Wall Street Change offers simple, logical solutions to tough economic problems
that appear to have been caused by Wall Street Investment Fraud.

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Barack Obama, his administration, and the republicans are NOT INTERESTED in helping homeowners, just ask Congressperson Dennis Cardoza.

Cannonfire mentions Dennis Cardoza as a retiring California politician trying to get underwater homes mortgages be extended to 40 years. The White House apparently was not interested.

I would suggest something more specific, 40 years at 4 percent, credit card interest rates reduced to 2.9% as long as the debtor agrees to PAY DOWN their overall credit card debt every month.

Yes, it's really that simple.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

CBS Sixty Minutes Exposes Congressional Investing Hypocrisy, aka Congressional Insider Trading and loving every minute of it.

If you don't think Occupy Protestors have a legitimate beef, PLEASE WATCH THIS SIXTY MINUTES EXPOSE' on our high ranking political officials who invest and purchase shares of IPO's and can legally invest in stocks at any time, even when they are shaping legislation or that legislation is about to be voted into law. In some instances these coincidences can result in the significant increase of the value of their investments.

Nancy Pelosi appears to have purchased Visa shares while at the same time credit card legislation that was in the House seemed to just disappear. Pelosi appears to lie to Steve Kroft when she says she did not invest in the Visa shares.

Barack Obama accepted pre-paid credit cards during the 2008 democratic campaign that obviously fake names such as Mickey Mouse listed as the donor.  Did Pelosi, Obama and Visa have any discussions regarding being able to manifest such fraud to the tune of millions of dollars in fraudulent donations to Barack Obama?

Friday, November 11, 2011

Consolidating the Occupy Movement motives into a solid, concrete mission.

Many Occupiers have different ideas about what needs to be done so the odds of implementing all of these ideas are small, the odds all of these ideas canceling each other out are high.

I’ve researched banking, wall street and credit card companies for the past fives years and written a total of 2 websites and 10 bank watchdog blogs, all without any external funding so I am beholden to nobody. 

First I learned about all of the banking and wall street atrocities that hurt the 99%. Then I learned about a particular "WHY" regarding "why" some of these financial atrocities happen. Just recently I learned what could instantly save the 99% from further erosion of their wealth by wall street and the banks.

Right now, any debt restructuring by the 99% requires the debtor be placed into credit default first by the very entities that pay themselves undeserved and unknown millions and perhaps billions of dollars in yearly bonuses! 

Considering that there are ten’s of millions of debtors who need debt restructuring because of fraudulent wall street activity which tanked the economy, it is outrageous to have these thieves tell us that we are credit defaulters if we need our debts restructured.

So if the occupiers are truly looking for a unity of message while saving main street and the 99%, demand that justifiable debt restructure NOT require a credit default first.

It’s really that simple and direct.

Consider that the 99% lost 7.3 trillion dollars in Home Equity value since 2006, add in another trillion or two in 401K devaluation, add in ongoing high interest rates on credit card and student loan debt that siphon the ability to pay down a debt, and americans are being bled dry to the tune of over TEN TRILLION DOLLARS. 

Most of the 99%'s debt should be subject to debt restructuring without a credit rating default for the tens of millions of americans who need it.

Until non-default credit restructuring is passed into law, the bleeding of assets from the 99% will continue and it will make me question why it is more important for the occupy movement to punish a wall street scoundrel than prevent additional trillions of dollars in losses to the 99%.
Justifiable Debt Restructuring DOES NOT require a credit rating default assessed by those who have caused the economic melt down via their own fraudulent activities, but until this comes reality, the economy WILL NOT improve. 

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Restructuring a Debt Should not first require a Default.

Bankers have a simple rule they follow, The restructuring of any debt first requires a Default.

People can encounter any number of life changing situations, such as a medical emergency, caretaking for a family member, job loss beyond their control, victim of a violent crime, and this life changing event can require the renegotiation of a pre-existing debt. 

However the banks won't talk to someone unless the bank can first proclaim a default on the debtor in need of a debt restructuring. In the Banking world, a Default basically means the defaulter is unfit, vile, a loser, someone to be pitied and looked down on, someone who should be grateful for any loan they may get in the future and therefore pay A LOT MORE in interest rate charges for that loan.

If we the people can change that one sentence up above in bold to "The restructuring of any debt DOES NOT require a default" Many good things instantly happen.

First, it will mean that anyone with a legitimate reason for restructuring a debt will be allowed to apply to do so without having to default first. Defaulting is like having a surgically implanted GPS that announces ones arrival wherever they go as being a lowlife, deadbeat, irresponsible, not to be trusted, unemployable, unrentable, UNTRUSTWORTHY.

