[CA renter]

If you truly feel your children are better off being under your wing 24/7, then you probably think your child should be home-schooled also. And I couldn’t disagree more with that particular arrangement!
————————-

Why do you disagree with that “particular arrangement”?

1. Children get individualized instruction that they could NEVER get in a regular school setting.

Very few children perform at a particular grade level in all subjects. One might be capable of 5th grade math, 2nd grade writing, 4th grade reading, 9th grade art, etc. With individualized instruction, the child can work on each subject in the optimal way.

2. Homeschooled children rarely get sick, don’t get molested by teachers and won’t be abducted before/after school. In “bad” areas, this (threat of abduction) is much more common than you could imagine.

3. Homeschooling families can travel, learn different languages and participate in more extra-curricular activities — and can do so in a much more intensive way, if a student has a particular talent and desire.

4. Contrary to popular belief, homeschooled kids are not locked up in closets, hidden away from the outside world. They play with friends and neighbors, go to park days and field trips, and do all the “regular” things other kids do. One difference…they do not get the negative aspects of “socializing” with other kids (bullying, inappropriate behavior, etc.), because parents can choose the environment and type of company their children keep.

5. Homeschooling puts family first, over peers, which is important because kids are often not capable of making rational decisions while they are young, and often need some guidance. These kids tend to have very strong bonds with their parents and siblings, and are more inclined to seek (and respect!) their parent’s advice.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:69pD84bzhMsJ:www.tresearch.org/headlines/2008Jan_TeenBrain.pdf+teen+brain+development&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

***********

I don’t think everyone (parents and children) should homeschool, but I certainly don’t think traditional school is right for everybody either. People should do whatever works best for them, as we all have different needs, abilities and desires.

[CA renter]

Sdduuuude nailed it.

Investments certainly look good in some areas right now, based on inflated rents. But lots of inventory is being kept off the market by banks and FBs trying to hold on until “the market gets better.” What happens to rents and prices when that inventory is finally released onto the market?

A recession/depression is still not being priced in, nor is a decrease in rent or further decay in the lower-end neighborhoods. Crime will rise, rents will fall; and what seems like a good deal today will probably look foolish next year and the year after that.

I still stand by my 2012 bottom, at best. Time will tell.

[CA renter]

Sdduuuude nailed it.

Investments certainly look good in some areas right now, based on inflated rents. But lots of inventory is being kept off the market by banks and FBs trying to hold on until “the market gets better.” What happens to rents and prices when that inventory is finally released onto the market?

A recession/depression is still not being priced in, nor is a decrease in rent or further decay in the lower-end neighborhoods. Crime will rise, rents will fall; and what seems like a good deal today will probably look foolish next year and the year after that.

I still stand by my 2012 bottom, at best. Time will tell.

[CA renter]

Sdduuuude nailed it.

Investments certainly look good in some areas right now, based on inflated rents. But lots of inventory is being kept off the market by banks and FBs trying to hold on until “the market gets better.” What happens to rents and prices when that inventory is finally released onto the market?

A recession/depression is still not being priced in, nor is a decrease in rent or further decay in the lower-end neighborhoods. Crime will rise, rents will fall; and what seems like a good deal today will probably look foolish next year and the year after that.

I still stand by my 2012 bottom, at best. Time will tell.

[CA renter]

Sdduuuude nailed it.

Investments certainly look good in some areas right now, based on inflated rents. But lots of inventory is being kept off the market by banks and FBs trying to hold on until “the market gets better.” What happens to rents and prices when that inventory is finally released onto the market?

A recession/depression is still not being priced in, nor is a decrease in rent or further decay in the lower-end neighborhoods. Crime will rise, rents will fall; and what seems like a good deal today will probably look foolish next year and the year after that.

I still stand by my 2012 bottom, at best. Time will tell.

[CA renter]

Sdduuuude nailed it.

Investments certainly look good in some areas right now, based on inflated rents. But lots of inventory is being kept off the market by banks and FBs trying to hold on until “the market gets better.” What happens to rents and prices when that inventory is finally released onto the market?

A recession/depression is still not being priced in, nor is a decrease in rent or further decay in the lower-end neighborhoods. Crime will rise, rents will fall; and what seems like a good deal today will probably look foolish next year and the year after that.

I still stand by my 2012 bottom, at best. Time will tell.

[CA renter]

(The $417K loans will allow up to 60% DTI)
—————
This is the part that ticks me off, and tells me we are nowhere near a bottom in the housing market or the credit bubble deflation.

If this were my money, I would allow no more than a 33% back-end ratio on people earning $150K or less. A 60% DTI ratio virtually guarantees a future default. The “foreclosure crisis” will not be over until all of these irresponsible loans are eliminated.

Still holding out until we see 28/33 DTI ratios, at least. Then we can call it a “tight” (used to be called “normal”) credit market.

[CA renter]

(The $417K loans will allow up to 60% DTI)
—————
This is the part that ticks me off, and tells me we are nowhere near a bottom in the housing market or the credit bubble deflation.

If this were my money, I would allow no more than a 33% back-end ratio on people earning $150K or less. A 60% DTI ratio virtually guarantees a future default. The “foreclosure crisis” will not be over until all of these irresponsible loans are eliminated.

Still holding out until we see 28/33 DTI ratios, at least. Then we can call it a “tight” (used to be called “normal”) credit market.

[CA renter]

(The $417K loans will allow up to 60% DTI)
—————
This is the part that ticks me off, and tells me we are nowhere near a bottom in the housing market or the credit bubble deflation.

If this were my money, I would allow no more than a 33% back-end ratio on people earning $150K or less. A 60% DTI ratio virtually guarantees a future default. The “foreclosure crisis” will not be over until all of these irresponsible loans are eliminated.

Still holding out until we see 28/33 DTI ratios, at least. Then we can call it a “tight” (used to be called “normal”) credit market.

[CA renter]

(The $417K loans will allow up to 60% DTI)
—————
This is the part that ticks me off, and tells me we are nowhere near a bottom in the housing market or the credit bubble deflation.

If this were my money, I would allow no more than a 33% back-end ratio on people earning $150K or less. A 60% DTI ratio virtually guarantees a future default. The “foreclosure crisis” will not be over until all of these irresponsible loans are eliminated.

Still holding out until we see 28/33 DTI ratios, at least. Then we can call it a “tight” (used to be called “normal”) credit market.

[CA renter]

(The $417K loans will allow up to 60% DTI)
—————
This is the part that ticks me off, and tells me we are nowhere near a bottom in the housing market or the credit bubble deflation.

If this were my money, I would allow no more than a 33% back-end ratio on people earning $150K or less. A 60% DTI ratio virtually guarantees a future default. The “foreclosure crisis” will not be over until all of these irresponsible loans are eliminated.

Still holding out until we see 28/33 DTI ratios, at least. Then we can call it a “tight” (used to be called “normal”) credit market.

[CA renter]

Government’s role in the USA is income redistribution. This creates massive disincintives to work hard and save and a huge incentive to sign up to be on the receiving end of the redistribution gravy train.

AND:

Add to all that the reality that wealth concentration is accellerating.
————————-

Which one is preferable? The wealth disparity or the “redistribution of income”? You either want power and money to be further concentrated, or you want the income to be redistributed back to the working people (most of those who are truly wealthy do not work, they just live off the productive labor of others).

I think this is one of the issues that the PTB (mega-banks & corporations) try to manipulate in the minds of U.S. citizens. They try to convince J6 (that’s most of us, if we have to “work” for a living) that he, too, can be “rich” if only he works hard enough. This argument between fiscal conservatives & liberals keeps us fighting amongst ourselves while they (banks/corps) make off with the loot.

I can show you one example after another of people who’ve worked very hard and lived frugally all their lives, with very little to show for it. I can also show you one example after another of people who do very little work — even those who assist in the destruction of our economy (witness the credit bubble, and all the bubbles it’s created) — and they have many millions, if not billions of dollars.

The greatest determinant of wealth, IMHO, is how close a person is to those in power (already wealthy). Power begets money, money begets power, power begets money, etc. Those with money control Congress and can even hold sway over court decisions.

Everything is relative. If you make $100K, but everyone else is making $70K, then you are rich, financially-speaking. I don’t believe for a second that higher taxes prevent anyone from legitimately earning more money. Since all people over the given limits would be taxed equally, you’d still be wealthy and have all the advantages, when compared to others below you in income-earning capacity. Your lifestyle would still be significantly better than theirs.

Even if it were so, someone else would pick up the slack, and earn that money, instead. That would actually be better, as the wealth could be divided more equally, and people would have more free time (since they would somehow lose the incentive to work, if taxes were higher).

[CA renter]

Government’s role in the USA is income redistribution. This creates massive disincintives to work hard and save and a huge incentive to sign up to be on the receiving end of the redistribution gravy train.

AND:

Add to all that the reality that wealth concentration is accellerating.
————————-

Which one is preferable? The wealth disparity or the “redistribution of income”? You either want power and money to be further concentrated, or you want the income to be redistributed back to the working people (most of those who are truly wealthy do not work, they just live off the productive labor of others).

I think this is one of the issues that the PTB (mega-banks & corporations) try to manipulate in the minds of U.S. citizens. They try to convince J6 (that’s most of us, if we have to “work” for a living) that he, too, can be “rich” if only he works hard enough. This argument between fiscal conservatives & liberals keeps us fighting amongst ourselves while they (banks/corps) make off with the loot.

I can show you one example after another of people who’ve worked very hard and lived frugally all their lives, with very little to show for it. I can also show you one example after another of people who do very little work — even those who assist in the destruction of our economy (witness the credit bubble, and all the bubbles it’s created) — and they have many millions, if not billions of dollars.

The greatest determinant of wealth, IMHO, is how close a person is to those in power (already wealthy). Power begets money, money begets power, power begets money, etc. Those with money control Congress and can even hold sway over court decisions.

Everything is relative. If you make $100K, but everyone else is making $70K, then you are rich, financially-speaking. I don’t believe for a second that higher taxes prevent anyone from legitimately earning more money. Since all people over the given limits would be taxed equally, you’d still be wealthy and have all the advantages, when compared to others below you in income-earning capacity. Your lifestyle would still be significantly better than theirs.

Even if it were so, someone else would pick up the slack, and earn that money, instead. That would actually be better, as the wealth could be divided more equally, and people would have more free time (since they would somehow lose the incentive to work, if taxes were higher).

[CA renter]

Government’s role in the USA is income redistribution. This creates massive disincintives to work hard and save and a huge incentive to sign up to be on the receiving end of the redistribution gravy train.

AND:

Add to all that the reality that wealth concentration is accellerating.
————————-

Which one is preferable? The wealth disparity or the “redistribution of income”? You either want power and money to be further concentrated, or you want the income to be redistributed back to the working people (most of those who are truly wealthy do not work, they just live off the productive labor of others).

I think this is one of the issues that the PTB (mega-banks & corporations) try to manipulate in the minds of U.S. citizens. They try to convince J6 (that’s most of us, if we have to “work” for a living) that he, too, can be “rich” if only he works hard enough. This argument between fiscal conservatives & liberals keeps us fighting amongst ourselves while they (banks/corps) make off with the loot.

I can show you one example after another of people who’ve worked very hard and lived frugally all their lives, with very little to show for it. I can also show you one example after another of people who do very little work — even those who assist in the destruction of our economy (witness the credit bubble, and all the bubbles it’s created) — and they have many millions, if not billions of dollars.

The greatest determinant of wealth, IMHO, is how close a person is to those in power (already wealthy). Power begets money, money begets power, power begets money, etc. Those with money control Congress and can even hold sway over court decisions.

Everything is relative. If you make $100K, but everyone else is making $70K, then you are rich, financially-speaking. I don’t believe for a second that higher taxes prevent anyone from legitimately earning more money. Since all people over the given limits would be taxed equally, you’d still be wealthy and have all the advantages, when compared to others below you in income-earning capacity. Your lifestyle would still be significantly better than theirs.

Even if it were so, someone else would pick up the slack, and earn that money, instead. That would actually be better, as the wealth could be divided more equally, and people would have more free time (since they would somehow lose the incentive to work, if taxes were higher).

[CA renter]

Government’s role in the USA is income redistribution. This creates massive disincintives to work hard and save and a huge incentive to sign up to be on the receiving end of the redistribution gravy train.

AND:

Add to all that the reality that wealth concentration is accellerating.
————————-

Which one is preferable? The wealth disparity or the “redistribution of income”? You either want power and money to be further concentrated, or you want the income to be redistributed back to the working people (most of those who are truly wealthy do not work, they just live off the productive labor of others).

I think this is one of the issues that the PTB (mega-banks & corporations) try to manipulate in the minds of U.S. citizens. They try to convince J6 (that’s most of us, if we have to “work” for a living) that he, too, can be “rich” if only he works hard enough. This argument between fiscal conservatives & liberals keeps us fighting amongst ourselves while they (banks/corps) make off with the loot.

I can show you one example after another of people who’ve worked very hard and lived frugally all their lives, with very little to show for it. I can also show you one example after another of people who do very little work — even those who assist in the destruction of our economy (witness the credit bubble, and all the bubbles it’s created) — and they have many millions, if not billions of dollars.

The greatest determinant of wealth, IMHO, is how close a person is to those in power (already wealthy). Power begets money, money begets power, power begets money, etc. Those with money control Congress and can even hold sway over court decisions.

Everything is relative. If you make $100K, but everyone else is making $70K, then you are rich, financially-speaking. I don’t believe for a second that higher taxes prevent anyone from legitimately earning more money. Since all people over the given limits would be taxed equally, you’d still be wealthy and have all the advantages, when compared to others below you in income-earning capacity. Your lifestyle would still be significantly better than theirs.

Even if it were so, someone else would pick up the slack, and earn that money, instead. That would actually be better, as the wealth could be divided more equally, and people would have more free time (since they would somehow lose the incentive to work, if taxes were higher).

[Author]

Posts