http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/05/19/homeless.mom/index.html
Though it's slightly off subject from the usual humor posts, I think it's pretty horrific the way our economy is effecting people.
Thoughts?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/05/19/homeless.mom/index.html
Though it's slightly off subject from the usual humor posts, I think it's pretty horrific the way our economy is effecting people.
Thoughts?
Vasya
Tue, 05/20/2008 - 8:20amIt's definitely one of those things that we didn't think would happen, ever. The concept of a depression was something that we left behind in the 30s, and could never happen again, amirite?
tankytank
Tue, 05/20/2008 - 10:51amwell ive been reading allot lately about financial intellegance and how to change some of my own bad habbits ,,, I suggest a book by Robert Kiyosaki called rich dad, poor dad .. Its helped me allot and and its the type of book that you either love of completely hate ( ive never read any books b4 that i did not have to because of school) and according to his theory a depression wil happen about every 70 years ,, so if teh US is really going throu is its right on time , but the bright side there is allot you can do to help yourself get throu it as best as possible
Tigue (not verified)
Tue, 05/20/2008 - 11:46amThe other day I heard, on NPR, more about the loans and mortgages that drove a love of the economic crisis and how many people who worked in banks were trying to stop allowing things like NINA (No Income, No Asset) loans, while people in higher-up positions were trying to fuel a world economic system through mortgage and loan funded bonds. One person they interviewed, who got a NINA loan said it was basically like walking up to someone on the street and asking for $45,000.
It was really interesting, it was something I knew had been happening, but I didn't know quite the extent and depth of it all. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90327686
Micah
Tue, 05/20/2008 - 11:47amPart of me feels bad for people, but part of me looks at this and asks "how do you work for 45 years and have no savings whatsoever?". I seriously hate the blame game that is going on in the country today too. A huge portion of the people who are losing there house to forclosure have no one to blame but themselves. Yes investors and speculation drove up housing costs but the average ordinary American did there part to contribute. Failing to educate yourself about the risks of your $250,000-$500,000 sub prime loan which you are going to be tied to for the next 30 years is no ones fault but your own. Buying more house than you can afford because you "want it" is no more greedy than giving out risky loans to turn a buck.
The person entering the loan without educating themself has no right to complain and as a financially responsible young adult who spent 3 years saving for my own wedding and down payment on my house it kind of bothers me that I am paying for all these people who made poor choices and paying for all these banks who made risks they coudln't afford to take. The housing crisis is costing this country billions of dollars, and thats billions of dollars coming out of my pocket and your pocket. Why should I have to pay for all these people's terrible and completely avoidable mistakes?
Demonskin
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 10:44amHow do you work for 45 years and have no savings whatsoever? Unfortunately, all too easily in this country today. If one member of a family becomes seriously ill and (as is far too often the case) insurance doesn't cover or only covers part of the treatment costs, you can burn through your entire life savings in a matter of months. That's probably the most common scenario, but hardly the only one.
You may have had your life savings invested in your company retirement plan, and have that rendered worthless because of mismanagement (hello, Enron). Or maybe you accepted a great new job in a new town and sunk your savings into building a new house for your family there, only to have the new job turn into a nightmare because of corporate malfeasance and then lose your shirt on the house because your new employer was the primary source of higher-level jobs in the community and now the local real estate market has tanked and your $550,000 house is now worth more like $150,000 and you have to sell it but can't because the aforementioned corporate fiasco has meant that everyone else is trying to sell too and there's nobody to buy and the bank ends up foreclosing and you're left with no house and no savings and still have a pile of debt.
Each of the above has happened to people that I know, and it was not because they were lazy or irresponsible. For the most part the problems stem from the gross and still growing economic and power imbalance that has the top 1% getting steadily more wealthy while the rest of us stagnate or become poorer. Our country easily has enough wealth to pay for good health insurance for everyone, and top corporate management would suddenly become a whole lot more careful and responsible if they faced real consequences when they bent or broke the law, instead of bailing out with golden parachutes and lucrative positions on other corporate boards.
