[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=paramount]
I don’t think anybody is strongly arguing that lifeguards aren’t needed, although that is debatable. The main issue is the cost of these lifeguards – it’s beyond excessive. [/quote]

I don’t really think that we need lifeguards. Swimmers beware.

I’ve been to many countries where there are no lifeguards on the beach.

Not a necessity. Much better things to spend money on, IMHO.[/quote]

Brian, we can eliminate the lifeguards from the beaches when we eliminate personal injury lawyers from the courtroom and re-school our citizens in the Theory of Personal Responsibility.

I’m all in favor of personal freedom. Wade into in a rough ocean when you don’t know how to swim, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or go hiking in remote mountainous areas with which you are not familiar, or ignore temperature warnings when you drive across a frozen Great Lake to go ice fishing (i.e., drinking). I’m not sure, but I believe the Constitution guarantees your right to exercise personal stupidity. As a U.S. citizen, I’ll back you on it, as long as I don’t end up having to PAY for it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=paramount]
I don’t think anybody is strongly arguing that lifeguards aren’t needed, although that is debatable. The main issue is the cost of these lifeguards – it’s beyond excessive. [/quote]

I don’t really think that we need lifeguards. Swimmers beware.

I’ve been to many countries where there are no lifeguards on the beach.

Not a necessity. Much better things to spend money on, IMHO.[/quote]

Brian, we can eliminate the lifeguards from the beaches when we eliminate personal injury lawyers from the courtroom and re-school our citizens in the Theory of Personal Responsibility.

I’m all in favor of personal freedom. Wade into in a rough ocean when you don’t know how to swim, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or go hiking in remote mountainous areas with which you are not familiar, or ignore temperature warnings when you drive across a frozen Great Lake to go ice fishing (i.e., drinking). I’m not sure, but I believe the Constitution guarantees your right to exercise personal stupidity. As a U.S. citizen, I’ll back you on it, as long as I don’t end up having to PAY for it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]That house is ugly.
All concrete back yard.

Hard to believe that the owner of an “upscale” house has dinning room chairs that look like they belong in a cheap Chinese restaurant.[/quote]

Lol.

[quote=briansd1]Sorry, BG. But that stone fireplace really needs to be ripped out.

I like the U shape and the veranda. The house has potential but needs a lot of work.[/quote]

It’s a matter of taste, brian. I take it you don’t like mediterraneans. And, since you live in a condo, you don’t have to worry about a humongous water bill. Did you know that the amount of a homeowner’s sewer bill is tied to to their water usage in the months of November thru April?? Together these two expenses are a slippery slope of insidious added costs. This property offers the OP his/her privacy while keeping monthly expenses down.

I guess I like it because it reminds me of Bonita :=]

I see a few improvements here that could update this property into the current century for a song.

wanttobuy, are you or anyone in your family handy??[/quote]

BG, I’m in complete agreement with you on this one. This house has a boatload of potential, and a lot of it would not be expensive to do yourself if you were reasonably handy (i.e., not a total klutz). I’d love to get my hands on this place. Did you catch that ocean view? For $189 per sf? Why, oh why, do I have to live in DC (the land of spray-on tans)?

Brian, I’m surprised at you! You’re an astute individual. And you’re commenting on CHAIRS? Handy tip: Bad taste is everywhere. Ocean views: not so much.

I wouldn’t get rid of the fireplace: it’s nicely done, and it fits the era of the house without dating it. I think you’d be surprised at the difference the right hardwood flooring and paint scheme would make. Brian, I’m betting that I could make you lust after this house. I totally agree with you about the excess concrete, but that’s fixable (time-consuming, expensive if contracted out, but definitely do-able!). Again, I think you’d be floored by the transformation.

Wanttobuy, two words: SUBMIT OFFER! (purchase only after an thorough inspection by a highly qualified individual, of course)

BG, if Wanttobuy doesn’t jump on it, let’s you and I go in on it!!

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]That house is ugly.
All concrete back yard.

Hard to believe that the owner of an “upscale” house has dinning room chairs that look like they belong in a cheap Chinese restaurant.[/quote]

Lol.

[quote=briansd1]Sorry, BG. But that stone fireplace really needs to be ripped out.

I like the U shape and the veranda. The house has potential but needs a lot of work.[/quote]

It’s a matter of taste, brian. I take it you don’t like mediterraneans. And, since you live in a condo, you don’t have to worry about a humongous water bill. Did you know that the amount of a homeowner’s sewer bill is tied to to their water usage in the months of November thru April?? Together these two expenses are a slippery slope of insidious added costs. This property offers the OP his/her privacy while keeping monthly expenses down.

I guess I like it because it reminds me of Bonita :=]

I see a few improvements here that could update this property into the current century for a song.

wanttobuy, are you or anyone in your family handy??[/quote]

BG, I’m in complete agreement with you on this one. This house has a boatload of potential, and a lot of it would not be expensive to do yourself if you were reasonably handy (i.e., not a total klutz). I’d love to get my hands on this place. Did you catch that ocean view? For $189 per sf? Why, oh why, do I have to live in DC (the land of spray-on tans)?

Brian, I’m surprised at you! You’re an astute individual. And you’re commenting on CHAIRS? Handy tip: Bad taste is everywhere. Ocean views: not so much.

I wouldn’t get rid of the fireplace: it’s nicely done, and it fits the era of the house without dating it. I think you’d be surprised at the difference the right hardwood flooring and paint scheme would make. Brian, I’m betting that I could make you lust after this house. I totally agree with you about the excess concrete, but that’s fixable (time-consuming, expensive if contracted out, but definitely do-able!). Again, I think you’d be floored by the transformation.

Wanttobuy, two words: SUBMIT OFFER! (purchase only after an thorough inspection by a highly qualified individual, of course)

BG, if Wanttobuy doesn’t jump on it, let’s you and I go in on it!!

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]That house is ugly.
All concrete back yard.

Hard to believe that the owner of an “upscale” house has dinning room chairs that look like they belong in a cheap Chinese restaurant.[/quote]

Lol.

[quote=briansd1]Sorry, BG. But that stone fireplace really needs to be ripped out.

I like the U shape and the veranda. The house has potential but needs a lot of work.[/quote]

It’s a matter of taste, brian. I take it you don’t like mediterraneans. And, since you live in a condo, you don’t have to worry about a humongous water bill. Did you know that the amount of a homeowner’s sewer bill is tied to to their water usage in the months of November thru April?? Together these two expenses are a slippery slope of insidious added costs. This property offers the OP his/her privacy while keeping monthly expenses down.

I guess I like it because it reminds me of Bonita :=]

I see a few improvements here that could update this property into the current century for a song.

wanttobuy, are you or anyone in your family handy??[/quote]

BG, I’m in complete agreement with you on this one. This house has a boatload of potential, and a lot of it would not be expensive to do yourself if you were reasonably handy (i.e., not a total klutz). I’d love to get my hands on this place. Did you catch that ocean view? For $189 per sf? Why, oh why, do I have to live in DC (the land of spray-on tans)?

Brian, I’m surprised at you! You’re an astute individual. And you’re commenting on CHAIRS? Handy tip: Bad taste is everywhere. Ocean views: not so much.

I wouldn’t get rid of the fireplace: it’s nicely done, and it fits the era of the house without dating it. I think you’d be surprised at the difference the right hardwood flooring and paint scheme would make. Brian, I’m betting that I could make you lust after this house. I totally agree with you about the excess concrete, but that’s fixable (time-consuming, expensive if contracted out, but definitely do-able!). Again, I think you’d be floored by the transformation.

Wanttobuy, two words: SUBMIT OFFER! (purchase only after an thorough inspection by a highly qualified individual, of course)

BG, if Wanttobuy doesn’t jump on it, let’s you and I go in on it!!

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]That house is ugly.
All concrete back yard.

Hard to believe that the owner of an “upscale” house has dinning room chairs that look like they belong in a cheap Chinese restaurant.[/quote]

Lol.

[quote=briansd1]Sorry, BG. But that stone fireplace really needs to be ripped out.

