No, the balloon wasn't "at the end," .

80% of the subprime mortgages were what is called 'adjustable-rate'. That means, at any time, the lender (bank) could adjust the interest rate based on the perceived risk of the loan during 'x' market and also the cost of loans to the lender at a later time.

This is designed to place the interest-rate risk from the lender to the borrower.

The problem wasn't one of 'stupidity', but of ignorance and malicious lending practices.

It also wasn't a "scam by the liberals" either. Clinton isn't a liberal - he created a new party but attempted to call it the Democratic party, but it was/is anything but.

The blame for what happened in the mortgage debacle goes all the way back to Reagan and continued on through every President since. They have all pushed for less regulatory control on the market, for banks, and for nearly every large business in the nation (laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work, if you haven't noticed).

Each President since and including Reagan took part in what happened and what will happen.

But also, it's very important to understand that the President cannot be to blame for everything that goes wrong since it is Congress that has more power than the President, and for good reason...but even that is changing.

We have problems in this nation, but those problems are coming from both parties... these problems come from the establishment.

Since you're so stuck on partisan-politics, you're going to fail to see the devastation your beloved conservatives have caused, but I urge you to open that brain of yours and realize the Democrats and Republicans (the establishment ones, and the Tea-baggers) are two sides of the same coin.

Keep dividing the nation by blaming one side and you'll continue seeing these issues continue. Start realizing that we're all here for the same thing (for the most part) and maybe then you will see just how f'd up both parties really are.

What does 'manning up' have anything to do with entitled female mentality?

That's another saying that is stupid. 'Man-up' is an overly-used term that is thrown around at any point in someone's life to, I guess, make themselves feel better, or, more like men?

Whatever the case is, I've found those using such terms to be very insecure and lacking in several areas of their own life. I guess that's what happens when your life revolves around your own faux-masculinity.

I'm not complaining about being a single parent - that's my point. Why not troll someone else?

Right and wrong are relative terms.

Some believe it's wrong to fall in love with a person of the same gender, or to have sex with a person of the same gender; other people believe it is right.

So I don't agree that 'right is right all the time' nor do I believe wrong is wrong all the time.

It all depends on the person.

The past adjusts our future. The present adjusts our past and our future. The future is merely a dream-state in our minds.

The thing we should all strive for is living in the now, remembering the past to change our future, which eventually becomes the present, which means the most important part in life is the present, not the past or the future since both clash in the present.

the term "I'm a single Mom"?

I hear this term from women that have the fathers taking the children every week while paying god awful amounts of child support.

I hear this term from married women when their husbands go on a trip or leave for a day.

I hear this from single mothers who never actually have their children because their parents take them and don't charge them a dime to watch the kids.

It's almost like women wear this as a double-sided badge; one side is designed to evoke sympathy and 'things' from others and the other side is designed as a badge of honor.

I know what it's like raising children alone, because I've been doing it for the last 5 years, but the whole "I'm a single mom" thing is getting very old.

Okay, you're a parent that has no partner. Great, we get it. We all have responsibilities and life can be tough, but using this term to hold yourself up in some kind of wonderful light just doesn't cut it anymore.

And maybe I sound like I'm bitter, and that's because I am slightly bitter. When I go to the park with my kids, and I have no woman around, I get some of the most hateful looks from all these "single moms" out there.

I've even had these women grab their children and leave the park while giving me these 'go-to-hell' looks.

I mean, is being a man at a park with his two children that scary of a thing for women? I get that there are pervs that slink around, but I think the reaction I get being a single parent is overkill to the extreme.

And the double-standard of being a single mother and a single father is ludicrous, and quite frankly, disgusting.

We're just parents. Being single isn't the greatest thing for our children (or so the experts tell us), but we are parents. Stop using the 'single' crap to get sympathy or use it as a way to treat others like crap or diminish the struggles of those around you.

Okay, my rant is now over. :)

Hehe

Not many people understand the reference, and maybe that's why they have a hard time finding a "MILF."

:)

1) Women are now more capable of dictating their own future than they ever used to be.

2) Most women want the 'bad boy' for fun and the 'nice guy' for nesting. But it has been this way since the beginning of time, and it also has a lot to do with a woman's role in society.

3) There's a reason women are more likely to get pregnant from a lover rather than her significant other. In fact, men and women are both designed to favor the 'cheater's' sperm over the long-term partner's sperm. There's a very good reason for that.

Just about everything our bodies are designed to want/like/etc is to further our species, selecting the best genes with the best traits.

Being a 'nice guy' is similar to being submissive to women. While women would prefer a man who is willing to give in for the purposes of 'nesting', they also become more aroused by the guys that don't care about them, show confidence, and are capable of 'securing' a sexual partner.

The better the genes, the more likely they are to be spread.

All I can say is to stop being a nice guy, stop viewing women as mythical creatures, stop viewing women as fragile princesses, and you're more likely to find a mate.

It's weird, but women are technically designed to seek someone they believe will protect them and their offspring, and that typically means getting with the A-hole. It's all about furthering our species and mating with the best genes.

That's actually incorrect. People came out to buy houses they could afford with their monthly payments but most were lied to about the ballooning payments.

So, do you blame the person seeking that piece of American pie (working, owning property, thriving) or do you blame the person that KNEW they were selling something the individual wouldn't be able to afford in the future, yet lied to them anyway to turn a quick buck.

There is blame on both sides, but from where I'm sitting, the ones that knew all about those bad loans are the ones that caused this problem.

Anything to make a buck, yeah? I guess that's their American dream.... get rich quick while destroying everyone else.

I think it takes some kind of pervert to look at a parent kissing their child on the lips and think "sex."

If that makes you think sexual thoughts, then perhaps you should see a therapist about that.

It's a sign of affection, nothing more. I mean damn. Americans are some of the most perverted prude people in the world.

I see a lot of bashing people who were victimized by greedy bankers, but not a lot of blaming the people behind the shady deals.

The issue wasn't that banks could/would loan to people with less-than-stellar credit; the issue was that the banks issued loans they knew would balloon, rendering them completely unaffordable.

I think it's disgusting that anyone would blame people who could afford the monthly payments at the beginning of their loan, but couldn't afford it when it doubled and sometimes tripled. Not many people would be able to afford that.

"They should have read the terms."

Yeah, they should've pulled out their magnifying glass and read something most of them wouldn't have understood anyway, sure.

"They should have hired an [insert related expert's title here]"

Right, because these people have [expert's title] on their speed-dial.

Someone chasing the faux-American-dream, yet here you people are, claiming they are the cause of the collapse, but say nothing of the greed that continues to permeate our banking industry.

You will get yours one day.

I seriously doubt you're going to have any luck using the term "MILF" to refer to the woman you are wanting to. . . well. . . you know.

Self-respecting women are going to pass you right on by. You might try using a little tact; that's more than likely why it's "been very dry" where you are.

Just trying to help.

I have to agree with MH on a lot of points here, and it's often difficult to agree in such a manner simply because of society's reaction to anything related to pedophilia.

It is true that there are varying degrees of punishment for child molestation vs possessing child pornography, but the saddest part of that? Child molesters actually get less prison time than individuals that either view or possess child porn.

That's an issue, and it's a big one for me, and here's why:

Sexual addiction is a real thing and it does affect a lot of people around the world. I believe there are various branches of sex addiction that branch off into the taboo.

If you do research on this topic, as I have written research papers regarding this ridiculous justice system, you'll find that most people who are into viewing taboo topics online (bestiality, CP, snuff, torture porn, etc) almost never act out in any way, because they're simply in it for the shock factor, the 'wtf'.

But then you'll read about these pervs that view bikini images of children, etc. (which is legal dependent on the poses), and those are far more likely to act on their impulses.

It's a very weird dynamic, but it's there.

So our justice system (which is used as a political tool to seem "tough" on some things) go after the low-hanging fruit, because it's relatively easy to trace those viewing and storing CP on their various devices, but that does nothing to protect children. . . nothing at all.

The article quoted above claims that every 'viewing' of an image is an abuse of the child, but that's simply not true. It isn't true from a logical standpoint, nor from a judicial standpoint.

Those taking the images/videos are the ones harming children. Once a person views the image, the damage has already been done.

I'd also like to point out that it's one thing to view images posted by someone, but it's something entirely different to seek out people to take the pictures for another - anyone seeking the pictures from a direct source IS damaging the child. Anyone paying for pictures IS damaging a child.

But, viewing images/videos is not harming the child when the viewer doesn't pay for it or beg for more, etc.

But I think the biggest point to be made here is that rapists. . . child rapists. . . get lesser sentences than those viewing/possessing CP. That is an issue that needs to be addressed.

For those that harm children in that way (or even just physical abuse) should have every book thrown at them. I don't feel sorry for what happens to rapists in prison, and it's a welcoming thought to know that even criminals in a prison have morals enough to destroy the life of a child-abuser while he/she is in prison.

Anyway, that's my rant for today.