[Ash Housewares]

Update, he might have a plan. Here is what he wrote:

I just got done masterminding with some of the best investors/short sale experts in my office. This is what the group recommended I do.

Short Sale (Property C), wipes out the first $234,000 and drag out the second if lucky can settle the $63,000 for $10,000ish. That property is done no more $700-$800 per mo. loss.

Keep (Property D) current (saving Mom’s credit) and use the $100,000 HELOC money to invest down here in $30,000 condos that would cash flow $500-$600 per mo. ea (after HOA dues). Buy one, let property management company do all the work for $60 per mo. Once first unit rented repeat process for an additional 2 units for a total of three new properties, each cash flowing $500-$600 for a total positive of $1,500-$1,800.

Once that is done, Mom permitting, renegotiate the first and second mortgages on (Property C) to bring it from breaking even to a small monthly cash flow. Might have to miss a couple payments to get the credit unions attention.

In regards to the judgment…write the crazy lady a check for $2250 and stop thinking about it. Get property management to look over property….breaks even.

The house in (Property A) $164,000 breaking even, renegotiate loan to fixed 3-4% for cash flow of couple hundred a month.

Total outcome:

Sell 1 house that is loosing $700-$800 per mo. Keep all others and take from breaking even to $100-$200 positive cash flow per mo. 3 new properties cash flowing $1,500+ per mo.

My situation goes from a monthly loss of $700-$800 to positive roughly $2,000 per mo. while gaining total number of rental units. Save all cash flow and buy 1 new property every year (cash). Once market rebounds sell off property and look for apartment building.

Let me know what your blog members say.

[Ash Housewares]

Update, he might have a plan. Here is what he wrote:

I just got done masterminding with some of the best investors/short sale experts in my office. This is what the group recommended I do.

Short Sale (Property C), wipes out the first $234,000 and drag out the second if lucky can settle the $63,000 for $10,000ish. That property is done no more $700-$800 per mo. loss.

Keep (Property D) current (saving Mom’s credit) and use the $100,000 HELOC money to invest down here in $30,000 condos that would cash flow $500-$600 per mo. ea (after HOA dues). Buy one, let property management company do all the work for $60 per mo. Once first unit rented repeat process for an additional 2 units for a total of three new properties, each cash flowing $500-$600 for a total positive of $1,500-$1,800.

Once that is done, Mom permitting, renegotiate the first and second mortgages on (Property C) to bring it from breaking even to a small monthly cash flow. Might have to miss a couple payments to get the credit unions attention.

In regards to the judgment…write the crazy lady a check for $2250 and stop thinking about it. Get property management to look over property….breaks even.

The house in (Property A) $164,000 breaking even, renegotiate loan to fixed 3-4% for cash flow of couple hundred a month.

Total outcome:

Sell 1 house that is loosing $700-$800 per mo. Keep all others and take from breaking even to $100-$200 positive cash flow per mo. 3 new properties cash flowing $1,500+ per mo.

My situation goes from a monthly loss of $700-$800 to positive roughly $2,000 per mo. while gaining total number of rental units. Save all cash flow and buy 1 new property every year (cash). Once market rebounds sell off property and look for apartment building.

Let me know what your blog members say.

[Ash Housewares]

Update, he might have a plan. Here is what he wrote:

I just got done masterminding with some of the best investors/short sale experts in my office. This is what the group recommended I do.

Short Sale (Property C), wipes out the first $234,000 and drag out the second if lucky can settle the $63,000 for $10,000ish. That property is done no more $700-$800 per mo. loss.

Keep (Property D) current (saving Mom’s credit) and use the $100,000 HELOC money to invest down here in $30,000 condos that would cash flow $500-$600 per mo. ea (after HOA dues). Buy one, let property management company do all the work for $60 per mo. Once first unit rented repeat process for an additional 2 units for a total of three new properties, each cash flowing $500-$600 for a total positive of $1,500-$1,800.

Once that is done, Mom permitting, renegotiate the first and second mortgages on (Property C) to bring it from breaking even to a small monthly cash flow. Might have to miss a couple payments to get the credit unions attention.

In regards to the judgment…write the crazy lady a check for $2250 and stop thinking about it. Get property management to look over property….breaks even.

The house in (Property A) $164,000 breaking even, renegotiate loan to fixed 3-4% for cash flow of couple hundred a month.

Total outcome:

Sell 1 house that is loosing $700-$800 per mo. Keep all others and take from breaking even to $100-$200 positive cash flow per mo. 3 new properties cash flowing $1,500+ per mo.

