No way I will ever catch up with all the mail you send! In the newsletter box alone there are 1472 emails, and thousands more in the INBOX and elsewhere. If you ever send me an email and need a timely answer, I suggest you resend 24 hours later, or call if I do not respond. As you can imagine, some get missed for a while. Some also go to spam, such as one I sent from me to me!! Go figure.
BTW, fitting subject title, don’t you think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VUDU
Got mail on this, and rather than list all, let me answer a question or two. VUDU offers around 20,000 or so movies and TV programs, as I heard last. I am sure it is up now. You will not usually find them all on at once because surfing 20,000 video offerings would take longer than watching a couple of movies. So they have limited to a smaller number and change up weekly so you can ultimately view all the offerings.
Where a cable or satellite company will have a dozen or two offerings, VUDU has much more. They both do pay per view, but VUDU allows you to buy and keep on hard drive, where cable/sat only allow you to rent.
Can you load a VUDU movie onto your computer or flash drive? No, not in digital, though you could via analog connection.
Will VUDU work in the car? Yes, with a 12vdc to 120vac inverter.
Is VUDU portable? More so than a DVD player as it is smaller.
Can I use it in a rental house? I assume you mean in a house you rent to others such as a vacation house. Yes, you can load movies on to it and let your tenants watch.
Can they buy movies on my account? No, if you lock it from downloading via password.
Are all VUDU movies HD? No, as all movies are not HD, but VUDU still has the largest collection of HD movies to date, or so I have read. Some download companies have not yet mastered and implemented HD movie download.
It has only 1 terabyte? Yes, which is plenty unless you intend to load a lot of HD content. Then you can add another VUDU for 2 TB of storage. Of course, why buy? Just how many times do you watch the same movie (unless you are 5 and its Disney)? Once? Twice? So renting is much more economical. Then those few classics can be purchased and stored.
How much is it? They make 2. The first is a 250 GB unit that sells for $299 and is now only available at the big boxes and online. The second is1TB at $999. This is the better one with more capability and better suited for good HDTV sets and home theater. I do have one of the lesser sets in stock if anyone wants one, but custom installers only get the better box, not the big stores.
Is the remote a universal one? No, but it is the neatest, easiest to use I have seen. Whoever designed this was a genius. It is RF, meaning you can operate it from the other room with no accessories. A thumbwheel and 4 buttons do it all!
Now what have I missed? Ask me some more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Economy
It is obvious the anger. Not only are congress people pointing fingers and blaming the other side, but citizens are blaming each other! If you are a Democrat, you are blaming Republicans whether politician or neighbor, and the same goes for Republicans. First, let me say this: I was not and have not been responsible for this economic mess! Like I ever had that much money, sheeeesh! Nor are most of my neighbors, regardless of party. so quit trying to label people around you and blame them. Out it where it belongs, on congress. Any of them could have stopped this, but they never wanted to. Democrat, Republican, you name it. They all let it happen. Same for presidents, so quit acting high and mighty and telling me which party is at fault. One thing that seems to be agreed upon is that it started back in the Carter days (and yes, I like Jimmy).
…………
Joe,
I was in the mortgage industry in the mid 90's to late 90's. When people realize it started with Carter with the Community Reinvestment Act and really steamrolled with the Clinton crowd you would think it would shed some light. I dug this up the other day and have sent it to a few friends and thought you might enjoy it also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
To hear today's Democrats, you'd think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to un-creditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.
Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to un-creditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.
These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans.
Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called "CRA rating" that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was.
In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.
Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market.
With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.
…………
Joe:
It is a discredit to yourself that you would tout a Fox News program as being straightforward and in the know. Just today, there have been two articles detailing how Phil Gram and the Republican Party set up this climate of de-regulation that lead to this melt down. But, both parties are in the pocket of the financial institutions. The bankruptcy reform bill would never have passed without Democratic votes. However, at the present time, the Republican party still controls legislation because it can block anything in the Senate. So, even if the Democrats wanted to change the regulatory environment, they can't without the Republican votes.
And, don't forget, the Republicans are saying the CRA and loans to minorities caused this meltdown. That is an outright lie and Fox News is no source to give any credit to.