Every day bankers label as untrustworthy people who have lost jobs to take care of an ill family member. Yet it is the Bankers that simultaneously make long term loans to people even as they invest in the outsourcing of businesses that help generate the banks new local business!

A student loan is taken out for 50K and it has now become clear that even if a job is earned after graduation, it will be for far less money than that size of loan could justify. Restructuring the student loan without first requiring a default would be the perfect compromise. Otherwise that 50k loan can eventually grow to 100,000 to 150,000 dollars by the time all the interest payments are factored in.
But banks will only restructure that student loan if there is a default first.
If however, a student loan is restructured without a default, the debt can be renegotiated with no penalty. A 50K student loan could be restructured with a lower interest rate. How about 1.9% instead of 11.9%. Is 55,000 to 60,000 total debt owed better than owing 100,000 or 150,000? Plus there's no default! 

The debt can be further restructured so that until there is income, there is no debt obligation. That's pretty reasonable no? And with a super low interest rate attached, the debt will never grow uncontrollably.

This is a such a reasonable solution in which no one can complain that someone got something for free, and it stops the pathetic and insufferable actions of a banking community that continues to suck out significant portions of wealth from main street. This in turn frightens corporations from hiring anybody since they know fewer and fewer people have any wealth to buy their products and services with.

While the above scenario was about a student loan, mortgages and credit card debt should also be restructured without default as well. 

As it stands now, Government foreclosure aid programs such as HAMP first require the homeowner default before they can even  apply for HAMP!

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Occupy Wall Street spreads around the country.

I don't have much to add about the occupying protestors. People are occupying city halls around the country. My main contribution is what I believe to be identifying the root cause of why people are protesting.
Banks label anybody a defaulter if they need a debt restructured. 
This defaulting definition needs to change. Restructuring a debt IS NOT a default. Until the rule regarding restructuring a debt changes, true economic changes cannot really occur.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Rooting out public funding waste such as fake invoicing from Detroit Public Schools Risk Management Department.

Wow, how many more Hobbs act violations are out there that involve the fraudulent re spending of government funds?  I bet if all the fraud and waste were found, there would be no need for Barack Obama's additional funding of public schools with more tax money.

One of the biggest offenders of tax money waste in my opinion are those who receive taxpayer funds and are under pressure to spend all they get or risk getting less the following year.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

The sky is falling cries, over excessive consumer debt, conveniently leaves out the real truth.

Consumer debt is only relevant if banks insist on cramming high interest rates down the consumers throat no matter what. I am becoming very concerned that many of the alleged independent bloggers that portray themselves as outside of government influence are the biggest whores and hacks of all.

These alleged economic intellects NEVER mention that most debt issues can be resolved if the interest rate associated with the debt is severely reduced.
There is NO PROGRAM AVAILABLE for consumers who WANT to reduce their debt and the ONLY THING PREVENTING them is the high interests rates they are already paying on their existing debt.
Until such a program exists, I don't trust ANYONE who does not advocate such a stance in their own blogs.

Which is better, fear mongering that devalues the standard of living for the entire planet while perceived wealth drops by more than half for the worlds middle and lower class, or simply reducing interest rates on EXISTING consumer debt for anyone committed to paying down their debt so that the value OF WHAT ALREADY EXISTS, maintains, rather than drops in half again?

The answer is obvious, yet NEVER will you hear the usual alleged outside of the box thinkers simply point out that consumer debt is manageable in a way that can soften tough economic times, all it takes is the consumer to be offered a program in which they agree to pay down their EXISTING DEBT in exchange for a lower interest rate on consumer debt they already have.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

It is wrong to taunt (celebrate) the death of Osama Bin Laden by assembling at the WTC location and the White House Grounds.

All things considered, it would have been amazing to actually capture Osama Bin Laden, and not kill him.

In football, when the team that scores a touchdown over celebrates, or the runner with the ball is about to score a touchdown and taunts the opposition just before they reach the end zone, a penalty is assessed on the next play.

I think it's wrong to taunt or celebrate the death of a political figure by assembling and cheering their death. I think just as in football, it leads to other problems that could have been prevented by not taunting or celebrating in the first place.

I also think the first pictures of Osama Bin Laden's death should be given to Al Jazeera before they are run in any U.S. magazine or newspaper.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Why are the U.S. Tornados, the deadliest in decades, less important than the Royal Wedding in England?

What is wrong with the media? There should be cameras swarming all over the states that have been devastated by dozens of killer tornados. There should be hours and hours and hours of coverage. Channels that regularly show crap reality tv shows, like MTV and VH1, should find the time to run programming about the tornados.

Is the media really this clueless, self indulgent, narcissistic to have no plan b for multiple catastrophes in multiple states? But hey, lets all watch hours and hours of the Royal Wedding.

Media Idiots, they destroyed the 2008 democratic coverage with their lack of investigative journalism, they've allowed millions of americans to be shafted out of the loss of their homes, even when many homeowners still had significant equity in their homes, and now they're going to bombard us with the Royal Wedding even as Tornados have just ravaged many many states in the past week.

And of all the times to make himself the center of attention, Barack Obama picked yesterday to attempt to "debunk" his birth certificate issue even though the issue has always been whether or not he was a natural born citizen and not where he was born. Did Obama even consider the timing of making an announcement about his own birth certificate while americans were dying in several states from multiple tornado attacks?

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Pop Goes the Weasel, Google developing a face recognition APP that will divulge EVERYTHING about you.

Justify Full

Remember when the big worry was a tattoo on your forehead identifying who you were, or an implanted chip, well, those days are gone and now we'll just take picture of your FACE, and let the world know everything about you.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Is there a correlation between Earthquakes and Volcanic Eruptions?

Just a couple of days before the 8.8 offshore Japan Earthquake, Hawaii was experiencing significant volcanic activity. Right around the time of the 2011 8.8 Japan Earthquake, Three volcanoes were active. Click here to read more.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

The biggest problem with Collective Bargaining is there is more than one Collective, and they base their raise on what other Collectives get.

No need to read my short article about collective bargaining, the headline says it all. Basically, by bargaining with several different unions, various collectives are able to work off of each other to extract bigger and bigger contracts. If there was only one collective, and perhaps just one across the board raise for everybody, collective bargaining could work.

It amazes me how the real grain of truth within the bigger controversy always gets overlooked and under publicized. Each collective bases their deal on what other collectives have already gotten, or on what they think other collectives will get. The problem is, each collective believes their collective is more important than the other collectives, and no collective wants to look like they got the weakest deal for their own union.

Combine all the collectives, everybody gets the same percentage of raise, and that could go a long way towards solving the collective bargaining issue.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

"Please Support Inside Job", I posted that message as a Graphic and Link on ten of my blogs since October 15, 2010.

If you google the phrase "Please Support Inside Job" as a graphic and as a link, you would find that I had posted a free advertisement for Inside Job since October 15, 2010 on ten of my blogs. If you googled the phrase "Please Support Inside Job" on the web, you would see pages of my blogs at the top of google that not only listed the graphic but also gave a link to where the movie could be viewed.

However, unless I say something, it's the kind of thing that I'll never be acknowledged for on any level, even if it were for nothing more than to build trust and loyalty for future recommendations.

Why is that?

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

If the United States Declared Solar and Wind Energy as Rogue Terrorists, I bet we'd find enough to supply all of our energy needs.

Is it a good thing when the headline of an article completely explains the content of the article that is to be written?

Imagine thousands of U.S. Military men with telescopic mounts on top of surveyor gear combing the U.S. countryside looking for enemy wind and solar energy terrorist cells.

Does anyone doubt that our military could find enough of these wind and solar energy terrorist cells within the United States to provide energy for the United States?
Should returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan be re-deployed in the U.S. to hunt down wind and solar energy terrorist cells, capture them, and convert them to energy?
Just a thought.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Federal Hobbs Act Violations Challenged by Several Defendants who were Candidates Only.

"Edit Update: Feb. 18, 2011) Judges throw out Hobbs Act Violation. How is this fair to the other politicians running for office? If a politician is anyone who runs for office, then it should not matter whether they actually win or not, no?

The Federal Hobbs Act case being tried by federal appeals judges in Philadelphia apparently has never occurred before. The defendants are trying to get the Federal Hobbs charges removed because they were not politicians at the time of the apparently illegal deeds they are alleged to have done. The Federal Hobbs Act violation that is being considered is the accepting of funds by a politician in exchange for further favors under the color of right.

This case is really a huge deal on many levels. What I did not understand were a couple of the judges questions and analogies, and more importantly, what wasn't asked. One judge seemed to be implying that it would be wrong to charge someone for burning their own house down just because the house was in what could be called "escrow". I don't really get that analogy. There were other prospective home buyers interested in that home and the act of burning the house down ruined the chances for others to buy the home.

