Adjustable Rate Mortgages were really being pushed even as recently as three years ago. I had to repeatedly state that I wanted a fixed rate mortgage at a decent rate and would not accept an Adjustable Rate Mortgage, because having been at the same job for so long, I know the range of percentage I will get as an increase every year, and it would not cover a mortgage increase. I was so naive about mortgages that I didn't even know the tax assessment would cause my mortgage payment to fluctuate. So I can just imagine if I had allowed an ARM as I was being urged to do, and my property assessment was high, how easy it would be not to be able to make a payment. And of course the second you miss a payment with anything, fees get tacked on, pressure starts, and it snowballs. I think it was a great idea to make mortgages available to people whose credit was average or slightly below, because the fact is, those people live in apartments and they make their rent every month. So why should they not be able to make a mortgage payment every month just as well? It's reasonable to assume they would. But nobody threw in the idea of selling them waaay more house than they could afford and hard selling them that they could afford it. The temptation is huge and people who have not entered into these kind of transactions could easily be intimidated by the hard sell. The other thing is, I was highly encouraged to sell every few years. It was just assumed I would buy something else in three year's time or so. In which case, if I'd had an ARM, maybe it would not have had time to balloon on me. So that's the other part of the strategy of selling with an ARM. "Don't worry, you'll be out of there before the interest goes up."
It pays to keep interest rates up sky high and to con people about money. It costs poorer people more money to do everything and when they are able to get credit, it's at usurious rates. Most states have no cap on the interest a card can charge or the penalty fee they can charge for a missed payment. I'm saying it's a setup with one foot on the banana peel and one foot in bankruptcy court if you have had any trouble with your credit in the past -- and it's easy to get into credit trouble that you can't get free of for seven years.
Full Version: *bailout Bill Failed!* Where Do We Go Now?
QUOTE (Julia in Maryland @ Oct 2 2008, 08:01 AM) 
But Smelka, like I said, the CRA loans have NOT been the problem. Underwriting regulations were written into the legislation and those standards had to be followed. It's the tons of subprime loans having nothing to do with the CRA that have been the problem, as those loans had no regulation whatsoever. Republicans love to blame that program and assume that most people won't know any better than to believe them.
Here's an article that explains it with evidence to back it up: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articl...subprime_crisis
Here's an article that explains it with evidence to back it up: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articl...subprime_crisis
As a banker, I can verify that what Julia has stated is true. The Community Reinvestment Act or CRA is not the problem. Again, the majority of the sub-prime loans were generated by mortgage brokers who are not subject to CRA at all. Although mortgage brokers are subject to some consumer protection laws, Truth-in-Lending, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), they are basically unregulated. In most states, mortgage brokers are only examined if complaints from consumers are registered against them. There is little to no federal oversight. Commercial banks, on the other hand, are regulated by the federal governement and in if State-chartered, their State Banking Department. Compliance with consumer laws and asset (loan) quality are reviewed on a regular basis.
QUOTE (Cathleen56 @ Oct 1 2008, 09:04 PM)
I'll have to do some research, but somehow I don't think that the majority of the foreclosures are on the McMansions. Those people nearly always land on their feet. I think the bulk of the foreclosures are on modest houses, first-time homeowners, single mothers, that sort of profile. I'll look for the answer and report back.
My perspective may be skewed because of where we live, but there are loads of McMansions in foreclosure around here. Closer to home personally, a good friend of mine just lost her house -- not a McMansion, but a large house out in the country on a lot of land. They had bought the house -- a stretch for them financially -- shortly before her husband had to quit his job due to disability. They kept things going as long as they could (she's a teacher), but Michigan saw the housing downturn before the rest of the country did, and there you go. They're moving into a rental.
My brother lives in the Philly area, and he said something about a program that Philly is using to keep people from going into foreclosure. It's working in 80% of the cases. I'd love to know more about it.
Twitch, Michigan is losing most of it's citizens! I think our state has lost more people recently than any other state due to the unemployment, foreclosures, etc. 
QUOTE (CHARDKAY @ Oct 2 2008, 05:50 PM)
Twitch, Michigan is losing most of it's citizens! I think our state has lost more people recently than any other state due to the unemployment, foreclosures, etc.
Probably jobs. People don't MOVE from the state because of forclosures usually unless there's a job somewhere.
There a whole lot of people who are affected as YOU KNOW. Many different scenarios. Can't put them in a box.
QUOTE (glorious1 @ Oct 2 2008, 03:11 PM)
Probably jobs. People don't MOVE from the state because of forclosures usually unless there's a job somewhere.
There a whole lot of people who are affected as YOU KNOW. Many different scenarios. Can't put them in a box.
There a whole lot of people who are affected as YOU KNOW. Many different scenarios. Can't put them in a box.
It's usually due to jobs. I know when I went back to visit my father in West Virginia a few years ago, I was shocked at how quiet the city he lives in has gotten. He said lots of people had left town due to lack of jobs. There's just nothing there.
QUOTE (glorious1 @ Oct 2 2008, 06:11 PM)
Probably jobs. People don't MOVE from the state because of forclosures usually unless there's a job somewhere.
There a whole lot of people who are affected as YOU KNOW. Many different scenarios. Can't put them in a box.
There a whole lot of people who are affected as YOU KNOW. Many different scenarios. Can't put them in a box.
Most likely, the auto industry has just about collapsed. My Dad originally moved to Michigan back in the day to work for Chrysler. I was just speaking about my own state, not putting anyone in a box. The whole country is suffering now.
