digg

Join DiggAbout

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

This is the Reality of the Crisis in the US Economy watch!

youtube.com — Tent cities have sprung up outside Los Angeles as people lose their homes in the mortgage crisis. ~ These people should at least be glad they are living in Southern California, they could be living in tents in NYC, freezing their asses off! :)

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • CSHYDRASHOK, on 03/17/2008, -58/+37Our current administration isn't the only one to blame, big business is also to blame. I hope when things get even worse people will begin to see that Ron Paul is the only real candidate for president who will do something about it.
    • nymphetamine, on 03/17/2008, -22/+40I heard that when Ron Paul dies, he will come back to save us from our sins.
      • browwiw, on 03/17/2008, -25/+6The Germans believed the same thing about Hitler. And, no, I'm not just making that up. And, yes, I am equating Ron Paul to Hitler and equating the American public to the easily duped German public of the 3rd Reich.

        Oh, and another thing: Paul lost the goddam Republican party nomination, so ***** off with the Ron Paul *****. That boat has sailed and sunk.
        • KenAer, on 03/17/2008, -1/+7...fah...what?? ron paul hitler...what the hell have you been smoking, eh?
          • browwiw, on 03/17/2008, -11/+2Whatever it was that made Ron Paul think he actually had an actual chance at the presidency. As for Ron Paul supporters...they've moved onto mainlining.
      • sanman, on 03/17/2008, -6/+5The thing is that bringing Ron Paul into office at this juncture would have been like introducing a pin to a balloon. It's better to make the bubble go down gradually, rather than bursting it suddenly and catastrophically.
        • Stochio, on 03/17/2008, -2/+8Instead, you'll choose one of two candidates that keep blowing. You know balloons can pop from overinflation too, right?

        • tracywood, on 03/17/2008, -2/+7oh you are so wrong. Ron Paul would immediately, within 24 hour of taking office, allow competing currencies starting with Gold and Silver. This would remove supreme control from the Fed. His policies would be the very very best for the current situation.
          • browwiw, on 03/17/2008, -7/+2What's it like being in the clutches of a first rate ether binge?
          • Abomonog, on 03/17/2008, -6/+2Yeah. Multiple competing currencies? WTF? And it would not remove control from the Feds. They hold all the gold and silver, dimwit.
          • wakananda, on 03/17/2008, -1/+6Competing currencies can be fiat, just like the Fed's funny money, except without charging interest to the American people. The non-debt-based "colonial scrip" was wildly successful, so much so that it threatened the Bank of England, causing them to exert pressure on Parliament to ban it. Ben Franklin, in his autobiography, states flatly that Parliament's ban of colonial scrip fiat currency was "the prime cause" of the revolutionary war. Do you wonder how it is possible that you were never taught this viewpoint, held by one of the greatest architects of the American Revolution? The imposition of debt-based, central bank currency was, in his view, the *prime cause* of our country's *existence,* and yet nothing is taught about that in public schools.
        • cmackattack, on 03/17/2008, -0/+4On the contrary...it is always best to suffer with somewhat control, schedule, and on your own terms with a plan rather than ignoring the situation allowing it to balloon and burst without notice, without schedule, without plan or control, and being so severe that you truly may not be able to recover.

          People don't need to wake up...they need to grow up.
      • KenAer, on 03/17/2008, -2/+8saint paul doesn't give a ***** about your sins. he hopes you burn in hell (if you believe in taxes, of course)
        • browwiw, on 03/17/2008, -6/+1Or are black or Jewish or don't support the Rise of the South. Seriously, he funds a "think tank" that wants to bring about another War of Southern Treason.
      • ThndrShk2k, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3Nice satire of the movement, but seriously enough, it's not our sins. It's our taxes. Get it right :P

        Ok, now being serious, the reason his movement is popular is because it's change that actually follows a long strain of logic. The issue people have with half of his ideals is that it makes them think too much, and the other half is that it's too much change at one time for them to be comfortable. Sure there are some fallacies in what people contrive from his campaign, but ultimately if enough people don't like one part, it can change with their effort. His ultimate ideal is that the american people should have a more localised government (states) to change the laws quicker and more effectively, getting rid of the wasteful and unefficient centralised federal rule that overbears the power of the states.
      • OneLess, on 03/17/2008, -5/+2I heard that when he dies, all his followers will stop annoying the other 95% of the population, which is even better.
        • wakananda, on 03/17/2008, -2/+6We'll be annoying you until we get Constitutional government back in the USA. Count on it.
    • mille716, on 03/17/2008, -11/+57I'm not anti-Ron Paul or anything but I highly doubt Paul would have called for regulation on the mortage companies who were selling all the subprime loans. He's not really the "regulate big business" guy.
      • nickbetzold, on 03/17/2008, -5/+18No, but he is the only consistently principled critic of the Federal Reserve and its policy of monetary easing that is the cause of the real estate bubble. People who think his idea of abolishing the Federal Reserve Bank should study why Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson both abolished the first 2 central banks that were set up just like ours--privately owned, but with the ability to print money and control our currency.
        • tzisc, on 03/17/2008, -5/+14if thomas jefferson and andrew jackson had their way, we would all be small farmers living off our land. which would be sweet in its own right, but i'm not sure that's the best argument for abolishing the federal reserve
          • popfrogs, on 03/17/2008, -2/+5So what you're saying is that we should make sure medical marijuana legislation passes in all 50 states...so that we could be small farmers living off our land? ;)
      • Stochio, on 03/17/2008, -2/+3It's regulation that helped cause the problem. Google "Community Reinvestment Act" for starters. Or, much more simply, think about how interest rates set artificially low by our Central Bank which encourages malinvestment.
      • 3ugene, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3The businesses you would want to regulate would go out of business if they couldn't just print money. Hrmm, who just got bailed out? The biggest banks in America, not the small ones. I wonder who runs the FED? Hrmmm, probably the banks that just got bailed out with freshly printed money, but nobody really knows because they are private parties. Do you see a problem with that?? Now you understand why Ron Paul is very relevant to this problem, as he is the only one who tells the truth about this.
    • coyoteblue, on 03/17/2008, -12/+15I think that Laizzes-faire economics is the last thing this country needs right now. You should do some research on what actually works during times of economic crisis.
      If you notice, prior to the great depression, our country had a very powerful laizze-faire stance, which more or less led to the problems that made the great depression so terrible.
      • VladislavIII, on 03/17/2008, -6/+14Yeah, the face that regular Americans so fanatically support lassez-faire economics is one of the greatest scams in America. You'll see the same people who are struggling to keep their homes ranting about how 'socialists' are ***** up Europe.
        • capiCrimm, on 03/17/2008, -0/+4"I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." ~ Ben Bernanke

          sure you won't.
      • reinventit, on 03/17/2008, -5/+1Laizzes-faire economics is a myth.
        • sanman, on 03/17/2008, -0/+5No, laizzes-faire economics is a typo
          • quintal, on 03/17/2008, -1/+0yup it's "laissez-faire".
            I know, i'm french and good at spelling.
      • jmpeagle, on 03/17/2008, -2/+4we've never had laissez-faire economics. Never have and never will. Even hunter and gatherer societies didn't have it. The world slowly moved slowly closer to it as people could more easily move around and therefore had more choices. Even the Cuba and the socialist bastions in northern europe or more laissez-faire today than any country was 500 years ago. The world is a better place due to this slow granting of freedom. Taxation is not the only thing by which economic freedom is measured by (why else would Norway often come up ahead of the U.S. as one of the most business friendly countries).
      • Stochio, on 03/17/2008, -2/+4The fallacy you are making is that cause and effect walk hand in hand at the same time. Is it not possible that going to college today gives you a better job in 4 years? Is it not possible that the creation of the Fed in 1913 helped cause problems 16 years later?

      • GliTCH82, on 03/17/2008, -0/+4Actually, lassez-faire economics may or may not be a great system, but we'll never know because as far back as the start of the industrial revolution, government and big business have been working together hand in hand to screw over the working class. There have been many incentives and subsidies given to corporations by the U.S. government, not to mention laws designed to give certain companies advantage over others, and there's no question that some of those helped create the same monopolies that you now believe the government had to intervene in order to breakup. The question is, if the government hadn't intervened at all in the first place by helping create those monopolies, would there have been a need for any regulation in the first place?

        All this regulation is adding to the complexity of our lives. It's getting much harder to do anything because people keep breaking the rules, so we have to fix those by creating new rules. As it stands now, you need an insane amount of resources to even come close to competing with any of these car manufacturers, telecoms, banks, real estate companies, etc. So in addition to being intelligent at your skill or trade, you have to be intelligent enough to get people and money to even put a dent in the corporate machine.

        • popfrogs, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3"So in addition to being intelligent at your skill or trade, you have to be intelligent enough to get people and money to even put a dent in the corporate machine."

