Aided by “a large flat screen monitor and two side panel teleprompters,†Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) yesterday laid out his response to the housing crisis, proclaiming that the government should not “bail out†big banks or borrowers if they act irresponsibly: "I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers." In contrast, when McCain was asked whether the Federal Reserve went too far in extending a $30 billion credit line to finance the takeover of Bear Stearns by JPMorgan. “It’s a close call, but I don’t think so,†he said.
I sold my house yesterday. It was on the market for two weeks. I got 74 percent more for it than I paid for it. I just signed the sale papers... NOW.
Ummm.. this is great, but when did you orgininally buy it and in what market. I mean my dad's house was bought for 50,000 in 1978 and is now worth 650,000 so if he sold it for 550,000 he would still be making a nice percentage off it.
If your graduate school isn't getting paid for 100%, something is wrong.
Of the 2.3 million graduate and first professional students enrolled in 1989-90, 17 percent borrowed an average of $8,600 through student loan programs. Considering only those who attended full time, full year 40 percent borrowed.
If you are going to graduate school immediately following your undergraduate study, you should be able to get a full ride if you are awesome. Hence, the 60% who didn't need loans. That's huge considering almost nobody goes through undergraduate study without a student loan.
If you are going to graduate school later in life, and not immediately following undergraduate study, then you probably can't get a free ride. However, because you should have been working all this time, you should have money saved up to pay for it, your company will pay for it, etc.
If you are going to graduate school immediately following your undergraduate study, you should be able to get a full ride if you are awesome. Hence, the 60% who didn't need loans. That's huge considering almost nobody goes through undergraduate study without a student loan.
If you are going to graduate school later in life, and not immediately following undergraduate study, then you probably can't get a free ride. However, because you should have been working all this time, you should have money saved up to pay for it, your company will pay for it, etc.
So, that 40 percent wasn't awesome? I guess they're just not very smart. Also, I suppose that anyone who is dissatisfied with their work and wants to get another degree was just stupid if they haven't been saving for the last x number of years.
I'm surprised you admit that "almost almost nobody goes through undergraduate study without a student loan" What if they couldn't get such a loan? Maybe if a person was really awesome, they could stay in school just based on their awesomeness alone, but I guess the less awesome ones would just have to quit school.
I'm surprised you admit that "almost almost nobody goes through undergraduate study without a student loan" What if they couldn't get such a loan? Maybe if a person was really awesome, they could stay in school just based on their awesomeness alone, but I guess the less awesome ones would just have to quit school.
Well, at RIT, the professors and guidance people pretty-much told us openly that "if you aren't getting a full ride to do it, staying for your Masters is a stupid idea."
As for undergraduate study, I wouldn't have gone to RIT at all had I not received the substantial merit scholarships I did. I don't know what I would have done, but I basically paid for school by excelling in high school.
Well, at RIT, the professors and guidance people pretty-much told us openly that "if you aren't getting a full ride to do it, staying for your Masters is a stupid idea."
Maybe for IT or CS. There are other things besides IT and CS. What about the teachers who need to get a Masters in Education? What about some guy who wants to get his Masters in Chemical Engineering?
What about some guy who wants to go to law school? Med school? Pharmacy school? Optometry school? Vetrinary school?
There are 12 parking lots across Santa Barbara that have been set up to accommodate the growing middle-class homelessness. These lots are believed to be part of the first program of its kind in the United States, according to organizers. . . .
Nancy Kapp, the New Beginnings parking lot coordinator, said the group began seeing a need for the lots in recent months as California's foreclosure crisis hit the city hard. She said a growing number of senior citizens, women and lower- and middle-class families live on the streets. . . .
"You look around today, and there are so many," said Kapp, who was homeless with her young daughter two decades ago. "I see women sleeping on benches. It's heartbreaking." . . .
John Quigley, an economics professor at the University of California-Berkeley, said the California housing crisis has left many middle-class families temporarily homeless or forced them to go to food banks to feed their families. . . .
"Part of the reason why it's so painful in Santa Barbara is, there's so little in the way of alternative housing," Quigley said. "If there were alternative low and moderate housing and rental accommodations that were reasonably close by, you can imagine it wouldn't have this desperate look to it as people living in their cars." . . .