QUOTE (CHARDKAY @ Oct 2 2008, 07:35 PM)
Most likely, the auto industry has just about collapsed. My Dad originally moved to Michigan back in the day to work for Chrysler. I was just speaking about my own state, not putting anyone in a box. The whole country is suffering now.
I know Michigan equals CARS.
I don't think everybody is suffering.........some haven't felt it. I have.
QUOTE (Fulltiltredhead @ Oct 2 2008, 11:31 PM)
Adjustable Rate Mortgages were really being pushed even as recently as three years ago. I had to repeatedly state that I wanted a fixed rate mortgage at a decent rate and would not accept an Adjustable Rate Mortgage, because having been at the same job for so long, I know the range of percentage I will get as an increase every year, and it would not cover a mortgage increase. I was so naive about mortgages that I didn't even know the tax assessment would cause my mortgage payment to fluctuate. So I can just imagine if I had allowed an ARM as I was being urged to do, and my property assessment was high, how easy it would be not to be able to make a payment. And of course the second you miss a payment with anything, fees get tacked on, pressure starts, and it snowballs. I think it was a great idea to make mortgages available to people whose credit was average or slightly below, because the fact is, those people live in apartments and they make their rent every month. So why should they not be able to make a mortgage payment every month just as well? It's reasonable to assume they would. But nobody threw in the idea of selling them waaay more house than they could afford and hard selling them that they could afford it. The temptation is huge and people who have not entered into these kind of transactions could easily be intimidated by the hard sell. The other thing is, I was highly encouraged to sell every few years. It was just assumed I would buy something else in three year's time or so. In which case, if I'd had an ARM, maybe it would not have had time to balloon on me. So that's the other part of the strategy of selling with an ARM. "Don't worry, you'll be out of there before the interest goes up."
It pays to keep interest rates up sky high and to con people about money. It costs poorer people more money to do everything and when they are able to get credit, it's at usurious rates. Most states have no cap on the interest a card can charge or the penalty fee they can charge for a missed payment. I'm saying it's a setup with one foot on the banana peel and one foot in bankruptcy court if you have had any trouble with your credit in the past -- and it's easy to get into credit trouble that you can't get free of for seven years.
It pays to keep interest rates up sky high and to con people about money. It costs poorer people more money to do everything and when they are able to get credit, it's at usurious rates. Most states have no cap on the interest a card can charge or the penalty fee they can charge for a missed payment. I'm saying it's a setup with one foot on the banana peel and one foot in bankruptcy court if you have had any trouble with your credit in the past -- and it's easy to get into credit trouble that you can't get free of for seven years.
You were right to be prudent and cautious - of course, buying a home is the biggest financial commitment anyone makes. It is up to each individual to make sound decisions.
Those people, that "bought' their homes without any collateral, could never have any equity in those houses, because they could afford, at best, to pay the interest component of the loan. they bought a mortgage - they had no hope of ever paying any principal off. The idea of helping low income earners buy property may have been noble, but now, the experiment has failed and brought us unintended results, to everyone's chagrin.
By the way, credit is not a human right - it is (or it should be) based on accurate assessment of risk. Lenders are out to make a buck, and we must always be skeptical of what a salesman tells us! But you're right, the mortgage industry was out of control and full of irresponsible and dodgy characters.
QUOTE (PerfumeMe @ Oct 3 2008, 11:09 AM)
What was your opinion PerfumeMe?? Do you agree with the bill passed today?
This is an interesting thread. I've been away from the board for a while, and forgive my sudden intrusion back onto the scene, but I have been watching this topic with much interest. My husband and I bought our townhome in 2006; probably at the height of the housing bubble, maybe shy from the height about 6 months, because our new neighbors paid more, but pretty much at the height. It's just me and my husband, no kids. We have no other tax deductions, save from my home office and what he and I can deduct as work expenses and charitable contributions. So, we were urged by our CPA and others, to buy, because renter's credit on a tax form is barely worth mentioning.
What interests me is the notion I see in this thread that 100% financing loans are bad and it means that the buyers had no collateral. Not true in our case. We bought in LA County, a townhome that is nice but modest, 2 BDR, 2 BA, 2 Car Garage. Central A/C and heat, gated community, lots of amenities, HOA. We were lucky to get this at around $400K. We qualified for a good interest rate at the time, it was about 6.5% fixed for 7 years. It converts to an ARM after that- which I am worried about, but hopefully in 5 years things will be a little better. The reason for the 100% financing was this: we got married in 2003. My husband was finishing up his degree and when we got married, we were on one income, mine. After, he was able to get a good job in 2004. We planned well and spent zero dollars on credit and did not go into debt for our wedding or honeymoon. After he finished school, and starting working full time, we were able to save for a couple of years and managed to scrape up around $12K, saving $500/mo. This was not easy, given the cost of living here. And, we paid our bills and didn't overspend. Let me tell you that this is NOTHING when it comes to a downpayment on a $400K house. For traditional downpayments, they want usually 20% ($80K - who can save this in 5 years?) or 10% ($40K - which would take approximately 7 years for us to save, saving $500/mo). All that while, we would have NO tax deductions at all. Not smart. A $400K house in LA is not a McMansion in any way, shape or form. Back then, you couldn't buy a single family home that was at least 2BDR, 1.5 BA, that wasn't a condo, for less than $520-$550K if it was in a decent area. Ours is a condo with attached garage, or a townhome. The 12K went ALL to closing costs. It was a seller's market then, there was a lot of competition for the property, and they weren't negotiating anything and the closing costs were on the buyer. We got the place because we had good, verifiable credit and income and already had a guaranteed loan. 100% financing does not mean you are a deadbeat.