I like the U shape and the veranda. The house has potential but needs a lot of work.[/quote]

It’s a matter of taste, brian. I take it you don’t like mediterraneans. And, since you live in a condo, you don’t have to worry about a humongous water bill. Did you know that the amount of a homeowner’s sewer bill is tied to to their water usage in the months of November thru April?? Together these two expenses are a slippery slope of insidious added costs. This property offers the OP his/her privacy while keeping monthly expenses down.

I guess I like it because it reminds me of Bonita :=]

I see a few improvements here that could update this property into the current century for a song.

wanttobuy, are you or anyone in your family handy??[/quote]

BG, I’m in complete agreement with you on this one. This house has a boatload of potential, and a lot of it would not be expensive to do yourself if you were reasonably handy (i.e., not a total klutz). I’d love to get my hands on this place. Did you catch that ocean view? For $189 per sf? Why, oh why, do I have to live in DC (the land of spray-on tans)?

Brian, I’m surprised at you! You’re an astute individual. And you’re commenting on CHAIRS? Handy tip: Bad taste is everywhere. Ocean views: not so much.

I wouldn’t get rid of the fireplace: it’s nicely done, and it fits the era of the house without dating it. I think you’d be surprised at the difference the right hardwood flooring and paint scheme would make. Brian, I’m betting that I could make you lust after this house. I totally agree with you about the excess concrete, but that’s fixable (time-consuming, expensive if contracted out, but definitely do-able!). Again, I think you’d be floored by the transformation.

Wanttobuy, two words: SUBMIT OFFER! (purchase only after an thorough inspection by a highly qualified individual, of course)

BG, if Wanttobuy doesn’t jump on it, let’s you and I go in on it!!

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]That house is ugly.
All concrete back yard.

Hard to believe that the owner of an “upscale” house has dinning room chairs that look like they belong in a cheap Chinese restaurant.[/quote]

Lol.

[quote=briansd1]Sorry, BG. But that stone fireplace really needs to be ripped out.

I like the U shape and the veranda. The house has potential but needs a lot of work.[/quote]

It’s a matter of taste, brian. I take it you don’t like mediterraneans. And, since you live in a condo, you don’t have to worry about a humongous water bill. Did you know that the amount of a homeowner’s sewer bill is tied to to their water usage in the months of November thru April?? Together these two expenses are a slippery slope of insidious added costs. This property offers the OP his/her privacy while keeping monthly expenses down.

I guess I like it because it reminds me of Bonita :=]

I see a few improvements here that could update this property into the current century for a song.

wanttobuy, are you or anyone in your family handy??[/quote]

BG, I’m in complete agreement with you on this one. This house has a boatload of potential, and a lot of it would not be expensive to do yourself if you were reasonably handy (i.e., not a total klutz). I’d love to get my hands on this place. Did you catch that ocean view? For $189 per sf? Why, oh why, do I have to live in DC (the land of spray-on tans)?

Brian, I’m surprised at you! You’re an astute individual. And you’re commenting on CHAIRS? Handy tip: Bad taste is everywhere. Ocean views: not so much.

I wouldn’t get rid of the fireplace: it’s nicely done, and it fits the era of the house without dating it. I think you’d be surprised at the difference the right hardwood flooring and paint scheme would make. Brian, I’m betting that I could make you lust after this house. I totally agree with you about the excess concrete, but that’s fixable (time-consuming, expensive if contracted out, but definitely do-able!). Again, I think you’d be floored by the transformation.

Wanttobuy, two words: SUBMIT OFFER! (purchase only after an thorough inspection by a highly qualified individual, of course)

BG, if Wanttobuy doesn’t jump on it, let’s you and I go in on it!!