On the subject of the sub-prime housing crisis, the people that you should be glaring at are not the borrowers, many of whom are ill-equipped to understand the prime rate, their ARM, and what impact the former might have on the payments they make on the later, but rather the lenders and those who regulate them. The banks are the ones whose business it is to understand and manage the risks involved -- they do it professionally every day and for thousands of different situations, and should very well know what is and isn't a reasonable debt load. And the Fed and others who manage and regulate the banking industry certainly should have been watching and stepping in when mortgage trading began to get out of hand and firms began structuring derivatives based on the consumer lending market. Unfortunately they (or their friends) were all too busy making money hand-over-fist off of the housing bubble to do their jobs, and now thousands of families are literally paying the price.
[soapbox mode OFF]
Demonskin
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 10:58amAbout Robert Kiyosaki and Rich Dad, Poor Dad: His original book does offer some useful advice and it's definitely presented in a very readable fashion. However be aware that most of the anecdotes in the book have proven to be fictitious when investigated (the RD/PD book was actually his first financially successful undertaking), and when it comes to larger economic observations and theory he is often demonstrably way off base. Also he has parlayed that original book into a whole mini-industry of Rich Dad books and products, and most of those subsequent publications are worse than useless.
So I would suggest getting what you can out of the original book, but take what Kiyosaki says with a grain of salt and avoid his later works.
Vasya
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 11:44amReally well said, Demonskin :).
Micah
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 11:47amThese are both an unfortunate series of events but has nothing to do with the sub prime crisis. The second is a horrible investment strategy (its called diversification) that would never be recommended by a single investment advisor, if you don't know enough to make your own investment strategy but fail to ask someone else thats no ones fault but your own.
Banks and consumers are equally complicet in this crisis and personally I don't feel I should have to pay for the mistakes of either.
Just because a bank is willing to make a risky investment in you and the housing market doesn't mean you should be equally willing to make the same risk. That's what buying a house is, an investment, and along with it comes all the same risks and rewards. The bank is much better positioned to absorb a loss on that investment, the consumer is not. It's up to the consumer to decide if they want to take on that risk. Every day you see banks reporting billions of dollars in losses, I have yet to see the government offer plans to save those banks any of those losses. The only exception has been with Bear Stearns and that was to save the system itself from imploding and they didn't save Bear Stearns, only allowed a way for JP Morgan to buy them. The average person who bought a house on a sub prime mortgage flat out expects at this point the government to save them from their risky investment at everyone else's expense.
The majority of people eating it as a result of these loans are people who put 0% down or less (some of themh even financed closing costs). What makes you believe that even though you couldn't be financially disciplined enough to save a down payment that you can be financially disciplined enough to own a house.
Claiming your not competent enough to understand loans is just as bad. We're talking about spending upwards of $500,000 on something and a failure to eduate yourself on the topic is only stupidity on your own part. I would challenge you to find a single credible publication that says buying a house with less than 20% down where the monthly housing expenses will run you more than 25-30% of your pre-tax income is a good idea. Failure to read up on a purchase of this magnitude is your own fault.
Tigue (not verified)
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 11:54amSometimes it's not a failure to educate or yourself, but being fed poor information. Some banks were telling people they were in positions to handle these loans, giving them advice and "education" that was misleading. Many people believe what their bankers tell them, much like they trust their doctor or other professional. While it shouldn't end there- people should get second opinions, and try to learn from other sources, many, many people are not equipped to do this on their own. A failure to educate oneself comes from a much larger problem than being lazy, or stupid, but simply not knowing how to do what you might take for granted. Unfortunately this combined with bankers being told to push loans and mortgages lead to this bigger problem.
Qyn
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 11:59amSkinny and Ani arguing about the economy....posting in a legendary thread!
Micah
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 12:05pmYes but your not looking at what a bank is, its a business, and nothing else. It's their job to do nothing but earn more money for their shareholders. Yes there needs to be rules governing how they do this but as long as they are honest about what the loan is how it works they shouldn't be required to tell you if you should buy it. Do you expect the guy selling you a TV at best buy to tell you if your financially equipped to buy it on a credit card? A house is the same thing only on a larger scale why should banks be held to a different standard.
If a door to door salesman shows up at your house selling you a magical elixir that he claims will cure your hair loss are you going to assume it must be true?
With the exception of completely lacking the mental capacity to make decisions, failure to eduate yourself on a 30 year comitment like a home purchase is never anyones fault but your own.
