- This topic has 165 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 5 months ago by
felix.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 20, 2009 at 8:34 AM #418607June 20, 2009 at 9:04 AM #417898
sobmaz
Participant“”because if you’re in debt up to your eyeballs some govt program will be made available to pay their way or introduce them to student debt””
You got that right.
I am 47, when I was 20 a high FICO score was an asset, you could do what less responsible people could not do. Eventually FICO scores meant nothing and anyone could buy a house, artificially inflating the prices. And when you trash your credit, you are given credit in less than a year. A high FICO score is not the asset it once was.
When I was 20, having a great deal of cash savings meant you could get ANY HOUSE you wanted. Eventually, housing became so expensive that was tossed out the window.
When I was 20, having a great deal of cash meant that after accounting for the inflation rate and taxes on earnings, you could still make a REAL rate of return on your money. Eventually, holding cash in savings means a constant erosion of purchasing power, a hidden tax. That too is now gone.
I am seriously thinking about buying a house with as little down as possible and should housing values go the wrong way, simply stop paying and live “rent free” for a year or two. Of course, if housing goes the right direction, it is happy days once again.
My Government wants me to take stupid financial risks. If I am prudent, I will be punished, if I am a spendthrift, I will be rewarded.
On CNBC they constantly talk about the “moral hazard” of all the bail outs. It is too late, when you have no finanicial morals to lose, how can you lose them?
June 20, 2009 at 9:04 AM #418130Participant“”because if you’re in debt up to your eyeballs some govt program will be made available to pay their way or introduce them to student debt””
You got that right.
I am 47, when I was 20 a high FICO score was an asset, you could do what less responsible people could not do. Eventually FICO scores meant nothing and anyone could buy a house, artificially inflating the prices. And when you trash your credit, you are given credit in less than a year. A high FICO score is not the asset it once was.
When I was 20, having a great deal of cash savings meant you could get ANY HOUSE you wanted. Eventually, housing became so expensive that was tossed out the window.
When I was 20, having a great deal of cash meant that after accounting for the inflation rate and taxes on earnings, you could still make a REAL rate of return on your money. Eventually, holding cash in savings means a constant erosion of purchasing power, a hidden tax. That too is now gone.
I am seriously thinking about buying a house with as little down as possible and should housing values go the wrong way, simply stop paying and live “rent free” for a year or two. Of course, if housing goes the right direction, it is happy days once again.
My Government wants me to take stupid financial risks. If I am prudent, I will be punished, if I am a spendthrift, I will be rewarded.
On CNBC they constantly talk about the “moral hazard” of all the bail outs. It is too late, when you have no finanicial morals to lose, how can you lose them?
June 20, 2009 at 9:04 AM #418392Participant“”because if you’re in debt up to your eyeballs some govt program will be made available to pay their way or introduce them to student debt””
You got that right.
I am 47, when I was 20 a high FICO score was an asset, you could do what less responsible people could not do. Eventually FICO scores meant nothing and anyone could buy a house, artificially inflating the prices. And when you trash your credit, you are given credit in less than a year. A high FICO score is not the asset it once was.
When I was 20, having a great deal of cash savings meant you could get ANY HOUSE you wanted. Eventually, housing became so expensive that was tossed out the window.
When I was 20, having a great deal of cash meant that after accounting for the inflation rate and taxes on earnings, you could still make a REAL rate of return on your money. Eventually, holding cash in savings means a constant erosion of purchasing power, a hidden tax. That too is now gone.
I am seriously thinking about buying a house with as little down as possible and should housing values go the wrong way, simply stop paying and live “rent free” for a year or two. Of course, if housing goes the right direction, it is happy days once again.
My Government wants me to take stupid financial risks. If I am prudent, I will be punished, if I am a spendthrift, I will be rewarded.
On CNBC they constantly talk about the “moral hazard” of all the bail outs. It is too late, when you have no finanicial morals to lose, how can you lose them?
June 20, 2009 at 9:04 AM #418457Participant“”because if you’re in debt up to your eyeballs some govt program will be made available to pay their way or introduce them to student debt””
You got that right.
I am 47, when I was 20 a high FICO score was an asset, you could do what less responsible people could not do. Eventually FICO scores meant nothing and anyone could buy a house, artificially inflating the prices. And when you trash your credit, you are given credit in less than a year. A high FICO score is not the asset it once was.
When I was 20, having a great deal of cash savings meant you could get ANY HOUSE you wanted. Eventually, housing became so expensive that was tossed out the window.
When I was 20, having a great deal of cash meant that after accounting for the inflation rate and taxes on earnings, you could still make a REAL rate of return on your money. Eventually, holding cash in savings means a constant erosion of purchasing power, a hidden tax. That too is now gone.
I am seriously thinking about buying a house with as little down as possible and should housing values go the wrong way, simply stop paying and live “rent free” for a year or two. Of course, if housing goes the right direction, it is happy days once again.
My Government wants me to take stupid financial risks. If I am prudent, I will be punished, if I am a spendthrift, I will be rewarded.
On CNBC they constantly talk about the “moral hazard” of all the bail outs. It is too late, when you have no finanicial morals to lose, how can you lose them?
June 20, 2009 at 9:04 AM #418617Participant“”because if you’re in debt up to your eyeballs some govt program will be made available to pay their way or introduce them to student debt””
You got that right.
I am 47, when I was 20 a high FICO score was an asset, you could do what less responsible people could not do. Eventually FICO scores meant nothing and anyone could buy a house, artificially inflating the prices. And when you trash your credit, you are given credit in less than a year. A high FICO score is not the asset it once was.