At the only lot for women in Santa Barbara, it's a tough existence. There are no showers or running water. On the night CNN visited, a half-dozen women were in the parking lot before nightfall. . . .
Linn Labou, 54, lives in her car with four cats. She used to be in the National Guard and is on a waiting list for government housing, but the wait is a year long.
Were the homeless parking lots there before the recent buzz over recession? I think this is an excellent example of correlation without causation. There have always been lots of homeless people in America. Perhaps if you showed me some data saying that the number of homeless people in the U.S. are increasing disproportionately as recession worries deepen, then I'd be more agreeable to your hypothesis, Mr. Alarmist
Joe, I have to agree with Jason. The answer to all these anecdotes is in plain text in the first article you linked.
...she said that three-quarters of her income went to paying rent in Santa Barbara, where the median house in the scenic oceanfront city costs more than $1 million.
People say that times are bad, but I look around, and every story I see seems to be the same. People were using credit to live above their means. Now it's finally catching up to people who were spending more money than they were making. Seriously, a 67 year old loan processor living in a Santa Barbara condo? I can't afford to live there, so I highly doubt she could have. She lived in a place she couldn't afford. She has three grown children who can't help her. She's keeping two expensive dogs she can't afford. She had months to find a new job, and she couldn't. She's 67, and she had no money saved to retire. If you're going to use anecdotes at least use ones I can have sympathy for.
The only people who seem to be having trouble that get my sympathy are some of the military peoples. Many of them are coming back and having a very difficult time finding jobs. They're all either over or under qualified for just about everything, and many of them are getting screwed out of what Uncle Sam is supposed to be giving them. I think this setup was intentional to get them to return to the service.
The bottom line is if you want to convince me that times are bad, your example can not be Santa Barbara. People living above their means being forced out of their million dollar homes is not bad times. That's just people getting their come-uppance. They don't have to be homeless. They just refuse to move and live somewhere with affordable housing and available jobs.
Nobody's denying there's a foreclosure crisis. But that doesn't mean depression. It could mean cyclical destructive growth.It happens.
I think I've said a couple of times in this thread that I don't think a depression is on the way. I do think that we're in for some rough times, and this article is an example of what can happen, what is happening to people just like us that were, up until recently, firmly ensconced in the middle class.
Joe, I have to agree with Jason. The answer to all these anecdotes is in plain text in the first article you linked.
...she said that three-quarters of her income went to paying rent in Santa Barbara, where the median house in the scenic oceanfront city costs more than $1 million.
I don't remember that she bought anything. I believe she was paying rent. Now, she does have a problem with living in Santa Barbara, but notice that she's in her sixties. People in their sixties can't just get up and move the way people in their twenties can. You, for instance might find it easy to get a job anywhere you move. She would not find it so easy. If she leaves her current job, odds are she's not going to be employed for a long time.
I don't care that you don't find her sympathetic. I didn't think you would. However, it's a little on the harsh side to dismiss her and say that she deserves her problems because she made mistakes. I have news for you: You are human. There will come a time when you will make a financial mistake.
People say that times are bad, but I look around, and every story I see seems to be the same. People were using credit to live above their means. Now it's finally catching up to people who were spending more money than they were making. Seriously, a 67 year old loan processor living in a Santa Barbara condo? I can't afford to live there, so I highly doubt she could have. She lived in a place she couldn't afford. She has three grown children who can't help her. She's keeping two expensive dogs she can't afford. She had months to find a new job, and she couldn't. She's 67, and she had no money saved to retire. If you're going to use anecdotes at least use ones I can have sympathy for.
Regarding the anecdote, the article focused on one woman, then went on to say that many middle class people are becoming homeless in the area. It went on to say that many parking lots are now being maintained for people that live in their cars. It's not just one person. Then the article cited evidence that foreclosures are up 75% from 2006 to 2007. That's not anecdotal.
