So, I Haven't Bailed Out

I have just been busy as hell and kind of at a loss about what to do with this blog or how to go about it. I have been recommended wordpress and I'm looking into it. The problem is that I am an absolute moron when it comes to computers. I know how to turn it on and get to the interwebs, but that's about it.

So, the thought of figuring out how to "build" a website and blog that might have a more interactive way of working with comments and submissions has me a bit daunted.

My goal is this; to have discussions about politics and the way of our world that everyone feels they can be a part of. Many of the discussions I have had with people, including those that I would think are directly opposite my viewpoints, have had both sides realizing that they actually have much more in common than previously thought.

This is what our system is supposed to be; not everyone gets along, but, though clear and level-headed discussions, they usually want many of the same things. We are supposed to work together to achieve those results; not entrench ourselves on one side or the other.

American politics are embroiled in WWI trench warfare. The right and the left are so dug in and the middle is the "no man's land" that is bombarded with lobs from both sides. It is becoming apparent that our political outcome (the SuperComittee, healthcare, debt reductions, taxes, etc.) is going to be as futile as trench warfare.

I just want to do my part to increase awareness and spur what little discussion I can.

So, I'll be back when I figure out what to do with this. Any suggestions and direction are certainly appreciated.

Thanks for playing thus far. I'm looking forward to continuing it.

Great Article on Credit Unions

For the procrastinators

It really is a great article explaining why it is better to use a credit union. If you'd rather have a video, listen to Bill Maher explain why you should.

I know credit unions are not the most convenient. There aren't as many locations (good reason for this explained below), their hours aren't as good, their online and phone options might not be as flashy, etc., but they really are a much, much better deal. Their credit cards, mortgages, personal loans, and auto loans are quite a bit lower when it comes to rates.

Speaking of rates, all of the money made by them has to be plowed back into their business. They aren't doling out huge bonuses, buying corporate jets, furnishing CEO's offices, paying for ad campaigns, etc.; they're using that money to make services better for their members.

The lack of locations is another good thing, as it costs MILLIONS (not even considering putting major locations in metropolitan areas probably costing more) to open a branch location, staff it, and put the lights on. So, they are not wasting your money on desks, carpeting, lights, salaries, etc. at a location that might not be all that busy; they're using your money to give loans to fellow members, make their websites better, and to provide better services to you.

Many of them also operate in massive credit union networks that will give you the option of getting to free ATMs on other credit unions' networks. Mine, MCU, has few branch locations, but I can withdraw money, fee free, at the ATMs in any McDonald's. Those are everywhere, so I'm never really struggling to find an ATM.

Plus, since I'm with the City's bank (MCU), I actually get my paychecks direct deposited a day earlier than people not using MCU. That's a nice little perk.

There is one good "bank" option; USAA. They have excellent service, a stellar reputation, and a military background (you don't have to be in the military to join their bank, however) that provides many benefits. I have not personally dealt with them, but I have read more than a few praises of their excellence.

So, please, just do it. The hour it will take to do everything (open the new account, close the old one, set up your auto drafts and direct deposits, etc.) will pay off in spades when you get great rates on a loan down the road, not to mention the fact you will be taking ammunition out of the hands of the very corporate banks that shot holes in this economy in the first place. You won't regret it.

Matt Taibbi is My Hero

This is exactly it. His last two paragraphs pretty much sum up the whole mess.

"A lot of people had to make bad decisions for the crisis to happen. People had to buy houses they couldn't afford. Ratings agencies had to give AAA ratings to junk securities. Regulators had to be asleep at the wheel. The GSEs had to lower their standards and provide billions of dollars of government-backed financing for dicey home loans. Nobody is denying that all of those things played roles in the crisis.

But the main driving factor was the simple fact that banks were able to make trillions of dollars selling defective products. You take away that simple market-driven reality, there's no bubble and no crash, no matter what people like Michael Bloomberg say. No one is insisting that they take the whole rap -- but don't insult us by trying to say they shouldn't take any at all."

Is Housing Going to Get Better in the Near Future?

Late Mortgage Payments up in 3Q

I don't think so. I just don't see how housing prices are, in many areas, considered affordable compared to incomes. During the housing and economic upswing that lead up to the crash (in a larger level, up from ~1990 with some blips down), all of the metrics for home ownership changed.

In the past, 20% down on a 15 or 30 year conventional, fixed-rate mortgage with an interest rate of 6-9% was what got you set up with a house. During the boom, little to nothing down, a 5/1 ARM, and interest in the sub 5% range became the norm. This drove up prices as people who, normally, could not afford to buy (through higher downpayment requirements or higher interest rates) were able to bid away.

But, as we all have seen, that created a huge bubble and disastrous collapse in housing. However, even with the (in some areas) large declines, housing does not seem to be "reasonable" to me, yet.

We are caught in a corner that makes real estate very undesirable, in my opinion. Prices are still declining, overall. If they are increasing, it is usually by moderate amounts. So, it is dangerous to buy now, because the value could continue to decline if the economy stays stagnant.