          Ironically you end up becoming corporate trying to compete with corporations. It's like that Terminator TV series. I was just thinking that Sara Connor has become a terminator herself, single-minded in her mission and vowing to succeed at any cost...just like the machines.
    • Terri84, on 03/17/2008, -8/+10correction: WAS the only real candidate.
      • Stryder81, on 03/17/2008, -2/+3Correction: IS

        It's not over till the FAT lady sings >:D
    • zomgflamer, on 03/17/2008, -2/+2Well, i agree. There should be a law preventing income tax from being applied to people in the process of buying their first home or property. If the income tax was eliminated for this reason im sure a lot of people would be happy with the government and these people's houses wouldn't be foreclosed.
    • reinventit, on 03/17/2008, -12/+5You had me till you mentioned Ron Paul....
    • BetterOffEd, on 03/17/2008, -11/+4Seriously. ENOUGH with the Ron Paul crap. I like the guy. But really.... ENOUGH.
    • kosser, on 03/17/2008, -6/+8people are bloody retarded if they don't think Ron Paul could help us. The FIRST thing he would do is ABOLISH THE FED. BANK. Don't you idiots know that's what's causing this economic downfall. They keep flooding our economy with more and more unbacked fiat money.
      • senatorpjt, on 03/17/2008, -2/+2The fed is like having a barbed hook stuck in your eye, but abolishing it is like just ripping it out carelessly.
    • syd2007, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3You know there has been one or two republicans that have talked about lowering taxes and small government before (perhaps not to the extent that RP does, but nevertheless). Still, all the statistics show that it is the "tax and spend" democrats that have the best grips on the economy. The last hundred years the stock markets and GDP have grown significantly more when the democrats have had the president or when they have controlled the Congress and/or Senate. The US national debt however has grown by far the most when the republicans have had the president or when they have controlled the Congress and/or Senate. When you put into the equation that the Scandinavian socialist countries have some of the world's best economies, it might indicate that the lowering taxes/small government economic theory might be substantially flawed.
    • hoovcluck, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1how about we blame the bitch that worked one ***** day per week
      if you cant pay for your house work nights or SELL IT
  • TheMadPoet, on 03/17/2008, -9/+66Welcome to the desert of the real.
    • ajb2015, on 03/17/2008, -8/+4What does this have to do with Jean Baudrillard or the Matrix?
      • negativenancy, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3It sounds cool.
      • sweetholymosiah, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2The Matrix is a social commentary about class domination. With this view, we are all just machines supporting the powerful bourgeoisie. Like little batteries, remember? in the movie? red pill blue pill? "waking up"? and all that? Just my opinion.
    • tracywood, on 03/17/2008, -6/+4Ron Paul is the ONE...
    • KhanneaNL, on 03/17/2008, -2/+17Let's call these Bushtowns. The word might stick around a while, a great legacy for a departing president loser.
      • jjmckay, on 03/17/2008, -2/+4Or we could call them 'the feds know best towns' because this is what faith in the US government policy has created. Bush is one cog in this massive structure that in my opinion is mostly just self serving to its own desires.
      • 3ugene, on 03/17/2008, -2/+3This started before Bush though. I am sad that a lot of people don't realize this. We are at war with tons of countries throughout the world. They just don't call it war. War is very expensive.
        • drlha, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3Yes, it was Clinton's fault. Just like all the other bad things that have happened during Bush's presidency.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/17/2008, -0/+6Oh why didn't I take the blue pill...
  • cageybee, on 03/17/2008, -42/+249it was nice at first when they were driving 50K+ SUVs bought with cheap loans and 200K+ houses with 3-5 year ARM low interest-only mortages. they were living large. now they live in tents. hm. no one forced them in these bad deals. they did it to themselves.
    • mille716, on 03/17/2008, -33/+60Please. There has been more than enough evidence of these mortgage companies misleading people on how high the rates would go up to and people being pressured from getting fixed loans to ***** sub-prime loans. Of course it would be great if the buyers did more homework but make no mistake that this mortgage crisis was caused by the mortgage industry and the banks that bought the loans from them.
      • cageybee, on 03/17/2008, -14/+61they couldn't persuade me because i am not an idiot.
        • Tonorific, on 03/17/2008, -3/+18here here, me neither. I didn't buy, I rented through out the 'housing boom' most of my co-workers that bought were under the false impression that if they didn't buy now they'd never own a home. Total *****, once they got in, they used their house like an ATM machine and re-financed every year. Pulling equity out, blowing the cash. It was 90% greed and 10% ignorance. You can't just blame the loan sharks.
          • cageybee, on 03/17/2008, -4/+5exactly.
          • browwiw, on 03/17/2008, -11/+6Hey, cagey, when you're done jerking off to your Tucker Carlson poster, your mom wants you to come down stairs and take out the trash.
          • absentmindedjwc, on 03/17/2008, -3/+1A friend of mine is still under this impression... he sees a house as an "investment"... that is in the past.. houses do not make you money anymore (and will not until this economy stabilizes again)
        • jmpeagle, on 03/17/2008, -2/+19honestly, this is a problem of education. People refuse to educate themselves on the matter. They do not do their homework. It's a problem that cannot and will not ever go away. Many people are fiscally retarded. History may not repeat but it certainly rhymes and no amount of regulation can stop it. Children need to be taught financial responsibility.
          • absentmindedjwc, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Self thought, my parents fell into the same traps as many of these people... it is a good thing that they had me to help them, otherwise this would be happening to them.
        • capiCrimm, on 03/17/2008, -9/+2Hey you're cageybee! Lucky you, did you know you WON THE BRITISH LOTTERY!!! Serious it's all over the news, you can get your reward by going to...

          http://iwillnotstealyourmoney.com
        • browwiw, on 03/17/2008, -10/+2Yeah, cagey is the smart one. He's living in mom's attic, so he don't have to pay no mortgage or rent. Hell, that even fixes any problems he might have with cost of a wedding or raising children.

          *****' pud.
        • Stochio, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2...and it'd be nice if those banks actually failed.
          • absentmindedjwc, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1the way that banks can just "create" money out of thin air... it is REALLY hard for a bank to fail... nothing short of a run on the bank will do it.
        • FloMonster, on 03/17/2008, -2/+4I rent from my parents because I would have been stupid to buy a house within the last few years almost anywhere in Los Angeles County. I ran in to an old coworker during lunch a couple years ago; he told me him and his girlfriend had just bought a house. Knowing what the market was like, and his financial situation, I surmised he had gotten an ARM loan. Sure enough when he got down to details, he told me he had an interest-only loan, which "totally keeps my payments low ($2800 a month)." I didn't have the heart to tell him that his payments were going to skyrocket when the intro rate went away, and he was building no equity, because he was paying for the interest, not the principal amount of the loan. You can guess what happened afterward.
          • browwiw, on 03/17/2008, -5/+10The moral of this story? Your friend is a homeowner with a female companion. You, on the other hand, are single and live at home (and your parents apparently dislike you enough to make you pay rent). Sounds to me like your friend has the longer end of the stick.
          • absentmindedjwc, on 03/17/2008, -2/+1hey... his friend will be homeless when he cannot afford to pay the bills... while FloMonster will be able to sit tight in his parents basement.... I would say the stick is a little longer for FloMonster...
            Me personally... I rent.. couldn't stand living with my parents, they were cool and all... but you know how it is.. parents are sometimes insane (live 1300 miles away from them, lol)
      • jmpeagle, on 03/17/2008, -6/+29did they lack the capacity to read the contract put before them?
        • PHiZ187, on 03/17/2008, -12/+6Yes, it happens all the time. Even to lawyers, jackass. You really think someone who is going to read the document one time, a document that may be 50 pages long, is going to be able to find all the hidden loopholes put into it by the people who draft them everyday?
          • jmpeagle, on 03/17/2008, -3/+21if you sign a contract that YOU DON'T understand, then that is 100% your own fault
          • kindpastor, on 03/17/2008, -2/+19What loophole? The Mortage rate was an ARM, that stands for ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTAGE, AKA, the RATE ADJUSTS. If these people could not figure that out then they are absolute *****.
          • GliTCH82, on 03/17/2008, -1/+4Why are these contracts so ***** complex? Is all that legal framework necessary or is it just a case of overcomplexity that can be eliminated by new federal laws?

            (As if that ever actually happens)
          • jcm267, on 03/17/2008, -4/+12So you would just skim through a contract for something that will cost several times more than what you make in a year?
          • vault, on 03/17/2008, -4/+10If you can't read or are simply too lazy to read and need to make up an excuse for why you didn't, then it might be best to pay a lawyer to read it for you.
          • StaticThunder, on 03/17/2008, -1/+8If its to put myself in debt for more than a couple thousand dollars? YES, what are you, some sort of moron?
          • absentmindedjwc, on 03/17/2008, -3/+2... two words... patriot act...
            where were the lawyers for that one???
          • DrMonkeyLove, on 03/17/2008, -2/+1Buried for being completely ***** DUMB!
          • mille716, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2If anyone of you guys who responded to PHIZ about being smart enough to never sign a contract without understanding it owns a credit card then you've done the exact same thing. Frontline had a professor who was a credit card expert explain how they are designed to confuse and it always breaks down to mean they can charge you whatever they want.
        • jmhyer51, on 03/17/2008, -4/+6Unless they passed the BAR exam, yes.
          • jmpeagle, on 03/17/2008, -1/+8that's funny because I understand contracts when I read them, and I never passed the bar let alone go to Law school.
        • mille716, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1I've never understood this argument. You basically say the people who have been suckered out of their money deserved it because they weren't thinking smart. This is the same argument every conman uses. Look, in a perfect world people should sit down, read and think about their contracts but its not. That doesn't excuse mortgage companies for taking advantage of them.

