There's a lot of blame to go around, not just what the video implies.

Yep and not just low incomes were to blame too. If everyone afforded all the loans up until now that means they had the income to support it until now since 1995. The rich and middle class share the blame too. Look at all the foreclosers in Vegas. Whole new subdivisions have been foreclosed.

I love how they randomly blame Time Warner Cable at the beginning LOL! Conspiracy theorists love suspensful music and name-dropping media corporations.

 

This is basically the sequence of events leading up to the situation:

 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created.

 

The community reinvestment act was expanded in '95 and forced credit extention to people who not necessarily didn't have the money at the time but were more of a risk due to the reliance on increased income and home values in the future (we all know real wages haven't been the most promising since then, for the middle class).

 

Free market was bastardized with socialized debt as federal government cosigned loans. Government co-signing put banks at ease.

 

Increase in lending led to economic devleopment. Construction/materials/arch/engineering/planning/Real estate was booming. Houses need consumer products. They need lawn mowers, furniture, thus leading to commercial development and spending (Lowes, Wal-mart, what have you).

 

Manufacturers and industries assoc. with building thrive from increased demand, thus more factories/firms are created and jobs are created. More jobs meant more spending.

 

Increase in buying and selling lead to higher tax revenue.

 

Venture capital was raised for the dot com boom. The internet was fresh and everyone was optimistic about the infinite possibilites. The optimism was unrealistic as reflected by stock prices.

 

Start up tech firms needed quality, up to date office space. This led to the a huge demand for commercial real estate. Commercial office space needs computers and network/communication infrastructure, as well as furniture that drove up the demand for consumer goods.

 

Internet/tech companies didn't produce. The dot com bubble burst. Folks were laid off. Not only did the U.S. have higher unemployment but used assets were liquidated, meaning that demand for new consumer goods decreased.

 

Conveniently enough, we were attacked on 9/11. 9/11 caused the fed to lower interest rates to record lows to encourage spending. At the same time, we experienced a cultural change. 9/11 promoted the idea of suburbanization. The fear and depression from the terrorist thread made people want peace and less chaos. Suburbs have traditionally been a refuge. Not only that, but second market cities in the SW region were cheaper than good neighborhoods/downtowns in the city. This fueled economic development. (Consider Bush's indifference towards inner city grant programs and the fed's low interest rates,  and yeah, you can certainly blame Bush for sprawl).

 

Immigrants flooded the US, increasing demand for limited housing stock, causing a spike in home prices. Immigrants also offered cheap labour in SW's hot climate.

 

Credit card debt increased as consumer products were bought in this era of development. People refinanced their mortgages with these low interest rates, using Fannie and Freddie which are the best deal as it's the cheapest and easiest way.

 

Instead of banks holding onto your asset for the duration of 30 years, these small banks who deal locally actually sold a lot of these mortgages to bigger banks, at a discount. So a 250k house was sold for 175k. Bigger banks took on thousands and thousands of these mortgages. These big ass banks knew that historically, people rarely default on their mortgages and therefore it was safe to do this. Having so many mortgages meant that the chances of losing money were almost impossible. They also knew that if a house defaulted, AIG insurance would take the brunt, not them.

 

Some mortgage brokers were greedy. They convinced ignorant people to get mortgage types that weren't in their best interest. Mortgage brokers wanted to make money. They knew that folks respond to the idea of saving a few hundred bucks a month with adjustable rate and Re-caps. A re-cap mortgage is one that allows you to pay small payments for a few years, then pay higher mortgages after that. People were betting that they would be getting a job promotion soon or maybe their wives would go back into the workforce.

 

People assumed it was okay to get dangerous mortgage plans because everyone expects home values to go up. People planned on refinancing their loans several years later when their mortgages would go up.

 

This also led to the belief that Mortgage Backed Securities were safe in the eyes of banks. After all, risky assets would just be refinanced later. Because of the percieved low risk, those SBMs were declared AAA investments (excellent).

 

Since large banks thought MBS were so safe, they used those securities as collateral for loans. BAD IDEA. These banks spent hundreds of millions on buying MBS. This required more cash for loans that would be used to make larger MBS to sell or borrow against.

 

There used to be a required 15-1 ratio of collateral stipulated by federal law for banks to borrow. After 9/11 the federal government allowed banks to use a 30-1 ratio!!! The economy sucked at the time and like the stimulus package, this would supposedly improve our economic engine. Banks borrowed 30x what they had in MBS.

 

2 years ago, supply increased and demand dropped because immigration and transplanting was curbed. If someone wanted to move to the suburbs or SW, they already did. This was especially devistating because these communities aren't organic, developments are planned on a large scale and people were living in developments that would never finish.

 

When supply increased and demand decreased, the prices dropped.

