Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
cooperthedog
ParticipantMy two cents:
Nothing in the original post was overtly “racist”, though it deals with race directly, so I can see how it could be intepreted as such. It really is an observation on true Machiavellian tactics, which seem to be required to get elected in this country.
[quote] Don’t you know black people come in all colors?? [/quote]
Really? I would assume that black people would have to be black. It kind of seems like the defining characteristic. Now someone of African-American descent may have varying skin tones…
Marion – You DO tend to overreact and in all honesty, you appear to have Narcissitic Personality Disorder, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
which would better explain your diatribe and feeling that this post (as well as countless other comments on this blog) were a personal attack. You also tend to use emotionally charged words and ad hominem attacks.As for bias, everyone has theirs. The key is to recognize this and evaluate topics as objectively as possible.
As for Allan, I have generally enjoyed his posts and found them enlightening, even though I know his conservative viewpoint differs from mine.
ParticipantMy two cents:
Nothing in the original post was overtly “racist”, though it deals with race directly, so I can see how it could be intepreted as such. It really is an observation on true Machiavellian tactics, which seem to be required to get elected in this country.
[quote] Don’t you know black people come in all colors?? [/quote]
Really? I would assume that black people would have to be black. It kind of seems like the defining characteristic. Now someone of African-American descent may have varying skin tones…
Marion – You DO tend to overreact and in all honesty, you appear to have Narcissitic Personality Disorder, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
which would better explain your diatribe and feeling that this post (as well as countless other comments on this blog) were a personal attack. You also tend to use emotionally charged words and ad hominem attacks.As for bias, everyone has theirs. The key is to recognize this and evaluate topics as objectively as possible.
As for Allan, I have generally enjoyed his posts and found them enlightening, even though I know his conservative viewpoint differs from mine.
ParticipantMy two cents:
Nothing in the original post was overtly “racist”, though it deals with race directly, so I can see how it could be intepreted as such. It really is an observation on true Machiavellian tactics, which seem to be required to get elected in this country.
[quote] Don’t you know black people come in all colors?? [/quote]
Really? I would assume that black people would have to be black. It kind of seems like the defining characteristic. Now someone of African-American descent may have varying skin tones…
Marion – You DO tend to overreact and in all honesty, you appear to have Narcissitic Personality Disorder, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
which would better explain your diatribe and feeling that this post (as well as countless other comments on this blog) were a personal attack. You also tend to use emotionally charged words and ad hominem attacks.As for bias, everyone has theirs. The key is to recognize this and evaluate topics as objectively as possible.
As for Allan, I have generally enjoyed his posts and found them enlightening, even though I know his conservative viewpoint differs from mine.
ParticipantMy two cents:
Nothing in the original post was overtly “racist”, though it deals with race directly, so I can see how it could be intepreted as such. It really is an observation on true Machiavellian tactics, which seem to be required to get elected in this country.
[quote] Don’t you know black people come in all colors?? [/quote]
Really? I would assume that black people would have to be black. It kind of seems like the defining characteristic. Now someone of African-American descent may have varying skin tones…
Marion – You DO tend to overreact and in all honesty, you appear to have Narcissitic Personality Disorder, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
which would better explain your diatribe and feeling that this post (as well as countless other comments on this blog) were a personal attack. You also tend to use emotionally charged words and ad hominem attacks.As for bias, everyone has theirs. The key is to recognize this and evaluate topics as objectively as possible.
As for Allan, I have generally enjoyed his posts and found them enlightening, even though I know his conservative viewpoint differs from mine.
ParticipantIf you have > 100k, I would recommend a brokerage account, invested in securities (e.g. a government only money market fund for those that are very risk averse). Such securities are federally insured up to 500k via the SIPC. In addition, most brokerages carry substantial additional private insurance. Note that cash in a brokerage account is only protected up to 100k, and that some brokerages use money market “deposit accounts”, which are considered “cash” (100k limit). a money market fund, which is treated as a security, has the 500k SIPC protection limit. Also note that the SIPC does NOT protect against loss of principal in the investment, it only provides insurance for failure of the broker.
If you have less then 100k, then the FDIC will insure the full amount at any bank, plus there are ways to structure the deposit to provide > 100k protection. In my opinion, US Bank is a fairly conservative and stable bank.
ParticipantIf you have > 100k, I would recommend a brokerage account, invested in securities (e.g. a government only money market fund for those that are very risk averse). Such securities are federally insured up to 500k via the SIPC. In addition, most brokerages carry substantial additional private insurance. Note that cash in a brokerage account is only protected up to 100k, and that some brokerages use money market “deposit accounts”, which are considered “cash” (100k limit). a money market fund, which is treated as a security, has the 500k SIPC protection limit. Also note that the SIPC does NOT protect against loss of principal in the investment, it only provides insurance for failure of the broker.
If you have less then 100k, then the FDIC will insure the full amount at any bank, plus there are ways to structure the deposit to provide > 100k protection. In my opinion, US Bank is a fairly conservative and stable bank.