You don't have to be sympathetic. You don't have to shed any tears for this woman or the others that are living in their cars. However, as distasteful as it may be to you, you participate in the economy. You participate in society. If these middle class people are having such problems, you might one day be affected. No wait, strike that. Not you, because we all know that you will never be affected by anything anyone else does because you have your life planned out, there is no way that you will ever make a mistake, get sick or injured, or get into trouble, and there is no way that you will ever be affected by the world around you. Some of us mere mortals might be affected though, and that is why I think this is important.
Maybe for IT or CS. There are other things besides IT and CS. What about the teachers who need to get a Masters in Education? What about some guy who wants to get his Masters in Chemical Engineering?
I earned my masters in biomedical engineering a year ago, and that degree has really opened a lot of doors for advancement that just weren't there for me with just an undergrad degree. For IT and CS it may not be smart to continue your education, but in engineering fields I've found that it can be necessary to raise above entry-level positions.
My graduate education was paid almost entirely through loans just three years ago. My little brother is about to head off to pharmacy school next semester, and it bothers me that the same kind of deal isn't available to him. Instead my folks will have to pay for a larger part of his tuition than they ever had to for me. My folks aren't rich. They're good, responsible people, and my little brother is a good student who works his ass off. They don't deserve to have the rug pulled out from under them.
You don't have to be sympathetic. You don't have to shed any tears for this woman or the others that are living in their cars. However, as distasteful as it may be to you, you participate in the economy. You participate in society. If these middle class people are having such problems, you might one day be affected. No wait, strike that. Not you, because we all know that you will never be affected by anything anyone else does because you have your life planned out, there is no way that you will ever make a mistake, get sick or injured, or get into trouble, and there is no way that you will ever be affected by the world around you. Some of us mere mortals might be affected though, and that is why I think this is important.
Despite your obvious sarcasm, to this all I have to say is one word. Yes.
We're not talking about mistakes here. A mistake here or there is expected, and people can deal with it. What we're witnessing with these people in Santa Barbara is complete financial irresponsibility. They didn't just make one financial mistake, they completely mismanaged their entire financial lives. They lived lifestyles ludicrously above their means. They didn't save for retirement. They lost their jobs, and were unable to find new ones. That implies they weren't always working to make sure they had marketable skills. I find it highly likely these people were deep in debt, and heavily relying on credit to live their inflated lifestyles.
From what I can see, the majority of the economic problems we are having now are simply a bubble bursting. It really looks to me that when the economy was "good" many people were living a fantasy life. Due to the conditions they were able to get lots of credit and live a life they could otherwise not afford. They could drive SUVs because gas was cheap. They could live in giant houses because of those crazy mortages. All that seems to be happening now is we aren't having a recession, we are having a reality check. People who were financially irresponsible are now being made to pay up. Gas prices are going up to match the rest of the world. If good economy means that people can live lifestyles above their means, and recession means that people are forced to live with what they can afford, then let's stay in a recession forever.
These aren't people who made one mistake. These are people who are completely and utterly financially irresponsible across the board. When the financially responsible people are having trouble, then the economy is bad. For now, it's just a return to reality, and an end to the happy dream magic fairy land where 67 year old people with average every day jobs can somehow live in million dollar homes.
That implies they weren't always working to make sure they had marketable skills.
I hate to break it to you, but once you get past a certain age, it doesn't matter what kind of crazy skills you have. It's tough to get a new job just because of your age.
Also, let me reiterate that it's not just a story about those "stupid irresponsible people". We all participate in the same society and the same economy. The plight of those people can affect us in ways that are hard to predict. Even if we don't feel bad about them, their plight might cause us to face higher prices or tighter credit.
Comments
Bonus: Short film contrasting McCain and GWB's predictions with the way things really are.
I guess something was wrong for those 40 percent.
If you are going to graduate school later in life, and not immediately following undergraduate study, then you probably can't get a free ride. However, because you should have been working all this time, you should have money saved up to pay for it, your company will pay for it, etc.
I'm surprised you admit that "almost almost nobody goes through undergraduate study without a student loan" What if they couldn't get such a loan? Maybe if a person was really awesome, they could stay in school just based on their awesomeness alone, but I guess the less awesome ones would just have to quit school.
As for undergraduate study, I wouldn't have gone to RIT at all had I not received the substantial merit scholarships I did. I don't know what I would have done, but I basically paid for school by excelling in high school.
