|
|
The Democratic Party has been taken over by the Communist/Socialist Party
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
The Democratic Party has become the worst example of government possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'll agree with the title of the thread, but I think someone needs to post the timeline about now.
ibl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Timeline? Oops, has this been previously posted? Sorry.
Just sick and tired of all these stupid morons protesting people that bust their ass off to make a good living.
You think CEO's work a lazy 8 hours and go home. Try 100 hours per week, every week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Are you refering to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement ?
That movement is bullshit.
It should be "Occupy Pensyvlvania Ave." The culprits of the mess sit in Washington as much as on Wall Street.
To be mad at the "banksters" for takeing bailout money is retarded. Go after those that handed out the money. Of course Wall Street accepted the bailout, as did millions of Americans when they got rebate checks and stimulus money. You can't blame them for taking it.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
^^^^^
On this one I agree somewhat with Turtle777. You can't blame the big banks and Wall Street investment firms for taking bailout money. The fact of the matter is that they had no choice because Treasury Secretary Paulson insisted that all of them take the funds ... even if they didn't need it ... so that the ones that did need it wouldn't be stigmatized. You can, however, blame the big banks, Wall Street, and the lax government regulators that led to the bailout being necessary in the first place.
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
The "fix" is to strictly enforce Capitalism: banks should have gone broke. Period.
The proterstes are completely confused over the nature of Capitalism. What we have on Wall Street is NOT Capitalism. We have Interventionsim, Stateism, Subventionism, Bailoutism or whatever you want to call this perverted form of Government and Big Bank mingling.
TRUE Capitalism would have let all those banks go bankrupt. That would have pruged the system, and not created TBTF.
TRUE Capitalism would have never resulted in the housing bubble. TRUE Capitalsim would not allow for people and governments taking on su much debt. It's all gone awary when politicians tried to "make the system better".
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Buckaroo
You think CEO's work a lazy 8 hours and go home. Try 100 hours per week, every week.
Now do that on a salary of $30,000 a year. We call that teaching.
Cry me a river.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
The "fix" is to strictly enforce Capitalism: banks should have gone broke. Period.
The banks would go broke, taking everyone's money with them. The executives would still have their money, and they'd just use clever marketing to create a new bank after the bankruptcy procedures.
Originally Posted by turtle777
The proterstes are completely confused over the nature of Capitalism. What we have on Wall Street is NOT Capitalism. We have Interventionsim, Stateism, Subventionism, Bailoutism or whatever you want to call this perverted form of Government and Big Bank mingling.
So instead of stealing people's money with few consequences, you want them to steal people's money with no consequences. How does that help the consumer?
When you have an oligopoly with only a few conglomerates working in tandem to fix a market, what incentive is there for them to provide any quality of service or protection of consumers' property if there is no alternative?
You can't not use them because it's an essential service, and you don't have any alternatives.
Originally Posted by turtle777
TRUE Capitalism would have never resulted in the housing bubble.
There is nothing about capitalism that would prevent a housing bubble.
Originally Posted by turtle777
TRUE Capitalsim would not allow for people and governments taking on su much debt.
Why not? Isn't that the entire point of the credit industry?
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
The banks would go broke, taking everyone's money with them. The executives would still have their money, and they'd just use clever marketing to create a new bank after the bankruptcy procedures.
No. First off, you DO have the FDIC, protecting bank deposits up to a certain extent.
Secondly, banks do have assets, which would be used first to pay out bank customers, secondly bond holders and only last shareholders. In most banks, there would be enough assets to satisfy customer deposits.
But even if that wasn't the case, it's the customer's responsibility to check and make sure he only banks with a company that is solvent. That means: spreading out your money among multiple banks, not exceeding guarantees like FDIC.
You CAN'T fix this by making nobody responsible and just bailing out everyone.
It's your money, and your responsibility.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
Why not? Isn't that the entire point of the credit industry?
Of course, but they are in the business of making money.
The whole problem of the debt bubble stems from too easy credit, at too low interest rates, and to low lending standards.