 

It was about this time that people were looking to refinance their Recaps and ARMs. CONVENIENT, eh? Well, they needed new appraisals to get refinanced. The banks wouldn't refinance people because their home values dropped.

 

People with bad mortgages had to sell their homes regardless, or else face foreclosure and bankruptcy. Existing mortgages were more than what their homes were now worth.

 

People foreclosed, the banks tried to sell the foreclosed properties. This created a snowball effect because people who were about to foreclose, tried selling their home at a time when banks were already trying to sell foreclosed homes that were worth less.

 

Banks were like WTF we're loosing money on our top rated AAA safe mortgages. Since they were dealing with a lot of houses insured PMI, they called AIG to make claims. AIG said "we're F-ing broke, sorry. We paid out 100 million dollars last week". The banks were like oh crap, we just borrowed at a 30-1 ratio and those assets aren't even worth a d@mn!

 

Banks who lent money to other large banks against the MBS as collateral wanted their loans paid back pronto and the banks who owed, couldn't meet those margins.

 

Now we have banks who don't have much money to lend out. They will have to either sell risky MBS that are not desired, or only make loans that are EXTREMELY safe, I mean 800 point credit score safe, to counter the high risk mortgages they have. Even still, there's less lending because hardly anyone has that good of credit, or the high amount of money down that they would require. Nor would anyone want the burden of necessitated high interest rates.

 

 

 

Blame can be passed to parents who didn't teach their kids about conserving and delaying gratification. Passed to those people who chose not to delay those purchases and at least knew to some extent that it was a huge risk. Banks who borrowed at a 30-1 collateral ratio. Mortgage brokers who weren't being socially responsible. Also passed to senators, congress, the president and the FED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now is the time to get into the apartment renting business since alot of people will not qualify for mortgages anymore.

This "low income people who couldn't afford the mortgages they were given" story overlooks a lot of the housing problem, and completely ignores the economic problem.  A recent PBS news story on Slavic Village in Cleveland mentioned that a third of the foreclosures were on rental units, and I would think most of these were investors, not low income families.  There's also been mentions (but no hard numbers that I can find: anybody else have a source?) that a large number of the foreclosed loans were refinances and home equity loans; again not first time buyers.

 

As far as "What Caused Our Economic Crisis?"  How about importing more then we export and consuming more then we produce for about 30 years.  Maybe we've reached Peak Credit.

What Bullshit!  Looks like someone has a bone to pick and signed, created one post and was off.

:roll:  :roll:  :wtf:  :roll:  :roll:

What Bullsh!t!  Looks like someone has a bone to pick and signed, created one post and was off.

:roll:  :roll:  :wtf:  :roll:  :roll:

 

Completely agree.

 

I suggest that if we continue this discussion we should do so based on David's insightful post (#3).

 

David the only thing I would add is that the key component that created the supply and demand issue was not that "... immigration and transplanting was curbed", rather it was climbing interest rates. I know of what I speak because I happen to be, and I can't believe I'm going to admit this, a mortgage broker here in Las Vegas  :angel:. In 2003 a good FICO score of >720 could get you a par rate of 3.625%. In 2006 that same borrower would get a rate of 6.5% and when you combine that with what was the median home price here at the time, approx 320K, homes became unaffordable for most borrowers and the glut of homes began.

I agree that there were many unscrupulous loan originators out there but they were a small part of the overall problem. In my own personal defense I can say I have NEVER placed one of my clients in what yo refer to as a Re-cap loan; they were known as Option ARM's.

Yeah you're right - I beleive I mentioned unrealistic interest rates in there. I didn't do a good job of organizing so many factors with time. I do think immigration and transplanting had a lot to do with the growth of that region though. There are only so many people who are going to relocate there. I think most of those people have already located there who want to.

 

I remember when home prices in vegas were cheaper than Ohio, only about 5 years ago. I was curious about the real estate and saw homes for sale for 200k that were 4 bdroom houses over 2000sq ft. Vegas was booming and home values shot through the roof.  I know a guy who lives in Tucson and said the attitude there is STILL "people from California are going to continue moving to AZ and NV because it's so much cheaper". They really think thats going to pull them through this.

Mods: this is a worthwhile topic, but for what it's worth, the opening post is clearly political spam.

Mods: this is a worthwhile topic, but for what it's worth, the opening post is clearly political spam.

 

Agreed, the first post has been deleted.

 

 

Yeah you're right - I believe I mentioned unrealistic interest rates in there. I didn't do a good job of organizing so many factors with time. I do think immigration and transplanting had a lot to do with the growth of that region though. There are only so many people who are going to relocate there. I think most of those people have already located there who want to.