Demonskin
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 12:20pm(more later)
Micah
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 12:32pmI've never had or heard of a 401(k) plan that fails to allow you to make chocies on how you invest your money. Most offer a wide array of index mutual funds that mimic the S&P, Russel, etc as well as small, large, and mid-cap funds at the least. Usually a least a bond fund is offered as well.
Not to mention you're completely wrong with your "all but the wealthiest" rhetoric. Wealthiest inviduals stand to gain the most from a tax perspective when it comes to utilizing company retirement plans since it prevents their income from being taxed and they would have paid a higher rate on that income than lower income individuals. There are no income based phase outs on pre-tax 401(k) contributions.
Sumul
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 12:42pmI would just like to point out here that while disagreement is okay, please don't make it personal. The quoted text is pushing the limit of being respectful.
Micah
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 12:52pmThere wasn't anything personal intended by it, only pointing out that throwing that phrase into a discussion/debate on taxes and finance several times does nothing more than play emotion and elicit a response in the reader before they can even consider passing judgement. I can't think of a word besides rhetoric that fits that defintion better.
Micah
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 1:02pmNo Agi I was in no way shape or form calling you greedy or stupid, I don't think I've used either of those words once in this thread. I was merely pointing out that a mortgage is an agreement between two parties. No one forces you to enter one and no one forces you to take those risks. You've clearly weighed the risk reward for your situation and determined your willing to take the risk. My problem is that now that for some people the risk hasn't worked out, they feel like there should be no reprecussions for taking said risk.
I am just trying to point out that the situation has been sensationalized, particularly by the media as being entirely the fault of greedy banks. No one forced anyone to take a mortgage they couldn't afford. Both parties to the agreement shoudl have to deal with the results.
Brian
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 1:04pmI'm sorry , but I don't feel banks are the real culprits here. Though some fail to adhere to the rules and regulations that are placed by government when dealing with the role as a financial advisor , they usually express all the contractual obligations clearly in writing at the time of signing.
I think with loans the real culprit are mortgage houses where they aren't required to follow the same set of rules. Many times these companies re-mortgage people to loans that are poorly explained and have terrible penalties if late on one payment. The worst part is that many contracts are bought out or transferred to other companies/loaning facilities . I had a car payment where the loan kept getting bought out by other companies, and it made it extremely difficult to send the payment. Government should be required to monitor these loans (including cc) terms more closely .
Agiathas
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 1:09pmEDIT: Ok, I made some edits and it put is as a NEW post. Kind of wrecked the flow of the conversation. =P I blame the net pixies for this.
Unfortunate things happen and not all fall under one particular reason. How this lady had no savings after 45 years of working, they never said and we are in no position to speculate. Personally, i've been in the workforce for 12 years and no kids, so I cannot even begin go analyze or provide advice to this lady or her situation.
What is the cost of raising kids these days? Putting them through college? I have no clue, but it can be a factor in why someone has no savings.
Not to mention the situation 45 years ago may have been different. Again, something I have no experience at all with. I can read as much as I can about those times, but without living during those times, we cannot accurately say how is compared to the generation that lived it.
I came from a third world country where having savings is pretty much just a dream. It takes myself and 2 siblings to help make ends meet for my parents. Between raising 4 kids through college and all the expenses of keeping a good life, their dedication is rewarded by the fact that their children are not as hard up. Still, a downturn can change that and I can only hope that nothing seriously terrible happens.
Now this may not be the same as the US, but it brings perspective. One person's situation can be completely different from the guy just next door.
Also, things happen whether they are good or bad. No matter how hard you prepare or research, life can sometimes take a turn that will have us flummoxed.
It happened to this lady. And many more like her. To say they are stupid is just inconsiderate knowing as little about them as we do. Hindsight is always crystal clear, but when slugging through life, people can only see through the next couple of days, if that.
These are tough times, and that cannot be argued. But rather than analyzing what could have been different....or "what ifs", these circumstances are helpful so that others will try to avoid it. We cannot help them by criticizing decisions they made so long ago. And it doesn't help us either.
BTW, I am on a 40yr mortgage that takes almost half my income because of a less than 10% down. Is that because I am greedy and want a property for the sake of having one? Did I just make the purchase on a whim and to hell with the details? Even after pouring months making the decision, there were times after I bought the place did I think just that. But when I look around my life with things coming together and the family I plan to start, I would have done exactly the same thing if I had a chance to do over.
