Goomba wrote:
>
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> > We haver a 3-day rule for most leftovers. Not all spoilage is evident by
> > appearance or taste.
> >
> This woman was tossing out uncooked raw broccoli, not leftovers! Would
> you have tossed that out without just looking at it to see if it still
> looked good enough to cook and eat?

Never. It goes into the soup pot or the casual stirfry.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:50:15 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>Dave Smith wrote:
>> Kathleen wrote:
>
>>> Yes, but if it doesn't pass the sniff test, do you then attempt to
>>> invoke the Courtesy Sniff rule?
>>>
>>> "Ew! This stinks! Smell it!"
>>
>> Yep. Like my whipping cream this morning. It had been opened for close
>> to three weeks and I figured I had better use it up. I was going to
>> make a batch of ice cream. I was about to pour it into the pan when I
>> noticed the smell and texture. Yech. It had turned. I felt bad enough
>> about dumping 2 pints of whipping cream. I can't imagine buying a
>> bunch of steaks and throwing them out two days later because they had
>> not been cooked. I would have put them in the freezer after a day or
>> two.

2 days? That's just the beginning of the dry aging process. As they
say about aged beed, limberger, and kim che - That funky smell is not
food gone bad but good eats.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:35:12 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>
>I mentioned the chinese place that sold ginger already packaged. I'm
>serious, I don't use that much in a year, the packages are so large.
>Not looking for a solution, just agreeing that it's a pain when they do
>that. One store I visited had all produce packaged, I can't imagine
>that was popular.

Ginger freezes very well and for a very long time. Also, it can be
grated frozen without peeling.

Sheldon wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >
> > Within a few hours of being put in the water,
> > the broccoli gets very firm. �I like that.
>
> Dunk mine in cold water it shrivels immediately.

I was referring to the vegetable.

On Thu 24 Jul 2008 05:30:12p, Mark Thorson told us...

> Sheldon wrote:
>>
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>> >
>> > Within a few hours of being put in the water, the broccoli gets very
>> > firm. �I like that.
>>
>> Dunk mine in cold water it shrivels immediately.
>
> I was referring to the vegetable.
>

Both are vegetables.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Thursday, 07(VII)/24(XXIV)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Oxymoron: Team of Independents.
-------------------------------------------

hahabogus wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in
> :
>
>> chinese place that sold ginger already packaged.
>
> Take ginger and a little water and make a ginger paste in your
> blender..add the water first then chunks of ginger and
> blend...Package it up in 1 tbsp lots and freeze it...then you can
> chuck it out after a year instead.

LOL

"Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:
>
> > This woman was tossing out uncooked raw broccoli,
>
> I'll cut off the nasty bits and throw it in soup.

Napolitano Broccoli Zupa!

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:35:12 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:14:53 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
>> wrote:
>
>>> I saw something about even supermarkets are trying to buy in smaller
>>> quantities so they don't have to toss so much produce.
>
>> still, i wish some of the pre-packaged stuff came in smaller amounts.
>> (i cook mostly for one.) thank god for the bulk items! (my grocery
>> recently stopped selling loose mushrooms, which ****ed me off.)
>
>I don't think they've sold loose mushrooms where I shop in a long
>time, talking about in the supermarkets. Other vegetables, it's not
>usually packaged and you can buy what you need.
>
>I mentioned the chinese place that sold ginger already packaged. I'm
>serious, I don't use that much in a year, the packages are so large.
>Not looking for a solution, just agreeing that it's a pain when they do
>that. One store I visited had all produce packaged, I can't imagine
>that was popular.
>
>nancy

i'd go nuts if they packaged ginger root. i break off a piece the
size of my thumb, and it's like, ten cents. the food buy of the
century!

your pal,
blake


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:31:50 GMT, hahabogus > wrote:

>"Nancy Young" > wrote in
:
>
>> chinese place that sold ginger already packaged.
>
>Take ginger and a little water and make a ginger paste in your blender..add
>the water first then chunks of ginger and blend...Package it up in 1 tbsp
>lots and freeze it...then you can chuck it out after a year instead.