My situation goes from a monthly loss of $700-$800 to positive roughly $2,000 per mo. while gaining total number of rental units. Save all cash flow and buy 1 new property every year (cash). Once market rebounds sell off property and look for apartment building.

Let me know what your blog members say.

[Ash Housewares]

Update, he might have a plan. Here is what he wrote:

I just got done masterminding with some of the best investors/short sale experts in my office. This is what the group recommended I do.

Short Sale (Property C), wipes out the first $234,000 and drag out the second if lucky can settle the $63,000 for $10,000ish. That property is done no more $700-$800 per mo. loss.

Keep (Property D) current (saving Mom’s credit) and use the $100,000 HELOC money to invest down here in $30,000 condos that would cash flow $500-$600 per mo. ea (after HOA dues). Buy one, let property management company do all the work for $60 per mo. Once first unit rented repeat process for an additional 2 units for a total of three new properties, each cash flowing $500-$600 for a total positive of $1,500-$1,800.

Once that is done, Mom permitting, renegotiate the first and second mortgages on (Property C) to bring it from breaking even to a small monthly cash flow. Might have to miss a couple payments to get the credit unions attention.

In regards to the judgment…write the crazy lady a check for $2250 and stop thinking about it. Get property management to look over property….breaks even.

The house in (Property A) $164,000 breaking even, renegotiate loan to fixed 3-4% for cash flow of couple hundred a month.

Total outcome:

Sell 1 house that is loosing $700-$800 per mo. Keep all others and take from breaking even to $100-$200 positive cash flow per mo. 3 new properties cash flowing $1,500+ per mo.

My situation goes from a monthly loss of $700-$800 to positive roughly $2,000 per mo. while gaining total number of rental units. Save all cash flow and buy 1 new property every year (cash). Once market rebounds sell off property and look for apartment building.

Let me know what your blog members say.

[Ash Housewares]

[quote=temeculaguy] here’s the secret, it’s taken me years to perfect it but it’s simple. There are three measurements used for women, usually in inches, bust size, waist size and hips, in that order. As long as the middle number is smaller that the other two, it’s all good, reagardless of the size of the numbers, the larger the difference, the better. [/quote]

TG I found your dream woman:[img_assist|nid=11491|title=narrow waist|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=400|height=279]

[Ash Housewares]

[quote=temeculaguy] here’s the secret, it’s taken me years to perfect it but it’s simple. There are three measurements used for women, usually in inches, bust size, waist size and hips, in that order. As long as the middle number is smaller that the other two, it’s all good, reagardless of the size of the numbers, the larger the difference, the better. [/quote]

TG I found your dream woman:[img_assist|nid=11491|title=narrow waist|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=400|height=279]

[Ash Housewares]

[quote=temeculaguy] here’s the secret, it’s taken me years to perfect it but it’s simple. There are three measurements used for women, usually in inches, bust size, waist size and hips, in that order. As long as the middle number is smaller that the other two, it’s all good, reagardless of the size of the numbers, the larger the difference, the better. [/quote]

TG I found your dream woman:[img_assist|nid=11491|title=narrow waist|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=400|height=279]

[Ash Housewares]

[quote=temeculaguy] here’s the secret, it’s taken me years to perfect it but it’s simple. There are three measurements used for women, usually in inches, bust size, waist size and hips, in that order. As long as the middle number is smaller that the other two, it’s all good, reagardless of the size of the numbers, the larger the difference, the better. [/quote]

TG I found your dream woman:[img_assist|nid=11491|title=narrow waist|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=400|height=279]

[Ash Housewares]

[quote=temeculaguy] here’s the secret, it’s taken me years to perfect it but it’s simple. There are three measurements used for women, usually in inches, bust size, waist size and hips, in that order. As long as the middle number is smaller that the other two, it’s all good, reagardless of the size of the numbers, the larger the difference, the better. [/quote]

TG I found your dream woman:[img_assist|nid=11491|title=narrow waist|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=400|height=279]

[Ash Housewares]

[quote=felix]

I guess what I wonder about is this:

CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath

There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now

Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade

Not only have global temps declined over the past decade but we aren’t even comparing apples to apples when looking at the alarmists data. Some temp recording stations in Siberia have been taken out of service due to cutbacks by the Russians

So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?

I suspect it is the later as the alarmist don’t even call it global warming anymore but global climate change. Anyway no one has demonstrated they can even predict with certainty weather two weeks out needless to say predict global climate change when they completely dismiss the most likely scenario which is solar activity because solar activity can’t be taxed.

Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.
Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.

So the big lies are that not only isn’t the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn’t want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[/quote]

You might want to peruse this:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

It’s a rundown of dozens of skeptic claims, including many of your own (it’s the sun, C02 higher in the past, natural cycles, and on and on) along with evidence to debunk each objection.