The banks would have NEVER lent money that easily and at that low rates if the government and Fed didn't supply them with cheap money. And ultimately, banks got stupid because they expected to be backstopped by the government. All of those distortions have nothing to do with Capitalism.
If you take away government and GSE support or guarantees for mortgages, true interest rates would eb MUCH higher. Therefore, credit would be harder to come by, lending and debt would decrease.
This credit deflation has to happen. It's inevitable anyways, the question is how much good money is thrown after bad in forms of bailouts, tax increases and other means of redistribution.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
TRUE Capitalism would have let all those banks go bankrupt. That would have pruged the system, and not created TBTF.
TRUE Capitalism would have never resulted in the housing bubble. TRUE Capitalsim would not allow for people and governments taking on su much debt. It's all gone awary when politicians tried to "make the system better".
-t
Under normal circumstances we'd be on the same page. However, if the "remedy" ends up killing the patient then that probably isn't the way to go. And in this situation the "patient" is the overall US economy ... not the financial institutions themselves. The fact of the matter is that politicians and government regulators had allowed financial institutions to become TBTF decades ago. The Glass-Steagall Act was foolishly repealed by a majority GOP Congress and signed into law by President Clinton and the very predictable financial crisis that ensued a decade later came to pass. It's true that most customer deposits may have been satisfied by FDIC insurance. But that's only going to go so far if the entire financial system collapses on a global scale because we're trying to make an ideological point. If it were up to me, the TBTF financial institutions would have been ordered to split up after the TARP bailouts. That way they'd no longer be TBTF and we could be assured that such radical intervention would never be necessary again. Unfortunately, we got the half-assed Dodd-Frank Act which attempts to put some modicum of restraint on Wall Street. And even that has the GOP up in arms. Imagine if the operating mantra was that if you are Too Big To Fail then you are Too Big To Exist? Our good friends on the right would pass out! And therein lies the rub. You can't on the one hand be all for allowing financial institutions to become so large and control so much market share that their success or failure becomes part and parcel to the success or failure of the overall economy. But on the other hand be opposed to bailing such institutions out when they run off the rails.
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
Secondly, banks do have assets, which would be used first to pay out bank customers, secondly bond holders and only last shareholders. In most banks, there would be enough assets to satisfy customer deposits.
Very, very doubtful. All their assets would be moved offshore before anything is actually paid out.
Originally Posted by turtle777
But even if that wasn't the case, it's the customer's responsibility to check and make sure he only banks with a company that is solvent. That means: spreading out your money among multiple banks, not exceeding guarantees like FDIC.
Banks purposefully make it extremely difficult to maintain multiple accounts or to move around from bank to bank. Also, it was the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act that allowed them to conceal their debt so well. They didn't just fool their customers, but they fooled the IRS, their shareholders, and in some cases even their board members.
The banks got exactly what they wanted through deregulation. Capitalism would not fix this.
Also, FDIC is a government program created by the Glass–Steagall Act. Had the banks gotten rid of the FDIC requirement along with the Glass–Steagall Act like they wanted to, you wouldn't have any money no matter how well you diversified your savings amongst banks. So again, I fail to see how getting rid of regulation like the Glass–Steagall Act and the FDIC would benefit consumers.
Originally Posted by turtle777
You CAN'T fix this by making nobody responsible and just bailing out everyone.
Well, I'm on the fence. Had they been allowed to fail, even more money would have been lost. However, I despise it because the companies' debt is shared, but none of their profits.
Originally Posted by turtle777
It's your money, and your responsibility.
I'm not an economist, that's why I hire a broker and a banker to do it for me. The problem is that the so-called experts were the crooks. I can be as responsible as I want, and I will still get screwed over. Regulation helps to keep those damages in check.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
I nominate this thread for most ridiculous title of the year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
The whole problem of the debt bubble stems from too easy credit, at too low interest rates, and to low lending standards.
I don't disagree with any point you made, but how are working Americans going to afford a home? I'm talking about people with secure, long term employment. How are you supposed to get into a home with 50% down and a 15% APR on a mortgage only up to 15 years?