<snort>

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:15:55 -0700, Robert Klute >
wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:35:12 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>I mentioned the chinese place that sold ginger already packaged. I'm
>>serious, I don't use that much in a year, the packages are so large.
>>Not looking for a solution, just agreeing that it's a pain when they do
>>that. One store I visited had all produce packaged, I can't imagine
>>that was popular.
>
>Ginger freezes very well and for a very long time. Also, it can be
>grated frozen without peeling.

but it keeps pretty well just sitting in a bin, too. why wrap it in
plastic and put it in a tray? (if you're the grocer.)

your pal,
blake


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:50:15 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>Dave Smith wrote:
>> Kathleen wrote:
>
>>> Yes, but if it doesn't pass the sniff test, do you then attempt to
>>> invoke the Courtesy Sniff rule?
>>>
>>> "Ew! This stinks! Smell it!"
>>
>> Yep. Like my whipping cream this morning. It had been opened for close
>> to three weeks and I figured I had better use it up. I was going to
>> make a batch of ice cream. I was about to pour it into the pan when I
>> noticed the smell and texture. Yech. It had turned. I felt bad enough
>> about dumping 2 pints of whipping cream. I can't imagine buying a
>> bunch of steaks and throwing them out two days later because they had
>> not been cooked. I would have put them in the freezer after a day or
>> two.
>
>But did you envoke the rule by calling your wife over, Smell this!?
>
>nancy

she won't fall for that after the time he asked her to pull his
finger.

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:00:36 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>> > If I don't plan to use broccoli the day
>> > I buy it, I cut the end of the stem off
>> > and place the remaining end in a jar of
>> > water to keep it fresh. The broccoli
>> > stays fresh for several days that way.
>>
>> That seems like a lot of work to keep broccoli. I but off branches as I need it
>> and toss the rest into the vegetable crisper and it keeps nicely for a week or
>> more.
>
>A lot of work? Cutting a piece of the stem off
>and placing the head in a jar of water? Buying
>the broccoli and then taking it out of the bag
>when I get home is more work than that.
>
>Within a few hours of being put in the water,
>the broccoli gets very firm. I like that.
>I don't like rubbery broccoli.

i usually use it the day i buy it, but i'll keep this in mind, mark.

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:35:51 -0500, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:
> Gasoline prices are moving
>up a bit towards normal world market levels and The US As We Know It is now
>on the skids. Now many billions of taxpayer dollars are earmarked for
>bailing out irresponsible people who made st00pid decisions regarding
>mortgages...it goes on and on and on.
>
>"Shoot 'em all, let God sort 'em out..."

gas prices have almost tripled since bush took office and foreclosures
have skyrocketed. yep, it's all in our heads...

blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:10:32 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
>> That's one of the reasons why all the media - fueled hysteria about "the
>> recession" is just that: media - fueled hysteria. 95% of this "recession"
>> is simply a media invention...people are not only ignorant about math, but
>> most lack a modicum of common sense.
>
> From what I learned a recession means, and it does have certain
>parameters it has to meet to qualify, and we're not there.
>I can't help but think of Franklin Roosevelt's quote- "The only thing we
>have to fear, is fear itself."

i think it's maybe time to start thinking about being afraid.

>I think the media has fed into this mood, which in turn alarms people so
>they start believing and acting as if there is an actual recession and
>it snowballs into something bigger than ever.
>I also believe we've had a run of bad events which have caused problems
>(weather, terrorism, etc) that are NOT political plots or failings. They
>just *are* and we need to put our big girl panties on and deal...not whine.
>People have forgotten, or are too young to remember, that things are
>often cyclical and we've been through all this before. We're spoiled and
>have lost perspective.
>
>IMO, of course.

maybe not a political plot, but certainly a political failing. bush's
invasion of iraq and letting the mortgage issuers run wild and free
haven't helped things. they may be cyclical because republicans
periodically get into office and greed is given free rein.

sorry, but 'everything's just peachy' is rank propaganda.

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:15:21 -0500, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:

>'Zactly, and yours is not an opinion, it's *fact*. Talk to an older person
>who lived during the Depression, NO banks open, NO monetary system excpet
>what change folks had in their pockets, etc. Many were reduced to a
>bartering economy. Heck, I can remember worse times in *my* lifetime and
>I'm not all *that* old, lol...

yeah, things aren't as bad as the great depression, so nothing wrong
here. let's have a party!

blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:54:48 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:14:53 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
>
>>> I saw something about even supermarkets are trying to buy in smaller
>>> quantities so they don't have to toss so much produce.
>>>
>>> nancy
>>
>> still, i wish some of the pre-packaged stuff came in smaller amounts.
>> (i cook mostly for one.) thank god for the bulk items! (my grocery
>> recently stopped selling loose mushrooms, which ****ed me off.)
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>
>Not "bulk" as in loose, Blake. She was talking "bulk" as in buying
>multiples such as one gets at Sam's Club or Costco.

maybe.

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
5.250...
> On Thu 24 Jul 2008 05:30:12p, Mark Thorson told us...
>
>> Sheldon wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Within a few hours of being put in the water, the broccoli gets very
>>> > firm. �I like that.
>>>
>>> Dunk mine in cold water it shrivels immediately.
>>
>> I was referring to the vegetable.
>>
>
> Both are vegetables.
>
> --
> Wayne Boatwright

ROTFLMAO!

That's very funny.


--
Old Scoundrel

(AKA Dimitri)

On Fri 25 Jul 2008 02:07:19p, Dimitri told us...

>
> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> 5.250...
>> On Thu 24 Jul 2008 05:30:12p, Mark Thorson told us...
>>
>>> Sheldon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Within a few hours of being put in the water, the broccoli gets very
>>>> > firm. �I like that.
>>>>
>>>> Dunk mine in cold water it shrivels immediately.
>>>
>>> I was referring to the vegetable.
>>>
>>
>> Both are vegetables.
>>
>> --
>> Wayne Boatwright
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> That's very funny.
>
>

Dimitri, truth can be very funny or very sad. ;-)

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Friday, 07(VII)/25(XXV)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
The buck doesn't even slow down here!
-------------------------------------------

blake murphy wrote:
foreclosures
> have skyrocketed. yep, it's all in our heads...
>
> blake

What *exactly* did Bush have to do with mortgages again? The way I see
it half the people having mortgage problems were people who overbought
assuming they were going to make a killing when they flipped the house.
Housing prices readjusted (look at California who led that trend) in
many areas because they were just insanely overpriced. There were also
certainly mortgage lenders who got sloppy and allowed unqualified people
buy more home they couldn't afford which I can find fault with. Yet
somehow I don't see how Bush (or Clinton before) as being responsible?

blake "MickDickHead" murphy wrote:
> "Gregory Morrow" wrote:
> >
> > �Gasoline prices are moving
> >up a bit towards normal world market levels and The US As We Know It is now
> >on the skids. �Now many billions of taxpayer dollars are earmarked for
> >bailing out irresponsible people who made st00pid decisions regarding
> >mortgages...it goes on and on and on.
>
> >"Shoot 'em all, let God sort 'em out..."
>
> gas prices have almost tripled since bush took office and foreclosures
> have skyrocketed. �yep, it's all in our heads...

Yeah, TOWELHEADS!

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:32:34 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
> foreclosures
>> have skyrocketed. yep, it's all in our heads...
>>
>> blake
>
>What *exactly* did Bush have to do with mortgages again? The way I see
>it half the people having mortgage problems were people who overbought
>assuming they were going to make a killing when they flipped the house.
>Housing prices readjusted (look at California who led that trend) in
>many areas because they were just insanely overpriced. There were also
>certainly mortgage lenders who got sloppy and allowed unqualified people
>buy more home they couldn't afford which I can find fault with. Yet
>somehow I don't see how Bush (or Clinton before) as being responsible?