ParticipantIf you have > 100k, I would recommend a brokerage account, invested in securities (e.g. a government only money market fund for those that are very risk averse). Such securities are federally insured up to 500k via the SIPC. In addition, most brokerages carry substantial additional private insurance. Note that cash in a brokerage account is only protected up to 100k, and that some brokerages use money market “deposit accounts”, which are considered “cash” (100k limit). a money market fund, which is treated as a security, has the 500k SIPC protection limit. Also note that the SIPC does NOT protect against loss of principal in the investment, it only provides insurance for failure of the broker.
If you have less then 100k, then the FDIC will insure the full amount at any bank, plus there are ways to structure the deposit to provide > 100k protection. In my opinion, US Bank is a fairly conservative and stable bank.
ParticipantIf you have > 100k, I would recommend a brokerage account, invested in securities (e.g. a government only money market fund for those that are very risk averse). Such securities are federally insured up to 500k via the SIPC. In addition, most brokerages carry substantial additional private insurance. Note that cash in a brokerage account is only protected up to 100k, and that some brokerages use money market “deposit accounts”, which are considered “cash” (100k limit). a money market fund, which is treated as a security, has the 500k SIPC protection limit. Also note that the SIPC does NOT protect against loss of principal in the investment, it only provides insurance for failure of the broker.
If you have less then 100k, then the FDIC will insure the full amount at any bank, plus there are ways to structure the deposit to provide > 100k protection. In my opinion, US Bank is a fairly conservative and stable bank.
ParticipantIf you have > 100k, I would recommend a brokerage account, invested in securities (e.g. a government only money market fund for those that are very risk averse). Such securities are federally insured up to 500k via the SIPC. In addition, most brokerages carry substantial additional private insurance. Note that cash in a brokerage account is only protected up to 100k, and that some brokerages use money market “deposit accounts”, which are considered “cash” (100k limit). a money market fund, which is treated as a security, has the 500k SIPC protection limit. Also note that the SIPC does NOT protect against loss of principal in the investment, it only provides insurance for failure of the broker.
If you have less then 100k, then the FDIC will insure the full amount at any bank, plus there are ways to structure the deposit to provide > 100k protection. In my opinion, US Bank is a fairly conservative and stable bank.
Participant90% of homeowners take out subprime from ’98 to ’06.
This really got my attention, as that number seems exceedingly high. This would mean that 9 out of every 10 homes were refinanced/purchased with a subprime loan…
To clarify, what the article actually states is that the number of subprime loans made during that period (which is a fraction of all mortgages), 90% were refi’s.
[quote]Discussion of the problem often focuses on first-time home buyers who stretched to buy homes they couldn’t afford. But experts who’ve crunched the numbers say 90% of people who took out sub-prime loans from 1998 to 2006 were already homeowners.[/quote]
This would tend to support the predatory lending thesis (in addition to the lack of due diligence by the homeowner).
Participant90% of homeowners take out subprime from ’98 to ’06.
This really got my attention, as that number seems exceedingly high. This would mean that 9 out of every 10 homes were refinanced/purchased with a subprime loan…
To clarify, what the article actually states is that the number of subprime loans made during that period (which is a fraction of all mortgages), 90% were refi’s.
[quote]Discussion of the problem often focuses on first-time home buyers who stretched to buy homes they couldn’t afford. But experts who’ve crunched the numbers say 90% of people who took out sub-prime loans from 1998 to 2006 were already homeowners.[/quote]
This would tend to support the predatory lending thesis (in addition to the lack of due diligence by the homeowner).
Participant90% of homeowners take out subprime from ’98 to ’06.
This really got my attention, as that number seems exceedingly high. This would mean that 9 out of every 10 homes were refinanced/purchased with a subprime loan…
To clarify, what the article actually states is that the number of subprime loans made during that period (which is a fraction of all mortgages), 90% were refi’s.
[quote]Discussion of the problem often focuses on first-time home buyers who stretched to buy homes they couldn’t afford. But experts who’ve crunched the numbers say 90% of people who took out sub-prime loans from 1998 to 2006 were already homeowners.[/quote]
This would tend to support the predatory lending thesis (in addition to the lack of due diligence by the homeowner).
Participant90% of homeowners take out subprime from ’98 to ’06.
This really got my attention, as that number seems exceedingly high. This would mean that 9 out of every 10 homes were refinanced/purchased with a subprime loan…
To clarify, what the article actually states is that the number of subprime loans made during that period (which is a fraction of all mortgages), 90% were refi’s.
[quote]Discussion of the problem often focuses on first-time home buyers who stretched to buy homes they couldn’t afford. But experts who’ve crunched the numbers say 90% of people who took out sub-prime loans from 1998 to 2006 were already homeowners.[/quote]
This would tend to support the predatory lending thesis (in addition to the lack of due diligence by the homeowner).
Participant90% of homeowners take out subprime from ’98 to ’06.
This really got my attention, as that number seems exceedingly high. This would mean that 9 out of every 10 homes were refinanced/purchased with a subprime loan…
To clarify, what the article actually states is that the number of subprime loans made during that period (which is a fraction of all mortgages), 90% were refi’s.
[quote]Discussion of the problem often focuses on first-time home buyers who stretched to buy homes they couldn’t afford. But experts who’ve crunched the numbers say 90% of people who took out sub-prime loans from 1998 to 2006 were already homeowners.[/quote]
This would tend to support the predatory lending thesis (in addition to the lack of due diligence by the homeowner).
-
AuthorPosts