 

I remember when home prices in Vegas were cheaper than Ohio, only about 5 years ago. I was curious about the real estate and saw homes for sale for 200k that were 4 bdroom houses over 2000sq ft. Vegas was booming and home values shot through the roof.  I know a guy who lives in Tucson and said the attitude there is STILL "people from California are going to continue moving to AZ and NV because it's so much cheaper". They really think thats going to pull them through this.

 

As it turns out people are still moving here in droves but not with the gobs of money from equity in their California homes. Since many are taking casino jobs, with a large portion of their income coming from unreported tips, verifying enough income to obtain a mortgage becomes difficult. In the past these folks would simply apply under the SISA (Stated Income Stated Assets) programs which of coarse no longer exist.

I missed the opening post of this thread, but it doesn't sound like it was all that insightful anyway.  David's post was awesome, though.

 

Personally, I think this crisis is rooted far deeper than housing and mortgages.  If you want to see where this begins, look to VISA and MasterCard.  In the last few decades, the concept of budgeting has been almost completely obliterated by "cheap credit".  Many Americans no longer know how to live within their means.  Instead of saving for something they really want, they simply buy it on credit and pay it off later with interest, or never if they file bankruptcy.  Instead of asking, "do I really need a $600 PS3?", they just impulse buy it.  Rent-to-own businesses and check cashing companies are similar, in that they allow people to spend more than they can really afford and they help to erode the necessity of saving and budgeting. 

 

Anyway, it starts with that, as people making $40k per year live like they're making $75k.  They buy cars and other vehicles they can't afford, that are financed out over 5, even 10 years, instead of buying something reasonable, possibly used.  They then buy houses that are larger and more expensive than they need.  The banks "help" them by using fancy financing to get them to a payment that seems reasonable.  This isn't limited to a single class.  The lower class does this, as does the middle class, maybe even moreso.  I assume this happens with the rich as well, as this type of temptation is universal.

 

This also affects the price of everything we buy, since demand determines the price of an item in the free market.  As budgeting becomes less important, the prices of goods can creep up, as the amount of money one can afford for that given item increases.  Let's say you have have $50 to spend in a week.  If you have literally only that $50, you can only purchase that many goods.  But if you add X amount of credit to the mix, you are suddenly no longer constrained to your original $50, and now have the capability to spend far more.  In a society where everyone is responsible and lives within their means, there's no problem.  The credit is there in case of emergency, or for the odd unexpected expenditure.  But in a society where a significant portion does not do this, you risk fueling inflation as the price of a pint of beer, for example, inches upward because people are willing to pay for it.  In this scenario, "credit" is being treated as extra income, which damages the purchasing power of even those without debt.

 

Housing is what sent the market into disarray, but if Americans weren't already shouldering mountains of other debt like credit cards, cars, and student loans, many of those creative mortgages wouldn't have failed or wouldn't have been necessary to begin with.

 

I hope our current predicament is something that is fixable via regulation or some other method of altering the market, but my biggest fear is that this is just symptomatic of a bigger, societal issue.

Didn't get to see the video and it doesn't sound like I missed much. 

 

The housing crisis is a symptom rather than a cause.  Housing is most people's largest and most critical monthly bill.  So when housing payments start getting missed, en masse, we're really at the end of our rope economically.  A crisis in housing is actually a crisis of paychecks because the latter backs the former.  If the graph of housing values (i.e. expenses) is going up faster than graph of wages, the margin between them is a GIGANTIC FLASHING RED PROBLEM that will nuke the economy if ignored.

 

What caused our economic crisis is a gradual erosion of both wages and job security.  All of those troubled financial instruments were ultimately (losing) bets on the average American's ability to pay their bills.  Not talking about rich or poor, but average.  Median wages can no longer pay for the things we're all expected to buy for growth to continue or resume.  We have far too many houses and not enough apartments.  When jobs are no longer dependable, neither are investments, because the return is expected to come from masses spending money.  There have been too many interruptions in too many household revenue streams.  With 30-year jobs we can pay 30-year loans-- take away one and the other must go too.  Perhaps the flexibility of the modern economy is more expensive than advertised.

Jimmy James.  AMEN!

Great post Jimmy James.  I agree with you 100%.

How many folks here live above their means?  UO is good mirror of what happens across the country.

I too agree with Jimmy James, to a point.  But a hypothetical person making 40k, even if they're otherwise debt free, should not own even a low-end  house.  Not at today's prices.  Their debt service to income ratio would just not be favorable.  This is before any wasteful spending comes into the picture.

 

Assuming 70% take home pay, 40k gives you $2333 per month.  The monthly payment on a $100k loan at 8.25 fixed, including insurance and 1% annual property tax, is $868.  That's more than 1/3, which is a red line, and which leaves $1465 for everything else that month-- student loan(?), transportation, heating(!), communication expenses, food, etc.  And $100k is modest even by Cleveland standards.  We're assuming our hypothetical buyer doesn't have cash laying around for immediate renovations.