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Rich Toscano] That’s not even in the issue, in my opinion. There is no chance that things will be better 20 years from now because people’s 401ks were propped up today. Long-term prosperity is based on productivity growth, and the stuff of this bailout (unsound money, massive debt accrual and deficits, handouts to incompetent and semi-corrupt companies that should have gone bankrupt, etc etc)… that’s not good for productivity growth.[/quote]

Rich, I agree completely with your statement. But, in all honesty, can we look forward to productivity growth? Until 30 years go, prosperity resulted from what we manufactured here and sold here and elsewhere in the world. Since then, domestic productivity has been steadily reduced as more corporations moved operations and jobs overseas. The “prosperity” of the 90s and aughts resulted, in large part, from lax monetary policy, widespread speculation, and limitless lending. The employment during this time didn’t come from long-term manufacturing jobs, but from home construction and “service” industries that were the first to fall when the bottom fell out of housing and credit dried up, i.e. the sources of revenue for those industries.

To my rather unsophisticated way of thinking, a return to prosperity as we’ve known it is not possible. I don’t care how low the corporate tax rate goes, corporations are going to continue moving jobs overseas. Americans cannot live on minimum wage, not that it matters since corporations are able to pay much, much less than that to their workers in third-world nations. Manufacturing jobs that provided much of the prosperity of the past are a thing of the past.

To be honest, the loss of manufacturing jobs not only should have been foreseen by the government, but should have been part of a conscious effort to change the labor landscape of our nation in order to meet the challenges of the future. The boomer generation witnessed the enormous amount of postwar technological development, and produced the largest and best-educated labor force ever. We were in a prime position to move from a manufacturing economy to one based on technological development. However, we stood idly by, not only watching other nations surpass us in research and development, but also keeping our children from a place at the table, by neglecting to educate them to a competitive level. With completely straight faces, we continue to claim credit for winning WWII and landing on the moon – feats that were, in fact, accomplished by our parents and grandparents.

I agree completely with your argument. But, without a major course correction (and possibly not even with that), I just don’t see us avoiding a collision with the iceberg. And, yes, Brian, I see a “lost decades” scenario.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Rich Toscano] That’s not even in the issue, in my opinion. There is no chance that things will be better 20 years from now because people’s 401ks were propped up today. Long-term prosperity is based on productivity growth, and the stuff of this bailout (unsound money, massive debt accrual and deficits, handouts to incompetent and semi-corrupt companies that should have gone bankrupt, etc etc)… that’s not good for productivity growth.[/quote]

Rich, I agree completely with your statement. But, in all honesty, can we look forward to productivity growth? Until 30 years go, prosperity resulted from what we manufactured here and sold here and elsewhere in the world. Since then, domestic productivity has been steadily reduced as more corporations moved operations and jobs overseas. The “prosperity” of the 90s and aughts resulted, in large part, from lax monetary policy, widespread speculation, and limitless lending. The employment during this time didn’t come from long-term manufacturing jobs, but from home construction and “service” industries that were the first to fall when the bottom fell out of housing and credit dried up, i.e. the sources of revenue for those industries.

To my rather unsophisticated way of thinking, a return to prosperity as we’ve known it is not possible. I don’t care how low the corporate tax rate goes, corporations are going to continue moving jobs overseas. Americans cannot live on minimum wage, not that it matters since corporations are able to pay much, much less than that to their workers in third-world nations. Manufacturing jobs that provided much of the prosperity of the past are a thing of the past.

To be honest, the loss of manufacturing jobs not only should have been foreseen by the government, but should have been part of a conscious effort to change the labor landscape of our nation in order to meet the challenges of the future. The boomer generation witnessed the enormous amount of postwar technological development, and produced the largest and best-educated labor force ever. We were in a prime position to move from a manufacturing economy to one based on technological development. However, we stood idly by, not only watching other nations surpass us in research and development, but also keeping our children from a place at the table, by neglecting to educate them to a competitive level. With completely straight faces, we continue to claim credit for winning WWII and landing on the moon – feats that were, in fact, accomplished by our parents and grandparents.