          Would you make a living selling popsicles for $50 to the retarded if you could?
      • BetterOffEd, on 03/17/2008, -2/+24READ your mortgage. UNDERSTAND its terms. If you can't do THAT at the very least, you shouldn't own a home to begin with.

        "Misleading?" We are "misled" by advertisers and marketers constantly every day. Think before you act.
        • absentmindedjwc, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2or hire a lawyer to read it over for you... not everyone is as intelligent (supposedly) as you...
          A friend of mine NEVER reads over contracts.. I have yelled at him for it many times..
          • DrMonkeyLove, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2Well, I have something I'd like your friend to sign then...
      • jbmcb, on 03/17/2008, -1/+32I suck at finance and even I knew that most of the ARMs were crap, that's why I didn't get one.

        Really, the people who grabbed the ARMs are morons - I got a 30 year fixed in 2002 at a staggeringly low 6.5% - the ARMs at the time were around 5-5.5%. Usually 30-year fixed rates are between 10 and 12% !!!! So a bunch of idiots took an ARM over a guaranteed-insanely-low fixed to save one or two measly percentage points for a few years. Sorry, I have no sympathy for them.
        • jcm267, on 03/17/2008, -3/+6I don't have sympathy for them, but there were so many of them their collective stupidity appear to be on the verge of causing a major recession. I think I saw once that the highest number of ARMs are set to reset in April of 2009 so that's when the biggest group of idiots are going to start falling behind on their payments.

          I remember in 2006 I told one of my best friends to not buy into a "cheap" brand-new condo in a bad neighborhood of a medium sized city. It was only $150,000, and for that much money you can buy a nice big house in a nice suburb in Texas. He seemed to get annoyed and told me that "housing only goes up". Now he's stuck there with his condo worth less than what he paid for it. A new coworker of mine declared bankruptcy soon after his ARM reset for his house in Vegas, and even he doesn't get that the housing market still has a ways to come down. He is looking to get a house or condo in his wife's name. In my area, which is "cheap" for the region, a 700 sq ft post-WW2 house in "as is" condition was going for as high as $200k a couple of years ago. We aren't as bad as California, but the market will adjust and probably moreso than it should.
      • StaticThunder, on 03/17/2008, -1/+13Oh what a load of *****. What pamphlet on how to buy a house doesn't mention if you are at all unsure about any of the terms of the loan, consult an attorney.

        Who in their right mind signs away $600+k without taking the simple precaution of forking $100 to an independent expert for their opinion?

        I am having a real hard time feeling any sympathy for people with two good arms and two good legs and half a brain who only are working one day a week, if that. This is social Darwin made manifest. These people were never that bright, and yes, they got taken for a ride to serve as a warning to the rest of us.
        • absentmindedjwc, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3depending on where it was filmed.. that my be the only job available...
          Many towns saw a large increase in population during the housing boom, and now the community is not able to support the boom of people buying the foreclosed houses as well as the people who were kicked out of said houses. If this woman worked for.. say.. walmart, then they may have cut back her hours because of low consumer spending and younger, more fit, employees
          • StaticThunder, on 03/17/2008, -0/+4Then she needs to start walking to someplace she can get a job. We're hiring illegal immigrants to pick crops and nail roofing shingles, and yet a citizen would claim there are no jobs and its not my fault I'm homeless? Start walking to where the jobs are then.

            Unskilled Mexican laborers are living 6 to an efficiency apartment, but they have a roof over their heads.
      • Tuto, on 03/17/2008, -5/+2I think the people acted foolishly, but also think that should be expected. Where i come from we have legislation that is meant to protect consumers from stuff like this. On a side note i have to wonder how people have no sympathy for them? Sure it was mainly their fault, but still you can still have sympathy for them.
      • Thumper13, on 03/17/2008, -0/+6It's interesting, I got offer after offer, call after call, and yet I still managed to not buy a home because I recognized:
        1) We weren't ready yet, despite the amazing offers.
        2)The housing market was ridiculously over pricing itself.
        3)The terms of these amazing loans were just silly.
        I'm not a lawyer, or a mortgage expert. Just an intelligent person who identified that the terms of these amazing deals didn't work in our favor.

        Don't feel sorry for these people. Don't buy if you are on the bubble. It isn't a toy you are buying.
      • counterplex, on 03/17/2008, -0/+5It's funny because my mortgage broker tried to talk me into an ARM or an interest-only loan for 2 hours. He used some interesting math to "prove" his point. I'm fairly savvy with numbers though and I saw a problem with his math which, while accurate, didn't mean what he claimed it meant. I ended up getting a 30 yr fixed after he told me he'd never had someone point out those inconsistencies before.

        In hindsight I should probably have gone with a different broker but I had a good rate and I figured I wouldn't deal with him after that point anyway.
        • barnett25, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2My broker actually encouraged me to get a fixed loan (which of course I did). And when I asked for a pre-approval he purposely gave me a lower number than the banks were quoting me because he didn't want me to get stuck with a mortgage I couldn't afford. If all of the mortgage brokers worked like that we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.
        • DrMonkeyLove, on 03/17/2008, -0/+5Your broker is an unethical douche. I hope he's one of the people that is going to get hung out to dry.
      • 1gunners4, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3You're right, they should be let off the hook for not researching one of the most important decisions of their lives more thoroughly.
      • skipdog172, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2Buyer Beware.
      • dcbebop, on 03/17/2008, -2/+3The idea of using a mortgage broker is that they're the expert on the fine grained details of housing, loans, etc. Most Americans are not legal and paperwork experts, they count on someone to help them navigate through that. They saw an opportunity to get into the housing market and they took it. Little did they know they were signing a ticking time bomb.
        It's a real ***** shame that these people were so shady, and I know quite a few that lied through their teeth to make a huge amount during their prime. Given what I know a few of them having done, I'd have no problems watching his ass be put in jail. I know for a fact he set up someone for a million dollar loan with barely a job just so he could pull 40k off commission of the deal. Disgraceful.
    • diulei, on 03/17/2008, -2/+21Hm, maybe you're right on the SUVs, but I'd triple that price on houses.
      • NOFXY, on 03/17/2008, -0/+6heh, yeah i wish 200K+ were the prices around here.
        • cageybee, on 03/17/2008, -0/+4well, i live in midwest
        • shadowofleaves, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1I live in San Diego, the average price for a home is probably 500-600k, probably less now..
        • dcbebop, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2In DC 500k barely gets you a townhouse inside the beltway.
    • inn0, on 03/17/2008, -17/+10Yeah, ***** the homeless, this recession is all their fault.
      • ssechaud, on 03/17/2008, -4/+4The blame lies with everyone who thinks the capitalistic economic system works. The fact is it doesn't, sure smart people will figure it out and be successful, but people fall through the cracks and don't make it. I think we need to go back to the drawing board and create a system that can ensure that even the disadvantaged members of society can prosper. Unless the dominant attitude is "your not smart enough so you can just go without...".
        • senatorpjt, on 03/17/2008, -2/+5success in capitalism isn't due to intelligence, it's due mostly to random chance.
          • ssechaud, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2Agreed, it is pretty much random chance for most people. But still that just makes the case even stronger that capitalism is seriously flawed and should be changed.
      • StaticThunder, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3The recession is the fault of people who took on debts they couldn't repay, and the people who made the mistake of loaning them money... so these "new Oakies" are at fault, yes.
      • jivecjedkin, on 03/17/2008, -1/+7You're probably the same kind of person who, if they lost all their money at a casino, would cry about how the casino tricked you with fancy advertising and flashy lights.
        • inn0, on 03/17/2008, -2/+2Are you seriously equating the desire to gamble with the desire to own a home?
      • dcbebop, on 03/17/2008, -3/+2They were tricked, well most of them. Shouldn't you put the blame on the banks authorizing loans to people with little or no income? If you lent 20k to a homeless dude, is it his fault for not paying you or your dumb ass for giving him the money? Or the broker in the middle whispering nothings in your ear telling you it's ok...
    • enki25, on 03/17/2008, -12/+41I agree, maybe we can setup huge "camps" to take care of these people and dispose of them in an orderly fashion. You know, "concentrate" them in a much smaller area so that we don't have to see them as we drive to work.
      • Hillsfar, on 03/17/2008, -1/+18I'm sorry people can't figure our your sarcasm. I dugg ya.
      • jlewis781, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3Now that is funny.
      • jjmckay, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3These people signing these bad loans are the cause of our society's collapse! I think its their fault! I think that in its own right is cause to keep them isolated from us and concentrated together! /sarcasm
      • XanderDee, on 03/17/2008, -3/+2Too bad it's going to happen... Google FEMA concentration camps.
    • cutething, on 03/17/2008, -2/+25I agree and disagree with this one; yeah, a lot of people really lack common sense when it comes to financial responsibility. However, no one is telling people how to manage their *****. Parents are going into debt and their kids have no idea that that ISN'T okay. Unfortunately, common sense isn't so common and companies are taking advantage of that. Just because people *should* know better doesn't mean the companies exploiting them are faultless.
      • barnett25, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3Exactly!
        My wife used to think that being in debt was fine because everyone she knows is too.
        • cmackattack, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1keeping up with the Joneses... even in debt....smart =)
      • roodammy44, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Very true. And you know, it's a fact that houses can only go up in value so even at these prices it's still better than renting (sarcasm) :-/
        Sometimes common sense doesn't make any sense
    • jcm267, on 03/17/2008, -12/+5You talk as if a $200k house is a big deal. That's California and their housing bubble was much worse. Here in Eastern CT at the height of the bubble $200k would get you a 700 square foot post-WW2 ***** in "as is" condition.