When I was 20, having a great deal of cash savings meant you could get ANY HOUSE you wanted. Eventually, housing became so expensive that was tossed out the window.
When I was 20, having a great deal of cash meant that after accounting for the inflation rate and taxes on earnings, you could still make a REAL rate of return on your money. Eventually, holding cash in savings means a constant erosion of purchasing power, a hidden tax. That too is now gone.
I am seriously thinking about buying a house with as little down as possible and should housing values go the wrong way, simply stop paying and live “rent free” for a year or two. Of course, if housing goes the right direction, it is happy days once again.
My Government wants me to take stupid financial risks. If I am prudent, I will be punished, if I am a spendthrift, I will be rewarded.
On CNBC they constantly talk about the “moral hazard” of all the bail outs. It is too late, when you have no finanicial morals to lose, how can you lose them?
June 20, 2009 at 10:45 AM #417908Zeitgeist
ParticipantOur Government can’t even run a whore house..
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/83270
Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country to a pack of nit-wits who couldn’t make money running a whore house and selling booze? Someone said because they do not like competition…
the politicians have been fu#$@!ng the public for years.In my opinion, the post office, schools, the DMV all should be privatized. Whatever the government touches it ruins.
June 20, 2009 at 10:45 AM #418140ParticipantOur Government can’t even run a whore house..
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/83270
Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country to a pack of nit-wits who couldn’t make money running a whore house and selling booze? Someone said because they do not like competition…
the politicians have been fu#$@!ng the public for years.In my opinion, the post office, schools, the DMV all should be privatized. Whatever the government touches it ruins.
June 20, 2009 at 10:45 AM #418402ParticipantOur Government can’t even run a whore house..
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/83270
Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country to a pack of nit-wits who couldn’t make money running a whore house and selling booze? Someone said because they do not like competition…
the politicians have been fu#$@!ng the public for years.In my opinion, the post office, schools, the DMV all should be privatized. Whatever the government touches it ruins.
June 20, 2009 at 10:45 AM #418467ParticipantOur Government can’t even run a whore house..
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/83270
Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country to a pack of nit-wits who couldn’t make money running a whore house and selling booze? Someone said because they do not like competition…
the politicians have been fu#$@!ng the public for years.In my opinion, the post office, schools, the DMV all should be privatized. Whatever the government touches it ruins.
June 20, 2009 at 10:45 AM #418627ParticipantOur Government can’t even run a whore house..
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/83270
Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country to a pack of nit-wits who couldn’t make money running a whore house and selling booze? Someone said because they do not like competition…
the politicians have been fu#$@!ng the public for years.In my opinion, the post office, schools, the DMV all should be privatized. Whatever the government touches it ruins.
June 20, 2009 at 11:13 AM #417913paramount
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=paramount]Even if Teachers total compensation is included, I think we all know where the money is going…
Honestly though, I don’t want to fight this battle, and I do think teachers deserve a good salary and benefits.
[/quote]
California is at 124.8% of average for teacher salaries.
http://www.aft.org/salary/2007/download/AFT2007SalarySurvey.pdfCalifornia cost of living is 136.6% of average.
California cost of housing is at about 200% of average.
http://www.top50states.com/cost-of-living-by-state.htmlThis would suggest to me that they make comparatively less than most teachers nationally.
Would you disagree?[/quote]
No, it suggests to me that they make 24.8% more than the average teacher on a national basis.
June 20, 2009 at 11:13 AM #418145Participant[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=paramount]Even if Teachers total compensation is included, I think we all know where the money is going…
Honestly though, I don’t want to fight this battle, and I do think teachers deserve a good salary and benefits.
[/quote]
California is at 124.8% of average for teacher salaries.
http://www.aft.org/salary/2007/download/AFT2007SalarySurvey.pdfCalifornia cost of living is 136.6% of average.
California cost of housing is at about 200% of average.
http://www.top50states.com/cost-of-living-by-state.htmlThis would suggest to me that they make comparatively less than most teachers nationally.
Would you disagree?[/quote]
No, it suggests to me that they make 24.8% more than the average teacher on a national basis.
June 20, 2009 at 11:13 AM #418407Participant[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=paramount]Even if Teachers total compensation is included, I think we all know where the money is going…
Honestly though, I don’t want to fight this battle, and I do think teachers deserve a good salary and benefits.
[/quote]
California is at 124.8% of average for teacher salaries.
http://www.aft.org/salary/2007/download/AFT2007SalarySurvey.pdfCalifornia cost of living is 136.6% of average.
California cost of housing is at about 200% of average.
http://www.top50states.com/cost-of-living-by-state.htmlThis would suggest to me that they make comparatively less than most teachers nationally.
Would you disagree?[/quote]
No, it suggests to me that they make 24.8% more than the average teacher on a national basis.
June 20, 2009 at 11:13 AM #418472Participant[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=paramount]Even if Teachers total compensation is included, I think we all know where the money is going…
Honestly though, I don’t want to fight this battle, and I do think teachers deserve a good salary and benefits.
[/quote]
California is at 124.8% of average for teacher salaries.
http://www.aft.org/salary/2007/download/AFT2007SalarySurvey.pdfCalifornia cost of living is 136.6% of average.
California cost of housing is at about 200% of average.
http://www.top50states.com/cost-of-living-by-state.htmlThis would suggest to me that they make comparatively less than most teachers nationally.
Would you disagree?[/quote]
No, it suggests to me that they make 24.8% more than the average teacher on a national basis.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.