know what it is.

Realt Dearg Sec · 15-11-2013 10:28pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Medical care is exempt from payment?

Next time you get a scan in the hospital, don't pay for it, ignore all the letters, and when the baliffs are at the door, call "Occupy" and ask for a bail-out.

Because if there's some sort of moral lesson in there, I'll be damned if I know what it is.

So, if you're sick and poor, you should just die?

Jonny7 · 15-11-2013 10:35pm

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

So, if you're sick and poor, you should just die?

Who said these people were sick and poor, how do you know it isn't just a bunch of drug-dealers and criminals who have dodged their bills?

booom · 15-11-2013 10:38pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Don't consume goods/services you have no intention of paying for

Must remember that one next time i need a (god forbid) ct scan (regardless of whether my medical plan-which in Ireland is miniscule compared to the US, covers me)- oh no, wait, if it were up to you, i'd be better off getting a brain haemorrhage and croking it (works out cheaper for you that way huh?). I'M NOT PAYING FOR THAT VILLAIN, HE ABUSES THE SYSTEM. Christ almighty, why can't you just see that helping out (even if a token gesture) deserves applause? I pity humanity when the gombeens among us fail to see an act of kindness, goodwill, charity (even if self-congratulatory?) does not even merit a neutral response. But to immediately lambaste it and sneer at it (whatever its motive) is beyond me.
Incidentally, if someone makes a donation to the Occupy movement- what does that make them in your book (obviously not just you but all the big hearts out there who think what this crowd did was stupid, counter productive, irrelevant or even detrimental to their search for a new beemer on the never never) ? An idiot for looking to help others? Naive, because some bankers wifes boobjob is being subsidized by me?

A thought just occured to me- are you lot pissed off at the occupy movement cos you weren't one of the 2693?

Realt Dearg Sec · 15-11-2013 10:51pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Who said these people were sick and poor, how do you know it isn't just a bunch of drug-dealers and criminals who have dodged their bills?

Yeah but you said, flat out, don't use services you won't pay for. But that obviously begs the question, what if you can't pay for it? You seem to work frontage basic assumption that they must be drug dealers and criminals dodging bills. And from it you made a generalisation that you should only get medical Cate if you can afford it. If you can satisfactorily explain how your statements don't suggest the conclusion I drew, then great, but I don't see how youcan.

To put it another way, what if they're NOT drug dealers looking to dodge medical bills?what if they're just normal people unfortunate enough to get very sick as well as not having money? Should they simply not use medical care on the grounds that they can't (or won't, in your phrasing) pay the extortionate bills?

booom · 15-11-2013 11:04pm

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Yeah but you said, flat out, don't use services you won't pay for. But that obviously begs the question, what if you can't pay for it? You seem to work frontage basic assumption that they must be drug dealers and criminals dodging bills. And from it you made a generalisation that you should only get medical Cate if you can afford it. If you can satisfactorily explain how your statements don't suggest the conclusion I drew, then great, but I don't see how youcan.

To put it another way, what if they're NOT drug dealers looking to dodge medical bills?what if they're just normal people unfortunate enough to get very sick as well as not having money? Should they simply not use medical care on the grounds that they can't (or won't, in your phrasing) pay the extortionate bills?

I'll go one more- how do you know they're NOT criminals and drug dealers? Of Course; All drug dealers and criminals leave their address behind (Just incase they get a letter from the Occupy movement) when they do a legger from hospital- didn't you know that?

Jonny7 · 16-11-2013 1:49am

booom wrote: »

Must remember that one next time i need a (god forbid) ct scan (regardless of whether my medical plan-which in Ireland is miniscule compared to the US, covers me)- oh no, wait, if it were up to you, i'd be better off getting a brain haemorrhage and croking it (works out cheaper for you that way huh?). I'M NOT PAYING FOR THAT VILLAIN, HE ABUSES THE SYSTEM. Christ almighty, why can't you just see that helping out (even if a token gesture) deserves applause? I pity humanity when the gombeens among us fail to see an act of kindness, goodwill, charity (even if self-congratulatory?) does not even merit a neutral response. But to immediately lambaste it and sneer at it (whatever its motive) is beyond me.
Incidentally, if someone makes a donation to the Occupy movement- what does that make them in your book (obviously not just you but all the big hearts out there who think what this crowd did was stupid, counter productive, irrelevant or even detrimental to their search for a new beemer on the never never) ? An idiot for looking to help others? Naive, because some bankers wifes boobjob is being subsidized by me?