They did nothing to stop predatory lending practices even though it
was obviously a train wreck waiting to happen.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

Goomba wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
> foreclosures
> > have skyrocketed. yep, it's all in our heads...
> >
> > blake
>
> What *exactly* did Bush have to do with mortgages again? The way I see
> it half the people having mortgage problems were people who overbought
> assuming they were going to make a killing when they flipped the house.
> Housing prices readjusted (look at California who led that trend) in
> many areas because they were just insanely overpriced. There were also
> certainly mortgage lenders who got sloppy and allowed unqualified people
> buy more home they couldn't afford which I can find fault with. Yet
> somehow I don't see how Bush (or Clinton before) as being responsible?


Yep...

You had people with dodgy credit, no down payment, no income verification
getting mortgages, and many of them didn't even bother to read the "fine
print"...

I think the old adage, "If it sounds too good to be true..." applies here...

As I've mentioned before, the media creates a big hysteria about this, and
it rolls on and on...despite the fact that 95+ % of all mortgages are
current. Back during the real estate bubble I was thinking, "Yeah, what'll
happen when this housing mania bursts? You simply can't continue having
record home sales month after month, year after year...".


--
Best
Greg

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:52:50 -0700, sf wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:32:34 -0400, Goomba >
>wrote:
>
>>blake murphy wrote:
>> foreclosures
>>> have skyrocketed. yep, it's all in our heads...
>>>
>>> blake
>>
>>What *exactly* did Bush have to do with mortgages again? The way I see
>>it half the people having mortgage problems were people who overbought
>>assuming they were going to make a killing when they flipped the house.
>>Housing prices readjusted (look at California who led that trend) in
>>many areas because they were just insanely overpriced. There were also
>>certainly mortgage lenders who got sloppy and allowed unqualified people
>>buy more home they couldn't afford which I can find fault with. Yet
>>somehow I don't see how Bush (or Clinton before) as being responsible?
>
>They did nothing to stop predatory lending practices even though it
>was obviously a train wreck waiting to happen.

Bush and Clinton were both mentioned in tho post you quoted. Which
(in my mind) involved both parties. That tells me it's not a party
problem, but rather a society problem the US has. Selfish assholes
like you who brag about your BMW and still want more given to you are
the problem. You really are an idiot. What amazes me is that you
claim to have been a teacher. I hope to ****ing god you weren't
teaching children how the US government works.

Then again, maybe you were. "class repeat after me".....gimmie gimmie
gimmie.

Or... I want, I want, I want, I want, And I want YOU to pay for it.

Go **** yourself you dumbass parasite.

Lou <------know barbara has me killfiled because she can't handle the
truth.

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 13:10:03 -0500, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:

>You had people with dodgy credit, no down payment, no income verification
>getting mortgages, and many of them didn't even bother to read the "fine
>print"...

How do you think they got that way? They're the same ones who get an
"interest free" credit card, transfer their dept from other cards over
and then add new charges to the credit card... ignorant.

It was the mortgage industries duty to turn them down, but not only
didn't they do that, they focused their advertising budgets at people
with risky credit. I don't blame the people for wanting to buy a
home, I blame the lenders who should have said "NO credit for you" and
I blame the government who let the credit industry get away with
predatory lending practices.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

In article >, sf wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:32:34 -0400, Goomba >
> wrote:
>
> >blake murphy wrote:
> > foreclosures
> >> have skyrocketed. yep, it's all in our heads...
> >>
> >> blake
> >
> >What *exactly* did Bush have to do with mortgages again? The way I see
> >it half the people having mortgage problems were people who overbought
> >assuming they were going to make a killing when they flipped the house.
> >Housing prices readjusted (look at California who led that trend) in
> >many areas because they were just insanely overpriced. There were also
> >certainly mortgage lenders who got sloppy and allowed unqualified people
> >buy more home they couldn't afford which I can find fault with. Yet
> >somehow I don't see how Bush (or Clinton before) as being responsible?
>
> They did nothing to stop predatory lending practices even though it
> was obviously a train wreck waiting to happen.