Peace,
jsa-Then I am busted! I have a friend that is extremely well respected in financial circles, the top echelon of the Buffets, Templetons, etc. He is quite informed and knowledgeable on matters financial as his research is used by these titans of finance. He also has much disdain for both parties. When he recommended that I watch this show, I took his advice as I had called him to ask how this all came about. He told me this would answer it. I watched, called him back, and discussed it, mentioning that it seemed that there was some bias. He said what? Maybe, as all news media have bias (remember, he is a member of the journalism corps as well), but the facts are there and quite valid, regardless of Fox or CNN ,or…or…I have known this person since just past birth and have trusted his word as he mine, as we both know the other knows his business, and will acknowledge what he does not know. In other words, we trust each other and don’t shoot any BS at each other. We are resources for each other. And he is held in such high regard by the international financial kings that they all want to be interviewed by him, which would not be the case if he were a hack.
Having said all that, he and the program are right. Add in whatever is missing, remove any bias you think you see, but the facts, the taped comments of the guilty, all of it stands and is irrefutable, FOX or no FOX, as my friend says, with disdain in his voice for both parties.
As for the low income demographic loans, how can it not be the cause? Let’s see, you get a house for NO downpayment, you get a LOWER interest rate than everyone else for a while, then it is adjusted up a few years later. In the meantime, an economic decline happens, your house value slides, your salary cut, hours cut, job lost so you cannot pay the monthlies. What do you do? Walk away. No equity in it, no loss of down payment, it was cheap rent while it lasted. CYA (in both ways). So who gets it who has to keep paying on it? And what happens? These were not a lot of the problem, but enough, along with everything else, to break the camels back.
I cannot think of any middle class working average Joe or Mary ever agreeing that this is the way loans should be made. After all, they both have to put it down, so why should they have to be on the hook for those who can’t? it just does not make sense to the average American, and now we see why.
Socialism mixed with capitalism gets very confusing and discombobulated, causing losses in both. If you can ever combobulate them, let me know.
…………
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/05/mccains-keating-5-scandal_n_132103.html
Joe,
While I agree that neither party's hands are clean when it comes to this country's economic mess, for many years McCain has been at the center of movements to deregulate banks and other aspects of the financial market.
Please check out this link to the Huffington Post as well as the 2 attached articles.
jsa-Yes, and when you start crying about McCain digging up old garbage not relevant, remember what you are doing here: the same sin, so guilty you are. Mac has publicly stated the Keating decision was a mistake on his part, and he wished he could correct it. But he can’t, other than to admit it was wrong, which is more than Dodd or Schumer or Frank are saying now. Yes it was a mistake. Give the man credit for admitting his mistakes publicly, apologizing for them, asking for forgiveness, learning form them, and acting to correct them. Who in politics does this? (Clinton, only some of it, after he is caught lying.)
Is deregulation bad? Well? We deregulated telephone, airlines and much else. They improved due to competition and got cheaper. Banks have become more competitive, at least until recently, though the consolidation will raise consumer costs due to a lack of competition. The real problems are numerous, the main being lack of oversight and punishment, and more importantly, the lack of control by congress that allowed these financial institutions to run wild. The business sector only did what it was allowed, and forced, to do.
…………
Pretty good if you have the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4
…………
Joe,
I have attached VISION that I wrote last week and presented before the South Carolina Federation of Republican Women on 10/4/08. It was received very well. The last part of VISION asks for participation in a march on D.C. in the Spring of 09 to protest the greed, sale of votes by members of the House and Senate, embezzlement, fraud, lies, extortion and continued power grabbing by members of the House and Senate. I have e-mailed the major news outlets in Columbia about this.
Would you be willing to help advertise the march on D.C. in the Spring of 09 once the organization called "Pitch Forks and Torches" (PFT) has its 501c3 status and is better organized? Let me know and let me know your opinion of VISION.
Carolyn B. Watkins, M.A.,R.D.,R.N.,C.D.E.
CEO
Rock Castle Nursing and Nutrition Services LLC
700 Ridge Trail Drive
Columbia, S.C. 29229
Phone: 803-699-7369
Fax: 803-788-7335
email: rockcastleinc@aol.com
website: www.rockcastlellc.com
jsa-Here it is.
VISION
Our forefathers were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth
Pinckney, Pierce Butler and others. The last 4 were from South Carolina and signed the Constitution of the
United States.. What does the Constitution say about the VISION that these men and other men who
signed the Constitution of the United States had? Read the Preamble to the Constitution of the United
States to answer this question.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Wel-
fare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
What does the preamble to the Constitution of the United States mean? What did it mean to our
forefathers and the signers of the Constitution of the United States? What does "We the People" mean?
