and yeah, what if condoms do have sponsors

This is one reason why we need to save energy

Why do women hate similes?

Because....


1. Men are like .......Laxatives ... They irritate the shit out of you.

2. Men are like ..... Bananas .... The older they get, the less firm they are.

3. Men are like ...... Weather .. Nothing can be done to change them..

4. Men are like ..... Blenders .. You need one, but you're not quite sure why.

5. Men are like .... Chocolate Bars . Sweet, smooth, & they usually head right for your hips.

6. Men are like ....... Commercials ... You can't believe a word they say.

7. Men are like ..... Department Stores .. Their clothes are always 1/2 off.

8. Men are like ..... Government Bonds .. They take soooooooo long to mature.

9. Men are like .... Mascara .... They usually run at the first sign of emotion.

10. Men are like ..... Popcorn ... They satisfy you, but only for a little while.

11. Men are like .... Snowstorms... You never know when they're coming,
how many inches you'll get or how long it will last.

12. Men are like ..... Lava Lamps .. Fun to look at, but not very bright.

13. Men are like ..... Parking Spots .... All the good ones are taken, the rest are handicapped.


Disclaimer: I am a Man, & I don't have any clue how this thing ended in here. This do not apply to my older friends, or maybe it does. You figure it out.

Reasons why we need to go to church

 

maxipad

 I received this forwarded email from a friend and its really funny and somewhat true about women's monthly period.  This was an actual letter from an Austin woman sent to Proctor and Gamble regarding their feminine products.

Dear Mr. Thatcher,

I have been a loyal user of your 'Always' maxi pads for over 20 years
and I appreciate many of their features. Why, without the LeakGuard Core
or Dri-Weave absorbency, I'd probably never go horseback riding or salsa
dancing, and I'd certainly steer clear of running up and down the beach
in tight, white shorts. But my favorite feature has to be your
revolutionary Flexi-Wings. Kudos on being the only company smart enough
to realize how crucial it is that maxi pads be aerodynamic. I can't tell
you how safe and secure I feel each month knowing there's a little F-16
in my pants.

Have you ever had a menstrual period, Mr. Thatcher? I'm guessing you
haven't. Well, my time of the month is starting right now. As I type, I
can already feel hormonal forces violently s urging through my body.
Just a few minutes from now, my body will adjust and I'll be transformed
into what my husband likes to call 'an inbred hillbilly with knife
skills.' Isn't the human body amazing?

As Brand Manager in the Feminine-Hygiene Division, you've no doubt seen
quite a bit of research on what exactly happens during your customer's
monthly visits from 'Aunt Flo'. Therefore, you must know about the
bloating, puffiness, and cramping we endure, and about our intense mood
swings, crying jags, and out-of-control behavior. You surely realize
it's a tough time for most women.

The point is, sir, you of all people must realize that America is just
crawling with homicidal maniacs in Capri pants... Which brings me to the
reason for my letter. Last month, while in the throes of cramping so
painful I wanted to reach inside my body and yank out my uterus, I
opened an Always maxi-pad, and there, printed on the adhesive backing,
were these words:
'Have a Happy Period.'

Are you f------ kidding me? What I mean is, does any part of your tiny
middle-manager brain really think happiness - actual smiling, laughing
happiness, is possible during a menstrual period? Did anything mentioned
above sound the least bit pleasurable? Well, did it, James? FYI, unless
you're some kind of sick S&M freak, there will never be anything 'happy'
about a day in which you have to jack yourself up on Motrin and Kahlua
and lock yourself in your house just so you don't march down to the
local Walgreen's armed with a hunting rifle and a sketchy plan to end
your life in a blaze of glory.

For the love of God, pull your head out, man! If you have to slap a
moronic message on a maxi pad, wouldn't it make more sense to say
something that's actually pertinent, like 'Put down the Hammer' or
'Vehicular Manslaughter is Wrong',

Sir, please inform your Accounting Department that, effective
immediately, there will be an $8 drop in monthly profits, for I have
chosen to take my maxi-pad business elsewhere. And though I will
certainly miss your Flex-Wings, I will not for one minute miss your
brand of condescending bullshit. And that's a promise I will keep.

*Always. . .
*
Best,
Wendi Aarons
Austin , TX

I wish the both of you well

Five years ago my Brother got married at San Agustin church


here's their onsite wedding video:

I wish a lifetime of love to both of you.

Because I'm living in a fast food nation

           I wish there is a simpler way to stay healthy, I wish everything can be taken for granted, but of course it won't be happening in the near future. If you have seen TV infomercials about losing weight without even trying or without even changing your diet you might be wondering about the truth behind these schemes. Yeah, I am on McDonalds Diet and I want to lose weight, now beat that.

           With our culture heavily dependent on fastfoods, have you wonder about their nutritional facts? Fast food companies today are required to post the calories on each piece on their menu, but have you ever wonder why there has to be an excess of something, like why should a quarter pounder be 740 calories and not 700 or 800? and a smoothie has to be 330 calories? Well, if you are keen about the amount of calories, sugar and sodium that you are eating, you should take note of this, because math wise if you are in a drive thru and you order both you would always "round down" This is because, each of them has below the "50" decimal so its going to be 700 plus 300 which is a thousand. Now if you add an iced coffee because you just feel good that you ordered a 1000 calorie menu, that's another 240 calories, and you still feel good because you just had a 1200 calorie lunch which is the normal calorie count required--you better think again because you are 110 calories over and you just overshoot your dietary intake of sugar and sodium by over 200% daily value in just one meal.

          This might be the reason why we circle around events of weight loss and weight gain, then struggle for right diet and exercise. of course its not easy, and there is no easy way around it. some argue that exercise might be bad for you. Last week, yahoo.com was flooded with blogs about exercise causing depression, and chocolates as comfort foods. What is happening with us?

             In MBA school the only business model which I can remember and understand well was of McDonalds, that is quite alarming right?  Yeah, the company is an excellent example of a successful model, its not even .01 percent as complicated as the LTCM model which I could not decipher. It is true  that McDonalds have grown to a billion dollar franchise, but what's alarming is the statistics behind it. Because for McDonalds to be at its current state all the people in the world should have spent  trillions of dollars. I know what you are thinking, that money could have paid our national debt. Last year alone the revenue reported by the company was over $24 billion from its 32,000 restaurants. Just imagine how many Big Macs that is? I am not condemning McDonalds, I don't love fastfoods but I don't hate them, I think they are  an ugly necessity.

Supersize me, the movie which came out in 2004 is an excellent example of what fast food companies can do for us. Just imagine how many calories each quarter pounder has, its like I'm paying top dollars for the extra calories and extra dollars to lose the weight. I wish McDonalds would invest in Weight Watchers or Golds Gym, but no! fast foods encourages poor nutrition for its own profit. Just look at our obesity rate, a little over 28 percent of the whole population is already obese. The direct medical cost to obesity and indirect economical loss is way over $100 billion and today 1 in 4 children is obese. Whose to blame? The parents? The fast food industry? The congress?

Last year the American Journal of medicine announced that a little bit of fat could actually save a person from a stroke.  So what's next? Raising the current BMI levels? does this mean I need to gain weight?

Maybe not yet, so to quit my haggling about fast foods here is my pitch, this year I will burn 150,000 calories with negotiable diet. quite impossible right? well that's just around 75 big macs if you do the math. So every time I go to work I won't eat a big mac, instead I will exercise, or if I should eat a big mac I must compensate by burning the equivalent calories in a given exercise session.

That means no pizza, pasta, pretzels or various other starchy foods that don't necessarily begin with "p." well Mc Donalds doesn't have a "p" on their menu, right?

As of today I logged around 85,000 calories. I have a BMI of 21 which is pretty decent, so please don't raise the BMI levels or I'll be an anorexic.
By the end of the year, I will hopefully reach my goal and then another one next year.

Boo! boring!
Please don't be a hater and an overweight.
But I have allergies, back and knee problems.
Now, I'm the bully.
Well, you made it yourself.
So, go out and exercise.

What it means to be sick in a Country with the most expensive Health care delivery system

               The Article “Sick Around America”was published on the first quarter of 2009 and appeared on PBS. Frontline, the publisher, investigated what it meant to be sick in America; it described our broken healthcare system and how citizens suffered with these flaws. The article explained that the 160 million insured population are very lucky because we have the most advanced healthcare delivery system. But even if there is high sophistication and technological advancement we also have the most expensive healthcare delivery system, which I believe means that the United States is the worst place to get sick even if you are insured.

             To further describe this, let me explain the difference between large employer sponsored insurance and small employer sponsored insurance using the Care continuum model to compare the effects on two different companies using a million dollar birth as an example.

                 Here’s the scenario; an employee undergoes a very complicated pregnancy and the direct medical cost is around a million.
                 It might not affect the large employer because it pools the risk out of its 5,000-50,000 employees, but for small businesses who employs only 50-500 employees their premium could almost double.  I believe bigger companies usually have the flexibilityand price competitiveness because they have lower risk, they pay more and they have a more efficient network. In response, larger company health plans were restructured to cut the cost without harming access.

                On the other hand, smaller companies have the least flexible health plans, they consider network composition and access as second in importance after price. The worst part, some small business employers practice medical underwriting, such as, if an employer has to choose between a physically fit person and me who is diabetic and overweight, my chances of getting hired is slim to none. This is because, President Obama make it into law that all employers have to give health coverage to all of its employees, but in the employers point of view, I am a risk because I have all these diseases. Employers don’t want a higher premium and they want to meet their overhead so I would understand. But isn’t that illegal? yes it is. More to say, the employer might also go out of business if they would hire me, now there’s the dilemma. With our very volatile economic situation, health coverage has become more expensive and less comprehensive, the current market is very challenging for all types of employers.

               On 2010, it was estimated that health care cost grew twice as much as inflation, and with our health care system taking 17 percent of our GDP it means a lot. The economic collapse on 2008 led a lot of people to bankruptcy, while hospitals and companies either closed or downsized, but the worst part, health care cost kept on rising.  I believe in this troubled economy nobody is safe, Georgetown University Research Professor Karen Pollitz explains that for many people, the current system is “like having an airbag in your car that’s made of tissue paper: I’m so glad that it’s there, but if I ever get in a crash, it’s not going to protect me.”
The trend has changed, some Americans today makes life decisions based on health insurance. I’m talking about  job lock, those who are stuck on a job they do not want because of health insurance. While for others, life becomes a quest to find and keep health insurance, while some others die with supposedly treatable conditions. According to some PCP’s, nowadays some people won’t die of the disease; they die secondary to the complications of a failing health care system.

                 I believe the current health care system needs to change, but I am not in favor of President Obama’s Health care reform bill because I believe our system is still broken. I agree that it is a very admirable goal of the president, but it is not timely and we still have a lot of flaws. In my opinion, the government should push for a consumer driven health care system to stimulate managed care product innovation, drive fair physician and hospital cost, & develop a more efficient plan design. Because if we cannot cut our 22 percent administrative cost, push for equal and fair hospital and physician pricing, lower the overall cost, cut insurance income and etc. we are just nibbling around the edges of this broken system, patching hole after hole. In the end nothing changed but an increase in the cost of this $2.2 trillion broken system, and who will suffer? The taxpayers of course.

Subprime Mortgage: The Dark Shadow of the American Dream (MBA 6400)

              The United States Loans Auditor (2010) reported that the number of foreclosures since the housing crisis started in 2007 to present is over fifteen million. RealtyTrac (2011), the online marketer of foreclosed homes, reported that one in 45 households or 2,824,674 properties nationwide were defaulted in 2010. Today, every 10 seconds, a homeowner in America is receiving a foreclosure notice. One homeowner in every one hundred thirty six is in receipt of the notice that will end their American Dream. Forecasters predict that at this current rate over twenty five million homes will be in foreclosure by the end of 2011.
             In the United States, subprime borrowers are classified as having a FICO score below 640. These borrowers have credit ratings which might include; limited debt experience, no possession of property assets that could be used as security, excessive debt, a history of late or missed payments, failure to pay debts completely and bankruptcy. According to Hiber (2010) “these borrowers do not meet Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac underwriting guidelines for prime mortgages” (p. 24), which disqualifies them from acquiring loans at the usual market interest rates.

           During the 70’s borrowing was a simple business and bankers knew their customers. When people wanted to buy a house, they applied for a loan from their local bank. The loan stayed with the bank and the buyer paid the bank over a period of years. However, there was a huge demand for housing during that time, so the government ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase mortgages from community banks, guaranteeing them against default. Hiber (2010) argued that this system of security had contributed to the crisis because these banks had no financial incentive to make sure the borrower would not default. The result was discrimination in lending based on the underwriting guidelines imposed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

              But in 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed to address the discrimination in lending practices. The act encouraged banks to lend to low and moderate income neighborhoods. While this was an admirable goal, the banks during that period were forced to engage in imprudent lending. Hiber (2010) believes that the housing market began to bubble because the banks extended credit to the subprime borrowers. The people who previously do not have access to the credit market had the capability to borrow and buy houses. These loans were first called “non-conforming” loans. It means loans made to people who may have difficulty maintaining the repayment schedule.

           Subprime lending was a major contributor to the increase in home ownership rates and demand for housing which drove home prices higher. Realestate (2010) reported that between 1997 and 2006 the price of a typical American house increased by 124 percent. But this numbers could not have been possible if there was enough regulation by the Feds. Instead the US congress enacted the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982 which promoted free enterprise by reducing regulation. Wallison (2011) argues that, “the act permitted the creation of Adjustable rate mortgages, balloon mortgages, and negative amortization” (para 2). This meant the bankers have to loosen their mortgage standards even more to produce more products. This created the jargon of Subprime lending called NINJA loans (loans to people with No Income, No Job, and no Assets). The buyers who did not qualify for standard mortgages at prime interest rates would be given higher interest rate mortgages.

             However, even if there was deregulation, the average household income didn’t really increase so it was financially impossible for subprime borrowers to pay for the higher interest loans. But in1986, the Tax Reform Act was passed, which retained the tax deduction for interest on mortgages. This act made home equity loans highly attractive to consumers who were expecting their home values would continue to rise, and this eventually led to an unhealthy amount of debt in the financial system because even if consumers can’t afford the high prices, some began to purchase subprime mortgages for the incentives.

           Another reason why more consumers opted to purchase subprime mortgages is an action by the Federal Reserve during the 2001 recession. The Federal Reserve lowered its interest rate which went down to one percent and remained that way until 2004. With interest rates at an all-time low, the financial services industry went to invest in the real estate market. The availability of money also led to an increase in demand for home ownership among consumers. This was a time when not a lot of houses were available, which led to an increase in home prices.

               During this time two shifts occurred in the housing market. Property purchases shifted from buying a place to live to buying an investment, and lenders offered more loans to risky buyers. US Loans Auditor (2010) reported that in 2005, 40 percent of home sales were for investment purposes or for second home and the mortgage denial rate dropped to 14 percent in 2003 from 28 percent in 1997 (trend section).
Because much of the growth in the housing boom was in subprime mortgages, this type of market quadrupled from $332 billion to $1.3 trillion (Realtytrac, 2010). According to Mishkin (2009), “in 2000 about 70 percent of all loans were conventional prime, 20 percent were FHA, 8 percent were VA, and only 2 percent were subprime” (p.299). But, “in 2006, 70 percent were still conventional prime, but now fully 17 percent subprime, with the balance being FHA and VA”(p.300). This caused a lot of worries in the market because of the risks, but the financial institutions developed complex financial instrument which they believe reduced the risk. They pooled mortgages into groups called tranches/bundles.

            Lenders bundled American subprime and American regular mortgages which were traditionally isolated. According to Brown (2010), “the bundles of mixed mortgages were based on Asset backed securities which the probable rate of return looked excellent since subprime lenders pay higher premiums, and the loans were secured against saleable real-estate so theoretically this could not fail” (Para. 7). Lenders believe that even if some borrowers were to default, most borrowers in these bundles would not, which lowers the overall risk.

             On the other side, to lure more consumers to purchase subprime mortgages, other innovative lending practices were developed. There is the 2/28 ARM loan, no interest for 2 years but increases substantially after that. Piggyback loans, a combination of two loans with no down payment but result in high payment and consumers have less incentive to walk away when payments start piling up; other examples are stretch loans and stated income loans. The borrowers, who cannot make the higher payments once the initial grace period ended, always have the option to refinance their mortgages after a year or two of appreciation. These loans sounds too good to be true, but during the housing boom, mortgage backed securities were considered the best type of investment, and the demand for housing skyrocketed. According to Hall (2010), from 2002 to 2006, real estate prices rose by almost 32 percent.

             Builders were forced to keep up with this demand which resulted to a lot of surplus, and in 2006, the first decline in nationwide housing prices since 1991 was recorded. By mid 2006, house prices began to decline in many parts of the country and refinancing became more difficult, and because many borrowers had adjustable rate mortgages their rates started to increase. Those borrowers who found themselves unable to escape higher monthly payments by refinancing began to default, and then the number of foreclosures increased.

               Realtytrac (2010) further notes, average housing prices dropped 20 percent from 2006 to 2008. As more borrowers stop paying their mortgage payments, foreclosures and the supply of homes for sale increased. This placed downward pressure on the housing prices, and because people started to default in mortgage payments, this reduced the value of mortgage-backed securities, which affected the net worth and financial health of the banks.

              According to Bryfonski (2010) by early 2007 borrowers began to default in large numbers which caused the inflated house-price bubble to burst, this resulted to the collapsed confidence in the mortgage market, that by mid 2007 these assets were considered to be toxic (p.43). She also added that by the 3^rd quarter of 2007, Merrill Lynch, one of the few foundation of mortgage lending, experienced a collapse on its investments tied to subprime lending (p. 43). Many other banks who took on significant debt reported that many of their assets were also toxic. These assets were devalued so much that they could not be sold during that time. The banks respond quickly, they stopped lending money which eventually created a credit crisis and freezed the economy.

              In an effort to stabilize the economy, unfreeze credit markets and prevent further erosion of confidence in the US banking system, the US congress authorized $700 billion to bail out the banks in 2008. But the aforementioned data suggests a significant number of mortgage loans belong to lower-income, higher-risk, subprime borrowers who had already gotten a break on their mortgage payments via federal programs to reduce defaults. According to Foroohar (2011), “these so-called modified loans showed that 45 percent of them had been canceled, meaning that the borrowers are very likely redefaulted, even after the payments had been adjusted”(Para. 4). So today, we might be in the verge of a double dip recession.

            While doing this paper I found out some historical data, legislations, and regulations which started the subprime lending.  I also found out that many subprime borrowers took out adjustable-rate mortgages thinking they could get lower initial interest rate so they could avoid high mortgage payments. But with potential annual adjustments of more than 1 percent per year, these loans actually ended up costing much more.

For example: A $500,000 loan at a 4 percent interest rate for 30 years equates to a payment of about $2,400 a month. But the same loan at 10 percent for 27 years equates to a payment of $4,220. This means that 6 percent increase in the rate caused more than 75 percent increase in the payment. This is even more apparent when the lifetime cost of the loan is considered. The total cost of the loan at 4 percent is $864,000, while the higher rate of 10 percent would incur a lifetime cost of $1,367,280.

             Looking at these numbers I cannot imagine how banks lured the public into purchasing ARM mortgages, and to make the situation worst, these banks bundled the subprime and prime mortgages because of deregulation on these types of products. In my opinion the government should punish these banks and not just save them from their mishaps by simply bailing them out. What happened to this crisis was a chain of reaction very similar to the housing bubble but only in the opposite direction. The rising number of foreclosures, tied with high unemployment rate hindered the housing rebound, and the result was a horrible recession. Then the borrowers over rely on the expectation that the future of the economy will stay the same. The result was a wave of foreclosures and banks ended with a lot of bad loans on their books. It was a financial catastrophe.

           However, there are a lot of ways to help end this crisis. In my opinion we need start by setting clear rules on the market that promotes transparency and accountability. We also need more regulation in banking, and the Feds should make sure they have micro-prudential supervision so that customers and taxpayers are protected against excessive risk taking that may cause banks to fail. The Feds should also make sure that the whole financial sector retains its balance. I agree with nationwide banking and bank consolidation, I believe it will produce  an efficient banking system and less vulnerable to banking crisis.

          According to Mishkin (2009), “on one side of subprime lending are those who point to predatory advertising and bait and switch tactics that coerce naïve home borrowers into obtaining loans they cannot possibly repay, while on the other side are those who point to the increase in home ownership attribute to these loans as a positive outcome” (p.300). I stand with the first argument, because the real problem is not bad loans and bad borrowers—it’s just bad lenders.