 

Are we willing to say a person making 40k should struggle to afford a 100k house?  Regardless of PS3's; $600 doesn't even account for one monthly payment in this hypo.  Plus, how many options does one have in Cuyahoga County if limited to 100k?  I've seen some pretty modest, tiny homes for quite a bit more.  We'd all be better off if we budgeted tighter, but for most people there just isn't enough to scrape out of that "misc" category to cover the ongoing explosion in costs of living. 

327 you can buy a foreclosure.  Some homes are not in such bad shape and at a low price, plus an improvement loan. A person could possibly afford a 55-60k home.

 

I'm speaking from experience.

^^ 327 Keep in mind that qualifying is based on gross income and the desired debt to income (DTI) ratio is 45%. The DTI takes into account all borrowed money including student loans unless they're deferred. In your scenario the borrower would have a DTI of 25%. This is based on todays rate of 6% (8.25% would be predatory lending) on a 30yr loan, and the principal and interest would be $599/mth. You must of coarse add taxes and insurance bring the housing expense to approx $800/mth. Now this may seem to pricey in your opinion but remember most people are paying near that or more on rent. Home ownership is about not throwing away that rent money and building equity. Your borrower would technically be approved with $700 of additional monthly debt, or for that matter, a $200,000 mortgage.

327 you can buy a foreclosure. Some homes are not in such bad shape and at a low price, plus an improvement loan. A person could possibly afford a 55-60k home.

 

I'm speaking from experience.

 

That's what I'm inclined to do, when the time comes.  Great thing about Cleveland is there are some deals like that.  But I don't think there are enough such deals for every $40k individual out there, particularly outside our market.  Not yet anyway... I'm anticipating a lot more downward correction.

How many folks here live above their means? UO is good mirror of what happens across the country.

 

From many of the postings, it appears most of us, myself included!  But then I'm not choosing high speed internet over adequate health care for my family!

 

 

Wow, thanks.  Glad to see so much agreement.  I was afraid I was getting too close to ranting.

 

Honestly, I threw $40k and $75k out there as abstract references, to illustrate a growing problem in this country with people living beyond their means.  It could have just as easily been $30k and $50k or $80k and $100k.  I only chose $40k because it seemed like a solidly middle class figure.

 

Also, not everyone needs to own a house.  Sure, it would be nice if everyone did, but renting is a totally viable option for those who cannot.  Home ownership isn't a right, it's a priviledge.  I'd also like to point out that I was making around $40k when I bought my first house (in the Cincinnati area, not that long ago).  It was a fixer upper, so it was cheap, but that's what I could afford at the time and my plan was to fix up a less expensive house and improve its value slowly over time.  So, it can be done, if you're realistic and lucky.

How many folks here live above their means?  UO is good mirror of what happens across the country.

 

From many of the postings, it appears most of us, myself included!  But then I'm not choosing high speed internet over adequate health care for my family!

 

 

 

Here you go again...

 

My health insurance costs over 100 dollars per month PLUS co pays vs. 30 dollars a month for internet that I was REQUIRED to pay since I lived with other room mates and split the costs of utilities. That 30 dollars easily offsets the low 240$ per month I was paying to live in that craphole. Don't you think it's a little rude to preach about people's financial decisions when you don't know much about their lives??

Check out last Friday's 60 Minutes for a great and easy to understand version of what caused the economic crisis.  They state the sub-prime mortgage crisis and overbuilding as givens, but they explain what brought down the wall st. houses and how they did this to themselves, a great watch and I highly suggest it.

David, as I've said before, I have a lot of respect for the success you have made of yourself.  Based on what you have shared of your upbringing, you have overcome!

 

But (you knew one was coming), I think your comments displays what is wrong with an entitlement attitude and is a problem specific to your generation.

 

Basically, what you said was, you didn't have enough money to pay for health care, so since you had some left over, you may as well spend it on whatever you wanted.  In your mind, you weren't spending it on something wasteful like beer (my example) so it is ok to just spend it.

 

What about saving that $30/month for a possible emergency?  In your mind, its not enough to really do any good, so why bother?  I suppose if you were hit by a bus, you would just let the government take care of your health care?  I guess we do have universal health care!

 

My daughter was in that position for a few months, until her new job benefits went into effect.  I made it clear that she cover herself with a short term policy, no excuses.  No having money for anything less important.  Probably you haven't had anyone in your life telling you that sort of thing.

 

One thing I've noticed being a landlord, the lower income people in our society, are living a lot better than we did as middle class families in the 60's and 70's.  In some ways, better than I am now!  hard to listen to late rent excuses when they have an HD TV!!  There's no excuse for not having adequate health care coverage.