A thought just occured to me- are you lot pissed off at the occupy movement cos you weren't one of the 2693?

Feel free to embellish my comments thanks

Banks write off bad debt all the time, if Occupy want to help them out, that's grand, it's good for both.

Jonny7 · 16-11-2013 2:02am

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Yeah but you said, flat out, don't use services you won't pay for. But that obviously begs the question, what if you can't pay for it? You seem to work frontage basic assumption that they must be drug dealers and criminals dodging bills. And from it you made a generalisation that you should only get medical Cate if you can afford it. If you can satisfactorily explain how your statements don't suggest the conclusion I drew, then great, but I don't see how youcan.

To put it another way, what if they're NOT drug dealers looking to dodge medical bills?what if they're just normal people unfortunate enough to get very sick as well as not having money? Should they simply not use medical care on the grounds that they can't (or won't, in your phrasing) pay the extortionate bills?

No I didn't say anything flat out, but if you want to take what I said out of context, and then have a debate with yourself in the meanwhile - knock yourself out

I am very glad for Occupy, they can repay medical debt to their heart's content and as long I don't have to step over them in tents on my way to work it's all good.

Realt Dearg Sec · 16-11-2013 11:24am

Jonny7 wrote: »

No I didn't say anything flat out, but if you want to take what I said out of context, and then have a debate with yourself in the meanwhile - knock yourself out

I am very glad for Occupy, they can repay medical debt to their heart's content and as long I don't have to step over them in tents on my way to work it's all good.

Could you explain the context for me so, because I've missed it, to be honest.

Jonny7 · 16-11-2013 2:19pm

Some poster asked what the alternative was to defaulting/bad credit history

I provided the obscure option of not getting into debt in the first place

Some just seem to be angry at the very notion of debt, in which case I just phase out entirely

Realt Dearg Sec · 16-11-2013 2:47pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Some poster asked what the alternative was to defaulting/bad credit history

I provided the obscure option of not getting into debt in the first place

Some just seem to be angry at the very notion of debt, in which case I just phase out entirely

I really don't see how that context changes anything in terms of how to interpret what you said. What should a poor person who can't afford their medical bills do if they get catastrophically sick?

booom · 16-11-2013 4:09pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Some poster asked what the alternative was to defaulting/bad credit history

I provided the obscure option of not getting into debt in the first place

Some just seem to be angry at the very notion of debt, in which case I just phase out entirely

I take it you don't have any debt in any form then- credit card (even if paid off monthly)? mortgage? car loan? student loan? And if you do, you just assume your financial status will always meet the requirements of your obligations, thereby following your own example of not getting into debt in the first place?

The pithy remark concerning stepping over people in tents on your way to work shows either a complete disregard for people who are more interested in the economic predicament of some (only as I mentioned Dublin earlier- were you on your way to work in the central bank perhaps?) than you are or displays empathy akin to a sociopath who has no regard for or is completely detached from the individuals and general populace who make up their environment, concerned only with their own existence. By the way- I'm not saying you're a sociopath- that itself is disproved by your participation in the debate.

nesf · 16-11-2013 8:33pm

booom wrote: »

Unless I'm mistaken, having your debt forgiven is not the same as defaulting- hence no credit history issue.

Sure, I'll just pay a Euro a month on my 5,000 Euro credit card debt, I've not defaulted since I'm still paying it back so no credit history issues!

booom · 16-11-2013 10:03pm

nesf wrote: »

Sure, I'll just pay a Euro a month on my 5,000 Euro credit card debt, I've not defaulted since I'm still paying it back so no credit history issues!

Not sure I see your point- are you telling me the credit card company decided to forgive your loan and you're paying them a euro a month nonetheless because you believe you'll get a bad credit rating? Or do you believe that repaying an outstanding loan on your terms is the same thing as having a debt wiped?- I'm a bit confused and, yes, we've gotten a bit off the original topic, but I'll run with it.

nesf · 16-11-2013 11:02pm

booom wrote: »

Not sure I see your point- are you telling me the credit card company decided to forgive your loan and you're paying them a euro a month nonetheless because you believe you'll get a bad credit rating? Or do you believe that repaying an outstanding loan on your terms is the same thing as having a debt wiped?- I'm a bit confused and, yes, we've gotten a bit off the original topic, but I'll run with it.

I'm more confused by your idea that your debt being written off as a bad debt wouldn't affect your credit history.