I agree completely with your argument. But, without a major course correction (and possibly not even with that), I just don’t see us avoiding a collision with the iceberg. And, yes, Brian, I see a “lost decades” scenario.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Rich Toscano] That’s not even in the issue, in my opinion. There is no chance that things will be better 20 years from now because people’s 401ks were propped up today. Long-term prosperity is based on productivity growth, and the stuff of this bailout (unsound money, massive debt accrual and deficits, handouts to incompetent and semi-corrupt companies that should have gone bankrupt, etc etc)… that’s not good for productivity growth.[/quote]

Rich, I agree completely with your statement. But, in all honesty, can we look forward to productivity growth? Until 30 years go, prosperity resulted from what we manufactured here and sold here and elsewhere in the world. Since then, domestic productivity has been steadily reduced as more corporations moved operations and jobs overseas. The “prosperity” of the 90s and aughts resulted, in large part, from lax monetary policy, widespread speculation, and limitless lending. The employment during this time didn’t come from long-term manufacturing jobs, but from home construction and “service” industries that were the first to fall when the bottom fell out of housing and credit dried up, i.e. the sources of revenue for those industries.

To my rather unsophisticated way of thinking, a return to prosperity as we’ve known it is not possible. I don’t care how low the corporate tax rate goes, corporations are going to continue moving jobs overseas. Americans cannot live on minimum wage, not that it matters since corporations are able to pay much, much less than that to their workers in third-world nations. Manufacturing jobs that provided much of the prosperity of the past are a thing of the past.

To be honest, the loss of manufacturing jobs not only should have been foreseen by the government, but should have been part of a conscious effort to change the labor landscape of our nation in order to meet the challenges of the future. The boomer generation witnessed the enormous amount of postwar technological development, and produced the largest and best-educated labor force ever. We were in a prime position to move from a manufacturing economy to one based on technological development. However, we stood idly by, not only watching other nations surpass us in research and development, but also keeping our children from a place at the table, by neglecting to educate them to a competitive level. With completely straight faces, we continue to claim credit for winning WWII and landing on the moon – feats that were, in fact, accomplished by our parents and grandparents.

I agree completely with your argument. But, without a major course correction (and possibly not even with that), I just don’t see us avoiding a collision with the iceberg. And, yes, Brian, I see a “lost decades” scenario.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Rich Toscano] That’s not even in the issue, in my opinion. There is no chance that things will be better 20 years from now because people’s 401ks were propped up today. Long-term prosperity is based on productivity growth, and the stuff of this bailout (unsound money, massive debt accrual and deficits, handouts to incompetent and semi-corrupt companies that should have gone bankrupt, etc etc)… that’s not good for productivity growth.[/quote]

Rich, I agree completely with your statement. But, in all honesty, can we look forward to productivity growth? Until 30 years go, prosperity resulted from what we manufactured here and sold here and elsewhere in the world. Since then, domestic productivity has been steadily reduced as more corporations moved operations and jobs overseas. The “prosperity” of the 90s and aughts resulted, in large part, from lax monetary policy, widespread speculation, and limitless lending. The employment during this time didn’t come from long-term manufacturing jobs, but from home construction and “service” industries that were the first to fall when the bottom fell out of housing and credit dried up, i.e. the sources of revenue for those industries.

To my rather unsophisticated way of thinking, a return to prosperity as we’ve known it is not possible. I don’t care how low the corporate tax rate goes, corporations are going to continue moving jobs overseas. Americans cannot live on minimum wage, not that it matters since corporations are able to pay much, much less than that to their workers in third-world nations. Manufacturing jobs that provided much of the prosperity of the past are a thing of the past.

To be honest, the loss of manufacturing jobs not only should have been foreseen by the government, but should have been part of a conscious effort to change the labor landscape of our nation in order to meet the challenges of the future. The boomer generation witnessed the enormous amount of postwar technological development, and produced the largest and best-educated labor force ever. We were in a prime position to move from a manufacturing economy to one based on technological development. However, we stood idly by, not only watching other nations surpass us in research and development, but also keeping our children from a place at the table, by neglecting to educate them to a competitive level. With completely straight faces, we continue to claim credit for winning WWII and landing on the moon – feats that were, in fact, accomplished by our parents and grandparents.