On the flip side, interest rates are at half-century record lows, as well. What happens when these rates stop going lower and start increasing? The affordability of a house due to higher interest payments goes out the window. On a $200,000 loan, the increase of 1% point from 4.5% to 5.5% is a difference of about $120/month. That doesn't seem like much, but that's also only 1% point of change and still below normal. If you tack another point on to 6.5%, it brings the payment difference up to roughly $250/month. This drives affordability down even more and could do much more damage to the price of homes.

It's almost a lose/lose situation. If you buy now, you'll have a low interest rate locked in, but you'll open yourself to losses if the market continues down and/or if interest rates begin to climb.

What's going on in your area? Are housing prices declining? Are people looking at homes? Are they under water in theirs and unable to move?

Great Taibbi Article on Rick Perry's Crony Capitalism

Rick Perry: The Best Little Whore in Texas

This is disgusting. The ability of personal influences to sway this man's leadership exemplifies what is wrong with this political system. The thing is, he is certainly not the only one and the Republicans are certainly not the only party guilty.

To me, this is the CORE issue of what is wrong with our country today. The fact our politicians can be bought and paid for by a small minority of constituents/corporations that have deep pockets and motives that go against the larger voting public is THE example of what is broken in our political system today.

But, how can we fix this? It is human nature to fight for your own best interest and to help out your friends, so I think that it is ridiculous to think that some sort of crony capitalism won't exist in perpetuity. However, it is a tragedy that companies are now allowed to run political ads for candidates they want; that the media is controlled by a few rich people that have their own rich friends with their own special interests; and that you can almost guarantee that any piece of legislation put forth either benefits a large campaign contributor or close friend, or it provides a loophole for those same cronies and hurts their competitors.

In an age where transparency is much easier to have with the wealth and ability to spread information, why do we still have such a problem with this?

OWS Should Focus on Corporate Impact on Government

A pretty good, yet simple article, that gets people to think about the influence Corporate America has over the government via powerful lobbying throwing amounts of money that the average citizen cannot.

Personally, I could not agree more. Corporations pulling for their own personal gain via campaign contributions to elected officials is wrong. Their powers of persuasion far outweigh the average voter and, pretty much, everyone else but the 1%. Does the voice and best interest of the people get through; or do the donations down out that voice? There is an article I will post on here about Rick Perry that shows how rampant the crony capitalism is in his camp. The thing is, I don't think he's all that different from any other elected official. This is the problem.

What do you think? Should corporations have this much influence? Is the Citizens United ruling unconstitutional? Do you believe corporations play the game relatively fairly?

Bloomberg on OWS

Matt Taibbi, a writer for Rolling Stone and personal favorite of mine, will probably be featured on here quite a bit. I like his no-nonsense approach to, well, everything. He's not just a political writer, but that's his forte. If you would read just one of his works, Griftopia, you would probably be a huge fan of his.

His blog, Taibblog, will be the source of more than a few of my posts. Today is no different. The article is about Mike Bloomberg; Mayor of New York City and, co-incidentally, the richest man in NYC. He's not a Wall Street banker, per se, but he made a ton of his money through founding and growing Bloomberg LP; which has been a huge part of Wall Street's puzzle.

Anyway, I am not a hater of the man, in the sense that most people are of elected officials. He has been at the helm of this city over a very prosperous decade starting right after 9/11. The city was set on a course to recover from those attacks and prosper with the help of Bloomberg and, on the surface, it certainly has.

However, underneath that surface, he did quite a bit of damage. The glaring part is the help he has given his compatriots on Wall Street and the fact that, as the city's richest man, he is rather out of touch with the lower and middle classes that once used to actually have a chance to live here in a (reasonably) affordable manner.

I'm sure I will add more about him, my views on where the city has gone, and his love for Wall Street (it did, make him rich and it does, pay a lion's share of taxes); but, alas, I am trying to keep these from evolving into long, unreadable rants. There is plenty of time.

Anyway, he came out in a speech about the OWS movement and (as Taibbi points out in the article, erroneously) BLAMED Fannie and Freddie, not his Wall Street friends, for the financial collapse and the subsequent protests that now are a thorn in his/his cohorts' side.

This is ridiculous and he, above many others speaking out, certainly knows better. Taibbi points out, correctly, that Fannie and Freddie did not MAKE the loans that caused the collapse; they merely backed/guaranteed them. Only banks could make these loans and this is a reason they are drawing the ire of OWS.

I can understand where Bloomberg is coming from on one hand; if these banks fail/move/become less profitable/lay people off, his city suffers greatly. Even in my own micro-sense, I understand that the very justice I would love to see the Wall Street banks brought to could bring layoffs/closures/service cuts to my own employment and, certainly, to my way of life in a city supported by their profits and paychecks. He has to support them; they paid to get him elected and gave him the monetary fuel through taxes to propel this city to the heights it currently enjoys.

But, the ruse is coming to an end and people do not want to hear it. There have been some great injustices caused by the banks and, it appears, their day of reigning high as the titans of New York City might be coming to an end.

That's what he is fighting. That and, perhaps, his profits. But, really, does he think that is really what caused the financial collapse? I can't believe he's that dumb and, obviously, neither can Taibbi.

What do you think? Did Fannie and Freddie buying loans cause the collapse, or do you believe they just played their part in the larger scheme of things?