Tigue (not verified)
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 1:11pm<3 Net pixies. Also, if you don't mind, where are you from?
Also, your parents sound amazing, and I hope they have a good life with you and your siblings now :).
Micah
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 1:13pmYour absolutely right Keroth in that the government needs to do a better job monitoring lending policies that are underhanded, but the main problem with the sub-prime crisis is people flat out bought houses they could in no way afford unless prices continued to climb at unprecedented rates.
Unforatunately we live in a debt driven and debt crazy society where the average family has thousands of dollars in credit card debt, multiple car loans, and mortgages. Where having the appearence of wealth and owning tons of posessions is more important than long term financial stabiliy and saving for retirement. Where spending on a war now is more important than salvaging social security for future generations or providing quality health care. The problem is engrained into our society and until the average person changes that mentality the system will remain the same.
Vasya
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 1:22pmI think you might be putting the victims into too broad a category, Micah. I agree with you that there were definitely some people that could have known better than to take out their loan, and they simply ignored the warning signs. I think there are also people who simply didn't know better. This may not absolve them per se, but I think it's unreasonable to expect everyone to have as good of an understanding of finances as, for instance, someone who's finished business school.
There are lots of very smart people who do their best to educate themselves about all of this, who read the mortgage contracts carefully, etc., who still get screwed. Why? Because the market was ripe to make money off of those people, and the companies who made that money hire people to write the contracts, and write them in such a way as to obfuscate the risks and play up the benefits as much as possible. So even if people who've gotten educations and have done all of the research get tricked, what hope is there for someone who's just starting out?
There are lots of grains of victims here, and I think it's reasonable to consider some of them as having made their own bed. But I think there's a lot more of them to whom this came as a total surprise, not because they knowingly didn't know something.
Sumul
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 1:27pmMaybe it's because I deliberately avoid watching news on TV, but my impression is that the blame is assigned disproportionately on either the lenders or the consumers or the government based on the bias of the particular media outlet.
There are plenty of people to blame on both sides. This episode of "This American Life" was awesome, and I found it to be extremely informative about the whole situation without being technical or boring.
Tigue (not verified)
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 1:30pmHaha, way to link to almost the same thing I did, Sumul :P. Mine's just the joint efforts of "This American Life" and "All Things Considered".
Micah
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 1:33pmVas I understand that there are shades of gray here. I am pretty sure in almost every single one of my posts here I have said that I feel banks and consumers should share equally in the blame.
I don't think not knowing because you didn't know is a reasonable excuse whatsoever. Given the readily available information in our current age the only reason not to know mortgage basics and general rules to make your purchase safer such as 20% down or 25-30% of your income is inexcusable. Simply type something like "how much house can i afford" into google and you'll find more information than you can read in a life time. The information is there and if you entered one of these sub-prime mortgages, you likely did in the last 5 years, so the information was there then too.
Yes there are people who are truly victims here. Whose loss is the result of terrible timing with bad situations in life, but that doesn't apply to the huge majority of defaulting mortgage loans.
Vasya
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 1:36pmI think given the amount of effort that different lenders took to obfuscate the risks, it's not really unexcusable. Sure, for you and me it's pretty easy to google something like that, read it, and understand most of it. That's not the case for a lot of people, though.
Agiathas
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 1:38pmOh, I injected a few personal things to just make a point. I'm not really being personal about the topic because it is an unavoidable reality.
And yes, because of this perspective, I do share the opinion that this matter has been sensationalized. Who is to blame? Perhaps no one. Perhaps everyone. Without full information on both sides, I cannot make any judgements and can only try to learn from the situation.
While banks can seem to be the culprit, they can also be a victim. When I started working, there has been one motto that's constant: Protect your ass. Risk is both ways and both parties have to understand the risk to be willing to enter into an agreement. Everyone needs to ensure they themselves stay alive. Again, not justifying anything, but adding a median view.