After the stock market crash and the Great Depression of 1929 in the US,
it was pretty obvious what had happened. People were buying stocks on
margin, and getting mortgages with insufficient down payments. The
government passed laws to keep this from ever happening again.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the speculators in the latest
mortgage fiasco, but I am incensed that our government had to buy out
the irresponsible companies. The mortgage lenders didn't care that they
were making bad loans, because they sold them as soon as they were made.
The buyers of the mortgages didn't care, because they were borrowing up
to 97% of the money, so it just wasn't their money.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

sf wrote:

>> What *exactly* did Bush have to do with mortgages again? The way I see
>> it half the people having mortgage problems were people who overbought
>> assuming they were going to make a killing when they flipped the house.
>> Housing prices readjusted (look at California who led that trend) in
>> many areas because they were just insanely overpriced. There were also
>> certainly mortgage lenders who got sloppy and allowed unqualified people
>> buy more home they couldn't afford which I can find fault with. Yet
>> somehow I don't see how Bush (or Clinton before) as being responsible?
>
> They did nothing to stop predatory lending practices even though it
> was obviously a train wreck waiting to happen.
>
And did these predatory practices start in 2000, or perhaps, before?
And how much responsibility did the borrowers hold here? Were they all
helpless, clueless victims?

Gregory Morrow wrote:

> You had people with dodgy credit, no down payment, no income verification
> getting mortgages, and many of them didn't even bother to read the "fine
> print"...
>
> I think the old adage, "If it sounds too good to be true..." applies here...
>
> As I've mentioned before, the media creates a big hysteria about this, and
> it rolls on and on...despite the fact that 95+ % of all mortgages are
> current. Back during the real estate bubble I was thinking, "Yeah, what'll
> happen when this housing mania bursts? You simply can't continue having
> record home sales month after month, year after year...".
>
Forget the record home sales.... it was the "record" increases in sales
PRICES that fueled the greed by far too many to think they were going to
make a KILLING when they sold their house for huge profits.
In my book, a home is many things, but it shouldn't necessarily be
treated or thought of as a major growth investment unless like all other
investments (stocks, etc.) one has the ability to tolerate the loss of
value as well as gaining. One should always be able to make their mortgage.
Too many people were also taking out stupid, stupid, stupid mortgages
(ARMs with wide swings in rates, interest only, yada yada yada) and yet
now *I* have to help bail them out? I keep hearing about these poor
naive borrowers, but no one seems to hold them responsible too. I
certainly researched the fine print when *I* purchased my first house at
22 years old and nervous as hell.

"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
> blake murphy wrote:
> foreclosures
>> have skyrocketed. yep, it's all in our heads...
>>
>> blake
>
> What *exactly* did Bush have to do with mortgages again? The way I see it
> half the people having mortgage problems were people who overbought
> assuming they were going to make a killing when they flipped the house.
> Housing prices readjusted (look at California who led that trend) in many
> areas because they were just insanely overpriced. There were also
> certainly mortgage lenders who got sloppy and allowed unqualified people
> buy more home they couldn't afford which I can find fault with. Yet
> somehow I don't see how Bush (or Clinton before) as being responsible?

If you are looking for simple one line answers to complex interrelated
questions you're not going to find them. There are however some facts that
need to be considered.

1. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the war - the fact is we are
fighting this war with borrowed money, primarily from China.

2. Because of our enormous debt the dollar on an international basis has
been devalued - it simply does not purchase as much of foreign goods as it
used to.

3. The devaluation of the dollar does however make American goods less
expensive for foreigners, the hope is this will stimulate our economy. That
is if there is anything left that we make here.

4. The housing crisis can easily be explained he
http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?d...h=true &pli=1

Click on each frame to advance.

4A. Is it the duty of the government to regulate the mortgage industry?

5. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk "the Buck Stops here"
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/buckstop.htm

6. The president is supposed to guide and lead the country. (I believe
that is what Bush and Clinton for that matter had to do with it)


--
Old Scoundrel

(AKA Dimitri)

sf wrote:

> How do you think they got that way? They're the same ones who get an
> "interest free" credit card, transfer their dept from other cards over
> and then add new charges to the credit card... ignorant.

Ignorant? Consumer information is readily available. What gives them the
right to remain ignorant? And many weren't at all ignorant but play(ed)
out a plan to shuffle debt from card to card to reap the benefits and
avoid the costs. It could work at times and it certainly caught up with
many in a negative way!

>
> It was the mortgage industries duty to turn them down, but not only
> didn't they do that, they focused their advertising budgets at people
> with risky credit. I don't blame the people for wanting to buy a
> home, I blame the lenders who should have said "NO credit for you" and
> I blame the government who let the credit industry get away with
> predatory lending practices.
>
If they'd said "No credit for you!" you'd have complained about
discrimination and how they should be given a chance. Perhaps you would
have thunk that no one (gasp!) would truly default on their home (gasp!)
and the mean old bankers are expecting too much historical credit
history from them when everyone just needs a step up......

"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
> blake murphy wrote:
> foreclosures
>> have skyrocketed.
yep, it's all in our heads...
>>
>> blake
>
> What *exactly* did Bush have to do with mortgages again? The way I see it
> half the people having mortgage problems were people who overbought
> assuming they were going to make a killing when they flipped the house.
> Housing prices readjusted (look at California who led that trend) in many
> areas because they were just insanely overpriced. There were also
> certainly mortgage lenders who got sloppy and allowed unqualified people
> buy more home they couldn't afford which I can find fault with. Yet
> somehow I don't see how Bush (or Clinton before) as being responsible?

Because Libs want to have someone to blame for everything from the mortgage
crisis to global warming.
These people who are defaulting on their mortgages are stupid for not
figuring things out themselves, rather than listening to someone else.
If your mortgage payment is 85% of your monthly income, then SOMETHING is
not getting paid that month. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that
one out.
Read the fine print-does Balloon Mortgage mean anything to you idiots?
So someone spending more money on a home than they can afford-can't be their
fault-it's Bush's fault.

"Goomba" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> If they'd said "No credit for you!" you'd have complained about
> discrimination and how they should be given a chance. Perhaps you would
> have thunk that no one (gasp!) would truly default on their home (gasp!)
> and the mean old bankers are expecting too much historical credit history
> from them when everyone just needs a step up......

I really don't know anyone who thinks that way. I certainly don't. These
credit "fools" are more or less our kids and they must have learned the Wild
West approach to credit from.... us?

My kid got in over her head some years back, and she dug herself out, too.
She paid $15,000 more for her house than she earns annually. Conservative?
I'll say. But I am very proud of her and weas equally shocked when she owed
almost a year's salary in credit card charges years back.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:02:54 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>> How do you think they got that way? They're the same ones who get an
>> "interest free" credit card, transfer their dept from other cards over
>> and then add new charges to the credit card... ignorant.
>
>Ignorant?

and naive.

>Consumer information is readily available. What gives them the
>right to remain ignorant? And many weren't at all ignorant but play(ed)
>out a plan to shuffle debt from card to card to reap the benefits and
>avoid the costs. It could work at times and it certainly caught up with
>many in a negative way!

I think you've been away too long, Guisi. The scoop about "no
interest" is contained in the fine print that probably even you don't
read. The trick is to transfer, but the only activity on the account
should be paying off the debt.
>
>>
>> It was the mortgage industries duty to turn them down, but not only
>> didn't they do that, they focused their advertising budgets at people
>> with risky credit. I don't blame the people for wanting to buy a
>> home, I blame the lenders who should have said "NO credit for you" and
>> I blame the government who let the credit industry get away with
>> predatory lending practices.
>>
>If they'd said "No credit for you!" you'd have complained about
>discrimination and how they should be given a chance. Perhaps you would
>have thunk that no one (gasp!) would truly default on their home (gasp!)
>and the mean old bankers are expecting too much historical credit
>history from them when everyone just needs a step up......