 

Keep up the good work.  I didn't mean to pick on you, it was just an example.  That's why I didn't mention your name.

DanB, David ... the first thing that comes to mind when reading your debate is this video. Check it out, trust me ... it's pretty good:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4126233n

 

>One thing I've noticed being a landlord, the lower income people in our society, are living a lot better than we did as middle class families in the 60's and 70's.  In some ways, better than I am now!  hard to listen to late rent excuses when they have an HD TV!!  There's no excuse for not having adequate health care coverage

 

 

Warren Buffet frequently says poor Americans today live better than the Rockefeller's did, but it doesn't seem to soak in.  Most people have no idea what hard work is, especially the poor.  That and this world is full of quitters.  The primary value of a college degree from the perspective of employers is that it shows that an individual can finish something they start.  Community colleges are full of people who quit college, then quit community college.   

 

>One thing I've noticed being a landlord, the lower income people in our society, are living a lot better than we did as middle class families in the 60's and 70's.  In some ways, better than I am now!  hard to listen to late rent excuses when they have an HD TV!!  There's no excuse for not having adequate health care coverage

 

 

Warren Buffet frequently says poor Americans today live better than the Rockefeller's did, but it doesn't seem to soak in.  Most people have no idea what hard work is, especially the poor.  That and this world is full of quitters.  The primary value of a college degree from the perspective of employers is that it shows that an individual can finish something they start.  Community colleges are full of people who quit college, then quit community college.   

 

 

That's a great point Jmeck!  Go back to 1960 and ask a hard working couple if they would ever finance a television over the coarse of 2 years.  Or ask them if they would spend $100/month for a preview guide on that television and some extra channels.  Probably not.  Heck, alot of people back then wouldn't even carry a mortgage.  My grandfather always told me the story of when he built his house in 1939 and the bank offered him to finance it.  He could not understand why he would give them more money over the coarse of 10, yes TEN years, than the house cost, so he wrote a check.  I think society has somewhat done this to us.  The idea of saving has kind of gone down the toilet.  Sometimes, I think that's partly the problem with the banks.  They no longer have large savings accounts that they can play with in the stock market. 

Also, there are so many new things that have monthly fees.  Internet access is borderline essential these days.  I don't know how I'd manage my life (work, school, banking, investment, bills, travel, etc) without it. 

 

I'm just going to try to list the possible significant monthly bills that didn't exist in 1960:

 

1) cable/satellite

2) TiVo

3) Satellite Radio

4) Internet

5) Xbox/Playstation monthly fees

6) Cell phone

7) Cell phone data plan (blackberries/iPhone)

 

Did I miss any?

That's a great point Jmeck!  Go back to 1960 and ask a hard working couple if they would ever finance a television over the coarse of 2 years.  Or ask them if they would spend $100/month for a preview guide on that television and some extra channels.  Probably not.  Heck, alot of people back then wouldn't even carry a mortgage.  My grandfather always told me the story of when he built his house in 1939 and the bank offered him to finance it.  He could not understand why he would give them more money over the coarse of 10, yes TEN years, than the house cost, so he wrote a check.  I think society has somewhat done this to us.  The idea of saving has kind of gone down the toilet.  Sometimes, I think that's partly the problem with the banks.  They no longer have large savings accounts that they can play with in the stock market. 

 

Not all of us think that way.  Some of us are straight up cheap!  If I cannot afford to pay cash, then I don't need it!

 

gotribe, you have a point about saving for a home, my parents save 50% of the total cost of their home.  My father wanted to save in order to buy it outright, but they would have lost the house.  They didn't want to finance, but that was based on other factors.  I think the circumstances around each individuals reasons for financing have to be looked at on a much broader scale.  Buying a house with cash is pretty much unheard of these days. 

 

I could have never bought the BS with cash.

It will be interesting to see the triage with our regular bills if things get worse. Land-line phone companies are getting crushed. But the economics of the high speed internet thing are all screwed up especially if you want a decent speed and some kind of land-line. Also throw in gym fees and netflix among other regular monthly fees.

Also, there are so many new things that have monthly fees.  Internet access is borderline essential these days.  I don't know how I'd manage my life (work, school, banking, investment, bills, travel, etc) without it. 

 

I'm just going to try to list the possible significant monthly bills that didn't exist in 1960:

 

1) cable/satellite

2) TiVo

3) Satellite Radio

4) Internet

5) Xbox/Playstation monthly fees

6) Cell phone

7) Cell phone data plan (blackberries/iPhone)

 

Did I miss any?

Yes these are all "elective" bills, not necessities.  Even Internet access is an "elective".

