Filed under: Internet, Social Software

Net Neutrality is a subject that has impassioned world wide web enthusiasts and techies alike. However trying to get the broader public to take notice of the issue has been challenging. A few net neutrality bills have been brought up, but swiftly fizzled out in Congress. Perhaps the fine Senators don’t really understand the “Tubes“. Or is it they and the public have had no real reason to care so far?

This week, Time Warner gave us a reason to care. It has come to light that Time Warner will start billing internet customers based on usage, rather than a flat-fee as they’ve been doing for years. That’s, rather than expanding the network to accommodate and enhance customer experience, Time Warner will begin charging new customers more.

To take this line of thinking further, how about this scenario: if your parents or grandparents only use the Internet a couple of times a week to check photos of their little grandchildren and to check their email - will they be able to pay less? We highly doubt it. The monopolistic ISP’s have have only one intent in mind - bilking us for all the cash they possibly can.

We hope the net neutrality flames is fanned by this move before it’s too late. It’s time to begin talking, blogging, and contacting your legistlator to tell him or her your viewpoint on this issue.

[via Freedom to Tinker]

Read

Share This

Share This

Filed under: Budgets, Debt, Insurance, Retire, Tax, Health

The presidential stump fest has officially begun, but thus far the primaries seem to be muddying the waters instead of thinning the field. With the sound bites flying fast and furious, it’s simple to forget the candidates’ positions on, well, just about everything. So who among the front-runners for both parties has Americans’ fiscal interests at heart? A quick visit to SelectSmart.com’s Presidential Candidate Selector turned up some interesting results.

Eight of the 26 questions on SelectSmart’s Survey are aimed directly or indirectly at voters’ wallets, on the topics of Social Security, trade, taxes, the deficit, unions, minimum wage hikes, universal health care and prescription drugs. Once you’ve revealed how tight or loose you’d like the federal government to be with your tax dollars, you’re paired with your “Theoretical Ideal Candidate” based on his or her campaign statements and, when applicable, voting record.

So who should you vote for if you’d rather the deficit increase as opposed to your taxes? Fresh from his much-needed win in the Michigan primary, Mitt Romney leads the pack of Republican front-runners in fiscal conservatism. John McCain is second among Reps who’ve come out on top in a primary but fourth overall among all the candidates, possibly because of his balanced-budget leanings. Iowa winner Mike Huckabee is at the bottom of the list, thanks to his insistence on reforming Social Security and health care.

Fellow Iowa victor Barack Obama is the closest thing to a theoretically best candidate for those who are all about “tax and spend.” As went Iowa, so goes the survey, with John Edwards placing and Hillary Clinton showing. While Obama and Edwards are running neck-and-neck, Clinton’s supporting free trade and eschewing a balanced budget leaves her trailing.

While clearly demarcating the candidates still in the running, the survey lists all 29 wags who had given any lip service at all to throwing their hat in the ring as of last August, as well as one former VP whose inconvenient truth was that he’s happier in the private sector. The list also includes Stephen Colbert, host of Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report. Colbert, who halted his campaign, is nonetheless the No. 1 fiscal conservative in the bunch, assuming we take seriously his position that Social Security should be abolished because “if old people can play bridge, they have the ability to work as typists.”

Share This

Share This

Filed under: Debt, Home

In a Wall Street Journal (subscription required) story yesterday, it was reported that lenders are starting to audit equity lines of credit. If they see that a person is behind on their credit card payments or that their home value has dropped, the lender may freeze access to an equity line or lower the amount of available credit.

This is legal and found in most equity line agreements. If your home has lost value or you’re behind on paying any bills, you might get a notice from your equity line lender freezing access to additional credit or lowering approved credit limits. According to the Journal, Washington Mutual said it’s already started sending out such notices. Citigroup indicated it has the right to do so in its loan agreements, as did Countrywide. Others also will likely follow suit.

If you’re having trouble paying your bills, finding your equity line frozen could be a painful pill to swallow, but it could actually help to save your home. While credit cards are unsecured credit, which means a creditor can’t foreclose on your property, equity lines are secured credit. Equity line creditors do have the right to foreclose. If you can’t pay credit card bills now, it’s only a matter of time before you won’t be able to pay your equity line or mortgage.

Also in this story lenders indicated they were walking away from equity loans rather than foreclosing on homes. That’s because as home values fall, there’s nothing left for the lender in second position. The lender who holds the first mortgage is paid first. Only when (and if) there is anything leftover does the lender holding the equity line or second mortgage gets paid.

Rather than continue to use your home as a piggy bank, stop moving unsecured credit card debt into secured equity lines and find ways to either earn more money or spend less. We’re heading into a recession and things will only get worse.

Lita Epstein has written 20 books including the “Complete Idiot’s Guide to Improving Your Credit Score,” which includes strategies for budgeting and paying down debt.

Share This

Share This