I came over from the Philippines and no longer live with my parents, them being half a world away. I do my best to send over some money and there has been some good fortune recently after years of nasty turmoil. Life brings us down, but hope brings us right back up. =) And thanks for the statement Tigue. =)
Tigue (not verified)
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 1:49pmEven if people get information, it's often hard for many people to access information. Many people don't know what information is authoritative, or who to ask for more information or advice. Googling something might seem like a worse choice for a lot of people, people who don't know what to trust on the Internet. Why should they trust that over talking to a banker? How do they know how to come to a decision for themselves? How do they know which information to trust and how to educate themselves on a topic? (rhetorical, all of them)
A lot people don't know a lot about a lot of topics. Many people know how to safely find information online, in books and by talking to people. They know how to balance the information and make a decision. But a lot of people don't. It's unfortunate for them, but when that is combined with a situation ripe for exploitation, it really does make some victims.
Consider all the different opinions and information in this thread- you and Skinny disagree on stuff, but neither of you are dumb people, and both obviously have learned a lot about the topic. If you don't agree, and are both smart, it's pretty clear that someone who is less smart, and less able to self-educate, is going to be much worse off.
That's also true. In the links Sumul and I posted there were definitely people working at banks who didn't want to keep allowing these loans, but where pushed into it from outside, or supervisors. They knew it was risky and that it'd probably fail, but were told to push the loans and mortgages anyway. (I think I said something about that in my first post on this thread too :P).
Micah
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 2:00pmLike I said if the bank is willing to take that risk then they should be allowed to. It's up to the consumer to decide if they want to take the risk as well as a mortgage is a two party agreement. Is it a businesses job to help you make financial decisions, or is it their purpose to sell you their product/service?
I'm failing to see how any of this takes the burden off the consumer to understand your own loan. Do we not teach students how to research something in school. I am pretty sure thats free through high school. How hard is it to walk into a local library, get a library card, and find a book on the mortgages. We're talking about the biggest financial decision a person makes in their entire lifetime. I don't think its unreasonable to expect people to do everything in their power to understand it.
Micah
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 2:02pmI gotta catch a bus though. I will see you guys later.
Vasya
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 2:02pmIf you can't understand the book on mortgages, getting it from the library isn't going to help much :). As far as learning to research things, the schools that I went to, which were very decent public schools, did a very poor job of preparing me to do independent research.
Tigue (not verified)
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 2:03pmWhich school? High school? Some. College? More. Universally, nope. That's what I do- I teach people how to find, use and access information. A lot of people don't know how to.
Micah
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 2:06pmSo I guess we can't expect people to be responsible for their own financial decisions? It's no ones fault and we all should just have to pay for their mistakes?
Vasya
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 2:11pmIf you're relying on public education to teach kids how to be financially responsible, then I think they're pretty much entirely blameless, yeah :).
Tigue (not verified)
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 2:12pmJust as you haven't said people are stupid or greedy, no one has said it's blameless on either side.
We've just been pointing out that no- not everyone is in a position to do this on their own and that they were sometimes given poor information. It's a part of understanding why this happened, not removing responsibility from people. But knowing that this happened demonstrates that not everyone can self-educate themselves and that sometimes these people need to be advised better, so this doesn't happen again.
Some banks/bankers were victims- bankers in lower positions were instructed to do things they knew were risky, they were not in decision making positions, and so their banks also lost.
Some people were not victims- they knew it was bad and did it anyway.
Some banks/bankers where not victims- they knew it was risky, they knew they were going to be exploiting people, and did it anyway.
But as Vas said- painting with a broad brush doesn't mean some people, on both sides, weren't victims of the situation, and expecting people do understand things, simply because you can, isn't always reasonable.
Demonskin
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 4:33pmThat isn't to say that investing in a 401K/403B/etc plan is a bad idea -- because of the tax breaks it's still often the best option -- but it usually offers poorer returns and is much riskier than it should be.
Demonskin
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 4:41pmMicah
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 4:53pmI dont' really need to look closer, like I said I work in the investment industry so I have first hand experience. Your correct that index funds will usually underperform the index they are following but that is pretty much guranteed to happen. If their investments themselves return the same as the index you still have to account for the cost of running the fund. After that expense is taken out of the p&l for the fund it will be returning below index. That doesn't imply poor management. Getting 8-10% annually out of managed funds and being diversified is much better than betting the farm on a single company, even if you work for that company.
Unfortunately your right in that you are stuck with the managed funds of whoever is running your 401(k). But as employees if they are bad enough and you make enough noise sometimes you can get management at your company to listen. It all depends on where you work. And your only stuck with that 401(k) plan as long as your at the company. As soon as you leave or retire you can roll retirement account into a self managed IRA and have infinte options. Besides I never said the managed funds were the best investment options in the world, just that options are there.
Demonskin
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 4:59pmFor those in the "they should have read the mortgage contract before they signed it" camp, I'd just like to point out that many of the people you're talking about are some of the same people that populate Barrens chat.
The average home buyer is not equipped to read and understand a 10-page legal contract, and is unlikely to have an attorney available to do it for them. The last time I bought real estate (a condo, not commercial) I had a lawyer go through the paperwork before I signed, and that cost me $650 just to have him read it and say "looks good". Most people aren't going to want to (and I think really shouldn't have to) shell out that kind of money to an attorney to feel reasonably safe in buying a home.
Micah
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 5:05pmWhere is the logic in this, if you don't understand and your unwilling to pay someone else to understand it for you, then you get to deal with the results if you screw up. I don't see why that shouldn't be how it is. I paid $800 when I closed on my place for my lawyer. But it's better than getting stuck in something contractually that I don't want. I'd rather pay a few hundred dollars now than get screwed for thousands later.
Sumul
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 6:12pmA lot of the predatory lending was actually going on in Barrens chat.
[1. General][Legolas] wear is mnakriks wife lol
[1. General][Deadlyshark] lol ill show u if u take this lone
[1. General][Legolas] kk
Sumul
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 6:25pmI think this is where the "predatory" in "predatory lending" comes into play. Unscrupulous lenders know that people aren't logical. If you claim to be some sort of authority and start telling people that NINA loans are going to solve all of their problems, some of those people are going to believe you, because they're desperate, and you're telling them exactly the sort of thing they've been hoping to hear.
Like people have said above, some people were stupid, some were taken advantage of, and I'm sure others were outright lied to in some cases.
Micah
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 8:10pmChuck Norris took out a subprime loan. When they tried to reset it he reset their faces.
Demonskin
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 8:34pmVasya
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 8:43pmXD Sumul == genius.
Demonskin
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 11:28pmAlso, I was caught in traffic behind the Wienermobile today. It had the license plate "I WSH IWR".
Qyn
Thu, 05/22/2008 - 6:21am/agree
Crazy Rambles
Wed, 05/28/2008 - 4:33pmHrm, need to make a Red cross for ppl's finances
Crazy Rambles
Wed, 05/28/2008 - 4:45pmAlso as personal planning goes, when i went to Berk's Garden for farm work I had to help clean up a double-wide that ppl had been evicted from, it was really sad to see the mess they lives in, they had been evicted about 2 weeks b4 i got there to clean up but the grass was at least 12" tall
there were quite a few children's toys haphazardly strewn about, Sobe, McDonalds, Arbys trash all over, their animal cages (a bird one and possibly a small furry animal) were on their back deck, laden w/ water, a decomposing mole,or mouse was under the deck as well and near their front porch were the contents of their fridge, which they just dumped over the side while leaving, and shattered glass that could have been a window pane
the inside was worse
cigarettes were all over, feces (small animal or something? possibly invading rodents after they left?), tons of trash...candy& candy wrappers, partial action figures, paper scraps and various trash, the inside smelled horrible, in the female child's room there were a few crayons, toys (and toy remnants), and some sort of double sided knife (with a plastic handle)
I now know the true meaning of trailer trash, and kinda wish i didn't
but hopefully they will eventually snap out of this lifestyle and find a way to improve it
Crazy Rambles
Wed, 05/28/2008 - 4:54pmargh! /offtopic
>.<
Crazy Rambles
Wed, 05/28/2008 - 5:06pmThis remind me of the article i saw in our local newspaper that stated the Air force spent either a couple million (or billion) in researching telepathy (or one of it's strands)
Tigue (not verified)
Wed, 05/28/2008 - 5:15pmOh sorry, I'll try to keep the rellies out of the military next time. XD
Crazy Rambles
Wed, 05/28/2008 - 6:51pm/failing
at comprehending Tigue's message
sry, plz elaborate the meaning (mainly the rellies part)