Why would *I* have claimed discrimination when I clearly said it was a
train wreck waiting to happen? And the rest of what you said is just
plain BS. It was clear that many people *would* default if the rates
went up. You can't loan money on the assumption that a property is
going to increase in value.

Again, the government did nothing to stop lenders from employing
predatory lending practices. Shame on them. This, of course was
intended to keep the economy seeming to boom (for political reasons -
if the economy tanks when you're in charge it's hard to be re-elected)
when it was actually stretched very thin. When you have people
commuting to work 2-4 hours one way on a daily basis, there's a
problem.



--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

<sf> ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:02:54 -0400, Goomba >
> wrote:
>
>>sf wrote:
>>
>>> How do you think they got that way? They're the same ones who get an
>>> "interest free" credit card, transfer their dept from other cards over
>>> and then add new charges to the credit card... ignorant.
>>
>>Ignorant?
>
> and naive.
>
>>Consumer information is readily available. What gives them the
>>right to remain ignorant? And many weren't at all ignorant but play(ed)
>>out a plan to shuffle debt from card to card to reap the benefits and
>>avoid the costs. It could work at times and it certainly caught up with
>>many in a negative way!
>
> I think you've been away too long, Guisi. The scoop about "no
> interest" is contained in the fine print that probably even you don't
> read. The trick is to transfer, but the only activity on the account
> should be paying off the debt.

Hmmm, I did not write that. I do read the fine print, but also pay off the
sucker.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:42:15 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>I don't have a lot of sympathy for the speculators in the latest
>mortgage fiasco, but I am incensed that our government had to buy out
>the irresponsible companies. The mortgage lenders didn't care that they
>were making bad loans, because they sold them as soon as they were made.
>The buyers of the mortgages didn't care, because they were borrowing up
>to 97% of the money, so it just wasn't their money.

I too am amazed and annoyed that the government is bailing out these
slimy institutions. Real speculators ("flippers") did it with full
knowledge that they could lose their shirt, that's why they're called
speculators. They took advantage of the practices used to entice
people who were not speculating into buying a home. They were hoping
that their home would increase in value enough that they could take
out a fixed rate loan. They are also very people who shouldn't have
been given a loan in the first place. We seem to have another blame
the victim fest going.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:02:54 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>> How do you think they got that way? They're the same ones who get an
>> "interest free" credit card, transfer their dept from other cards over
>> and then add new charges to the credit card... ignorant.
>
>Ignorant?

and naive.

>Consumer information is readily available. What gives them the
>right to remain ignorant? And many weren't at all ignorant but play(ed)
>out a plan to shuffle debt from card to card to reap the benefits and
>avoid the costs. It could work at times and it certainly caught up with
>many in a negative way!

The scoop about "no interest" is contained in fine print that probably
even you don't read. The trick is to transfer, but the only activity
on a no interest account should be paying off the transferred debt.
>


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:50:25 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>>> What *exactly* did Bush have to do with mortgages again? The way I see
>>> it half the people having mortgage problems were people who overbought
>>> assuming they were going to make a killing when they flipped the house.
>>> Housing prices readjusted (look at California who led that trend) in
>>> many areas because they were just insanely overpriced. There were also
>>> certainly mortgage lenders who got sloppy and allowed unqualified people
>>> buy more home they couldn't afford which I can find fault with. Yet
>>> somehow I don't see how Bush (or Clinton before) as being responsible?
>>
>> They did nothing to stop predatory lending practices even though it
>> was obviously a train wreck waiting to happen.
>>
>And did these predatory practices start in 2000, or perhaps, before?
>And how much responsibility did the borrowers hold here? Were they all
>helpless, clueless victims?