      And now I'm going to spam for a blog that I happen to like.
      www.patrick.net
      • ejde, on 03/17/2008, -2/+5You had me until you spammed.
      • siszam, on 03/17/2008, -3/+1If people actually went to patrick.net a long time ago they would have seen this coming. That really is one of the best blogs.
    • SgtFish, on 03/17/2008, -5/+6Actually, most of them were already homeless.
      Buried for inaccuracy.

      Watch the video response and see the true story.
    • heystoopid, on 03/17/2008, -4/+1Love the way you tar and feather all with a vague generalisation and failed to note the individuals circumstances that brought them to camps that were common place some eighty years ago in another century !

      But alas , as with all generalisations of the nature you have outlined they have the same fatal flaw without exception !

      Not a deep thinker are we ?
    • wootup, on 03/17/2008, -11/+13I accidentally dugg up your idiotic remark. You obviously know nothing about the subprime mortgage crisis other than the "blame poor people" ***** that the corporate media has spoonfed you. I hope this quote from Greg Palast can enlighten you:

      "Here's what happened. Since the Bush regime came to power, a new species of loan became the norm, the "sub-prime" mortgage and it's variants including loans with teeny "introductory" interest rates. From out of nowhere, a company called "Countrywide" became America's top mortgage lender, accounting for one in five home loans, a large chuck of these "sub-prime."

      Here's how it worked: The Grinning Family, with US average household income, gets a $200,000 mortgage at 4% for two years. Their $955 a month payment is 25% of their income. No problem. Their banker promises them a new mortgage, again at the cheap rate, in two years. But in two years, the promise ain't worth a can of spam and the Grinnings are told to scram - because their house is now worth less than the mortgage. Now, the mortgage hits 9% or $1,609 plus fees to recover the "discount" they had for two years. Suddenly, payments equal 42% to 50% of pre-tax income. Grinnings move into their Toyota.

      Now, what kind of American is "sub-prime." Guess. No peeking. Here's a hint: 73% of HIGH INCOME Black and Hispanic borrowers were given sub-prime loans versus 17% of similar-income Whites. Dark-skinned borrowers aren't stupid - they had no choice. They were "steered" as it's called in the mortgage sharking business.

      "Steering," sub-prime loans with usurious kickers, fake inducements to over-borrow, called "fraudulent conveyance" or "predatory lending" under US law, were almost completely forbidden in the olden days (Clinton Administration and earlier) by federal regulators and state laws as nothing more than fancy loan-sharking."
      • unclebuck, on 03/17/2008, -5/+7I was about to dig you up until you played the race card. Skin color had nothing to do with this mess.
        • siszam, on 03/17/2008, -2/+3If you think that then you must not be familiar with the special program for people of certain races. It's reality. I"m white and married to a hispanic person. He can get a better loan simply because he is hispanic. That doesn't denigrate anyone. It's just reality. Deal with it. If you live here and San Diego you would see first hand how many low income people got home loans for half a million to million dollar shacks. They have to move all the relatives in just to pay the mortgage.

          Sometimes being reactive and PC just makes you look naive.
        • wootup, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3Firstly I didn't play the race card, it's a quote from Greg Palast, so he did. Secondly, he has reason to; as he points out, "73% of HIGH INCOME Black and Hispanic borrowers were given sub-prime loans versus 17% of similar-income Whites". If race is not an issue, why is there such a massive disparity there? Are you one of the people who thinks that white privilege doesn't exist?
          • unclebuck, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1Yes, I am one of the people who thinks that white privilege doesn't exist. I'm also one of the people who knows what goes into a mortgage application, and knows what goes into a credit score. My guess is all these non-white "high income" applicants had ***** credit. High Income != high wealth or high credit worthiness.
          • wootup, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1unclebuck - "Yes, I am one of the people who thinks that white privilege doesn't exist"

            Let me guess, you're also white? In either case, Peggy McIntosh is here to enlighten you:
            http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpa ...
            And may I ask why you "guess" that non-white high-income applicants would have "***** credit"? Do you have any statistics or evidence to back up your claim, or did you pull it out of your ass?
      • jlewis781, on 03/17/2008, -4/+2No, it is because they had bad credit.
      • Sirocco, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2Clinton helped repeal the Glass-Steagall act, which in turn opened the doors to lenders hawking sub-prime loans.
      • asurroca, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3I dunno, these loans were ALL OVER Miami, which as you know, is filled with high income Hispanics. I moved up to Orlando recently (whose small Hispanic population is by no means high income), and it seems to have been more or less untouched by the sub-prime loan problem. Seems plausible to me.
      • ltcol266845, on 03/17/2008, -3/+1 I stopped reading after "Bush regime"
      • DrMonkeyLove, on 03/17/2008, -4/+5Blah blah blah. Did the color of their skin prevent them from reading the damn contract? I don't think so. What is this *****? "Dark-skinned borrowers aren't stupid - they had no choice." They were forced to sign a ***** contract? Give me a break. People aren't entitled to a house. They didn't have to buy a house. They sure as hell DID have a choice. Don't give me that "they were forced" crap. That's a load of *****.
        • siszam, on 03/17/2008, -3/+4When you live in a city where rent is often higher than a house payment you get desperate. Many of these people are not highly educated. Add desperate need, and a loan officer willing to lie and manipulate things to get you into a home and you might do stupid things too.
    • eroticpie, on 03/17/2008, -2/+2I couldn't agree more, debt is fine as long as you aren't living beyond your means
      • cmackattack, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3wrong --- if you aren't living beyond your means...you pay in cash as you go...
    • asurroca, on 03/17/2008, -2/+6I'm pretty sure the people interviewed in that segment aren't the ones who bought McMansions and $50K SUVs. Did you see the home the guy was pointing at? It was practically a trailer home. These are more likely lower income people who used these loans to buy a home because it was all they could afford, and (obviously) they didn't realize they were ***** loans until it was too late. The folks who used these loans to buy expensive homes are likely now just living in normal homes. Boo hoo.
    • Psamtik, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1We all do it to each other. Ever heard of hierarchy or the banality of evil? Learn complexity.
  • mikeyhell, on 03/17/2008, -6/+58At least they have tents. Most creditors would have taken that had they the opportunity.
    • antiorblkflag9, on 03/17/2008, -1/+5Shanty towns all over again....
  • sjbdallas, on 03/17/2008, -23/+34What does this have to do with the real estate crisis? These people don't have jobs or cars so they're living in tents. They apparently couldn't afford their homes at any price so that has nothing to do with the mortgage fiasco.
    • GliTCH82, on 03/17/2008, -3/+5What you just said makes absolutely no sense. If the "mortgage fiasco" has to do with the cost of owning a home going up, and these people who lost their houses for that exact reason, then how the hell are the two not related?