I do have to remember back, and smile, that they told us we could qualify for a 550-600K house if we took an interest only payment. I had to laugh because I knew good and well, that we could not afford a home of that price on our salaries then. If we had done that, I'm sure we'd probably have gotten into trouble. We'd sure have a lot more depreciation to deal with, than we do now.
As a consumer, the house buying process is *so* hard to understand. Even our CPA didn't give us 100% accurate information on the tax deductibility of all the mortgage interest paid, and how it will affect you, property taxes, special assessments, etc. And, we thought we had done our research. It's like you are in a huge used car lot, with used car salesmen type realtors, because they really are not looking out for *your* best interest - they are looking out for theirs. Instead of cars, you're talking a home, something you plan on keeping, hopefully, for many years, at least 5, or more, which is a big chunk of your life. Then, when you find something great, that you can actually afford, you have to deal with the *finance guy* who can be downright scary, so we read up and fortunately, did not get burned.
But, I can see how many people probably got burned because they were told they could afford something, and shown calculations that made it seem so, but in reality, they really couldn't. I hope that honest people who weren't greedy and just in it to flip, and actually are making it, do get some help from the next administration. Something in the regulations and disclosures should change, to make things more clear to buyers.
What interests me is the notion I see in this thread that 100% financing loans are bad and it means that the buyers had no collateral. Not true in our case. We bought in LA County, a townhome that is nice but modest, 2 BDR, 2 BA, 2 Car Garage. Central A/C and heat, gated community, lots of amenities, HOA. We were lucky to get this at around $400K. We qualified for a good interest rate at the time, it was about 6.5% fixed for 7 years. It converts to an ARM after that- which I am worried about, but hopefully in 5 years things will be a little better. The reason for the 100% financing was this: we got married in 2003. My husband was finishing up his degree and when we got married, we were on one income, mine. After, he was able to get a good job in 2004. We planned well and spent zero dollars on credit and did not go into debt for our wedding or honeymoon. After he finished school, and starting working full time, we were able to save for a couple of years and managed to scrape up around $12K, saving $500/mo. This was not easy, given the cost of living here. And, we paid our bills and didn't overspend. Let me tell you that this is NOTHING when it comes to a downpayment on a $400K house. For traditional downpayments, they want usually 20% ($80K - who can save this in 5 years?) or 10% ($40K - which would take approximately 7 years for us to save, saving $500/mo). All that while, we would have NO tax deductions at all. Not smart. A $400K house in LA is not a McMansion in any way, shape or form. Back then, you couldn't buy a single family home that was at least 2BDR, 1.5 BA, that wasn't a condo, for less than $520-$550K if it was in a decent area. Ours is a condo with attached garage, or a townhome. The 12K went ALL to closing costs. It was a seller's market then, there was a lot of competition for the property, and they weren't negotiating anything and the closing costs were on the buyer. We got the place because we had good, verifiable credit and income and already had a guaranteed loan. 100% financing does not mean you are a deadbeat.
I do have to remember back, and smile, that they told us we could qualify for a 550-600K house if we took an interest only payment. I had to laugh because I knew good and well, that we could not afford a home of that price on our salaries then. If we had done that, I'm sure we'd probably have gotten into trouble. We'd sure have a lot more depreciation to deal with, than we do now.
As a consumer, the house buying process is *so* hard to understand. Even our CPA didn't give us 100% accurate information on the tax deductibility of all the mortgage interest paid, and how it will affect you, property taxes, special assessments, etc. And, we thought we had done our research. It's like you are in a huge used car lot, with used car salesmen type realtors, because they really are not looking out for *your* best interest - they are looking out for theirs. Instead of cars, you're talking a home, something you plan on keeping, hopefully, for many years, at least 5, or more, which is a big chunk of your life. Then, when you find something great, that you can actually afford, you have to deal with the *finance guy* who can be downright scary, so we read up and fortunately, did not get burned.
But, I can see how many people probably got burned because they were told they could afford something, and shown calculations that made it seem so, but in reality, they really couldn't. I hope that honest people who weren't greedy and just in it to flip, and actually are making it, do get some help from the next administration. Something in the regulations and disclosures should change, to make things more clear to buyers.
QUOTE (LisasAura @ Oct 3 2008, 05:04 PM)
This is an interesting thread. I've been away from the board for a while, and forgive my sudden intrusion back onto the scene, but I have been watching this topic with much interest. My husband and I bought our townhome in 2006; probably at the height of the housing bubble, maybe shy from the height about 6 months, because our new neighbors paid more, but pretty much at the height. It's just me and my husband, no kids. We have no other tax deductions, save from my home office and what he and I can deduct as work expenses and charitable contributions. So, we were urged by our CPA and others, to buy, because renter's credit on a tax form is barely worth mentioning.