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
I don't disagree with any point you made, but how are working Americans going to afford a home? I'm talking about people with secure, long term employment. How are you supposed to get into a home with 50% down and a 15% APR on a mortgage only up to 15 years?
Just rent. I could afford a home, but I still rent. Renting is VERY underrated.
And home "ownership" is completely overrated.
See, when you really think about it, you will rent either way:
You either pay rent to the landlord, or you pay rent (a.k.a. mortgage) to the bank. In neither model are you a true "owner".
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
I wrote this to ebuddy in the other thread, but his bares repeating since it applies to many of you:
Bias:
- cherry picking the words and messages of individual protesters and using this as a basis for your arguments about how the group has no message and wants things that the founders haven't said they wanted, rather than listening to the actual founders
- not acknowledging that every protest in the history of the universe has had an element of off-message protesters, or protesters just saying things that are hyperbolic or dumb
Hypocriticalness:
- You (I believe) were livid about the bank bailouts, you are livid about abuse of power by government. These very protests are about that abuse of power. That their physical location is Wall St. suggests that perhaps they put this on Wall St. more than the government, but that doesn't mean that they don't put this on the government at all. THEY DO. Why are you seemingly against these protests when you don't seem to disagree that there is fraud and abuse by those in power or with power? Is it because OWS seems leftist?
- Your mockery of OWS protesters while not doing the same for tea party protesters
Furthermore, and this applies to several other people here, I don't understand why it seems that many of you just don't get it. The message from the founders is about
FRAUD AND ABUSE
I repeat:
FRAUD AND ABUSE
FRAUD AND ABUSE <-- look here
FRAUD AND ABUSE <------ AGAIN, FOCUS HERE!!
It is not about vying for socialism, about bitching about wealth, etc. It is ironic that you like to mock the protesters for being off message when your very criticisms are off message. Focus on the message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Again, you guys don't actually disagree with the protest founders, you just think you do because they seem leftist to you and attribute different blame to different people.
It's all the same payoff though. Fraud and abuse does not exclude government fraud and abuse. The 1% they bitch about is a proxy which includes those in government with power. All of this is about abuse of power, no matter where it occurs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
See, when you really think about it, you will rent either way:
You either pay rent to the landlord, or you pay rent (a.k.a. mortgage) to the bank. In neither model are you a true "owner".
Rent does not build equity. Rent also means I have to share 2 walls and a ceiling with inconsiderate neighbors. On the occasion I want to have a party, I can't. Or rather, I don't, because I'm not going to stoop to their level and play childish revenge games.
In 30 years and long before I retire, I'll own my home. Not the bank.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
Rent does not build equity. Rent also means I have to share 2 walls and a ceiling with inconsiderate neighbors. On the occasion I want to have a party, I can't. Or rather, I don't, because I'm not going to stoop to their level and play childish revenge games.
In 30 years and long before I retire, I'll own my home. Not the bank.
Only relatively speaking though. You won't be able to renovate without a permit, and you won't be able to grow pot in your backyard. There is no true ownership and complete freedom in this society, it's all relative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
Rent does not build equity.
How's the "equity building" thing going for most Americans in the last 5 years ?
Buying a home to build equity and wealth is about as smart as buying whole life insurance. Not very.
Originally Posted by olePigeon
Rent also means I have to share 2 walls and a ceiling with inconsiderate neighbors. On the occasion I want to have a party, I can't. Or rather, I don't, because I'm not going to stoop to their level and play childish revenge games.
You can rent single family homes. Plenty of them.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Where I rent now, I can't even hear my neighbors*. When I lived at home, we had jerk-ass neighbors I couldn't escape.
*One played Rock Band for awhile, and I could hear the drum kit through the ceiling, but nothing a little Jay-Z couldn't fix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
How's the "equity building" thing going for most Americans in the last 5 years ?
For those of us who didn't get caught up in the stupid housing bubble thing, pretty well. I said it years ago during the height of the mania, and I say the same thing now- I laugh at third parties trying to tell me what my house is worth, in order to influence bad financial decisions from me. My house is worth to me what I paid for it. I wasn't fooled during the bubble when emotion-driven morons were saying it was worth a bloody fortune, I don't care now that similar morons say it's worth less. It's a house. It'll be a house 35 years from now. Its inherent value is based on the fact that people can live in it, not that morons can 'flip' it to other morons.