      Well they "couldn't afford their homes at any price", right? Can you cite any sources for that?
    • Xios117, on 03/17/2008, -5/+7They couldn't afford their damn houses because of the soaring interest rates coupled with an economy that's hemorrhaging money.
      Idiot.
    • MattCruikshank, on 03/17/2008, -2/+6Hey moron - did you consider the possibility that some of them lost their jobs because they worked on building homes?
      • DrMonkeyLove, on 03/17/2008, -2/+2Oh come on. Sure it sucks to lose your job, but who did not see this all coming? Seriously? Who in all honesty didn't look at the housing market and say, "oh yeah, that's *****."
        • mdgypsygirl, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Very true. It's basic economics - When manufacturing (houses) grows faster than demand, the beginning of the cycle will be very good for the manufacturer (high sale value for builders and homeowners) which is what happened a few years ago. Then the bubble bursts when either the cost becomes affordable, or demand decreases. Both happened here. Of course there's a thousand other components that fueled the fire.
    • JRW5061, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2I agree that most of those people are there as a result of some bad choices. The Bush administration has made things way worse however for people that were already struggling to make ends meet. It really doesn't help that oil is up to 112 dollars a barrel and the US dollar is becoming more and more worthless ($1.55 = 1 euro). We're spending TRILLIONS of dollars on the war in Iraq that is doing NOTHING to benefit our country in ANY way. Our economy is coming to a stand still. All people can afford to buy is food and energy. America is in big trouble, people need to wake up. Anyone else smell another great depression on the horizon? We need to get Bush out of the White House ASAP.
      • jacklyndb, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1I concur that most of these people have no other choice but to live in tents and get by with hand outs. They probably have had it tough the entire time and now they have no light in site of when things will get easier. Most people need to stop feeling sorry for themselves and come up with a plan to get out of the rut. Yes the Bush admin. is not helping us, but what’s done is done and tomorrow is not going to look any better. Get up and move into your dreams now. Plan and execute!
      • sjbdallas, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1And who will you blame next year when the problems continue? Will it still be bush's fault then too? It's ridiculous to think Bush has anything to do with any of this. The president is a figure head. The real power is in the congress and the free market itself.
        • JRW5061, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1I said Bush administration, as in all the people that advise him and help him make decisions, write speeches, etc. How is it ridiculous to think that Bush has anything to do with any of this? He started a war in Iraq under false pretenses that is costing our country trillions of dollars. He thought that after the war gas prices would be a hell of a lot cheaper at around 20 dollars a barrel and he would go down in history as one of the great presidents. That backfired big time and now oil prices are as high as they've ever been. The US dollar is at an all time low. I think its more ridiculous not to think that the Bush admin has anything to do with our countries problems. I think years down the road our kids will be reading about this in the History books and wondering why no one did anything about it. Look it up. Many professional economists are predicting a market crash in the near future.
    • mcm020, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3The OP is exactly right. These People DON'T HAVE JOBS. It's LA, find a ***** job. Christ, you ***** digg idiots.
    • kaelyiesta, on 03/18/2008, -0/+360k homes reposessed in one city in one month. Sounds obscene to me, but I dont know what the median numbers were, previously.
  • coffee200am, on 03/17/2008, -20/+130I wanna know who held a gun to these peoples heads and FORCED them to buy expensive homes with ARM mortgages!
    I was forced to buy a 47 inch Philips LCD HDTV the other day to watch DirecTV that was forced upon me...How can you say no????
    • djAnakin, on 03/17/2008, -6/+14They were pretty much tricked into getting these mortgages by the lenders. The lenders are to blame here. Why no one is doing anything about it is beyond me.
      • KenAer, on 03/17/2008, -1/+6we aren't doing anything about it because we are too busy worrying about which government program is gunna wipe our ass when it gets messy.
      • plhearn, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2I disagree. They knew what an ARM was when they signed up for it. They took a risk and now they have to pay for it. Tough *****.
        • zdwade, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2i agree, but let the banks who also gambled on allowing people with poor credit to get these mortgages suffer the full wrath. i hope there is a run on banks on the whole financial system collapses. the banks have been ***** americans over since the second bank of america. if it happens soon enough maybe ron paul will have a chance in the general election.
      • DrMonkeyLove, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2Tricked into signing an absolutely explicit contract? I don't think so. I don't care what anyone "said"; those contracts are black and white. There's no sleight of hand there. There was no disappearing ink on those pages.
    • asurroca, on 03/17/2008, -2/+4*****; coffee200am, you don't know what the ***** you're talking about.... Lenders were shoving these loans down people's throats like a ***** used car. I bought a home just before the sub-prime mortgage crisis started, and it took me a while before I could find a legit loan. All the lenders wanted to push were this ***** junk loans. Believe me, they made getting regular loans a pain in the ass, and made the junk loans as easy as possible.
      • skipdog172, on 03/17/2008, -0/+4So let me get this clear. You saw a loan as "junky". You avoided this loan for that reason. Why is it not other's fault for taking the "junky" loan? Oh that's right, because they were "forced" by their lenders.
      • DrMonkeyLove, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3So? Credit card companies keep trying to give me credit cards with horrible interest rates. Am I going to blame them when I plunge myself into debt and can't afford to pay off even the interest? Can't blame the used car salesman for trying to sell you a ***** car at a high price.
      • mille716, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1He's right. I have a friend who worked for a mortgage company who told me about how they would be pressured into selling subprime loans over fixed. They would outright ***** these people into buying the loans.
    • wakananda, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3The predatory, deceptive lending practices that created this fiasco have pretty much come out in the wash by now, Mr. Social Darwinist. Ordinary working people shouldn't need a lawyer to talk to their banker. Whether you care about the individuals or not is moot; it's clear that these practices have damaged all of us, and we have all have a clear, compelling interest in regulating them.
    • HypocriteDigg, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2And is everyone supposed to be a finance expert? If a financial expert tells you you can afford something, usually you assume they know what they are talking about. However, big business and greedy neocons knew this would eventually happen, and knew Bush would bail them out. Goddamn fascist coffee200am.
    • ruralfarmer, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Come one! No fraud victim is ever forced - he is always enticed. But that doesn't make it any less fraud.
  • bruinexmo, on 03/17/2008, -27/+16I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who think ANY house in the suburbs is worth more than $300k. Seriously, $600k for a three bedroom? Are these people idiots?
    • coffee200am, on 03/17/2008, -4/+3Yes...at least with money.
    • Tonorific, on 03/17/2008, -2/+7I depends where, houses in suburbs of San Francisco or New York are probably, realistically worth over $300k
    • haikuFU, on 03/17/2008, -0/+4In some areas, you are paying for the privilege of not having to drive 3 hours to work each way, like San Fran and LA. Here in Minneapolis in 2005, it was impossible to find a place that wasn't in a bad neighborhood for under $200k. I bought my place in 2001 for $189k, and last year it was worth $310k. And, it's definitely not "livin' large".
      • TheCasablancan, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2One of the things that many Californians have done is move here to Austin. It's definitely a "tech" city, I'm told, so I supposed that tech oriented folken have an OK time. My tattoo artist was telling me that he bought a 2500 sqft house here for less than what he sold his 1 bedroom condo for in LA. He said that he probably only had to work for another few years to have it completely paid off. It's astounding to me.
    • Hellfire1, on 03/17/2008, -2/+1That's not a lot in some suburbs, I live outside of Birmingham, AL and my house is a little under $400k 3 bedroom, bought it 15 years ago for a little over $200k, and its one of the smaller houses around here...
      • 3ugene, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Your $200k back then was worth $400k now. Inflation is killer huh? Not trying to spoil your party or anything.
    • HypocriteDigg, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2You're the only idiot I see here. Start walking back to your home, in the snow, up hill, both ways, old man.
  • Frnnkdlxx, on 03/17/2008, -14/+8"PLEASE FOLKS! Line up in Line FMB1 on the south side entrance of FEMA L.A! If you don't comply, we'll have to restrict your bread rations!"
  • compulsive1, on 03/17/2008, -8/+101There is an old rule of thumb- you can afford a house that costs twice your family's yearly income. In the last 10 years mortgage companies started to give ever larger loans to people- to the point where the ratio of income to mortgage was reaching 10:1. CNN had a story not long ago where a single mom making $38k/year was given a $350k mortgage. WTF? she should live in an apartment or a $80k home. The bank had to know she will not be able to pay for it. The bank bought itself a nice home- that's all there is to it. Let the banks collapse if they can't get their money out of the properties they financed.
    • mooseontheloose, on 03/17/2008, -16/+14Yeah, ***** personal responsibility! It's all the fault of the big bad bankers! Hiss! Boo!

      By the way, if the banks fail you realize that pretty much everyone is royally *****, right? I love when people hope for something like that thinking it'll just be some insulated incident that'll punish some nameless and faceless monocle-wearing big wig banker instead of screwing everyone, everywhere.
      • fokov, on 03/17/2008, -1/+7Not all of the banks got greedy. Therefore ,the POS ones would fail and the ones that had morals and ethics would buy up everything from the idiots. That is how the market is suppose to work, not bailing out the dumbasses that knew the risk and did it anyway.
        • jtmOBX, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1This is the way it should work, and does work in text books. The trouble is, when banks fail investor confidence plummets and with that so does the market and economy - sending us into recession. All thats happening now is that the Fed is frantically trying to find some way to avoid it because Alan Greenspan believed the US actually operates as a free economy (which obviously isnt true for the US or anywhere - because it works only in text books) and therefore he ignored the fact that there was a subprime mortgage bubble about to burst.
      • jaydoj, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1What? LIke John Rockerfeller?
        • reinventit, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1David Rockerfeller, the one who built WTC.
      • dagnome1984, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3Well moose if they banks get bailed out every time they make bad choices on who to lend credit to what incentive is there for them to not make bad choices? It's a split responsibility being that there are two people involved with the loan.
      • jjmckay, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1When you put your money in a bank, you are doing so in a matter of trust. If you don't understand this, then you may get a wake-up-call. Is there such as thing as a guarantee that you'll get your money back?