What interests me is the notion I see in this thread that 100% financing loans are bad and it means that the buyers had no collateral. Not true in our case. We bought in LA County, a townhome that is nice but modest, 2 BDR, 2 BA, 2 Car Garage. Central A/C and heat, gated community, lots of amenities, HOA. We were lucky to get this at around $400K. We qualified for a good interest rate at the time, it was about 6.5% fixed for 7 years. It converts to an ARM after that- which I am worried about, but hopefully in 5 years things will be a little better. The reason for the 100% financing was this: we got married in 2003. My husband was finishing up his degree and when we got married, we were on one income, mine. After, he was able to get a good job in 2004. We planned well and spent zero dollars on credit and did not go into debt for our wedding or honeymoon. After he finished school, and starting working full time, we were able to save for a couple of years and managed to scrape up around $12K, saving $500/mo. This was not easy, given the cost of living here. And, we paid our bills and didn't overspend. Let me tell you that this is NOTHING when it comes to a downpayment on a $400K house. For traditional downpayments, they want usually 20% ($80K - who can save this in 5 years?) or 10% ($40K - which would take approximately 7 years for us to save, saving $500/mo). All that while, we would have NO tax deductions at all. Not smart. A $400K house in LA is not a McMansion in any way, shape or form. Back then, you couldn't buy a single family home that was at least 2BDR, 1.5 BA, that wasn't a condo, for less than $520-$550K if it was in a decent area. Ours is a condo with attached garage, or a townhome. The 12K went ALL to closing costs. It was a seller's market then, there was a lot of competition for the property, and they weren't negotiating anything and the closing costs were on the buyer. We got the place because we had good, verifiable credit and income and already had a guaranteed loan. 100% financing does not mean you are a deadbeat.
I do have to remember back, and smile, that they told us we could qualify for a 550-600K house if we took an interest only payment. I had to laugh because I knew good and well, that we could not afford a home of that price on our salaries then. If we had done that, I'm sure we'd probably have gotten into trouble. We'd sure have a lot more depreciation to deal with, than we do now.
As a consumer, the house buying process is *so* hard to understand. Even our CPA didn't give us 100% accurate information on the tax deductibility of all the mortgage interest paid, and how it will affect you, property taxes, special assessments, etc. And, we thought we had done our research. It's like you are in a huge used car lot, with used car salesmen type realtors, because they really are not looking out for *your* best interest - they are looking out for theirs. Instead of cars, you're talking a home, something you plan on keeping, hopefully, for many years, at least 5, or more, which is a big chunk of your life. Then, when you find something great, that you can actually afford, you have to deal with the *finance guy* who can be downright scary, so we read up and fortunately, did not get burned.
But, I can see how many people probably got burned because they were told they could afford something, and shown calculations that made it seem so, but in reality, they really couldn't. I hope that honest people who weren't greedy and just in it to flip, and actually are making it, do get some help from the next administration. Something in the regulations and disclosures should change, to make things more clear to buyers.
What interests me is the notion I see in this thread that 100% financing loans are bad and it means that the buyers had no collateral. Not true in our case. We bought in LA County, a townhome that is nice but modest, 2 BDR, 2 BA, 2 Car Garage. Central A/C and heat, gated community, lots of amenities, HOA. We were lucky to get this at around $400K. We qualified for a good interest rate at the time, it was about 6.5% fixed for 7 years. It converts to an ARM after that- which I am worried about, but hopefully in 5 years things will be a little better. The reason for the 100% financing was this: we got married in 2003. My husband was finishing up his degree and when we got married, we were on one income, mine. After, he was able to get a good job in 2004. We planned well and spent zero dollars on credit and did not go into debt for our wedding or honeymoon. After he finished school, and starting working full time, we were able to save for a couple of years and managed to scrape up around $12K, saving $500/mo. This was not easy, given the cost of living here. And, we paid our bills and didn't overspend. Let me tell you that this is NOTHING when it comes to a downpayment on a $400K house. For traditional downpayments, they want usually 20% ($80K - who can save this in 5 years?) or 10% ($40K - which would take approximately 7 years for us to save, saving $500/mo). All that while, we would have NO tax deductions at all. Not smart. A $400K house in LA is not a McMansion in any way, shape or form. Back then, you couldn't buy a single family home that was at least 2BDR, 1.5 BA, that wasn't a condo, for less than $520-$550K if it was in a decent area. Ours is a condo with attached garage, or a townhome. The 12K went ALL to closing costs. It was a seller's market then, there was a lot of competition for the property, and they weren't negotiating anything and the closing costs were on the buyer. We got the place because we had good, verifiable credit and income and already had a guaranteed loan. 100% financing does not mean you are a deadbeat.
I do have to remember back, and smile, that they told us we could qualify for a 550-600K house if we took an interest only payment. I had to laugh because I knew good and well, that we could not afford a home of that price on our salaries then. If we had done that, I'm sure we'd probably have gotten into trouble. We'd sure have a lot more depreciation to deal with, than we do now.
As a consumer, the house buying process is *so* hard to understand. Even our CPA didn't give us 100% accurate information on the tax deductibility of all the mortgage interest paid, and how it will affect you, property taxes, special assessments, etc. And, we thought we had done our research. It's like you are in a huge used car lot, with used car salesmen type realtors, because they really are not looking out for *your* best interest - they are looking out for theirs. Instead of cars, you're talking a home, something you plan on keeping, hopefully, for many years, at least 5, or more, which is a big chunk of your life. Then, when you find something great, that you can actually afford, you have to deal with the *finance guy* who can be downright scary, so we read up and fortunately, did not get burned.
But, I can see how many people probably got burned because they were told they could afford something, and shown calculations that made it seem so, but in reality, they really couldn't. I hope that honest people who weren't greedy and just in it to flip, and actually are making it, do get some help from the next administration. Something in the regulations and disclosures should change, to make things more clear to buyers.
Lisa: I am sure there are so many people out there like you! WELCOME BACK!
This Bail Out plan is immoral and a disgrace, it rewards people who drove this economy into the ground.
Those that broke the law will be charged, and if found guilty will be punished.