Also throw in gym fees and netflix among other regular monthly fees.

 

Good call on NetFlix!  I didn't think of that.  Also, monthly storage at one of those dedicated facilities and subscription based games like World of Warcraft...

 

Yes these are all "elective" bills, not necessities.  Even Internet access is an "elective".

 

Oh, definitely.  I'm just trying to brainstorm and come up with things that people willingly pay that could stretch a monthly budget today.  These are things that are not just unnecessary for daily life, they in fact didn't even exist until recently.  I think it's interesting that people routinely add these types of bills to their lives without considering the total cost of living increase they are undertaking.  I'm certainly not immune to this, as I don't know how I lived without TiVo and a cell phone, and I don't want to go back!  I definitely don't have everything on that list though.  In 1960, you had a mortgage, phone bill, car payment (maybe), electricity, gas, food, insurance, and that's about it.  Today, there's so many more possible bills.  Most of us have at least 2 things on that list.  Something to think about, that's all.

Internet access is a necessity if you're in college. Some people have jobs that require them to constantly check their e-mail or have a cell phone on them at all times.

Internet access is a necessity if you're in college. Some people have jobs that require them to constantly check their e-mail or have a cell phone on them at all times.

 

Second that.  And cell phone and internet are almost necessary these days to job search competitively.

 

Oh, definitely.  I'm just trying to brainstorm and come up with things that people willingly pay that could stretch a monthly budget today.  These are things that are not just unnecessary for daily life, they in fact didn't even exist until recently.  I think it's interesting that people routinely add these types of bills to their lives without considering the total cost of living increase they are undertaking.  I'm certainly not immune to this, as I don't know how I lived without TiVo and a cell phone, and I don't want to go back!  I definitely don't have everything on that list though.  In 1960, you had a mortgage, phone bill, car payment (maybe), electricity, gas, food, insurance, and that's about it.  Today, there's so many more possible bills.  Most of us have at least 2 things on that list.  Something to think about, that's all.

 

I'd add:

– Clothing

– General necessities

– Medical Bills

Internet access is a necessity if you're in college. Some people have jobs that require them to constantly check their e-mail or have a cell phone on them at all times.

College, I guess. 

 

If the Internet is a 24/7 job necessity, the employer (via direct bill with the ISP or expense report) will most likely pay for it.

>Internet access is a necessity if you're in college.

 

Um, there's something called a computer lab.  Never understood why people paid a big technology fee but then had a computer in their dorm room.  It's kind of like paying the mandatory fee for the campus rec center, then going and buying a gym membership. 

 

Of these "necessities", the only one I have is a cell phone.  I don't own a TV, have never rented a video or paid a cable bill in my life.  I've never paid directly for internet -- I always either went to the library (your tax money pays for those computers that you can use for free -- sometimes you have to wait but poo-poo).  I've never bought a single computer program or game either.  Haven't been to a movie this year and went to one last year.     

 

 

 

 

Do studio projects that require internet access and a thousand dollars worth of computer software at the same time and see how easily you can get by in a computer lab.

 

I know some people could get by with crowded computer labs but not everyone.

>Internet access is a necessity if you're in college.

 

Um, there's something called a computer lab.  Never understood why people paid a big technology fee but then had a computer in their dorm room.  It's kind of like paying the mandatory fee for the campus rec center, then going and buying a gym membership. 

 

Of these "necessities", the only one I have is a cell phone.  I don't own a TV, have never rented a video or paid a cable bill in my life.  I've never paid directly for internet -- I always either went to the library (your tax money pays for those computers that you can use for free -- sometimes you have to wait but poo-poo).  I've never bought a single computer program or game either.  Haven't been to a movie this year and went to one last year. 

Thank goodness, there are only a few people like you around..........or I would be out of a job!

Cincinnati Bell offers great deals when you threaten to leave them.  Landline, unlimited long distance, DSL, for $45/month.

>Internet access is a necessity if you're in college.

 

Um, there's something called a computer lab.  Never understood why people paid a big technology fee but then had a computer in their dorm room.  It's kind of like paying the mandatory fee for the campus rec center, then going and buying a gym membership. 

 

Of these "necessities", the only one I have is a cell phone.  I don't own a TV, have never rented a video or paid a cable bill in my life.  I've never paid directly for internet -- I always either went to the library (your tax money pays for those computers that you can use for free -- sometimes you have to wait but poo-poo).  I've never bought a single computer program or game either.  Haven't been to a movie this year and went to one last year.     

 

I agree that many "necessities" can be done without.  But some things that seem like extras really can be beneficial.  If my family hadn't bought a computer when I was younger, I never would have become fascinated with them and become a computer programmer.  The little things like this are many times why people from very poor backgrounds have less opportunities available to them.