        People ***** each other. This is the current state of human nature/consciousness. There's no way around it. If the government gets itself involved then a larger number of people are at risk. 'Spreading the risk' can work, and it can also fail. If the government collapses because they were backing untrustworthy banks, then everyone is ***** again. There's no guarantee in life.
        • sweetholymosiah, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1That is only the current state of your own conception of human nature/consciousness. Humanity is capable of so much more.
      • MattCruikshank, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1What the hell? Am I the only one who noticed that you're advocating personal responsibility, but that the banks should have no corporate responsibility?
        The problem I see with the banks is not so much that individuals lost their homes (which is, admitedly a huge problem), it's that the banks risked their own health for quick, cheap, risky gains - thereby screwing the entire economy, and forcing government bail-outs.
    • shcforward, on 03/17/2008, -0/+12Good posting. The bad loan on houses is a huge issue. If you read books like "The Two-Income Trap," you can see that they kind of predicted this problem would fall hard on women. Women in generally are much more willing to pay extra to get a house of their dreams - even if they can only afford it if nothing ever goes wrong. However, jobs don't last forever (and that is ok), so when a family that has taken out loans based on the belief that they will have two incomes coming in has a family member lose a job, the only option is bankruptcy. Interesting note, whether or not you are a woman is now one of the best predictors of if you will file for bankruptcy in your lifetime.

      It's a shame.
    • mobbo, on 03/17/2008, -1/+6I agree totally about the banks. They should collapse if they made these predatory loans... HOWEVER the people who signed on the dotted line should have to live with SOME type of punishment. I HATE hearing the words "bail out", whether that applies to banks OR to the idiots who got the mortgage. You know, THEY had to falsify their yearly incomes to GET those mortgages, so the blame has to be on both sides. NONE of them deserve a bail out.
      My best friend and his wife bought a house with a fixed rate mortgage 2 years ago but their neighbors all had sub-prime ARM's and abandoned their homes recently. One of those people came over to my friend's house for a poker game and was whining about his "bad deal"... until I grilled him about falsifying his income for the mortgage terms. And why he did not consult a financial planner.
      It sucks, yes, but people this dumb should not be allowed to breed.
    • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5i know a guy who just got a mortgage approved for $138,000. he works at wal mart making $7.50 per hour. he also has a second job at mcdonalds paying close to the same amount. his wife works at mcdonalds also. together they make about $48,000 per year before taxes. i guess when you look at the numbers, its not really that drastic of a loan, but it's pushing it.
    • asurroca, on 03/17/2008, -2/+3What's an $80K home? A motorhome? I've never seen a home under $150K (I lived in LA and Miami, but still..)
      • Paladin27, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2I just got a 1,400 sq ft home with a 900 sq ft finished basement and two car attached garage for $91,500! Of course, it's a foreclosure that was remortgaged twice in the past 10 years and now the bank is eating a lot of the debt from the previous owner. I only had to take out a 15 year mortgage at 5.1% fixed interest! It's amazing what you can get right now!
      • earlycj5, on 03/17/2008, -0/+11,600 sq. feet built in 1890 with an outbuilding/garage and almost an acre for a yard. That's what a $50K home is (in Nebraska, but still...)
    • frenchi, on 03/17/2008, -2/+3an 80K home? where would you find that?? Alaska? Wyoming? but then if you moved there you wouldn't be able to find a job....cause there are none.
      the median price for a home not too long ago was over $200K the 2:1 ratio of home value to salary only makes sense in a real estate market that is not in a bubble.
      • xexx, on 03/17/2008, -0/+0There are a lot of decent homes for that, my (former) stepdad recently retired and moved out of a nice 90k home into a ~950 sqft 30k home simply because he didn't need the larger house. He spent ~7k on the new home and has it looking great. The 90k home was in the middle of a town of 30,000 people and only 15 minutes from Dallas/Fortworth where he worked at Lockheed Martin. People don't need all these fricken mansions, find a damn house you can afford and put your ass in it, even after you pay for your house, I don't think people realize how much taxes can cost for expensive property.
      • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1my parents live in a little butt crack town in ohio with pretty much nothing around, but they are only 45 minutes away from pittsburgh. they got an old 8 room farmhouse (3 bed 2 bath, 2 story, full basement) built in the early 50's. bought it for 40 grand, they have lived there 12 years and pretty much had to do nothing to it except a few minor repairs and upgrades. they are getting a new roof put on this summer.
    • prleet, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3First: The houses in this country are way over priced. Seriously, these are not houses, but maybe bird nests made out of chip woods glued together with one or two nails. I would at least value it if it had some real wood and lets not imagine having bricks.
      Second: The mortgage company should suffer, have you recently seen who does this mortgage loans. Come on! Bunch of high school drop outs giving sub prime loans out to bunch of uneducated buyers. The problem didn't start all of sudden, but easy $$ makes people blind.
    • merreborn, on 03/17/2008, -2/+2Your rule of thumb may make sense.... if you live in Oklahoma. In major metropolitan areas (new york, san francisco), cost of housing takes up more like 50% of your monthly expenses.

      At $60k/year, after tax, that leaves you about $1700. That's roughly a payment on a $300,000 loan (which btw, won't get you anything over 600 square feet around here)

      That's a 5:1 ratio. Far cry from your 2:1 estimate.
      • compulsive1, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2So you don't buy a 300k home- because obviously you have no money left over for normal living expenses. I mean you just did the math yourself! You rent an apartment or live somewhere you can actually afford. How hard is this? I live in a central PA town and we have a nice 1600 sq ft home with detached 2 car garage and nice yard that we bought in 2001 for 89k at 6.5% for 30 years. Our mortgage and taxes are around $900.00 per month which we can easily afford. We looked around recently to see if we can get something in the burbs and there is nothing as nice as what we have under $230k-250.00k. We make combined less than half of that amount per year so we stay put until we have a better income or until homes come down in price. It's just common sense.
  • zomgflamer, on 03/17/2008, -13/+7They definitely don't look like people that would be working @ google.
  • Tonorific, on 03/17/2008, -11/+29Most people that got in over their heads have no one to blame but themselves. A lot of people that got burned, let greed guide them rather than common sense. In California 40% of homes sold during the boom were sold to people not planning on living in these homes, speculators. At some point you need to be smarter than a sheep.
    • siszam, on 03/17/2008, -2/+1Keep blaming others till it happens to you. You think you can't be touched? I love how you just make up statistics to fit your bogus views.
  • FaithclubDotNet, on 03/17/2008, -14/+2bad joke deleted
  • DesignerScott, on 03/17/2008, -13/+10What, the US economy is so bad that nobody can afford decent servers?
  • reed311, on 03/17/2008, -3/+48This is not reflective of the entire US. The Los Angeles area is extremely expensive. The houses there are ridiculously expensive, to the point of absurdity. I know that everyone wants to live in the land of milk and honey, but this is what happens when you take out a loan that is beyond your means.
    • dsmx, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1They are only that expensive because mortgage lenders are willing to lend up to and beyond 10 times your households annual salary, the same problem exists in the UK. For some reason the government thinks the best solution is to let people borrow even more money to buy a house when the actual best solution is to do nothing and the market will correct itself.
    • reinventit, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3California is the predictor. I live in the thick of it... there are so many people on the streets going through dumpsters collecting cans and bottles. Look up the zip 90402, what's happening here in paradise is getting ready to explode if not for a miracle.
    • agenthamsta, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2I'd have to admit that I'm not going to be buying a house here in California. It's just not worth it, a co-worker just signed away for a 500k home and I thought he was insane. Granted we make a good margin above the national income, and I'm sure he profited from selling his home in Florida, but still If I can't afford a 4k/month mortgage there's no one sitting there with a gun to my head even if the bank is willing to lend the money.
    • unclebuck, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3Exactly. Don't start to panic until you see these tent cities outside places like Oklahoma City, St Louis, Raleigh, etc. In other words, places outside the worst of the bubble.
  • FongoBongo, on 03/17/2008, -3/+24Unfortunately this is the result when people live out of their economic means. I know its their fault since this is a matter of choice, but you have to acknowledge the fact that banks and their lending practices are what contributed to this mess in the first place. Right now, we have to go into a recession to ride this one out. The current "stimulus practices" are just delaying the inevitable and fueling the bubble which is about to explode in an orgy of monetary fillibuster
    • DBNKR, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2It was an offer from the bank. They did not have to take it.
    • hillkiwi, on 03/17/2008, -0/+4I think part of the blame is also with the education system - it's important to understand and memorize Shakespeare, but don't worry about understanding credit or the economy.
    • DonTazeMeBro, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2King Richard:
      A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!

      Catesby:
      Withdraw, my lord; I'll help you to a horse.

      King Richard:
      Slave! I have set my life upon a cast,
      And I will stand the hazard of the die.

      Except in this case, they have no horse. By the way, I also dislike having to "dramatize" shakespeare in order to "understand the significance of the text".
    • dagnome1984, on 03/17/2008, -2/+1Banks have next to no incentive to give out loans that are low risk being that they can be bailed out by the government.
  • joel8x, on 03/17/2008, -7/+43This is ridiculous. Why can't they afford a small apartment? If they were homeowners and had a bad ARM, they should still be able to afford a roof over there head. There must be more to this.
    • brad3378, on 03/17/2008, -2/+7Yeah - If I didn't read the headline, I would have sworn that video was shot from a 3rd world country - Definitely would not have guessed California.
    • ralphthemagi, on 03/17/2008, -1/+17Because once your credit gets ***** like that no one will rent to you.
    • mcm020, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3That fat woman only works once a week. It's LA.. Find a damn job.
    • siszam, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1Because apartments in California run from 1400 to 2000 (the prices you find online are outdated or outright lies) a month on average. That's not a super nice one. That's in a neighborhood where gangs shoot at each other. My sister in law pays less for her mortgage than many renters pay. There is also a shortage of rental properties available.
  • SamPollock, on 03/17/2008, -13/+4Stop Bitching
    • MattCruikshank, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Yes, if someone loses their home and there's a news story about them, it is an awful burden that your eyes have to glance momentarily over that headline. Sorry to impinge on your day, SamPollock.
  • kb29, on 03/17/2008, -5/+19Oh *****...they're Hoover---Bushvilles.
  • antonio97b, on 03/17/2008, -4/+17We are back to Hoovervilles.
    • Changa, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Many neo-cons want to take us back to the economics of the 1910's so far they have made it closer to the 1930's.