In your own words about Simpson's murder acquittal 13 years ago:"He was acquitted of murder, we should respect the legal process, that run its course."
In your own words about Simpson's murder acquittal 13 years ago:"He was acquitted of murder, we should respect the legal process, that run its course."
Smelka, I don't hold out much hope that the guilty investment bankers and CEOs will be punished. They own politicians of both parties. The whole mess doesn't only involve mortgages, there are also shortfalls which came from futures trading and other financial activities. And when people were able to trade on ridiculous margins they bankrupted.
Lisa, you posted: "I do have to remember back, and smile, that they told us we could qualify for a 550-600K house if we took an interest only payment. I had to laugh because I knew good and well, that we could not afford a home of that price on our salaries then. If we had done that, I'm sure we'd probably have gotten into trouble. We'd sure have a lot more depreciation to deal with, than we do now."
Those instruments are monsters, very dangerous. We have a townhome too, and a very, very small part of our loan package was interest only. You have to be very sure you can refinance it or pay off the principal to use that kind of financing. I cannot imagine anybody ever buying a home financing the entirety 'interest only.' I guess some people have, though, from what I've read.
Julia in Maryland, thanks for the informative link. The information is correct and helpful to understand the situation.
Money for ACORN in the bailout bill will most likely be used for that organisation to assist lower income people affected by the crisis to take steps to stay in homes or find housing. If their are no community help agencies to help people affected by this crisis we will have more homeless people on the streets, as the Section 8 program in every city has at least a 12 to 18 month waiting list! ACORN was known to assist low income families in Louisiana during the years I lived there, pre-Katrina.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articl...subprime_crisis
Lisa, you posted: "I do have to remember back, and smile, that they told us we could qualify for a 550-600K house if we took an interest only payment. I had to laugh because I knew good and well, that we could not afford a home of that price on our salaries then. If we had done that, I'm sure we'd probably have gotten into trouble. We'd sure have a lot more depreciation to deal with, than we do now."
Those instruments are monsters, very dangerous. We have a townhome too, and a very, very small part of our loan package was interest only. You have to be very sure you can refinance it or pay off the principal to use that kind of financing. I cannot imagine anybody ever buying a home financing the entirety 'interest only.' I guess some people have, though, from what I've read.
Julia in Maryland, thanks for the informative link. The information is correct and helpful to understand the situation.
Money for ACORN in the bailout bill will most likely be used for that organisation to assist lower income people affected by the crisis to take steps to stay in homes or find housing. If their are no community help agencies to help people affected by this crisis we will have more homeless people on the streets, as the Section 8 program in every city has at least a 12 to 18 month waiting list! ACORN was known to assist low income families in Louisiana during the years I lived there, pre-Katrina. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articl...subprime_crisis
Our gooberment is about to take 700 M out of taxpayers pockets because they needto buy up up bad mortgages, but they didn't even have a set price on how much money they needed to pay. Well,we all know how much our gooberment over pays for things. It's our gooberment that pays like 500.00 for a toilet seat, isn't it? 
So basically the banks can charge them what ever the so choose, and the gooberment will pay it.
We're screwed.
So basically the banks can charge them what ever the so choose, and the gooberment will pay it. We're screwed.
QUOTE (smelka @ Oct 4 2008, 06:14 AM)
Those that broke the law will be charged, and if found guilty will be punished.
In your own words about Simpson's murder acquittal 13 years ago:"He was acquitted of murder, we should respect the legal process, that run its course."
In your own words about Simpson's murder acquittal 13 years ago:"He was acquitted of murder, we should respect the legal process, that run its course."
The sad thing about this whole thing is that NO ONE broke the law in this whole debacle -- this is the officially sanctioned system, and all of these reckless investments that the Wall Street brokers made were perfectly legal. Our systems allows this kind of thing, and that's the real crime, IMO.
This has nothing to do with corruption -- it has to do with officially sanctioned greed.
In response to the original question, we go where we were going to go.
Each man for himself (each woman for herself).
Cut back, carry on. That's life.
Each man for himself (each woman for herself).
Cut back, carry on. That's life.
From what I have heard and read, the total bail-out (rescue plan) whatever is more like 850 billion will all of the pork added. According to those in the know, that is only the tip of the iceberg. When all is said and done, it will be in the trillions.
As much as I hate the fact that we are, essentially, bailing out bad investments, I feel like a gun has been held to our head about saving the economy. I am so angry about the whole thing that I don't know what to do.
I haven't, over the years, been wasteful or spent more than I should. My son and I figured out that I worked a total of 50 years before I retired last December, yes 50 years! Now, I have to live very frugally just to make it day to day. Social Security is not enough to live on, that's for sure. Medicare is not free, you pay for it. I also have to pay for my own health insurance. The cost of my 9 prescriptions is unbelievable, but I have to have them. I remember how hard my first husband and I worked to buy our first home ($12,000) that we took it out on a land contract that let us assume the mortgage down the road. We never missed or were late for a payment. We struggled with our bills but we raised 3 beautiful children that I am so proud of.
I worked almost all of my life as a nurse, and that is hard work. Do I have a pension, a very minimal one that won't even buy one week's groceries. I could probably go back to work, but I don't know if I could work that hard again at my age.
When I go to the grocery store, I shop the sales. If meat has just been marked down, I buy it, as well as baked goods. I know how to economize with food because my parents were not rich and basic home-cooked food is comfort food to me.
The whole situation is just disgusting and I am so very unhappy about it. I do believe that our children and our grandchildren will struggle in the future desperately more than they have to due to this crisis.