The debt they bought was sold on the secondary market. This only happens if the original holder has given up on it being repaid and is trying to recoup some value from it. This isn't the kind of thing that they ignore when doing your credit score.

Realt Dearg Sec · 16-11-2013 11:16pm

nesf wrote: »

I'm more confused by your idea that your debt being written off as a bad debt wouldn't affect your credit history.

The debt they bought was sold on the secondary market. This only happens if the original holder has given up on it being repaid and is trying to recoup some value from it. This isn't the kind of thing that they ignore when doing your credit score.

Debt forgiveness is different to a debt write-off. The Occupy folk did the former, not the latter.

nesf · 16-11-2013 11:44pm

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Debt forgiveness is different to a debt write-off. The Occupy folk did the former, not the latter.

That would be it if the Occupy folk owned the debt in the first place but they didn't.

booom · 17-11-2013 12:26am

nesf wrote: »

That would be it if the Occupy folk owned the debt in the first place but they didn't.

Your bang on there. They didn't own it originally. It was sold to them. So the debt is theirs to do with as they wish. The debt was written off by the original lender but it still exists- hence its value (for whatever nominal sum) in the marketplace for which they received a payment. Oh, and explain what you meant about paying off a credit card debt with a euro a month, not being funny, but I'm still trying to figure it out.

nesf · 17-11-2013 12:56am

booom wrote: »

Your bang on there. They didn't own it originally. It was sold to them. So the debt is theirs to do with as they wish. The debt was written off by the original lender but it still exists- hence its value (for whatever nominal sum) in the marketplace for which they received a payment. Oh, and explain what you meant about paying off a credit card debt with a euro a month, not being funny, but I'm still trying to figure it out.

Ok, sorry if I was unclear. Occupy can do whatever they want with the debt and it affects these people's credit ratings not at all. This is true, the issue is a misunderstanding about how credit score works. If your debt has been restructured (credit card example) or sold on at a discount (Occupy example) this is flagged and noted on credit histories since both indicate that you couldn't pay back your debt in full and on time.

The idea that your credit score wouldn't have been affected if it was part of this Occupy debt forgiveness is wrong, that your debt had been sold on at a discount in the first place would affect your credit rating. Occupy forgiving your debt doesn't affect anything, you're neither punished for it nor do they forget about your earlier inability to pay because of the debt forgiveness.

This is why things like a single unpaid ESB bill from five or six years ago start being raised as issues when you go in looking for a mortgage. Your prompt payment of ESB bills since then stands in your favour but the system won't forget that time you skipped payment.

booom · 17-11-2013 2:33am

Ok, that's all taken in, and relevant. I do understand your point that future credit ratings may possibly be affected. However, and without getting into the whole first page of this thread, I believe that if someone who is a genuine case, both medically and financially, has their debt wiped out by the occupy movement (and even the natural skeptic in me believes there are many in the people in question), there is no need to show contempt for the people who do so. Nor is there any need to critique the recipients of such goodwill simply on the basis that they 'could' be anything other than genuine cases. The negativity and persistence displayed by some contributors in seeking to downplay an attempt to help others was disheartening. The level of flippant cynicism amongst some is, to my mind, nothing short of disgraceful. Having said all that, I thank you all for your input- nothing like a good jaw jaw.

Godge · 17-11-2013 2:46pm

booom wrote: »

Ok, that's all taken in, and relevant. I do understand your point that future credit ratings may possibly be affected. However, and without getting into the whole first page of this thread, I believe that if someone who is a genuine case, both medically and financially, has their debt wiped out by the occupy movement (and even the natural skeptic in me believes there are many in the people in question), there is no need to show contempt for the people who do so. Nor is there any need to critique the recipients of such goodwill simply on the basis that they 'could' be anything other than genuine cases. The negativity and persistence displayed by some contributors in seeking to downplay an attempt to help others was disheartening. The level of flippant cynicism amongst some is, to my mind, nothing short of disgraceful. Having said all that, I thank you all for your input- nothing like a good jaw jaw.

You miss the point.

The Irish government rescued a load of banks in 2008 without checking whether any deserved it. Anglo should never have been rescued.

Occupy rescued a load of people's medical bills without checking whether any of them deserved it. The plastic surgery and Botox bills of bankers' wives should not be forgiven.

If Occupy are trying to change the world, explain how doing the same thing but just to different people is a change. Occupy seem to have done less checking than the Irish government. How is that an improvement?

Occupy movement- remember them??

Comments