What about some guy who wants to go to law school? Med school? Pharmacy school? Optometry school? Vetrinary school?
People say that times are bad, but I look around, and every story I see seems to be the same. People were using credit to live above their means. Now it's finally catching up to people who were spending more money than they were making. Seriously, a 67 year old loan processor living in a Santa Barbara condo? I can't afford to live there, so I highly doubt she could have. She lived in a place she couldn't afford. She has three grown children who can't help her. She's keeping two expensive dogs she can't afford. She had months to find a new job, and she couldn't. She's 67, and she had no money saved to retire. If you're going to use anecdotes at least use ones I can have sympathy for.
The only people who seem to be having trouble that get my sympathy are some of the military peoples. Many of them are coming back and having a very difficult time finding jobs. They're all either over or under qualified for just about everything, and many of them are getting screwed out of what Uncle Sam is supposed to be giving them. I think this setup was intentional to get them to return to the service.
The bottom line is if you want to convince me that times are bad, your example can not be Santa Barbara. People living above their means being forced out of their million dollar homes is not bad times. That's just people getting their come-uppance. They don't have to be homeless. They just refuse to move and live somewhere with affordable housing and available jobs.
I don't care that you don't find her sympathetic. I didn't think you would. However, it's a little on the harsh side to dismiss her and say that she deserves her problems because she made mistakes. I have news for you: You are human. There will come a time when you will make a financial mistake. Regarding the anecdote, the article focused on one woman, then went on to say that many middle class people are becoming homeless in the area. It went on to say that many parking lots are now being maintained for people that live in their cars. It's not just one person. Then the article cited evidence that foreclosures are up 75% from 2006 to 2007. That's not anecdotal.
You don't have to be sympathetic. You don't have to shed any tears for this woman or the others that are living in their cars. However, as distasteful as it may be to you, you participate in the economy. You participate in society. If these middle class people are having such problems, you might one day be affected. No wait, strike that. Not you, because we all know that you will never be affected by anything anyone else does because you have your life planned out, there is no way that you will ever make a mistake, get sick or injured, or get into trouble, and there is no way that you will ever be affected by the world around you. Some of us mere mortals might be affected though, and that is why I think this is important.
My graduate education was paid almost entirely through loans just three years ago. My little brother is about to head off to pharmacy school next semester, and it bothers me that the same kind of deal isn't available to him. Instead my folks will have to pay for a larger part of his tuition than they ever had to for me. My folks aren't rich. They're good, responsible people, and my little brother is a good student who works his ass off. They don't deserve to have the rug pulled out from under them.
We're not talking about mistakes here. A mistake here or there is expected, and people can deal with it. What we're witnessing with these people in Santa Barbara is complete financial irresponsibility. They didn't just make one financial mistake, they completely mismanaged their entire financial lives. They lived lifestyles ludicrously above their means. They didn't save for retirement. They lost their jobs, and were unable to find new ones. That implies they weren't always working to make sure they had marketable skills. I find it highly likely these people were deep in debt, and heavily relying on credit to live their inflated lifestyles.
From what I can see, the majority of the economic problems we are having now are simply a bubble bursting. It really looks to me that when the economy was "good" many people were living a fantasy life. Due to the conditions they were able to get lots of credit and live a life they could otherwise not afford. They could drive SUVs because gas was cheap. They could live in giant houses because of those crazy mortages. All that seems to be happening now is we aren't having a recession, we are having a reality check. People who were financially irresponsible are now being made to pay up. Gas prices are going up to match the rest of the world. If good economy means that people can live lifestyles above their means, and recession means that people are forced to live with what they can afford, then let's stay in a recession forever.
These aren't people who made one mistake. These are people who are completely and utterly financially irresponsible across the board. When the financially responsible people are having trouble, then the economy is bad. For now, it's just a return to reality, and an end to the happy dream magic fairy land where 67 year old people with average every day jobs can somehow live in million dollar homes.
Also, let me reiterate that it's not just a story about those "stupid irresponsible people". We all participate in the same society and the same economy. The plight of those people can affect us in ways that are hard to predict. Even if we don't feel bad about them, their plight might cause us to face higher prices or tighter credit.