As much as I hate the fact that we are, essentially, bailing out bad investments, I feel like a gun has been held to our head about saving the economy. I am so angry about the whole thing that I don't know what to do.
I haven't, over the years, been wasteful or spent more than I should. My son and I figured out that I worked a total of 50 years before I retired last December, yes 50 years! Now, I have to live very frugally just to make it day to day. Social Security is not enough to live on, that's for sure. Medicare is not free, you pay for it. I also have to pay for my own health insurance. The cost of my 9 prescriptions is unbelievable, but I have to have them. I remember how hard my first husband and I worked to buy our first home ($12,000) that we took it out on a land contract that let us assume the mortgage down the road. We never missed or were late for a payment. We struggled with our bills but we raised 3 beautiful children that I am so proud of.
I worked almost all of my life as a nurse, and that is hard work. Do I have a pension, a very minimal one that won't even buy one week's groceries. I could probably go back to work, but I don't know if I could work that hard again at my age.
When I go to the grocery store, I shop the sales. If meat has just been marked down, I buy it, as well as baked goods. I know how to economize with food because my parents were not rich and basic home-cooked food is comfort food to me.
The whole situation is just disgusting and I am so very unhappy about it. I do believe that our children and our grandchildren will struggle in the future desperately more than they have to due to this crisis.
Well, they did the bailout and things are crashing anyway.
QUOTE (FiveoaksBouquet @ Oct 6 2008, 09:28 AM)
Well, they did the bailout and things are crashing anyway.
FiveO, how is the Canadian government reacting? What's happening with the markets there?
Like I said before, this is just the tip of the iceberg!
QUOTE (FiveoaksBouquet @ Oct 6 2008, 10:28 AM)
Well, they did the bailout and things are crashing anyway.
One of my favorite quotes regarding the bailout is from this article, The Lamps Are Going Out:
"I think of the mortgage securities market as a poker game, being played in a stateroom on a ship called the U.S. Economy. Because so many players have lost most of their chips, the poker game is in danger of grinding to a halt. The players have rushed out of the stateroom, screaming, 'Emergency! Emergency! If the poker game doesn't revive, the ship is going to sink! All the passengers need to give money to the ship's Bursar so that he can join the game and get it going again!'"
I guess the stock market plunge today just means the rest of the passengers need to pony up another trillion or so . . .
Well, like I said before, people will be taking in boarders -- I just watched a segment on the Today Show where they discussed how to make money from your house -- rent a room to airline personnnel, rent a room as an office, rent out your garage.
I say a black market, barter economy is next. If you have no "things" to barter, you barter your services.
I say a black market, barter economy is next. If you have no "things" to barter, you barter your services.
QUOTE (CHARDKAY @ Oct 6 2008, 08:42 AM)
Like I said before, this is just the tip of the iceberg!
I think so too!
Did y'all see this? 90 year old Addie Polk shot herself in the chest as she was about to lose her house.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/04/Fed...33871223138967/
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/04/Fed...33871223138967/
QUOTE (Fumebag @ Oct 4 2008, 02:44 PM)
Our gooberment is about to take 700 M out of taxpayers pockets because they needto buy up up bad mortgages, but they didn't even have a set price on how much money they needed to pay. Well,we all know how much our gooberment over pays for things. It's our gooberment that pays like 500.00 for a toilet seat, isn't it? So basically the banks can charge them what ever the so choose, and the gooberment will pay it.
We're screwed.
So basically the banks can charge them what ever the so choose, and the gooberment will pay it. We're screwed.
1. $700 billion.
2. $640.00 toilet seat. It was a pressurized lid / seat for installation on toilets of long-range bombers which fly at high altitudes. I believe they currently go for twenty times that much. We should have bought a couple when the price was low.
I know many of you are thinking, "Veronica sure has a lot of toilet-related responses," with the vacuum system aboard the Holland America fleet, the southern hemisphere vortex direction and now this. What can I say? It's a gift.
3. $436.00 hammer. (Someone was bound to bring this one up, too.) Made of carbon fiber. Mass-produced tennis rackets of carbon fiber were selling for aprx $300.00 in 1980 so I'd call this a bargain as no carbon fiber hammers were in production at that point in time. Why do you need a $436.00 hammer? Sparks from a worker's conventional ferrous-metal hammer caused the huge explosion of a missle silo.
It's not like you can hop in the car and go to Home Depot to get this stuff. The Competition in Contracting Act enacted by Congress in 1984 requires competitive bidding for all government contracts partly in response to these expenditures which, if you think about it, were not that outrageous.
We now return to the economic crisis / bailout discussion.
_
It's possible to tap into your IRA without tax penalties:
http://www.smartmoney.com/retirement/ira/i...m?story=tapping
http://www.smartmoney.com/retirement/ira/i...m?story=tapping
QUOTE (Vetiveronica @ Oct 6 2008, 12:05 PM)
1. $700 billion.
2. $640.00 toilet seat. It was a pressurized lid / seat for installation on toilets of long-range bombers which fly at high altitudes. I believe they currently go for twenty times that much. We should have bought a couple when the price was low.
I know many of you are thinking, "Veronica sure has a lot of toilet-related responses," with the vacuum system aboard the Holland America fleet, the southern hemisphere vortex direction and now this. What can I say? It's a gift.
3. $436.00 hammer. (Someone was bound to bring this one up, too.) Made of carbon fiber. Mass-produced tennis rackets of carbon fiber were selling for aprx $300.00 in 1980 so I'd call this a bargain as no carbon fiber hammers were in production at that point in time. Why do you need a $436.00 hammer? Sparks from a worker's conventional ferrous-metal hammer caused the huge explosion of a missle silo.