  • pelican2164, on 03/17/2008, -8/+3Ever heard of the French Revolution?
    • Cyberdactyl, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1A whole hell of a lot of people had the sense to not live WAAAY outside their means.
    • sanman, on 03/17/2008, -2/+1well, I do remember Les Miserables
    • Xios117, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Yes, I have and the situation is not even mildly comparable to ours.
      Fool.
  • wafflesomd, on 03/17/2008, -21/+6Seeing how it's on the BBC, and not a station in the U.S., I can only see this as stupid European propaganda.
    • dshey, on 03/17/2008, -0/+11as opposed to the American Propaganda? Like, not mentioning it at all?
    • protodon, on 03/17/2008, -10/+2I agree. US media may exaggerate things but across the pond they just make ***** up.
    • WaxenPith, on 03/17/2008, -2/+2It was shown on the US on ABC 7, but has nothing to do with the Economy, read my other comment on this story and don't forget to bury as innacurate!
      • dshey, on 03/17/2008, -0/+0I would agree on that. This isn't the current state of the entire US economy. But, if you look at trends, such as the housing/real estate boom after the .com bust, the price of housing went up in California, and then the rest of the nation. We're all going through the same crisis eventually. So, while it is inaccurate today, it may not be tomorrow.

        When will we all wake up and say "*****! we've got some homeland issues to deal with! Why are we trying to fix other countries with no focus on ourselves?"
  • Wizer04, on 03/17/2008, -4/+7Christ, it will be turning into shanty town's soon if things get worse...and they most likely will.
  • loveforkarma, on 03/17/2008, -11/+55Did anyone else feel like this was a little exaggerated. It feels almost like propaganda, material for other countries to feast on.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/17/2008, -2/+5That little sting is pride. ***** Pride. It only ever hurts, it never helps.
      Pulp Fiction
    • gotigertom, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1No effort to quantify the number of people and point out how others are getting off their feet, getting help or finding other shelters. The BBC is usually balanced...that sounded like a FOX report that is simply playing on fears of the current mortgage crisis.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1If it was a Fox report, then there would be people blaming Bill Clinton.
  • WaxenPith, on 03/17/2008, -14/+106That is NOT in LA, that is in Ontario, California.

    And these people are HOMELESS individuals that came to Ontario looking for sanctuary because the City of Ontario set up this location ON THEIR OWN to shelter homeless FROM Ontario only, but now that it is becoming over crowded Ontario is checking everyone to make sure they were Ontario residents or else they have to go somewhere else.

    The were NOT former home owners as this piece suggest, I dunno who did this piece but it is VERY skewed, and has NOTHING to do witht he economy, these people were homeless even before the economy was on a steep decline.
    • WaxenPith, on 03/17/2008, -3/+1http://digg.com/business_finance/BBC_Propaganda_Vi ...
    • Xios117, on 03/17/2008, -0/+5Please confirm; thanks for telling us about this.
    • f54280, on 03/17/2008, -1/+5I just don't understand why what you say would imply that the BBC documentary is wrong...

      > And these people are HOMELESS individuals that came to Ontario looking for sanctuary because the City of Ontario set up this location ON THEIR OWN to shelter homeless FROM Ontario only, but now that it is becoming over crowded Ontario is checking everyone to make sure they were Ontario residents or else they have to go somewhere else.

      It seems obvious to me that the population in the shelter is not homogeneous. The people interviewed by the BBC are not long-time homeless. It seems logical to me that new homeless people are going to live in exactly the same kind of place that as homeless/mentally ill people. The fact that they are from Ontario or not does seem irrelevant. I think the point is that people that used to live in a home are going homeless, and that the next year will add maybe an additional 100K of them around America.

      > The were NOT former home owners as this piece suggest, I dunno who did this piece but it is VERY skewed, and has NOTHING to do with the economy, these people were homeless even before the economy was on a steep decline.

      Of course this shelter includes a lot of previously homeless people but also includes people that lost their homes (and that may come from a different city too). Where do you think that the least fortunate people that have been bankrupted and foreclosed upon have gone ? In magic la-la land ?

      No. In the same place as homeless people were already. That was the point of the BCC documentary.
    • phre3k187, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1California is super nice to the homeless /south park
    • werkerb33, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1LA Times has covered this many times before. Lots of West LA communities are dumping/encouraging their homeless to set up shelter in Ontario (and other similar places). It used to be downtown was the dumping ground, but gentrification has forced them out and into the inland areas.

      The article is off. This is not Hooverville, it is typical LA.

      Look up "Homeless Dumping" at LATimes.com; there are too many articles to link in here.
    • Ryan121, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2The BBC don't do propaganda and they don't make things up so I find what you're saying very hard to believe!
    • MikeDirntRulez, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1THANK YOU!!!!! Damn, I was waiting for somebody to say this! I drive by these things on my way to work, and it has been covered countless times by the LA Times, Press Enterprise, etc. This is not in L.A., and is also not in any way tied to the current economic instability. I thank you for pointing this out.
    • shackleton1, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3So... what you're saying is that this is normal in the U.S.?
  • tomato3017, on 03/17/2008, -8/+2Pwned
  • DarkoKun, on 03/17/2008, -2/+5Thats scary....
  • Pimpin-Assassin, on 03/17/2008, -2/+13I live in LA and I've never seen this.
  • apc3161, on 03/17/2008, -0/+31For every foreclosure there are two parties to directly blame and one party to indirectly blame.

    ---direct---

    -People for taking out loans to buy houses they couldn't afford. Failing to take into consideration that interest rates were at an all time low and would rise in the future. Also for failing to take into consideration, that housing prices couldn't continue rising the way they were. Making financial decisions on that assumption was dumb.

    -The banks and lenders are also responsible for giving out loans to people who wouldn't be able to continue making payments once the boom period of low rates and skyrocketing prices ended.

    ---indirect---

    The Federal Reserve and our government for creating such low interest rates that would not have naturally come out. Their intervention in the marketplace helped create this problem. Lowering the rate so much cause people to be careless with money and resulted in a lot of mal-investment. The lower interest rates also boosted the quantity of loans people were taking out. People used this money to purchase home they wouldn't be able to later afford, etc etc.

    A lot of people are to blame here. I'm very upset though that the government is bailing out the banks. Personally, I don't think any party should be bailed out. That is just punishing all the people who didn't make bad decisions, which is inherently unfair. But it is disgusting that the FED is about to bail out Bear Stearns by taking up all of the risk. Really makes me mad.
    • Xios117, on 03/17/2008, -2/+3I agree with you in everything but the Fed bailing out Bear Stearns; if they didn't, the perception would be that the economy is failing and neither the Fed nor anyone else could stop it.
      And yes, I know that it's a damn hedge fund and the Fed's bailing it out isn't _really_ going to help the average American, but it's all about perception (and all the fat-cat big shots from Wall Street who have way too much control over the government).
      • apc3161, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2The other day Bernanke was at a congressional hearing. He was saying that "a few small banks are no doubt going to be closing". If he is willing to let small banks close, why not large ones?

        Listen, I'm a huge capitalist, I just don't see how we can sit here and talk about capitalism and let these companies have billions of dollars in profit during good years, and say thats ok, and then let the government bail them out during bad years. I'm fine with privatized profit, regardless of how large, as long as they play by the rules even on rainy days. So that upset me.

        I agree with you though, if they went under, there would be a lot of consequences.
    • crimsonalucard, on 03/17/2008, -0/+5Do you realize where the FED gets their money to bail out bear streams? They get it out of THIN AIR. That's right. The FED prints money. The FED has never been nor will it ever be at risk.

      http://curtislow.newsvine.com/_news/2008/02/11/129 ...

      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2The Dollar is crashing. The FED has it's limits.
    • heystoopid, on 03/17/2008, -2/+1Very simplistic view , because sadly you overlooked one small Banking Law the "Glass-Steagall Act" dating back to 1933 which outlawed this ponzi scheme !
      • reinventit, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2what is a law to corps? toilet paper. Ask enron employees. Corps are corrupt and more so the bigger they are. They wipe their ass with laws for little fiolks.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/17/2008, -2/+1The Banks need to be bailed out to stave off a collapse of the Economy.
      You don't want to see that happening.

      Yeah the banks suck, but you and everyone else depends on them.
      • nycmac247, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1"The Banks need to be bailed out to stave off a collapse of the Economy."
        -- what would they have to do - how greedy, how bad, how Enron-ish before you could se that they _shouldn't_ be bailed out?
        Or is there no law?