I agree with the point made above, that skeptics’ main objection is the cost of preventing climate change vs the perceived benefits. That is a reasonable question and one worth debating. It’s too bad that point gets overshadowed by global conspiracy theories.

[Ash Housewares]

[quote=felix]

I guess what I wonder about is this:

CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath

There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now

Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade

Not only have global temps declined over the past decade but we aren’t even comparing apples to apples when looking at the alarmists data. Some temp recording stations in Siberia have been taken out of service due to cutbacks by the Russians

So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?

I suspect it is the later as the alarmist don’t even call it global warming anymore but global climate change. Anyway no one has demonstrated they can even predict with certainty weather two weeks out needless to say predict global climate change when they completely dismiss the most likely scenario which is solar activity because solar activity can’t be taxed.

Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.
Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.

So the big lies are that not only isn’t the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn’t want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[/quote]

You might want to peruse this:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

It’s a rundown of dozens of skeptic claims, including many of your own (it’s the sun, C02 higher in the past, natural cycles, and on and on) along with evidence to debunk each objection.

I agree with the point made above, that skeptics’ main objection is the cost of preventing climate change vs the perceived benefits. That is a reasonable question and one worth debating. It’s too bad that point gets overshadowed by global conspiracy theories.

[Ash Housewares]

[quote=felix]

I guess what I wonder about is this:

CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath

There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now

Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade

Not only have global temps declined over the past decade but we aren’t even comparing apples to apples when looking at the alarmists data. Some temp recording stations in Siberia have been taken out of service due to cutbacks by the Russians

So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?

I suspect it is the later as the alarmist don’t even call it global warming anymore but global climate change. Anyway no one has demonstrated they can even predict with certainty weather two weeks out needless to say predict global climate change when they completely dismiss the most likely scenario which is solar activity because solar activity can’t be taxed.

Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.
Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.

So the big lies are that not only isn’t the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn’t want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[/quote]

You might want to peruse this:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

It’s a rundown of dozens of skeptic claims, including many of your own (it’s the sun, C02 higher in the past, natural cycles, and on and on) along with evidence to debunk each objection.

I agree with the point made above, that skeptics’ main objection is the cost of preventing climate change vs the perceived benefits. That is a reasonable question and one worth debating. It’s too bad that point gets overshadowed by global conspiracy theories.

[Ash Housewares]

[quote=felix]

I guess what I wonder about is this:

CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath

There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now

Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade

Not only have global temps declined over the past decade but we aren’t even comparing apples to apples when looking at the alarmists data. Some temp recording stations in Siberia have been taken out of service due to cutbacks by the Russians

So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?

I suspect it is the later as the alarmist don’t even call it global warming anymore but global climate change. Anyway no one has demonstrated they can even predict with certainty weather two weeks out needless to say predict global climate change when they completely dismiss the most likely scenario which is solar activity because solar activity can’t be taxed.

Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.
Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.

So the big lies are that not only isn’t the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn’t want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[/quote]

You might want to peruse this:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

It’s a rundown of dozens of skeptic claims, including many of your own (it’s the sun, C02 higher in the past, natural cycles, and on and on) along with evidence to debunk each objection.

I agree with the point made above, that skeptics’ main objection is the cost of preventing climate change vs the perceived benefits. That is a reasonable question and one worth debating. It’s too bad that point gets overshadowed by global conspiracy theories.

[Ash Housewares]

[quote=felix]

I guess what I wonder about is this:

CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath

There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now

Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade

Not only have global temps declined over the past decade but we aren’t even comparing apples to apples when looking at the alarmists data. Some temp recording stations in Siberia have been taken out of service due to cutbacks by the Russians

So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?

I suspect it is the later as the alarmist don’t even call it global warming anymore but global climate change. Anyway no one has demonstrated they can even predict with certainty weather two weeks out needless to say predict global climate change when they completely dismiss the most likely scenario which is solar activity because solar activity can’t be taxed.

Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.
Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.

So the big lies are that not only isn’t the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn’t want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[/quote]

You might want to peruse this:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

It’s a rundown of dozens of skeptic claims, including many of your own (it’s the sun, C02 higher in the past, natural cycles, and on and on) along with evidence to debunk each objection.

I agree with the point made above, that skeptics’ main objection is the cost of preventing climate change vs the perceived benefits. That is a reasonable question and one worth debating. It’s too bad that point gets overshadowed by global conspiracy theories.

[Ash Housewares]

4plex, how is that property in Alabama treating you? Can you give us an update? How is the distant owner situation working out?

[Author]

Posts