It's not like you can hop in the car and go to Home Depot to get this stuff. The Competition in Contracting Act enacted by Congress in 1984 requires competitive bidding for all government contracts partly in response to these expenditures which, if you think about it, were not that outrageous.
We now return to the economic crisis / bailout discussion.
_
2. $640.00 toilet seat. It was a pressurized lid / seat for installation on toilets of long-range bombers which fly at high altitudes. I believe they currently go for twenty times that much. We should have bought a couple when the price was low.
I know many of you are thinking, "Veronica sure has a lot of toilet-related responses," with the vacuum system aboard the Holland America fleet, the southern hemisphere vortex direction and now this. What can I say? It's a gift.
3. $436.00 hammer. (Someone was bound to bring this one up, too.) Made of carbon fiber. Mass-produced tennis rackets of carbon fiber were selling for aprx $300.00 in 1980 so I'd call this a bargain as no carbon fiber hammers were in production at that point in time. Why do you need a $436.00 hammer? Sparks from a worker's conventional ferrous-metal hammer caused the huge explosion of a missle silo.
It's not like you can hop in the car and go to Home Depot to get this stuff. The Competition in Contracting Act enacted by Congress in 1984 requires competitive bidding for all government contracts partly in response to these expenditures which, if you think about it, were not that outrageous.
We now return to the economic crisis / bailout discussion.
_
My mistakes. Thank you for pointing them out, and and correcting them.
Still, our gooberment doesn't always spend carefully.
Sorry I came on so strong, Fumebag. It's not you. 9.7 out of ten Americans say the same thing. Al Gore did. In 1990. And yet the $640.00 toilet seat persists to this day like the myth of the clockwise vortex in a southern hemisphere toilet. And don't get me started on cow tipping.
A good explanation of the crisis was given earlier in this thread with which I am supplementing additional explanations. There is kind of a lot of material to cover so grab a soda water or a tea, sit back and click on the links. Enjoy.
An article from the September 15, 2008 The New Yorker regarding the deregulation of investment banks:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/20...talk_surowiecki
On 62 trillion dollars in credit-defaults outstanding from the September 29, 2008 The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/09/29/0...talk_paumgarten
And from the September 1, 2008 The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/20...talk_surowiecki
In addition, I believe that a CEO should not be compensated with stocks because that contributes to the dismantling of companies and shipping jobs overseas as they try to maximize stock's value to increase their own income. Look at the track record of the most infamous corporate downsizer of all, Albert J. "Chainsaw Al" Dunlap. One of the few to be hoist by his own petard but he is still swimming in money.
These are just some of the issues that have to be addressed which call for tighter regulation and overseeing to get us back on an even keel. Just throwing money at the problem isn't going to help. I think it is time for strong action like an FDR-type Wall Street holiday. Or a French-type revolution.
_
Vetiveronica, for you...(Hmmm...well, it worked last time...)
Storming of the Bastille
Storming of the Bastille
Pssst. You mean this one?
Liberté, Equalité, Sorority! To the barricades!
_
QUOTE (Vetiveronica @ Oct 6 2008, 07:58 PM)
Pssst. You mean this one?
Liberté, Equalité, Sorority! To the barricades!
Liberté, Equalité, Sorority! To the barricades!
Way to go!
QUOTE (Fulltiltredhead @ Oct 6 2008, 11:51 AM)
Did y'all see this? 90 year old Addie Polk shot herself in the chest as she was about to lose her house.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/04/Fed...33871223138967/
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/04/Fed...33871223138967/
Another reason to be crazy in love with Dennis Kucinich! I had sort of forgotten him and how wonderful he is -- thanks for posting.
One time I took a test to see who I should vote for, and I agreed 100%, according to the test, with Dennis Kucinich...
I worry about people abandoning their pets because they can't afford them any more.
Getting and Spending we laid waste our powers.
We chose to let other less "advanced" people make things ~ whilst we became gamblers, betting on disasters and death and the price of and need for any raw material that hit the world market, betting on people winning and losing at the game of life. We made of other peoples lives our currency.
We made a boardgame with play money of the last decades; as manufacturing declined, and we sold the very steel our factories were built from - to erect a bird's nest half way 'round the globe.
Sow the wind and.......
We chose to let other less "advanced" people make things ~ whilst we became gamblers, betting on disasters and death and the price of and need for any raw material that hit the world market, betting on people winning and losing at the game of life. We made of other peoples lives our currency.
We made a boardgame with play money of the last decades; as manufacturing declined, and we sold the very steel our factories were built from - to erect a bird's nest half way 'round the globe.
Sow the wind and.......
I think it's time we all started using a world currency anyway.
NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, baybee!
(Ducks under table.)
NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, baybee!
(Ducks under table.)
Going after CEOs, Wall Street and golden parachutes won 't do much if we don 't regulate capitalism. Free Enterprise is the best economic system but it 's not a perfection, markets need to be regulated. The massive deregulations put forth by ideological politicians are responsible for this nightmare!
It could be that the disparity in the standart of living between developed world and third world is coming to the end.
A system that allows a worker in the third world country to be payed $5 a day is immoral and also makes the workforce in the developed countries obsolete.
The theory that eventually the poor countries will grow richer , while we still maintain our is collapsing.
We buy more overseas than we sell, get more and more in to debt . Our furniture, appliances , clothes and shoes are made by the people that earn no more than $200 or $300 a month. Our prosperity is build on sand . It wont be pleasant to have our standart of living to go down, but it is just, there is nothing about Europeans, Americans and Australians that makes them more deserving of better lifestyle than Indians or Chinese.
QUOTE (smelka @ Oct 7 2008, 01:32 AM)
It could be that the disparity in the standart of living between developed world and third world is coming to the end.
A system that allows a worker in the third world country to be payed $5 a day is immoral and also makes the workforce in the developed countries obsolete. [...] Our furniture, appliances , clothes and shoes are made by the people that earn no more than $200 or $300 a month.
A system that allows a worker in the third world country to be payed $5 a day is immoral and also makes the workforce in the developed countries obsolete. [...] Our furniture, appliances , clothes and shoes are made by the people that earn no more than $200 or $300 a month.
Well, I'd like to see that disparity go down as well. But I don't think looking at numbers out of context is all that helpful. When I lived in the Philippines, it was impossible to cash the equivalent of a $5 bill (100 pesos at that time) outside of the major cities. You could buy a *lot* with $5.
In "Silicon Valley" cities in India, the cost of living is mushrooming, due to the higher wages people are making there. Fortunately, the standard of living is also improving, at least for the people in high-tech jobs. But everyone else is getting squeezed out.
It's not a straightforward problem.
I agree that $5 in one country is a pittance, but it's a lot of money in another so that's not the problem. The problem is that the money is going to workers elsewhere.
Let's not leave out Lehman Bros.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gdEcjm...xxBcvwI2O8N3pLw
QUOTE
"WASHINGTON (AFP) — US lawmakers Monday grilled the head of Lehman Brothers demanding he justify some 500 million dollars he had earned since 2000, as well as huge bonuses sought for top executives even as the bank failed.
Committee chairman Henry Waxman targeted Fuld, saying over the years he had earned some 500 million dollars in bonuses and wages from Lehman Brothers. Fuld owned a 14 million dollar getaway in Florida, as well as a home in Idaho filled with an art collection, Waxman said.
"You've been able to pocket close to half a billion dollars and my question to you is that fair for a CEO of a company that's now bankrupt? It's just unimaginable to so many people," Waxman asked Fuld.
Figures provided by Lehman Brothers showed Fuld received some 52 million dollars from the bank in 2000. By 2006 that had ballooned to more than 106 million dollars.
But Fuld disputed that he had pocketed that much eight years, saying: "I would say to you that that 500 number is not accurate.
"I think for the years you're talking about here I believe my cash compensation was close to 60 million and the amount I took out of the company over and above that was closer to 250 million. Still a large number though."
In a series of written testimonies received over the weekend Fuld "takes no responsibility for the collapse of Lehman," Waxman said.
And he pointed to an internal Lehman email in which the bank's compensation committee recommended as late as September 11 giving golden handshakes of more than 20 million dollars to be shared between three departing executives.
"In other words, even as Mr. Fuld was pleading with Secretary (Henry) Paulson for a federal rescue, Lehman continued to squander millions on executive compensation," Waxman told the committee."
Committee chairman Henry Waxman targeted Fuld, saying over the years he had earned some 500 million dollars in bonuses and wages from Lehman Brothers. Fuld owned a 14 million dollar getaway in Florida, as well as a home in Idaho filled with an art collection, Waxman said.
"You've been able to pocket close to half a billion dollars and my question to you is that fair for a CEO of a company that's now bankrupt? It's just unimaginable to so many people," Waxman asked Fuld.
Figures provided by Lehman Brothers showed Fuld received some 52 million dollars from the bank in 2000. By 2006 that had ballooned to more than 106 million dollars.
But Fuld disputed that he had pocketed that much eight years, saying: "I would say to you that that 500 number is not accurate.
"I think for the years you're talking about here I believe my cash compensation was close to 60 million and the amount I took out of the company over and above that was closer to 250 million. Still a large number though."
In a series of written testimonies received over the weekend Fuld "takes no responsibility for the collapse of Lehman," Waxman said.
And he pointed to an internal Lehman email in which the bank's compensation committee recommended as late as September 11 giving golden handshakes of more than 20 million dollars to be shared between three departing executives.
"In other words, even as Mr. Fuld was pleading with Secretary (Henry) Paulson for a federal rescue, Lehman continued to squander millions on executive compensation," Waxman told the committee."
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gdEcjm...xxBcvwI2O8N3pLw
That kind of renumeration is staggering, even when a company is doing well, but when a company is losing money... isn't it illegal?
QUOTE (PerfumeMe @ Oct 8 2008, 02:27 AM)
I agree that $5 in one country is a pittance, but it's a lot of money in another so that's not the problem. The problem is that the money is going to workers elsewhere.
You are wrong, that kind of salary pays for the food, life in the dormitory and sending a little money to their families.. You would ask why they do that? Because in the villages they would starve. It gives us in the West the illusion that we could buy, buy, buy , on credit, of course .
QUOTE (Mariana @ Oct 7 2008, 06:55 PM)
Good heavens. Unreal.
Those CEOs deserve jail time as criminals. That is an insult and a slap in the face to the people in this country who have worked hard their whole lives, and now are probably losing either their homes or their pensions, or their IRAs. Disgusting, and they even flaunt it.......I can't stand it!
QUOTE (smelka @ Oct 7 2008, 04:32 PM)
You are wrong, that kind of salary pays for the food, life in the dormitory and sending a little money to their families...
You just proved my point. That's what $5 might buy in a poor country, but in the US it only pays for a cup of coffee.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.