Bubbles Instead of Income
Atrios remarks:
Some people losing their homes were victims of bad lending practices. Some people, however, saw their houses as ATMs. In some cases people might have been pulling out money to fund emergency expenditures, but given the apparent volume of mortgage equity extraction it’s hard not to conclude that lots of people were just enjoying the extra funds. There’s a weird psychology to all of this. I stand by my earlier take that people didn’t really think they were taking out loans, but were instead essentially selling off a piece of their home to the bank. That’s what “mortgage equity extraction” would really be.
I think it’s important for progressives to shift the dial, relative to these sentiments, a bit away from shadenfreude and back toward the sympathy setting. The missing fact in this narrative is stagnating incomes. Incomes fell from their late-Clinton highs early in the Bush years and though that recession was mild by historical standards, the subsequent recovery was preposterously weak by historical standards. Even years later, incomes hadn’t re-achieved their late-Clinton high point and then we started tumbling into the current downturn. People were, yes, “just enjoying the extra funds” and without really understanding — or wanting to understand — what they were doing. But the policymakers responsible for running the country didn’t raise any warning signs about these trends or even try to initiate a discussion about whether there was any reasonable way to keep things under control. Meanwhile, the broad conservative movement spent a lot of time trying to shout down anyone who worried about rising inequality or stagnant wages by pointing out that the trends looked better if you only examined consumption. In other words, if you ignored the fact that people were maintaining consumption growth by piling on more debt, things looked great! And yet, now somehow things don’t look so great….
Obviously, the mere fact that conservative politicians, hacks, and operatives were egging this trend on didn’t force anyone to accumulate enormous debts. Plenty of people didn’t do so. But the underlying ill here is economic policies that sought to substitute an asset price bubble and innovative credit products for real, broadly-based prosperity.
65 Responses to “Bubbles Instead of Income”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 10th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I was eating breakfast, but thanks for the gross picture.
October 10th, 2008 at 11:25 am
“But the underlying ill here is economic policies that sought to substitute an asset price bubble and innovative credit products for real, broadly-based prosperity.”
That absolutely nails it.
October 10th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Putting that photo on your blog is a form of assault. Thanks for the reverse trolling dude.
October 10th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Seriously, that picture. Don’t do that.
October 10th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I spend an inordinate amount of time arguing with right-wingers on blogs. In the two years or so I’ve been telling them about income inequality and rising poverty rates, they’ve been claiming the Bush economy was doing fine because hey, look at the stock market and rates of home ownership, etc.
Those guys have of course switched to the argument that the economy has tanked due to policies enacted by the Democrats(!)
October 10th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Folks were encouraged to see the lush life of CEOs and highrollers as something to aspire to, to lust after, to believe was just around the corner for us. Maybe our income wasn’t growing — but the housing market continued to boom and we could just borrow against what surely will come true tomorrow. Even folks trying to be sensible found it hard to resist the notion that things were going to get better — because look how the markets continued to rise. Surely that would be passed on to me soon.
Turning people against their economic self-interest by creating an illusory kinship with the wealthy and powerful is as old as the plantation myth.
And the Bush administration and our financial leaders knowingly did this, with a smirk.
October 10th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Just a thought:
Anyone in the financial world with half a brain new that the real-estate bubble would pop. Yet they continued on with things like everything was normal, while making a lot of money.
Was it the goal of the Bush administration to try avoid the economic reckoning until after the election, much like 2004?
And the scary thing is, they were about 2-3 months away from doing that. I think this might be the answer to why no one in treasury of the Federal Reserve did anything until they had no choice. They tried to wait out the clock to give the GOP 4 more years, and missed it by a few months.
October 10th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Folks were encouraged to see the lush life of CEOs and highrollers as something to aspire to, to lust after, to believe was just around the corner for us.
The thing is that Americans have been like this as long as I can remember (I was born in the mid-70s). I don’t think there was anything special about the past 10 years that made Americans more like that than usual.
October 10th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Reich had an interesting essay a while back that basically said incomes have been stagnant for so long, and Americans have been compensating with various coping mechanisms, and we’re out of mechanisms now. First women streamed into the workplace, not necessarily because they were eager to add stress to their lives but because they needed the money. When that wasn’t enough, we all worked more, fewer vacations, more second jobs. When that didn’t keep pace, we borrowed against houses and credit cards. There isn’t anything left. Wages have to go up.