Buying a home to build equity and wealth is about as smart as buying whole life insurance. Not very.
I agree with this. People have lost sight of the fact that buying a house is ultimately about *drumroll....* having a place to live. It's a long term investment in fulfilling a basic need, shelter, but basic needs shouldn't be turned into short-term 'wealth building' schemes. Next up: Let's all trade in food and run the price up until mere mortals can't afford that either.
Intelligent, stable people who can manage their money should own their own homes. Dipshits with no money and terrible credit trying to scarf up something and flip it for quick buck because they saw some late night infomercial, shouldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Another Buckaroo paste and run.
|
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OldManMac
Another Buckaroo paste and run.
I'm averaging 12 hours a day 6 days a week. Yesterday, Monday, I worked 14 hours. Give me a break. I'm not rich like most of you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Buckaroo
I'm averaging 12 hours a day 6 days a week. Yesterday, Monday, I worked 14 hours. Give me a break. I'm not rich like most of you.
If you aren't rich why are you so partisan? Do you really think that the Republicans champion making life better for the middle class?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
If you aren't rich why are you so partisan? Do you really think that the Republicans champion making life better for the middle class?
Why do you immediately associate "Republicans" with "rich"? I don't think this could be further from the truth.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Buckaroo
I'm averaging 12 hours a day 6 days a week. Yesterday, Monday, I worked 14 hours. Give me a break. I'm not rich like most of you.
Cool story bro!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Why do you immediately associate "Republicans" with "rich"? I don't think this could be further from the truth.
I believe it's a blind spot. They don't want to believe that average people could have valid reasons to distrust the government.
Originally Posted by imitchellg5
Cool story bro!
Want to add something constructive rather than just troll the OP?
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
I got one for you.
Tell a joke:
Q: What is the difference between liberalism and communism?
A: The Communist admits it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Buckaroo
I got one for you.
Tell a joke:
Q: What is the difference between liberalism and communism?
A: The Communist admits it.
Admits what?
Aren't jokes with punchlines supposed to make sense? Pay attention, here is how punchline-less jokes are supposed to go:
Q: What is the difference between liberalism and communism?
A: I like to shove bananas up my butt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Buckaroo
I got one for you.
Tell a joke:
Q: What is the difference between liberalism and communism?
A: The Communist admits it.
Q: What's the difference between a libertarian and a conservative?
A: A Libertarian is for smaller government and a conservative is for a fascist big government that wants to ban everything that goes against their ideology.
Punchline? It wasn't a joke. Haha...
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
Admits what?
Aren't jokes with punchlines supposed to make sense? Pay attention, here is how punchline-less jokes are supposed to go:
Q: What is the difference between liberalism and communism?
A: I like to shove bananas up my butt
With Canadian Maple Syrup. It goes smoother.
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Shaddim
Want to add something constructive rather than just troll the OP?
There isn't really anything constructive to add to a thread that starts out with an opening post like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
Admits what?
Aren't jokes with punchlines supposed to make sense? Pay attention, here is how punchline-less jokes are supposed to go:
Q: What is the difference between liberalism and communism?
A: I like to shove bananas up my butt
I'd vote for anyone who shoves bananas up Besson's butt
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
Buying a home to build equity and wealth is about as smart as buying whole life insurance. Not very.
I wouldn't be buying a home to build wealth. The equity is just my ownership in the home. I would never use my home as a piggy bank.
Right now mortgages with PMI (and even including the property tax) for a $400,000 home is about the same as the rent for a studio apartment in my area. Considering that the same homes were $700,000 not 10 years ago (and well outside my price range), I don't want to miss this opportunity.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
What people also forget is property taxes.
At 1.5% taxes per year (for example), the government has taken your property from you after 65 years.
There is NO such thing as true ownership.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
What people also forget is property taxes.