 

If the Internet is a 24/7 job necessity, the employer (via direct bill with the ISP or expense report) will most likely pay for it.

 

Absolutely wrong MTS.  I have had 3 different computer programming jobs now, and all 3 have required me to be able to answer a call or email at any hour (I have been called after midnight on a weekend a few times) and be able to log into my machine at work instantly to help diagnose he problem.  This obviously would not be possible without an internet connection, especially since at all 3 of my jobs the building would be secured at these times and no entry would be allowed.  And the company would laugh in your face if you asked them to pay for your internet connection.  It is expected that you had one if you work with computers for a living.

If the Internet is a 24/7 job necessity, the employer (via direct bill with the ISP or expense report) will most likely pay for it.

 

Absolutely wrong MTS.  I have had 3 different computer programming jobs now, and all 3 have required me to be able to answer a call or email at any hour (I have been called after midnight on a weekend a few times) and be able to log into my machine at work instantly to help diagnose he problem.  This obviously would not be possible without an Internet connection, especially since at all 3 of my jobs the building would be secured at these times and no entry would be allowed.  And the company would laugh in your face if you asked them to pay for your Internet connection.  It is expected that you had one if you work with computers for a living.

 

I'm Absolutely wrong?!

 

You've had 3 jobs or worked for three different company's.  You're sure you can speak in absolute terms?  You can't possibly speak for all company's, now can you? :wink:

 

I work for a media company and I have to have Internet access, phone, email, fax  24/7.  I have a special line that comes directly from the cable box directly into my house.  And I don't pay for it.

 

I know many, many people who have company owned blackberry's, PC's and the company pays for their Internet access, media plan, as well as the device itself.

I know of some people who have those perks. Hell, even company laptops and satellite internet cards (I WANT THAT!!)

I know of some people who have those perks. Hell, even company laptops and satellite internet cards (I WANT THAT!!)

 

I'm one of those lucky devils.  They also pay for my home net access.  The trade-off is huge, in that your personal time could be interupted at any moment with company business, but it's totally worth it in my opinion.  Now if I can just get them to let me expense my cell phone, I'll really be on cloud 9.

AIG SPENT YOUR TAX BAILOUT MONEY ON A SPA,GOLFING, AND BANQUET RETREAT FOR EXECUTIVES

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_aig

 

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer

Tue Oct 7, 11:15 PM ET

 

 

 

WASHINGTON - Days after it got a federal bailout, American International Group Inc. spent $440,000 on a posh California retreat for its executives, complete with spa treatments, banquets and golf outings, according to lawmakers investigating the company's meltdown.

 

AIG sent its executives to the coastal St. Regis resort south of Los Angeles even as the company tapped into an $85 billion loan from the government it needed to stave off bankruptcy. The resort tab included $23,380 worth of spa treatments for AIG employees, according to invoices the resort turned over to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

 

The retreat didn't include anyone from the financial products division that nearly drove AIG under, but lawmakers still were enraged over thousands of dollars spent on outing for executives of AIG's main U.S. life insurance subsidiary.

 

"Average Americans are suffering economically. They're losing their jobs, their homes and their health insurance," the committee's chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., scolded the company during a lengthy opening statement at a hearing Tuesday. "Yet less than one week after the taxpayers rescued AIG, company executives could be found wining and dining at one of the most exclusive resorts in the nation."

 

Former AIG CEO Robert Willumstad, who lost his job a day after the Federal Reserve put up the $85 billion on Sept. 16, said he was not familiar with the conference and would not have gone along with it.

 

"It seems very inappropriate," Willumstad said in response to questioning from Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md.

 

"Those executives should be fired," Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said at a debate with Sen. John McCain on Tuesday, referring to the retreat participants. Obama also said AIG should give the Treasury $440,000 to cover the costs of the retreat.

 

But Eric Dinallo, superintendent of the New York State Insurance Department, said he could see the value of such a retreat under the circumstances.

 

"Having been at large global companies and knowing what condition AIG was in ... the absolute worst thing that could have happened" would have been for employees and underwriters in its life insurance subsidiary to flee the company.

 

"I do agree there is some profligate spending there, but the concept of bringing all the major employees together ... to ensure that the $85 billion could be as greatly as possible paid back would have been not a crazy corporate decision," Dinallo told the House committee.

 

The hearing disclosed that AIG executives hid the full range of its risky financial products from auditors as losses mounted, according to documents released by the committee, which is examining the chain of events that forced the government to bail out the conglomerate.

 

The panel sharply criticized AIG's former top executives, who cast blame on each other for the company's financial woes.

 

"You have cost my constituents and the taxpayers of this country $85 billion and run into the ground one of the most respected insurance companies in the history of our country," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. "You were just gambling billions, possibly trillions of dollars."