I agree completely with your argument. But, without a major course correction (and possibly not even with that), I just don’t see us avoiding a collision with the iceberg. And, yes, Brian, I see a “lost decades” scenario.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Rich Toscano] That’s not even in the issue, in my opinion. There is no chance that things will be better 20 years from now because people’s 401ks were propped up today. Long-term prosperity is based on productivity growth, and the stuff of this bailout (unsound money, massive debt accrual and deficits, handouts to incompetent and semi-corrupt companies that should have gone bankrupt, etc etc)… that’s not good for productivity growth.[/quote]

Rich, I agree completely with your statement. But, in all honesty, can we look forward to productivity growth? Until 30 years go, prosperity resulted from what we manufactured here and sold here and elsewhere in the world. Since then, domestic productivity has been steadily reduced as more corporations moved operations and jobs overseas. The “prosperity” of the 90s and aughts resulted, in large part, from lax monetary policy, widespread speculation, and limitless lending. The employment during this time didn’t come from long-term manufacturing jobs, but from home construction and “service” industries that were the first to fall when the bottom fell out of housing and credit dried up, i.e. the sources of revenue for those industries.

To my rather unsophisticated way of thinking, a return to prosperity as we’ve known it is not possible. I don’t care how low the corporate tax rate goes, corporations are going to continue moving jobs overseas. Americans cannot live on minimum wage, not that it matters since corporations are able to pay much, much less than that to their workers in third-world nations. Manufacturing jobs that provided much of the prosperity of the past are a thing of the past.

To be honest, the loss of manufacturing jobs not only should have been foreseen by the government, but should have been part of a conscious effort to change the labor landscape of our nation in order to meet the challenges of the future. The boomer generation witnessed the enormous amount of postwar technological development, and produced the largest and best-educated labor force ever. We were in a prime position to move from a manufacturing economy to one based on technological development. However, we stood idly by, not only watching other nations surpass us in research and development, but also keeping our children from a place at the table, by neglecting to educate them to a competitive level. With completely straight faces, we continue to claim credit for winning WWII and landing on the moon – feats that were, in fact, accomplished by our parents and grandparents.

I agree completely with your argument. But, without a major course correction (and possibly not even with that), I just don’t see us avoiding a collision with the iceberg. And, yes, Brian, I see a “lost decades” scenario.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1]Interesting article on Donald Trump and how some people got taken to the cleaners buying into his brand.

[/quote]

He’s far from being the first, and I’m positive that his name will not be distinguished by being the last to buy into Trump. But the silver lining of this cloud is that Alex can now endeavor to impress people with the fact that he was quoted in the NYT AND the implied fact that he’s well-heeled enough to be able to lose $100K to The Donald.

[quote=briansd1]

“The last thing you ever expect is that somebody you revere will mislead you,” said Alex Davis, 38, who bought a $500,000 unit in Trump International Hotel and Tower Fort Lauderdale, a waterfront property that Mr. Trump described in marketing materials as “my latest development” and compared to the Trump tower on Central Park in Manhattan.

[/quote]

Mr. Davis needs to look up synonyms for the word “revere” – “venerate”, “adore”, “worship” – and realize that these are not words to be wasted on mere mortals. If you’re envisioning the guy to whom you’re turning over your money as some sort of Deity, someone in your inner circle really should be suing for conservatorship of your financial affairs.

[quote=briansd1]

“There was no disclaimer that he was not the developer,” Mr. Davis said. The building, where construction was halted when a major lender ran out of money in 2009, sits empty and unfinished, the outlines of a giant Trump sign, removed long ago, still faintly visible.

[/quote]

Yeah, when I’m looking to make a $500 grand investment, I make sure to always read the promotional materials and the developer’s autobiography to get the real lowdown. To hell with checking out public records detailing his impressive history of bankruptcies, half-finished developments, and repeatedly-botched “business” dealings.

[quote=briansd1]

Mr. Davis is unable to recover any of his $100,000 deposit — half of which the developer used for construction costs.

Another casualty: his admiration for Mr. Trump, whose books and television show Mr. Davis had devoured. “I bought into an idea of him,” he said, “and it wasn’t what I thought it was.”

[/quote]

To paraphrase dialogue from an immortal John Landis film, “Thirty-eight years old, gullible, and criminally stupid is no way to go through life, son.”