What concerns me are the other, honest candidates that don't promise favors in exchange for money NOW, TO HELP WIN THE RACE. Violating the Federal Hobbs act under the color of right at the expense of other political candidates should therefore be on the table, no?

On the other hand, the government could easily meddle in ANY RACE since every candidate receives donations and anyone could then accuse them of accepting the money in exchange for favors after the candidate is elected. Although, since the government accusing political candidates of Hobbs Act violations apparently has not come up before, so maybe it would not be an issue.

The other issue that is not being brought up is, once a candidate gets signatures to become eligible to run for a political position, they are in fact a politician running for office. You don't become a politician by running and winning office, you become a politician once you convince enough people to sign your petition to run for office.

Otherwise, somebody who runs for office and loses could never call themselves a politician.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Dance of the Digital Dominators, aka Wall Street can't create anything, Wall Street just combines things and takes money off the top.

The four headed monster comprised of the Internet, the advance of digital media technology, satellites, and Wall Street, at first helped caused an economic expansion. Now, this four headed monster demands to be fed, and main street is the happy meal it seeks out.

Wall Street no longer creates anything, they simply recombine something that already exists, and they appear to take the biggest cut for themselves. That is the essence of the four headed monster that is destroying the U.S. economy and soon the world's entire economy.

This four headed wall street monster can multiply, securitize, then re-multiply ANYTHING, many times replicating the same product in different markets than disappearing with the upfront bonuses and fees that have already been collected, long gone before the house of cards collapses.

Wanna place a bet on which state will have the most foreclosures, wall street will offer some type of securitized fund. Want to securitize any future failure? No problem, Wall Street will securitize it and profit handsomely on the front end.

and there in lies the problem.

If Wall Street put together deals that had a reasonable profit cap on what they could earn, and if the money was paid out over time instead of upfront, maybe, just maybe, we could learn to live with the four headed Wall Street Monster.

Instead, the upfront, over the top profits that Wall Street creates for itself simply motivates Wall Street to reinvest using the same profit paradigm as before, a new financial product that once again creates nothing but a temporary increase in value that ends up in wall streets pockets.

I don't know if there is a solution, but until we de-emphasize wall street's role in growing real jobs for main street, we are whats for dinner.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

The most Hurtful Anti American Words I ever heard were meant as a back handed compliment by a Canadian Tourist at a 2011 New Years Eve Celebration.

The most hurtful anti american words I ever heard spoken were actually meant as a backhanded compliment by a Canadian Tourist enjoying herself at a 2011 New Years Eve Celebration.

I was at home for news year eve when I heard the comment made on television. I don't even recall what channel I was watching, it might have been Fox, it might have been KCBS, it might have been KABC, when my jaw dropped as the most hideous thing ever said about america was said in passing by a canadian tourist actually enjoying herself at a Pasadena Rose Bowl Pre-Parade New Years Eve Party.

When I heard the Canadian say what she did, I actually felt tears well up, even when I think about it now, it can still bring me to tears, and not in a proud way. Our Canadian friend said what she did in an off the cuff way to a reporter and I think that is what makes it so hurtful. Our Canadian friend didn't really pause in thought, she just said it... "If there's one thing americans still know how to do, it's put on a show."

The way our canadian friend said "IF there's ONE THING americans still know how to do, it's put on a show" that made the comment so hurtful. This comment is painful because I think she's right. If there is even one thing we still know how to do, it's how to put on a "show".

I will admit I am not sure if the word "still" was used. I think it was, but either way, the undertone of the comment is lethal. We are becoming the world's court jesters (but with knives?), and PROUD OF IT.

Even the word "show" reminds me of Barack Obama picking up a prematurely won Nobel Peace Prize, then flying to Europe with Oprah Winfrey in tow so he could try and win the Winter Olympics moreso for Chicago, than America, so he could be center stage as he finished his 8 years in office. The show was mapped out even before Barack Obama had won the presidency.

In the past I have referred to Barack Obama as having a "poker face" when it comes to his complete botching of foreclosure relief programs such as HAMP and EHLP. Barack Obama should be facing impeachment charges over the save your home foreclosure deception he so proudly backed in March of 2009.

It was that same Alfred E. Neuman poker face that belittled the fact that a significant portion of Barack Obama's record campaign donations in the 2008 democratic presidential nomination race came from anonymous, untraceable, pre-paid credit cards.

Maybe it is appropriate that the description of america "If there's one thing that americans still know how to do, it's put on a show", were said right in the middle of our poker faced, untraceable president's first term in office.

Share Gadget