So, you want to play Blame the Victim?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:07:37 -0400, "Kswck" >
wrote:

>
>"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
>> blake murphy wrote:
>> foreclosures
>>> have skyrocketed.
> yep, it's all in our heads...
>>>
>>> blake
>>
>> What *exactly* did Bush have to do with mortgages again? The way I see it
>> half the people having mortgage problems were people who overbought
>> assuming they were going to make a killing when they flipped the house.
>> Housing prices readjusted (look at California who led that trend) in many
>> areas because they were just insanely overpriced. There were also
>> certainly mortgage lenders who got sloppy and allowed unqualified people
>> buy more home they couldn't afford which I can find fault with. Yet
>> somehow I don't see how Bush (or Clinton before) as being responsible?
>
>Because Libs want to have someone to blame for everything from the mortgage
>crisis to global warming.
>These people who are defaulting on their mortgages are stupid for not
>figuring things out themselves, rather than listening to someone else.
>If your mortgage payment is 85% of your monthly income, then SOMETHING is
>not getting paid that month. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that
>one out.
>Read the fine print-does Balloon Mortgage mean anything to you idiots?
>So someone spending more money on a home than they can afford-can't be their
>fault-it's Bush's fault.
>

So, it's ok for institutions to engage in predatory lending practices.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 21:40:12 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

><sf> ha scritto nel messaggio
.. .
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:02:54 -0400, Goomba >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>sf wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do you think they got that way? They're the same ones who get an
>>>> "interest free" credit card, transfer their dept from other cards over
>>>> and then add new charges to the credit card... ignorant.
>>>
>>>Ignorant?
>>
>> and naive.
>>
>>>Consumer information is readily available. What gives them the
>>>right to remain ignorant? And many weren't at all ignorant but play(ed)
>>>out a plan to shuffle debt from card to card to reap the benefits and
>>>avoid the costs. It could work at times and it certainly caught up with
>>>many in a negative way!
>>
>> I think you've been away too long, Guisi. The scoop about "no
>> interest" is contained in the fine print that probably even you don't
>> read. The trick is to transfer, but the only activity on the account
>> should be paying off the debt.
>
>Hmmm, I did not write that. I do read the fine print, but also pay off the
>sucker.
>
Sorry Guisi, I canceled the message as soon as I sent it. Apparently
it wasn't canceled.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

<sf> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:07:37 -0400, "Kswck" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>> foreclosures
>>>> have skyrocketed.
>> yep, it's all in our heads...
>>>>
>>>> blake
>>>
>>> What *exactly* did Bush have to do with mortgages again? The way I see
>>> it
>>> half the people having mortgage problems were people who overbought
>>> assuming they were going to make a killing when they flipped the house.
>>> Housing prices readjusted (look at California who led that trend) in
>>> many
>>> areas because they were just insanely overpriced. There were also
>>> certainly mortgage lenders who got sloppy and allowed unqualified people
>>> buy more home they couldn't afford which I can find fault with. Yet
>>> somehow I don't see how Bush (or Clinton before) as being responsible?
>>
>>Because Libs want to have someone to blame for everything from the
>>mortgage
>>crisis to global warming.
>>These people who are defaulting on their mortgages are stupid for not
>>figuring things out themselves, rather than listening to someone else.
>>If your mortgage payment is 85% of your monthly income, then SOMETHING is
>>not getting paid that month. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
>>that
>>one out.
>>Read the fine print-does Balloon Mortgage mean anything to you idiots?
>>So someone spending more money on a home than they can afford-can't be
>>their
>>fault-it's Bush's fault.
>>
>
> So, it's ok for institutions to engage in predatory lending practices.
>
>
>

Let the buyer beware. Take some resonsibility for your own lives.

Dan Abel > wrote:

>I don't have a lot of sympathy for the speculators in the latest
>mortgage fiasco, but I am incensed that our government had to buy out
>the irresponsible companies.

Exactly which irresponsible companies are you talking about?

If you're complaining about Bear Stearns, then I agree, but
I don't see any other examples so far, in which the governement
wasn't merely making good on its own responsibilities.

Steve