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1]Interesting article on Donald Trump and how some people got taken to the cleaners buying into his brand.

[/quote]

He’s far from being the first, and I’m positive that his name will not be distinguished by being the last to buy into Trump. But the silver lining of this cloud is that Alex can now endeavor to impress people with the fact that he was quoted in the NYT AND the implied fact that he’s well-heeled enough to be able to lose $100K to The Donald.

[quote=briansd1]

“The last thing you ever expect is that somebody you revere will mislead you,” said Alex Davis, 38, who bought a $500,000 unit in Trump International Hotel and Tower Fort Lauderdale, a waterfront property that Mr. Trump described in marketing materials as “my latest development” and compared to the Trump tower on Central Park in Manhattan.

[/quote]

Mr. Davis needs to look up synonyms for the word “revere” – “venerate”, “adore”, “worship” – and realize that these are not words to be wasted on mere mortals. If you’re envisioning the guy to whom you’re turning over your money as some sort of Deity, someone in your inner circle really should be suing for conservatorship of your financial affairs.

[quote=briansd1]

“There was no disclaimer that he was not the developer,” Mr. Davis said. The building, where construction was halted when a major lender ran out of money in 2009, sits empty and unfinished, the outlines of a giant Trump sign, removed long ago, still faintly visible.

[/quote]

Yeah, when I’m looking to make a $500 grand investment, I make sure to always read the promotional materials and the developer’s autobiography to get the real lowdown. To hell with checking out public records detailing his impressive history of bankruptcies, half-finished developments, and repeatedly-botched “business” dealings.

[quote=briansd1]

Mr. Davis is unable to recover any of his $100,000 deposit — half of which the developer used for construction costs.

Another casualty: his admiration for Mr. Trump, whose books and television show Mr. Davis had devoured. “I bought into an idea of him,” he said, “and it wasn’t what I thought it was.”

[/quote]

To paraphrase dialogue from an immortal John Landis film, “Thirty-eight years old, gullible, and criminally stupid is no way to go through life, son.”

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1]Interesting article on Donald Trump and how some people got taken to the cleaners buying into his brand.

[/quote]

He’s far from being the first, and I’m positive that his name will not be distinguished by being the last to buy into Trump. But the silver lining of this cloud is that Alex can now endeavor to impress people with the fact that he was quoted in the NYT AND the implied fact that he’s well-heeled enough to be able to lose $100K to The Donald.

[quote=briansd1]

“The last thing you ever expect is that somebody you revere will mislead you,” said Alex Davis, 38, who bought a $500,000 unit in Trump International Hotel and Tower Fort Lauderdale, a waterfront property that Mr. Trump described in marketing materials as “my latest development” and compared to the Trump tower on Central Park in Manhattan.

[/quote]

Mr. Davis needs to look up synonyms for the word “revere” – “venerate”, “adore”, “worship” – and realize that these are not words to be wasted on mere mortals. If you’re envisioning the guy to whom you’re turning over your money as some sort of Deity, someone in your inner circle really should be suing for conservatorship of your financial affairs.

[quote=briansd1]

“There was no disclaimer that he was not the developer,” Mr. Davis said. The building, where construction was halted when a major lender ran out of money in 2009, sits empty and unfinished, the outlines of a giant Trump sign, removed long ago, still faintly visible.

[/quote]

Yeah, when I’m looking to make a $500 grand investment, I make sure to always read the promotional materials and the developer’s autobiography to get the real lowdown. To hell with checking out public records detailing his impressive history of bankruptcies, half-finished developments, and repeatedly-botched “business” dealings.

[quote=briansd1]

Mr. Davis is unable to recover any of his $100,000 deposit — half of which the developer used for construction costs.

Another casualty: his admiration for Mr. Trump, whose books and television show Mr. Davis had devoured. “I bought into an idea of him,” he said, “and it wasn’t what I thought it was.”

[/quote]

To paraphrase dialogue from an immortal John Landis film, “Thirty-eight years old, gullible, and criminally stupid is no way to go through life, son.”

[Author]

Posts