        Just asking...
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Oh they're bad. Enron, corruption all that.

          But what I am saying is that the people put their money in the bank.
          If the bank goes bankrupt then those people lose their money.

          In very simple terms.

          Now this isn't some crap little bank here. This is EVERYONES cash. Big Banks. Lots of people affected.
      • crimsonalucard, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0Banks practice something called fractional reserve banking. That means if you put $300 in the bank, they lend $299 of it out. This is bad because your money is not stored and secure like the bank claims it is. This is why usually if you put $300 in the bank, the bank plays it safe and only lends $20 out so a bank run won't wipe them out.

        HOWEVER. If a Federal reserve exists that can bail them out by printing money, then the bank, in order to make more profit, has no worries about lending out 299$ out of $300. If a bank run happens they only need to call on the ***** federal reserve to print more money. The money is printed, inflation occurs, our dollar value sinks lower, and pretty soon our dollar is a worthless peice of *****. Get it?
  • Mier, on 03/17/2008, -3/+4Economies in countries as big as this fluctuate and move around. Some areas are bad others are good. Right now in Texas things are good and people didn't overextend themselves. In California foreclosures are through the roof and the economy shrinks. People just need to move where things are better or train for different jobs. I know there's money laying around in state coffers for training. If you're going to tax me for that ***** you might as well spend it.
    • browwiw, on 03/17/2008, -3/+3Yes, but by definition all Texans are legally retarded and aren't allowed to handle their own money. That's why they haven't spent it all on Precious Moments figurines.
    • nycmac247, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1"People just need to move where things are better or train for different jobs'
      do you really think its that black and white?
  • brettfavrelol, on 03/17/2008, -12/+11I honestly don't care. Find a job, live within your means, and work from there. If I have to fund one more degenerate, handout-seeking troll with my hard earned tax money I'm going to kill something. Probably them.
    • reinventit, on 03/17/2008, -0/+21913... study the history of the fed reserve. Then you'll find out where and why we pay a national income tax.
    • asurroca, on 03/17/2008, -2/+4Cool. When you're done killing random people, just remember to demand that you be executed, because your incarceration is going to waste a lot of tax payers' money. You don't want to be a hypocrite, right?
    • Akufen, on 03/17/2008, -2/+4If bread hits $200, are you going to claim people need to live within their means? Maybe you're not seeing the bigger picture?
  • manmademark, on 03/17/2008, -5/+20This story is total ***** propaganda. The story didn't focus on these folks losing their jobs, or falling under on payments due to inflation, apparently one couple lost their income because the bacon-getter became ill and the other guy who lost his house must be retarded. He sold his home, got that? So he obviously had some money, so why wouldn't he go live in an apartment or something until he got himself straightened out? Whatever he spend his cash on was obviously a poor decision and his position now speaks heaps about it. The U.S. economy is bad, but hell not even the bums hold up signs reading "will work for food" so we're not doing THAT bad. Now the only question I have to ask myself is why is the BBC trying to paint the picture that the U.S. is turning into a 3rd world country.
    • heystoopid, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3Well considering that on the total dollar value of the countries net worth two out of three dollars belongs to overseas creditors , I would say that the US is rapidly approaching the point where it can no longer service both the foreign debt or allow the Baby Boomer's to retire , it is either one or the other but not both !

      Welcome to the third world bro , amen !
    • DigitAl56K, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3Watch again. He sold his home for less than he paid for it (i.e. less than the bank lent him), therefore he has no home and still owes money on the home he sold.
    • DonTazeMeBro, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1It's sort of like having that fat ugly friend beside you... to make you look good (if you are female, hopefully since it is Digg).
  • incendiarylvr, on 03/17/2008, -1/+19Tragic. Yes, these people made poor choices, but they were preyed upon by corportions. They signed contracts they didn't understand, and evidence has surface there was foul play from the mortgage companies. Ameriquest was sued because their loan officers lied to customers in addittion to falsifying documents.

    Have some sympathy. The government will bail out big business as we have seen, but the regime is more than happy to allow the middle class to be trampled on. Who will bail THEM out?
    • DonTazeMeBro, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3corportions, corpuscles? Oh Corporations!

      Oh, and if you haven't realized the plan is to kill off the middle class. So far so good.
  • vwvwvw, on 03/17/2008, -8/+8So they did a story on homeless people and tied it to the mortgage crisis. Gotta love the media.
    • muckemuck, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Did you watch the video? .. they weren't just any homeless people. They were previously middle class until the mortgage mess hit.
      • vwvwvw, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0Yes, I watched the video. You don't go from middle class to homeless because your interest rate goes up. My parents went through the same thing in the early 90's. We weren't put out on the street, we just had to rent an apartment. I sympathize with these people, but reporter is trying to place the blame on the market, when in reality there are other reasons these people are homeless. Unemployed comes to mind.
  • browwiw, on 03/17/2008, -6/+23I love how all the self-important little ***** on here making noises about "personal responsibility" and "why can't they afford to rent" are probably a bunch of hypocritical little ***** that live at home and have never had to worry about a mortgage or rent payment in their life. They're probably still driving the car mommy and daddy bought them at graduation.
    • coffeebaby, on 03/17/2008, -0/+7also... it's very easy for two people both making 40-50k to afford a 2-300k house. but if one of those parties loses their job their screwed.
      • Pissoff, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3A husband and wife with 2 kids has to spend at least 200k for a 3bedroom in most cases. Then there is daycare. I don't know how anyone does it anymore. Is anyone buying homes now?

        I looked for fun this weekend, I thought a low priced but newer town home would be fine for the first 5 years, but I'm scared to commit to that investment if the economy tanks and I get laid off I don't' want to be screwed.

        My fiancee is much younger and still finishing up college, so it's not like she's situated to at least have one full income to rely on either.

        Then again I feel like if we wait another 2 - 3 years the interest rate may be up to 7 - 9 and we would have missed out.

        I just don't know what to do.
        • coffeebaby, on 03/17/2008, -0/+4we got our house in 2003 when the rates were at their lowest and locked the rate in. also we maxed out our 401ks to put down the highest deposit possible. my husband was out on disability for 6 months and i had to get a second job. without the second job we'd be without a house right now. you have to have a back up plan because you can't always depend on spouses second income. ***** happens.
    • Tuto, on 03/17/2008, -2/+3I'm sorry isn't that the American way? Once you have it good everybody else can go and ***** them self's?
      • esantipapa, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3Capitalism is kinda cold, yo. No one cares that there are children living and sleeping in tents/filth?
        Wow, its such a shame humanity is SO screwed.
    • coustoe, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2ya they forgot to mention brains, Guess Browwiw is in the same boat as these retards in the video thats why hes defensive, because now he relizes what fuuucking stupid asss he is.

      Cry me a river. You still in preschool because thats where anyone gives a ***** if you cry.
    • mattrmcg, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1I do not have a car, I pay my rent on time, and I also pay for my tuition. Next time before you tell ME that I am being hypocritical for saying that these people are partially responsible, think about what you are saying.
  • reinventit, on 03/17/2008, -1/+11So many of these comments seem to be from isolated folks who feel untouchable, but the wave of economic fury has just begun. If anyone of you were able to climb deeper into the minds of the string pullers you'd be white faced. JP Morgan buying Sters is out of desperation. The economic model isn't working because the variables changed due to the poor judgment of a few men. Rome went from an Empire, a city of over a million people to a city of about 12,000 in less than a year. They thought they were invincible and had a much better track record for their arrogance that the new country of USA. Pride cometh before a fall.
  • WaxenPith, on 03/17/2008, -8/+19BURY as Innacurate, I live in Los Angeles, this is NOT Los Angeles, it is a county 40. Miles East of Los Angeles, these are you typical Drunks/White Trash people.

    I agree that the economy is ***** up but this story has NOTHING to do with that, these people were not or never were home owners, I seen a story on this Empty Lot on ABC 7 in Los Angeles, and that story is more true that anything the BBC is saying about it.

    It seems that they're trying to make the US look bad by going to Ontario and saying that a bunch of BUMS are "former home owners, who lost everything to banks" which is a ***** lie.

    Bury as Innacturate.
    • chromeindustry, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Whats so bad with living in a tent, especially if your drinking. Comment for Truth!
    • mcm020, on 03/17/2008, -2/+2Europeans love to see us down. Just read all these ***** comments. Jealous pricks.
      • jimmiss, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2Europeans, Canadians, South Americans, Australians, Asians, Africans, The Middle East....

        You see a trend? When your economy goes down in flames don't come here for help.
        • estoyloco, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Too bad your economy will go down with ours.
    • jimmiss, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2These people were not or never were home owners.

      Did you watch the video? They all had houses.
  • scarz99, on 03/17/2008, -5/+3Thats what you get for spending ALL of your money on material things and big ass houses instead of conserving and starting small. But no, people just end up getting their asses kicked by the IRS. Land of the free home of the broke...
  • luckman212, on 03/17/2008, -3/+0why does everyone in this video look like they escaped from that show INTERVENTION?? sorry but this is lame... I wouldn't hire these people either they all look like junkies and meth hedz