That means you and I. This means that the Constitution of the United States was written for the
PEOPLE of the United States. What does "promote the general Welfare" mean? Does
anyone think that "promote the general welfare" meant allowing members of the House
and Senate to look the other way while 2 companies that were backed by the Treasury of the United States,
who by the way has no money but what the tax payer gives it, while the CEO of Freddie Mac who was
Franklin Raines and the CEO of Fannie Mae who was James Johnson stold money from Freddie Mac and
Fannie Mae? How many of you have seen the Utube video from a hearing by a sub committee called
Government Sponsored Enterprises Sub-Committee with Representative Richard Baker (R La )chair in the
House of Representative in late 2004? This sub-committee had received a report from the Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight People critical of how the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE), which were
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, had been managed and was severely critical of the accounting practices by
Fannie and Freddie. The Democrats on this committee NOT only ignored the warning in the report, they
assulted Armando Falcon, who was Director of the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, for the content of
the report. The following are comments made by the Democratic members of this committee
about the report and about Armando Falcon:
Barney Frank (Democrat from Massachuetts) made a comment that there is nothing in the report on
Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) that raises safety and soundness problems
Maxine Waters (Democrat from California) - under the OUTSTANDING leadership of Franklin Raines (CEO
of Freddie Mac) everything under the act in 1992 has worked just fine. In fact the GSEs have exceeded
their housing goals.
Gregory Meeks (Democrat from New York) I am pissed off because the report on the GSEs gives
people an excuse to do away with the GSEs….the GSEs have done a TREMENDOUS job!
Lacy Clay (Democrat-Missouri) stated This is a "political lynching" of Franklin Raines. who by the way
received a 1.1 million dollar bonus on an annual salary of $526,000.00 as CEO of Freddie Mac in 2003.
The Democratic members in this hearing REFUSED to give the warning in the report on the GSEs
any credibility and instead criticized the Director of the agency that issued the report. NOW, 4 years later,
the tax payers of the United States are being REQUIRED to "BAIL OUT" the U.S. Treasury, the banks who
bought these bad loans and Wall Street people who have benefited from the loans given by Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. This is NOT what our forefathers meant when they wrote in the preamble of the United States
Constitution "to PROMOTE the general welfare". There is a difference between insuring and promoting
and by taking the risk out of lending and borrowing and FORCING the tax payer to "BAIL OUT" the risk
takers the tax payers are being FORCED to INSURE and NOT PROMOTE the "welfare" of the risk takers. How
can this be constitutional? I DO NOT NEED A SUPREME COURT RULING ON THIS! I know that this is NOT what
our forefathers meant by "promote the general welfare". It is time that we let members of the House and
Senate know this too!
In addition, ALL of the money given to House and Senate members by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG,
Lehman Brothers, Bear Stern, Wachovia, City Bank, etc needs to be given toward the "BAIL OUT". Why
should members of the House and Senate get to keep money given to them that influenced their votes
to allow the GSEs to continue operating using "improper accounting practices" and improper
management practices. There were a whole lot of people that benefited from all this get rich at
the expense of the tax payers of the United States and it was NOT the tax payers. Why should we allow
people who work for us to keep the money given them to buy their votes to ignore the fact that Fannie
and Freddie were going bankrupt and not REQUIRE them to give ALL that money toward the "BAIL OUT"?
Would you participate in a march on Washington D.C. in the Spring or Summer of 2009 to protest the greed,
arrogance, deceit, lies, embezzlement and incompetence of our elected and unelected leaders that led to
the "BAIL OUT?" Pray about this and let me know.
Carolyn B. Watkins
Citizen, tax payer and voter of the United States of America
…………
Holy Guacamole, Joseph! "my favorite president, Jimmy Carter"?! I hope that remark was facetious. This joker was a disaster from the start. And if it's possible, he's been a worse ex-president than he was a president, some of his actions, IMO, crossing the line into treason. When I was plying my trade during his administration some of the cabin attendants remarked that my PA announcements sounded just like him, and I made a concerted effort to correct that.
But anyway, here's a 1999 New York Times article that pretty much establishes the cause of the current meltdown (courtesy wrisley.com), although the Times being the Times, they looked upon it as a "good thing" at the time. You won't find much about this in today's news media, especially the Times, and I would be surprised if this story is not removed from their web site soon, but it's still there as of now:
Here Dr. Thomas Sowell confirms that the Democrat Party, the principal culprit in all this, is rather successfully blaming everybody but themselves for this situation. And it looks very much like the American people are buying this, and will put the inmates who caused this disaster fully in charge of the asylum next year.
It looks like we are going to be living out the old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times."
jsa-Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! I like Jimmy for his heart and ethics. Maybe I was a young idealist when he was prez and don’t know all about him. But as am older idealist, I still like him.
I am now off the Christmas party list?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment