mnealtx 0 #76 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI am watching live the vote for the financial bailout and the no vote had been given! More to come! it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading. Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis. what facts? that McCain tried to stop this with a bill in 2005, but in 2006 the dem controlled congress kick it out. The simplest of fact checking shows the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate in 2005 and 2006. So tell us again why this didn't pass in 2005 or 2006. Blues, Dave Because the Republican - controlled banking committee let it sit in committee. Tell us this - why didn't the Democratic - controlled banking committee act on it at any time SINCE 2006?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #77 September 30, 2008 Quotelet the wizards in Congress and the Treasury figure out a way that excludes any of the golden parachute brigade. 100% agreed!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #78 September 30, 2008 QuoteThis is just the tip. We'll go through a lull and then the ALT-A liar loans and option loans will be the knockout in 2010. It would be interesting to see what kind of garbage was attached to this bailout bill. Nice graph, can you post a link to the site that noted it? I'd like to read more.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #79 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI am watching live the vote for the financial bailout and the no vote had been given! More to come! it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put. the left doesn't want to admit they started the problem because that would mean that Obama, following the left agenda, would be a bad choice for president. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading. Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis. So you're saying that the NYT lied? the left doesn't want to admit fault because Obama would then be a bad choice for president since he is following left agenda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #80 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI am watching live the vote for the financial bailout and the no vote had been given! More to come! it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading. Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis. what facts? that McCain tried to stop this with a bill in 2005, but in 2006 the dem controlled congress kick it out. The simplest of fact checking shows the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate in 2005 and 2006. So tell us again why this didn't pass in 2005 or 2006. Blues, Dave Because the Republican - controlled banking committee let it sit in committee. Tell us this - why didn't the Democratic - controlled banking committee act on it at any time SINCE 2006? the bill did pas the house but Dodd and his cronies stopped it in the senate. Now before the left gets their undies in a bunch and say "the rep's controlled the senate" remember it takes 60 votes in the senate to pass and just because you have the majority doesn't mean you have 60 votes. it was made this way so the minority could not be pushed over by a slight majority. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #81 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI am watching live the vote for the financial bailout and the no vote had been given! More to come! it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading. Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis. what facts? that McCain tried to stop this with a bill in 2005, but in 2006 the dem controlled congress kick it out. The simplest of fact checking shows the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate in 2005 and 2006. So tell us again why this didn't pass in 2005 or 2006. Blues, Dave Because the Republican - controlled banking committee let it sit in committee. Tell us this - why didn't the Democratic - controlled banking committee act on it at any time SINCE 2006? Because they're as incompetent as their predecessors, though I do suspect that by 2007 it was getting a little bit late for anything other than bailouts to work. I was simply pointing out the errors in marks so-called "facts." Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #82 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI am watching live the vote for the financial bailout and the no vote had been given! More to come! it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading. Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis. what facts? that McCain tried to stop this with a bill in 2005, but in 2006 the dem controlled congress kick it out. The simplest of fact checking shows the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate in 2005 and 2006. So tell us again why this didn't pass in 2005 or 2006. Blues, Dave Because the Republican - controlled banking committee let it sit in committee. Tell us this - why didn't the Democratic - controlled banking committee act on it at any time SINCE 2006? the bill did pas the house but Dodd and his cronies stopped it in the senate. Now before the left gets their undies in a bunch and say "the rep's controlled the senate" remember it takes 60 votes in the senate to pass and just because you have the majority doesn't mean you have 60 votes. it was made this way so the minority could not be pushed over by a slight majority. So McCain got a bill through the House, but not through the Senate? And the minority Dems should be blamed for it not passing in 2005, but the minority Repubs shouldn't be blamed for the bailout not passing yesterday? I get it...you'll just say anything you want as long as it leaves you comfortably believing your guys are infallible. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #83 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI am watching live the vote for the financial bailout and the no vote had been given! More to come! it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading. Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis. So you're saying that the NYT lied? When you can PROVE that THOSE are the mortgages that caused THIS crisis, you will have a point. Until then, you're just throwing sand in the air.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #84 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI am watching live the vote for the financial bailout and the no vote had been given! More to come! it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading. Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis. what facts? that McCain tried to stop this with a bill in 2005, but in 2006 the dem controlled congress kick it out. The simplest of fact checking shows the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate in 2005 and 2006. So tell us again why this didn't pass in 2005 or 2006. Blues, Dave Because the Republican - controlled banking committee let it sit in committee. Tell us this - why didn't the Democratic - controlled banking committee act on it at any time SINCE 2006? the bill did pas the house but Dodd and his cronies stopped it in the senate. Now before the left gets their undies in a bunch and say "the rep's controlled the senate" remember it takes 60 votes in the senate to pass and just because you have the majority doesn't mean you have 60 votes. it was made this way so the minority could not be pushed over by a slight majority. So McCain got a bill through the House, but not through the Senate? And the minority Dems should be blamed for it not passing in 2005, but the minority Repubs shouldn't be blamed for the bailout not passing yesterday? I get it...you'll just say anything you want as long as it leaves you comfortably believing your guys are infallible. Blues, Dave 95 democrats didn't vote for the plan. some of the dems that put this together didn't vote for it. if you can't convince your own people how can you convince others? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #85 September 30, 2008 QuoteWhen you can PROVE that THOSE are the mortgages that caused THIS crisis, you will have a point. Until then, you're just throwing sand in the air. No problem - please make sure you provide the same proof you demand the next time you start crowing over rape kits or abortions.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #86 September 30, 2008 QuoteGood point. I propose we all sit on our hands until a consensus is reached. Crazy Rushing in and writing a 700B dollar check with no idea if it will actually help is not a wise plan. Much better to take a little time and put in a good plan than just pass something that may not work, but WILL cost the tax payers. Ever read the story about Chicken Little? A good bail out well thought out and executed well will do much more good and cost much less than just throwing money in every direction."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #87 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhen you can PROVE that THOSE are the mortgages that caused THIS crisis, you will have a point. Until then, you're just throwing sand in the air. No problem - please make sure you provide the same proof you demand the next time you start crowing over rape kits or abortions. we all know that these loans are part of the problem, trouble is alot of other loans and variables also came into the mix and clouds the real issue. John is using the clouded areas to add confussion to make the problem look more right than left. Is the war and bush economics playing a part in this, yes it is, but the loan fiascal and fannie and freddie issue is mostly on the dem's and they don't want to admit it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #88 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhen you can PROVE that THOSE are the mortgages that caused THIS crisis, you will have a point. Until then, you're just throwing sand in the air. No problem - please make sure you provide the same proof you demand the next time you start crowing over rape kits or abortions. we all know that these loans are part of the problem, . NO, we don't. YOU have not been able to provide one shred of evidence to support your position. Not one shred.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #89 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhen you can PROVE that THOSE are the mortgages that caused THIS crisis, you will have a point. Until then, you're just throwing sand in the air. No problem - please make sure you provide the same proof you demand the next time you start crowing over rape kits or abortions. I take it you didn't bother to read the Republican Party platform 2008. We know you made the lame "Youtube not available" excuse for not watching Palin's interview on the topic.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #90 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhen you can PROVE that THOSE are the mortgages that caused THIS crisis, you will have a point. Until then, you're just throwing sand in the air. No problem - please make sure you provide the same proof you demand the next time you start crowing over rape kits or abortions. we all know that these loans are part of the problem, . NO, we don't. YOU have not been able to provide one shred of evidence to support your position. Not one shred. ok proof Shouldering the blame for subprime loan failures By GRETCHEN MORGENSON Published: November 25, 2007 E-Mail Article Listen to Article Printer-Friendly 3-Column Format Translate Share Article Text Size NEW YORK: It has become fashionable of late to say that American subprime borrowers themselves deserve a good part of the blame for the current mortgage mess. They were either greedy (looking for easy money in a bubbly real estate market) or irresponsible (assuming a debt whose terms they did not understand). They should be punished for their behavior, the argument goes - not rewarded with loan accommodations. According to this analysis, while subprime lenders may not be blameless, they actually should be lauded for introducing the joys of homeownership to those who had not yet achieved that part of the American dream. Never mind that many lenders peddled the most abusive and costly loans to unsophisticated, first-time home buyers. Known as "affordability products," the mortgages generated big commissions up front and were designed to require refinancing later on - which included yet another round of luscious fees for lenders. With refinancing no longer an option, it is becoming obvious that these loans were designed to fail. True to their design, they are failing. And those who thought they might get a chance at owning a home are headed back to the rent rolls. Today in Business with Reuters U.S. House rejects plan for bailout Impact of global credit crunch expands in EuropeCrisis reaches European institutions Figures from the U.S. Federal Reserve Board show that the share of subprime mortgages in default is more than 14 percent. And researchers at the Center for Responsible Lending say that 64 percent of foreclosures filed during the 12 months ended June 30 involved subprime loans. A September report from Banc of America Securities said that 93 percent of completed foreclosures this year involved adjustable-rate loans that were made in 2006, pooled and sold to investors. Regulators have recently stepped up their calls for lenders to be more aggressive in working out these loans. But lenders are pushing back, and borrower advocates - those nearest to the problem - say that not much is getting done. As this working-out war simmers, it seems worthwhile to consider both sides of this mess. Should greedy subprime borrowers take responsibility or should greedy subprime lenders get tagged? Nothing is ever black and white, of course. Undoubtedly, there are plenty of cases in which both borrower and lender are at fault, and others in which just one of the parties may bear greater blame. Still, it is also important to examine some of our long-held assumptions about the sophistication and responsibility of low-income borrowers when trying to make sense of this debate. After all, nonprime borrowers in low-cost, fixed-rate mortgages - appropriate loans for low-income, first-time homeowners - can succeed. And there are figures to prove it. The figures come from NeighborWorks America, a nonprofit organization created in 1978 by Congress to deliver financial aid and training to troubled urban communities. Its affiliate, the Neighborhood Housing Services of America, makes loans to home buyers of low and moderate incomes, a group that resembles the typical subprime borrower. And it's revealing to compare the delinquency and foreclosure rates for subprime loans made by traditional lenders with mortgages made by the Neighborhood Housing Services fund. The fund contains almost 3,000 loans totaling $205 million as of June 30. Its borrowers do not meet conventional credit standards, and their incomes average less than two-thirds the national median income. Some 93 percent of those receiving loans from the fund are first-time home buyers, and almost 90 percent are low- or moderate-income borrowers. Approximately 54 percent are minority households. And yet, the NeighborWorks borrowers are not experiencing the same mortgage woes as subprime borrowers elsewhere around the country. Why? As of June 30, the most recent figures available, 3.34 percent of NeighborWorks' borrowers were at least 30 days' delinquent on their loans, only slightly higher than the 2.63 percent delinquency rate on prime loans recorded in that period by the Mortgage Bankers Association. Compared with subprime loans over all, the NeighborWorks loans really outperform. Its 3.34 percent delinquency rate is well below the 14.54 percent on subprime loans nationwide. Foreclosure figures show a similar pattern. The NeighborWorks loans that went into foreclosure during the second quarter of 2007 totaled 0.56 percent, while subprime loan foreclosures came in at 2.45 percent during that period. The foreclosure rate for NeighborWorks loans was a little over double the 0.25 percent rate for prime loans in the period. "Our loans performed many times better than subprime," said Kenneth Wade, chief executive of NeighborWorks. "It shows that you can serve this customer base and they can succeed." Some of the success of these loans may be a result of an extensive mortgage education program conducted by the 130 loan counselors of NeighborWorks before and after a loan is made. is this what you wanted? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #91 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhen you can PROVE that THOSE are the mortgages that caused THIS crisis, you will have a point. Until then, you're just throwing sand in the air. No problem - please make sure you provide the same proof you demand the next time you start crowing over rape kits or abortions. I take it you didn't bother to read the Republican Party platform 2008. We know you made the lame "Youtube not available" excuse for not watching Palin's interview on the topic. I find myself particularly uncaring as to your opinion of the military's decision to block youtube. For that matter, I'm also pretty uncaring as to what the Rep's platform is. For your next trick, perhaps you can use your swami powers to determine why those oh-so-conservative Supremes didn't overturn Roe v. Wade when they heard Gonzalez v. Cathart.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #92 September 30, 2008 >Rushing in and writing a 700B dollar check with no idea if it will actually >help is not a wise plan. Well, to be fair, it's not that they have "no idea if it will work." It's more akin to chemotherapy. It's painful, it's dangerous, it's expensive, there are no guarantees - but it's used because it has worked before in similar situations. While I agree there are no guarantees, there is a pretty good (much better than 50%) chance that it will accomplish what it intends to accomplish - buoy up the price of some instruments. >Ever read the story about Chicken Little? Yep. But in this case they predicted dire impacts on the market if it didn't pass. It didn't pass and the market saw its biggest one day drop, ever. That indicates that they got at least that part right. >A good bail out well thought out and executed well will do much more >good and cost much less than just throwing money in every direction. I agree. But it also may be that a good bailout costs (initially) on the order of $700 billion. You can refine the bill and attach all sorts of riders (like no golden parachutes) and earmarks (like support for smaller businesses or whatever) but in the end it will likely be similar. But that's just the first part of the question - "will it work?" There's a good argument to be made for it at least accomplishing its stated objectives. The second part of the question is - "is it a good idea even if it works?" That, to me, is the tough one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #93 September 30, 2008 QuoteOr jump in front of a train! www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063356/Credit-crunch-banker-leaps-death-express-train.html Call me a heartless bastard but I dont feel sorry for this guy. I feel sorry for his wife, child, the train driver and any witnesses. As for him....Nada.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #94 September 30, 2008 [ Yep. But in this case they predicted dire impacts on the market if it didn't pass. It didn't pass and the market saw its biggest one day drop, ever. That indicates that they got at least that part right. -------------------------------------------------------- part off the drop was due to automatic selling that is programmed into computers. when people invest they have an automatic sell programmed in and alot of them kicked in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #95 September 30, 2008 Quote>I am soooo happy this got shot down. Why? Is it that you think the bailout will not work? Do you think that it will likely work, but sets a bad precedent? Do you think that federal funds should not go towards fixing the economy? If it were a smaller sum would you be less against it? Maybe they shouldn't have called it a bailout.... A Surge, yes a Surge of cash would have been better.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #96 September 30, 2008 Further down, in your same article: Robert L. Gnaizda, policy director and general counsel of the Greenlining Institute, an advocacy organization in Berkeley, Calif., says he believes that lenders, not borrowers, should shoulder the blame for this debacle. “Lenders were like the worst stockbrokers peddling stocks in 1999 saying there is a new dynamic now,” he said. “We believe financial institutions have a fiduciary responsibility. They shouldn’t be promoting instruments that are high-risk and they know it.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #97 September 30, 2008 QuoteFurther down, in your same article: Robert L. Gnaizda, policy director and general counsel of the Greenlining Institute, an advocacy organization in Berkeley, Calif., says he believes that lenders, not borrowers, should shoulder the blame for this debacle. “Lenders were like the worst stockbrokers peddling stocks in 1999 saying there is a new dynamic now,” he said. “We believe financial institutions have a fiduciary responsibility. They shouldn’t be promoting instruments that are high-risk and they know it.” doesn't change the fact that these loans are a large part of the problem. these loans were pushed by fannie freddie, clinton, carter, Dodd, and others from the dem side and these people are working with Obama. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #98 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhen you can PROVE that THOSE are the mortgages that caused THIS crisis, you will have a point. Until then, you're just throwing sand in the air. No problem - please make sure you provide the same proof you demand the next time you start crowing over rape kits or abortions. we all know that these loans are part of the problem, . NO, we don't. YOU have not been able to provide one shred of evidence to support your position. Not one shred. ok proof Shouldering the blame for subprime loan failures By GRETCHEN MORGENSON Published: November 25, 2007 .... Compared with subprime loans over all, the NeighborWorks loans really outperform. Its 3.34 percent delinquency rate is well below the 14.54 percent on subprime loans nationwide. Foreclosure figures show a similar pattern. The NeighborWorks loans that went into foreclosure during the second quarter of 2007 totaled 0.56 percent, while subprime loan foreclosures came in at 2.45 percent during that period. The foreclosure rate for NeighborWorks loans was a little over double the 0.25 percent rate for prime loans in the period. "Our loans performed many times better than subprime," said Kenneth Wade, chief executive of NeighborWorks. "It shows that you can serve this customer base and they can succeed." Some of the success of these loans may be a result of an extensive mortgage education program conducted by the 130 loan counselors of NeighborWorks before and after a loan is made. is this what you wanted? Thank you for proving MY point. The targeted low income loans performed BETTER than the other subprime loans. CRA loans did NOT precipitate this crisis, as your figures prove.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #99 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhen you can PROVE that THOSE are the mortgages that caused THIS crisis, you will have a point. Until then, you're just throwing sand in the air. No problem - please make sure you provide the same proof you demand the next time you start crowing over rape kits or abortions. I take it you didn't bother to read the Republican Party platform 2008. We know you made the lame "Youtube not available" excuse for not watching Palin's interview on the topic. I find myself particularly uncaring as to your opinion of the military's decision to block youtube. For that matter, I'm also pretty uncaring as to what the Rep's platform is. . Translation - mnealtx won't look at the sources because they prove him wrong.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #100 September 30, 2008 you mforgot to read the top According to this analysis, while subprime lenders may not be blameless, they actually should be lauded for introducing the joys of homeownership to those who had not yet achieved that part of the American dream. Never mind that many lenders peddled the most abusive and costly loans to unsophisticated, first-time home buyers. Known as "affordability products," the mortgages generated big commissions up front and were designed to require refinancing later on - which included yet another round of luscious fees for lenders. With refinancing no longer an option, it is becoming obvious that these loans were designed to fail. True to their design, they are failing. And those who thought they might get a chance at owning a home are headed back to the rent rolls. Today in Business with Reuters U.S. House rejects plan for bailout Impact of global credit crunch expands in EuropeCrisis reaches European institutions Figures from the U.S. Federal Reserve Board show that the share of subprime mortgages in default is more than 14 percent. And researchers at the Center for Responsible Lending say that 64 percent of foreclosures filed during the 12 months ended June 30 involved subprime loans. A September report from Banc of America Securities said that 93 percent of completed foreclosures this year involved adjustable-rate loans that were made in 2006, pooled and sold to investors. just because NeighborWorks loans didn't fail doesn't mean that others didn't And researchers at the Center for Responsible Lending say that 64 percent of foreclosures filed during the 12 months ended June 30 involved subprime loans. 64% were subprime mortgages 64% now thats alot i guess reding the top half would counter you point wouldn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