At 1.5% taxes per year (for example), the government has taken your property from you after 65 years.
There is NO such thing as true ownership.
-t
True, but you're paying those if you rent too. Obviously your landlord passes on that cost.
The way I look at it is, I've purchased the option to 'rent' my house/land from the local government. What is bought and sold is that option. Now that I've paid off that option, my 'rent' (property tax) is much cheaper on a run rate basis than what I'd pay for a 'full' lease on similar property.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by CreepDogg
True, but you're paying those if you rent too. Obviously your landlord passes on that cost.
Sure, but I'm not under the delusion that I *own* something.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
Sure, but I'm not under the delusion that I *own* something.
-t
I do own something. I described above what it is I own. True, that 'something' isn't exactly what most people probably think it is, but it is an ownership. It's something I can sell if I so choose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by CreepDogg
I do own something. I described above what it is I own. True, that 'something' isn't exactly what most people probably think it is, but it is an ownership. It's something I can sell if I so choose.
Or install a home theater.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by CreepDogg
I do own something. I described above what it is I own. True, that 'something' isn't exactly what most people probably think it is, but it is an ownership. It's something I can sell if I so choose.
Keep believin'
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
Keep believin'
-t
I will. Make sure to keep adjustin' that tinfoil!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah I'd love to see anyone 'sell' the apartment they rent, besides the landlord selling it right out from under you.
There are pros and cons to 'owning' vs. renting sure, but in the end, I'd rather 'own'. I can tear up/add to/modify/sell my house in many ways so long as they are legal. Generally you can't do shit with someone else's apartment. This alone makes 'ownership' better IMHO.
The biggest thing is, the price of 'ownership' shouldn't cost 5x what the average middle class family can afford because people have turned homes into investment vehicles. It all makes sense when the costs involved are in line with reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Let's not forget one big PRO of renting: mobility
So many unemployed homeowners can't move and find a new job elsewhere because their homes can't be sold.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
but how are working Americans going to afford a home? I'm talking about people with secure, long term employment. How are you supposed to get into a home with 50% down and a 15% APR on a mortgage only up to 15 years?
Well first of all there's no such thing as "secure long term employment", unless the person making that assessment is a fortune teller. One the problems that happened was people took on 30 yr loans then got laid off for one reason or another unable to pay them back.
It shouldn't even be possible to get a 15 year loan for a home... That's insane. The max should be 10 years, if not less. That way if you hit some bumps on the road, change jobs a few times, there may be some room to extend it a few years. If 10 year was the max for a loan you can bet the price of home owner ship would be cut in half at the very least. Actually I think it would go down much more than that when all things are considered. All the 30 year loan does is enslave people to paying mortgages for the majority of their life.
How are you supposed to get into a home with 50% down and a 15% APR on a mortgage only up to 15 years?
I would get a job. I would rent like all young people should for few years. I would save up my money by living within my means. I would proceed to buy a house or condo... I did do all of this back when I was middle class; and was even able to pay cash for a home while competing with people with loans in a corrupt manipulated housing bubble. It's not that difficult for the average person, people have just become spoiled and overly demanding of what their lifestyle should be.
Oh and if I have a bad neighbor... Well I'd much rather rent next to a bad neighbor than OWN next to a bad neighbor... hands down
(
Last edited by el chupacabra; Oct 19, 2011 at 11:48 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
It shouldn't even be possible to get a 15 year loan for a home... That's insane. The max should be 10 years, if not less. That way if you hit some bumps on the road, change jobs a few times, there may be some room to extend it a few years. If 10 year was the max for a loan you can bet the price of home owner ship would be cut in half at the very least.
Cut it by 99% for the San Francisco Bay Area. Median home prices here are $500,000 to $600,000. So $300,000 down, then $30,000 a year not including interest. :/ Since I work in education, I guess I'd be screwed. According to Wisconsin, I'm an elitist staring down my nose at all of you driving my 10-year-old Toyota pickup.
I don't think there's a blanket solution for every state. 50% down and 10 year loans would be next to impossible for people living in the Bay Area or New York, especially for public employees and civil servants.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|