 

AIG, crippled by huge losses linked to mortgage defaults, was forced last month to accept the $85 billion government loan that gives the U.S. the right to an 80 percent stake in the company.

 

Waxman unveiled documents showing AIG executives hid the full extent of the firm's risky financial products from auditors, both outside and inside the firm, as losses mounted.

 

For instance, federal regulators at the Office of Thrift Supervision warned in March that "corporate oversight of AIG Financial Products ... lack critical elements of independence." At the same time, PricewaterhouseCoopers confidentially warned the company that the "root cause" of its mounting problems was denying internal overseers in charge of limiting AIG's exposure access to what was going on in its highly leveraged financial products branch.

 

Waxman also released testimony from former AIG auditor Joseph St. Denis, who resigned after being blocked from giving his input on how the firm estimated its liabilities.

 

Three former AIG executives were summoned to appear before the hearing. One of them, Maurice "Hank" Greenberg — who ran AIG for 38 years until 2005 — canceled his appearance citing illness but submitted prepared testimony. In it, he blamed the company's financial woes on his successors, former CEOs Martin Sullivan and Willumstad.

 

"When I left AIG, the company operated in 130 countries and employed approximately 92,000 people," Greenberg said. "Today, the company we built up over almost four decades has been virtually destroyed."

 

Sullivan and Willumstad, in turn, cast much of the blame on accounting rules that forced AIG to take tens of billions of dollars in losses stemming from exposure to toxic mortgage-related securities.

 

Lawmakers also upbraided Sullivan, who ran the firm from 2005 until June of this year, for urging AIG's board of directors to waive pay guidelines to win a $5 million bonus for 2007 — even as the company lost $5 billion in the 4th quarter of that year. Sullivan countered that he was mainly concerned with helping other senior executives.

 

 

^ I saw that whole hearing. Pretty intense stuff. NONE of them would not answer simple yes or no questions.

I know of some people who have those perks. Hell, even company laptops and satellite internet cards (I WANT THAT!!)

 

I'm one of those lucky devils.  They also pay for my home net access.   The trade-off is huge, in that your personal time could be interupted at any moment with company business, but it's totally worth it in my opinion.  Now if I can just get them to let me expense my cell phone, I'll really be on cloud 9.

 

Even though I have all the crap installed at home, I do not open up my work email at home, period.  When I'm at home..I'm at home.  The only emails I answer are my boss or my assistants.  My boss would call me vs. email me.  I have enough crap to bring home and review on a daily basis. 

AIG SPENT YOUR TAX BAILOUT MONEY ON A SPA,GOLFING, AND BANQUET RETREAT FOR EXECUTIVES

 

Talk about an "entitlement mentality".

Sheriff Dart explains why he refuses to evict tenants

Dart refuses to evict tenants when order is aimed at landlord

 

 

BY COOK COUNTY SHERIFF TOM DART

 

As Cook County sheriff, I am responsible for running a 10,000-inmate jail, providing patrols to unincorporated areas and securing the courts.

 

But perhaps no part of our job is as difficult as the work done by our eviction units. On any given day, our deputies could be asked to throw a family out of their home, with all of their possessions left on a curb -- sometimes pilfered through by those living nearby.

 

Where mortgage firms see pieces of paper, my deputies see people.

 

Yet no matter how difficult they are, evictions are part of our job.

 

What isn't part of our job, however, is to carry out work on behalf of the multi-billion-dollar banks and mortgage industries.

 

Too many times, our deputies arrive at a home to carry out a mortgage foreclosure eviction, only to find a tenant -- dutifully paying their rent each month -- who is unaware their landlord stopped using that rent money to pay the mortgage. They had no fair warning that they were about to be thrown out of their home.

 

That's because, in many cases, the banks have done nothing to determine, in advance, who's living in the building -- even though it's required by state law. Instead, those banks expect taxpayers to pay for that investigative work for them.

 

That stops today.

 

We won't be doing the banks' work for them anymore.

 

We won't surprise tenants with an eviction order intended for their landlord.

 

I may be held in contempt of court over this. If that's the case, I'm willing to accept it though I believe most judges in Cook County share my desire to find a solution for this mess.

 

We're asking either the state courts or Legislature to order the banks to simply conduct very basic work before requesting an eviction.

 

I've come to this point after spending the last year trying to work with the banking industry, even asking the Legislature to pass a bill requiring them to -- at a minimum -- let us know if any children, disabled or senior citizens live at the home, so we can connect them with social services. That effort was killed by banking industry lobbyists.

 

Until the banking industry steps up and does the right thing, I won't continue to risk violating the law and open taxpayers to further liability.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1211633,CST-NWS-evict09.article#