October 10th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Hi there,
I looked over your blog and it looks really good. Do you ever do link exchanges on your blog roll? If you do, I’d like to exchange links with you.
Let me know if you’re interested.
Thanks..
October 10th, 2008 at 11:58 am
IZZIT SAFE???
October 10th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I rarely disagree entirely with something Matt writes, but this is one of those times. Stagnating incomes over the last few years is NOT the reason people resorted to using imagined equity for cash. They did it because they thought it was a sucker deal NOT to. I have zero desire to help them out beyond the point that preserves the fabric and viability of communities, rather than the tenure of individual homeowners. In practice this does require bailing out many homeowners who made stupid and greedy decisions, but let the record show that I’m not doing it for them. They enjoyed several years of living beyond their means, while responsible people (including renters) did not.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
“But the underlying ill here is economic policies that sought to substitute an asset price bubble and innovative credit products for real, broadly-based prosperity.”
That absolutely nails it.
Combine this with Phil Gramm-style anti-regulation mania, and you get a market panic. (Even Bob Rubin and Lawrence Summers were against regulation – the era of Big
Government was over.)
Two years ago, who would have thought we’d be electing a black President and nationalizing the banks?
October 10th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Keep in mind that we had a President whose response to 9/11 was to tell the nation to go shopping.
Seriously, if you’ve got thousands of banks reckless enough to issue NINJA loans, it’s ridiculous to think the regulatory strategy here is for people to turn down free money. And it’s downright crooked for your Fed Chair to be telling these same people to take on ARMs.
We had a government whose official policy was to encourage the worst kind of financial recklessness in its citizens, while allowing predatory behavior by corporations.
Should people have resisted? Of course. And a lot of them did. And a lot of people who didn’t will lose their shirts. Along with a lot of innocent people who had the bad luck to live on a block where half their neighbors were flippers who got foreclosed on.
To a certain extent, this was the financial equivalent of taking down the speed limit signs, turning off the traffic lights, putting every cop on desk duty, and telling people to drink more beer. Don’t be surprised when there’s a massive pileup on I-80.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
A-freakin-men!! Matt, your post is spot on. Yes, people have responsibility but this is partly what massive income inequality brings on, esp. in a country of hope like the USA. Everyone believes they can be a Lehman CEO even if it isn’t their goal in life. And when their wages are stuck, their debt levels are rising but their house has great value they make up the difference. It is human nature.
And the Lehman CEO’s of the world, the free market ideologues, the unfettered capitalists of the world need to realize that the economy, consumption, rising DOW has all been built on the backs of the American consumer. We are the only ones with the ability to drive the world economy and, with wages stuck, it has been financed by credit. We are now coming back to where we should be, albeit with people carrying a ton of debt and nobody bailing them out. When you devalue work and workers this is what you get. You can seek out cheap wages to maximize profits but when you leave behind those workers who you feel were paid too much for your business to survive, those same workers whose buying power drove your business profits, this is the consequence. Sure, Americans are better off than everyone else but the simple truth is it costs a lot to be an American.
Bottom line, Americans are tapped out. I think we have just come back to reality and this will all balance out. People will still try to find ways to push paper and call it money to bring back the days of “irrational exuberance” only to find it is non-sustainable. This is what this is all about. What we have been doing, expecting is not sustainable. You have to pay people. You have to change tax policy. Hell, now we are hearing that Chinese and Indian workers are demanding too high wages. Profit expectations have to change. Slow,steady growth ideas must return. Otherwise, you just continue this boom/bust. Will people understand this? Probably not. But sometimes necessity makes people understand what they don’t want to.
Sorry for the rambling dissertation from a non-MBA, liberal, common sense, healthcare worker who thinks he understands economy. But to me, what we are seeing now is truly validation for all of us who have said that things need to change, only to be scoffed at as not understanding the markets. And I’m just as guilty as most at being a consumer.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
The Era of Little Government didn’t last very long.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Sure, incomes stagnated, but a major reason why people tapped into home equity was because they wanted more toys: SUV’s, personal watercraft, mega-screen TV’s, top-of-the-line appliances, and so on. Many of these things were so pricey they would be unaffordable to typical consumers were it not for home equity.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Capitalism demands equal information AND it demands that there be no mechanism to see that such information exists.
We’re living out the effects of that conflict.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Sure, incomes stagnated, but a major reason why people tapped into home equity was because they wanted more toys…
Any actual evidence for that, or are you just arguing by assertion?
October 10th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Tyro, I think the idea is that while people were just as aspirational in this decade as in past decades, there wasn’t any way for a lot of people to put those aspirations into practice unless they rode the home equity gravy train.
Of course, the really bad thing about this was that it made the last few years look a lot better than they actually were.
Just to add to today’s gloom, we had similar overextension of consumers in 1929
October 10th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I don’t think there’s any evidence that people tapped into home equity primarily “because they wanted more toys”, as Peter says above. If there is, I’d like to see it.
I tapped into the home equity loan because it was there and I needed it to paint the house, pay for medical bills, sometimes even as an alternative to higher-interest rate used car loans, and sometimes to pay off credit-card debt. To some degree, the debts I was paying off were based on my assumption that I would always have a good job and an increasing income (obviously a stupid assumption these days, but it wasn’t always). To another degree, I didn’t have much choice. And I don’t have any toys.
So I think Matt is right. Obviously, many in the Baby Boom generation assumed that the middle class lifestyle was part of the natural order, even as that order crumbled around us, and that was a big mistake. But I don’t think the debt problems of most people are primarily the result of self-indulgence.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Something like 72 million Americans own their home outright. And roughly 40% of Americans rent. What you’re asking for is a transfer of wealth from the Americans that acted responsibly to those that have made poor real estate investments. I have sympathy for those that made poor real estate investments. I know lot’s of people like this. But why are people that made poor real estate investments worthy of help and not other groups that made poor financial decisions? Why should we pay off the debts of an underwater homeowner but not someone that racked up a bunch of credit card debt? Why not have the taxpayer pay off people’s auto loans or student loans? Lot’s of people whose wages were stagnant over the last 10 years piled up a lot of credit card debt and other debt. Why are homedebtors worthy of special treatment?
I’m with Atrios. I’m a progressive and I want to beef up our social safety net but not by rewarding bad real estate investments.
I encourage you to look at your progressive roots.
Let’s fix bankruptcy laws to allow people to start over easier. Let’s provide SHELTER or assistance in finding shelter, for those that are having trouble. Let’s provide the basics to those in need. Not a blanket amnesty to real estate deadbeats. Let’s not break the budget trying to prop up an asset class. Especially since the middle class needs housing to come back down so they can afford it again. Let’s provide jobs and a living wage and beef up retirement security and socialized health care.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
We need transparent markets that let us discover who is building the Weapons of Mass Financial Destruction, and who is profiting from their use.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Not-Petey,
So because you put your credit card balance on the home credit card, we, the taxpayers, should have to pay off your credit card bills? What makes you more deserving that a citizen that rented and racked up credit cards? Just because you were smart enough to “buy” a house? Why is that fair? Why should I pay off your credit card bill but I’m left to my own devices to pay off my credit card.
Should we demand some sort of mechanism that makes this fair? If we give free money to deadbeat homeowners should we demand that they didn’t put a bunch of consumer spending, etc., on the home credit card (through MEW–a HELOC or refinancing)?
October 10th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
As someone who flipped their house and used the money to pay for dental work (wisdom teeth), braces and jaw surgery (30 grand worth) I’m offended by that picture.
I didn’t refi for the full amount that the house appraised at. My mortgage is still above water because of that and I can afford my payment so shut it all of you.
It’s both. Tons of people just do not understand economics. They don’t have the background to tell them the deal is bad. They need cash and everyone is saying you’re a sucker for not tapping into your ‘built up equity’. You tell someone their equity is artificial when they have bills to pay and $50000 cash is staring them in the face. This is why we need to put adults in charge. A sucker and his money are soon parted but then the sucker needs assistance from the fed. The second part of the sentence is why we need to protect suckers. So we don’t have to fund them.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Not_Petey, that kind of depends on how you define self-indulgence. From another perspective, isn’t assuming that you deserve a “middle-class” lifestyle self-indulgent when you don’t have the actual income to back it up?
October 10th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I finally decided to write a comment on your blog. I just wanted to say good job. I really enjoy reading your posts.
October 10th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Financial acumen is not the primary motive force behind the advance of human welfare. It’s part of it, but science and the arts are mostly what propel us into better lives. To insist that scientists and artists take time away from their endeavors to learn the ins and outs of finance will slow our progress toward happiness. We must protect these super-productive financial naifs from the depredations of finance hucksters.
October 10th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
As long as we have job creation, a guarantee of health coverage, and a stable assurance that people will have a safety net in retirement in the form of social security, it doesn’t strike me as that important to “keep people in their homes.” They can always rent. The rhetoric about bailing out homeowners only makes sense if you assume that there is no other way for those families to live stable lives. The Republican policy goals, however, are trying to make that a reality.
To insist that scientists and artists take time away from their endeavors to learn the ins and outs of finance will slow our progress toward happiness.
As a scientist myself, I’m learning, as I go on in my career, that my future depends on my ability to master and understand a lot of financial issues related to saving and investing. While I find this frustrating, it’s not the end of the world, and it’s helpful in terms that it helps me avoid falling into debt traps and making poor economic decisions. Being involved in the sciences or the arts does not excuse you from the obligation to be a responsible economic planner.
October 10th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I figure I should mention that people who were living on debt were actually doing exactly what they were supposed to do. US consumer spending has been keeping the economic system going for a long time now. So it’s not surprising that nobody in a position of authority was going around telling consumers to knock it off.
Of course, unsustainable situations sooner or later are not sustained. I’m with Matt; real income redistribution is what’s needed now. The alternative is to rebalance the economy to run at a lower level of output and consumption.
@ James Gary: the evidence is that we had declining incomes and essentially constant spending. Some of that spending was necessary, like Not_Petey’s. But unless you think all of it was necessary, then some of that spending was just going into debt for luxuries.
October 10th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Last summer, the guy who should have been our precinct captain, up and pulled up stakes. He sold his home and moved to a cheaper house out of the precinct so that he could afford health insurance. So pardon me while I vent some bile over the idea that people dipped into home equity for “toys”. There are always ijuts, but everyone didn’t suddenly become one.
October 10th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Jesus Christ, what does that picture have to do with anything in the post?
October 10th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
That’s fine, but what kind of help will there be for those of us who neither made nor partook of bad loans?
October 10th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
SFHawkGuy says: So because you put your credit card balance on the home credit card, we, the taxpayers, should have to pay off your credit card bills? What makes you more deserving that a citizen that rented and racked up credit cards?
That’s not a point I made or even implied. My point is that we shouldn’t be automatically attributing people’s indebtedness to their unbridled irresponsibility and desire for “toys.” Often it’s just an attempt to survive until things get better.
Personally, I don’t need a bailout and I’m not underwater. The latter won’t happen until after the relatively stable high-tech company I work for — which has lost 25 percent of its value in two weeks — lays me off, and after I exhaust my 401k paying for Cobra, living expenses, and the mortgage.
AlanC9 says: Not_Petey, that kind of depends on how you define self-indulgence. From another perspective, isn’t assuming that you deserve a “middle-class” lifestyle self-indulgent when you don’t have the actual income to back it up?
The assumption is not that one “deserves” a middle-class lifestyle, but that one is destined to keep having one, based on life experience. That common assumption, while foolhardy, was not self-indulgent.
October 10th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
The subprime borrowers were paying PMI (private mortgage insurance premiums) to insure the lenders against the borrowers’ default.
That insurance is what made subprime bonds attractive — higher interest payments plus insurance against default. The insurers wrote policies for far larger amounts than they could pay out in claims — they attempted to diversify their risk through credit swaps but the complexity of the credit swap instruments instead often resulted in the insurers re-acquiring (albeit several levels down) that risk. The subprime bonds would have become far less attractive if insurers had stopped writing coverage.
The investment bankers “sliced & diced” the mortgages into various series of bonds and they kept the bonds lacking the insurance piece. When foreclosures started occurring last year, nobody wanted those uninsured bonds, so their market value became zero. Hence, Bear Stearns.
The recent turmoil reflects initial claims against the insurance policies and the markets’ realization that the insurers couldn’t pay all the potential claims.
Thus, the sophisticate risk-management experts (insurers and investment bankers) created the Wall Street crash. While the borrowers can only blame themselves for losing their homes, they’re not responsible for the Wall Street meltdown — in fact, borrowers even insured lenders against the borrowers’ own potential defaults !
October 10th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
The middle class in this country has been being hollowed out for decades, and this has been hidden or countered by a whole host of ad hoc measures – one job families because two or three job families, 2 week vacations became long weekends, etc. As part of that, people got used to treating their home equity as something they could expend. That’s worked for a while, but it cannot, by its nature, be extended indefinitely for everyone.
I think that we are facing either income redistribution, a mass decline in living standards, or both.
October 10th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Or to put it in a more radical way, a debt-fueled bubble was the latest (failed) expedient for overcoming capitalism’s chronic crisis of underconsumption.
The first expedient, which saved the system from its natural end in the Depression, was to blow up most of the productive capital in the world outside the U.S. (WWII). This was coupled with a permanent war economy which began with lend-lease and hasn’t stopped yet, which absorbs a major part of overproduction. And it was topped off by the Interstate Highway system, which created the automobile-highway complex as a sponge for surplus capital and output.
Unfortunately, these counteracting tendencies ran out of steam around 1970. The next expedient was neoliberalism and the massive export of capital, which is now running out of steam as China becomes saturated with foreign industrial investment and the rate of profit again begins to decline.
The tech industry created another sponge for surplus capital in the ’90s, and the debt-fueled real estate bubble maintained purchasing power after that.
But I think corporate capitalism’s about out of hail mary passes now.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
In order for capitalism to actually work in practice, prudence must be rewarded and the foolish must be punished. Shadenfreude doesn’t have anything to do with that.
The people who took out multiple HELOCs to buy “investment property” (that is, other than their personal, primary residence) or engage in flipping; who did cash-out refinances to buy ATVs and personal watercraft, etc. should not expect people who were scrimping and saving their pennies in order to put together a 15% or 20% down payment to “bail them out”.
The people who’ve been renting for ten or fifteen years because they’ve been mathematically eliminated from buying a home in the market where they work because the bulk of the market featured buyers taking out Alt-A “Liar loans” that artificially inflate the cost of real estate should not be expected to be “Happy Go Lucky” that their tax dollars are going to be used to rescue the same people who took advantage of the bubble and lived the life of Riley over the last five years.
The people who took advantage of the bubble need to be smacked, and smacked hard, by the invisible hand with foreclosure, opportunity cost imposed by having to deal with seven years of bad credit, and much, much more. Anything else creates a moral hazard, and virtually guarantees that this situation will happen again.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I’m hard-pressed to understand how this kind of holier-than-thou attitude contributes to the social wellbeing of communities. I only pick this quote as being representative of the attitude. I help people because they need help and it’s the right thing to do. This notion of helping people who “deserve” it is repugnant to decency. Unlike the characters exemplified in this comment by “Rich,” I don’t do background checks to determine who “deserves” my help and who should be spurned as “undeserving.”
It’s a tribute to the destructive effects of conservative propaganda that even so-called progressives and so-called liberals now think nothing of withholding help from those who need it because the needy don’t “deserve” to be helped. If, instead, we all helped without first requiring a judgement on fitness, then we’d have communities that were real communities, in which everyone was equally “deserving,” and everyone helped everyone else unstintingly. Wasn’t that a time.
Thanks.
mp
October 10th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
mp,
I want to “help” others as well. But you can’t help everyone. There is going to be a lot of pain ahead and we have to do triage. And yes, some people deserve help before others. And speculators in private markets that profited handsomely in the good times and are partially responsible for creating a bubble market are near the end of my list to “help”. I’m even more outraged at having to bail out the banks that were speculating in these markets and making a killing all those years but I’m also upset at bailing out the individual speculators. There are lots of Americans that will need help in the upcoming depression–not just underwater housing speculators.
And yes, in a quasi capitalist society, or even a just society, people that take economic risks, and that get to reap the benefits during good times, should be the primary ones to bear the pain during the bad times. I don’t see how you get to turn it around and say they get the best of both worlds and us savers/renters get the worst of both worlds yet you’re the one that’s compassionate.
Remember, the homeowners reaped all the gains on the upside. As middle class families were being priced out of the market some people were sucking out huge sums of money as the housing bubble took off. Many people paid for “good things” out of this money, they moved up to a bigger house, a new car, paid of credit cards, or medical bills, or put it into the house. Some spent it on a lifestyle they didn’t earn. But renters and savers also had these expenses over the years. What about the renter that had medical bills and credit cards and auto loans and lost his job? Unlike the homedebtor, he didn’t have a home to take equity out and pay off those bills. A homedebtor can always walk away from the house and has a much easier time of not paying off his debt. A renter has a much harder time of not paying off his debt.
Plus, many homeowners lived in homes that they never would have otherwise been able to live in if it were not for loose lending. I know of many people not making over 100K that live (or lived) in million dollar homes. Us renters/savers lived in smaller places while we saw the price of homes go up and out of reach thanks to the speculators. And the speculators made some good profits.
I would rather help the people that need the help the most and in the most efficient manner. Trying to prop up an asset bubble only helps the bankers and the speculators. Let’s help the people in the real economy that really need and DESERVE our help the most. For me that is:
Bankruptcy reform. We need to restore humane bankruptcy laws (that the Democrats helped kill) so people can get on with their lives. It’s disgusting we’re “helping” investment banks get through insolvency but we put millions of decent Americans into a virtual debtor’s prison.
Regulate the banks, investment banks, and insurance companies. This loose lending has to stop. Predatory lending has to stop. And allow any private suits to go forward.
Retirement security. Make sure we have social security and make corporations honor their pension promises.
Socialized health care. Want to stimulate the economy? Do that.
I’ll help underwater home speculators. But they have to step in line with the rest of us that need help. They shouldn’t get to jump ahead because they took part in a huge bubble.
October 10th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Re: I think the idea is that while people were just as aspirational in this decade as in past decades, there wasn’t any way for a lot of people to put those aspirations into practice unless they rode the home equity gravy train.
Really? Then how have renters managed to keep or get ahead? I have rented since 1999. In 2000 my income was c. 50K. Then there were a couple of bad years when that declined in the 30K range (I took in roomates to make ends meet) but beginning in 2004 my finances began a steady recovery and I am now breaking 70K this year.
Maybe the home equity opportunity was just too easy. If homeowners had not had that option they would have had to find more sustainable ways to keep up and/or get ahead. such ways do exist, I am proof of that. And no, I was not born with a silver spoon, or foot, in my mouth.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I am a regular reader of both this and Irvinehousingblog.
One thing to keep in mind is that while Irvine Housing Blog does occasionally mention national/global macro trend, it’s mostly about the local culture of a small slice of Orange County.
I don’t live in Irvine, but another similar bubble area in California. And I have witness similar behavior patten of mortgage equity extraction and consumption pattern.
I have no sympathy for those people. The saying goes, “The people you stepped on on your way up ….”
However, it’s important to keep in mind the different scopes we are discussing here. While observation is accurate and truthful at local level, that not always make a good basis for national policy making.
October 11th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
JonF, a lot of renters simply did not get or keep ahead. You did, and good for you. But it’s pretty clear that your income track doesn’t match the trend lines for the past decade. The increasing part, that is.
October 31st, 2008 at 5:19 pm
zlefanrpj vjnfwbh elpjafws vshqjdum yeux nupqbjxl hgki
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
[b]Are You Looking To Meet Someone Over The Holidays?[/b]
[b]Mate1 Dating Site – Holiday Coupon Code – 3 Months Absolutely Free![/b]
Mate1 boasts a membership of over 16 million online daters with a ratio of 50% men and 50% women for the most even playing field on the Internet. It’s by far the hottest dating site on the internet right now… You are guaranteed to meet someone you like!
Mate1 is running a special holiday promotion this week – They are giving away 3 months of free access to new members (Men and Women). Absolutely no credit card/payment required.
[b]Instructions on how to get 3 months of free access to Mate1:[/b]
[b]1)[/b]
Go to this link – http://www.passionisgr8.com
[b]2)[/b]
Signup for a free trial account.
During the signup process it will ask you if you want to signup for a ‘Free Trial Account’ or if you want to ‘Subscribe/Pay’ – You want to select “Free Trial Account”.
[b]3)[/b]
Once you have successfully signed up and verified your email address and contact information proceed to the subscription link on the Mate1 website.
[b]4)[/b]
On the subscription screen there is a place for a coupon code – Enter “HOLIDAY” and click Apply. You will now see you have 3 months of access credited to your account. Enjoy!
Note: Make sure you follow the steps above completely. During the initial signup process it’s important that you do not select subscription because the coupon code field will not be visible. You need to create a free trial account first.
[b]Happy Holidays!
Mate1[/b]
January 5th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
[b]Are You Looking To Meet Someone Over The Holidays?[/b]
[b]Mate1 Dating Site – Holiday Coupon Code – 3 Months Absolutely Free![/b]
Mate1 boasts a membership of over 16 million online daters with a ratio of 50% men and 50% women for the most even playing field on the Internet. It’s by far the hottest dating site on the internet right now… You are guaranteed to meet someone you like!
Mate1 is running a special holiday promotion this week – They are giving away 3 months of free access to new members (Men and Women). Absolutely no credit card/payment required.
[b]Instructions on how to get 3 months of free access to Mate1:[/b]
[b]1)[/b]
Go to this link – http://www.married2youall.com
[b]2)[/b]
Signup for a free trial account.
During the signup process it will ask you if you want to signup for a ‘Free Trial Account’ or if you want to ‘Subscribe/Pay’ – You want to select “Free Trial Account”.
[b]3)[/b]
Once you have successfully signed up and verified your email address and contact information proceed to the subscription link on the Mate1 website.
[b]4)[/b]
On the subscription screen there is a place for a coupon code – Enter “HOLIDAY” and click Apply. You will now see you have 3 months of access credited to your account. Enjoy!
Note: Make sure you follow the steps above completely. During the initial signup process it’s important that you do not select subscription because the coupon code field will not be visible. You need to create a free trial account first.
[b]Happy Holidays!
Mate1[/b]
January 6th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
[b]Are You Looking To Meet Someone Over The Holidays?[/b]
[b]Mate1 Dating Site – Holiday Coupon Code – 3 Months Absolutely Free![/b]
Mate1 boasts a membership of over 16 million online daters with a ratio of 50% men and 50% women for the most even playing field on the Internet. It’s by far the hottest dating site on the internet right now… You are guaranteed to meet someone you like!
Mate1 is running a special holiday promotion this week – They are giving away 3 months of free access to new members (Men and Women). Absolutely no credit card/payment required.
[b]Instructions on how to get 3 months of free access to Mate1:[/b]
[b]1)[/b]
Go to this link – http://www.lukin4luv.com
[b]2)[/b]
Signup for a free trial account.
During the signup process it will ask you if you want to signup for a ‘Free Trial Account’ or if you want to ‘Subscribe/Pay’ – You want to select “Free Trial Account”.
[b]3)[/b]
Once you have successfully signed up and verified your email address and contact information proceed to the subscription link on the Mate1 website.
[b]4)[/b]
On the subscription screen there is a place for a coupon code – Enter “HOLIDAY” and click Apply. You will now see you have 3 months of access credited to your account. Enjoy!
Note: Make sure you follow the steps above completely. During the initial signup process it’s important that you do not select subscription because the coupon code field will not be visible. You need to create a free trial account first.
[b]Happy Holidays!
Mate1[/b]
January 9th, 2009 at 3:16 am
[b]Are You Looking To Meet Someone Over The Holidays?[/b]
[b]Mate1 Dating Site – Holiday Coupon Code – 3 Months Absolutely Free![/b]
Mate1 boasts a membership of over 16 million online daters with a ratio of 50% men and 50% women for the most even playing field on the Internet. It’s by far the hottest dating site on the internet right now… You are guaranteed to meet someone you like!
Mate1 is running a special holiday promotion this week – They are giving away 3 months of free access to new members (Men and Women). Absolutely no credit card/payment required.
[b]Instructions on how to get 3 months of free access to Mate1:[/b]
[b]1)[/b]
Go to this link – http://www.bluredcar.com
[b]2)[/b]
Signup for a free trial account.
During the signup process it will ask you if you want to signup for a ‘Free Trial Account’ or if you want to ‘Subscribe/Pay’ – You want to select “Free Trial Account”.
[b]3)[/b]
Once you have successfully signed up and verified your email address and contact information proceed to the subscription link on the Mate1 website.
[b]4)[/b]
On the subscription screen there is a place for a coupon code – Enter “HOLIDAY” and click Apply. You will now see you have 3 months of access credited to your account. Enjoy!
Note: Make sure you follow the steps above completely. During the initial signup process it’s important that you do not select subscription because the coupon code field will not be visible. You need to create a free trial account first.
[b]Happy Holidays!
Mate1[/b]
January 18th, 2009 at 5:45 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
laptop battery
March 1st, 2009 at 5:02 am
viagra
Incredible site!
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:32 am
levitraIt is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:19 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:02 am
Incredible site!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Hello World
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:55 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:22 am
viagra
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:47 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra