Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
faterikcartman
Participant[quote=Bristol Chicken][quote=UCGal]Not to nitpick – but your downpayment is only 4% of your proposed purchase price… that’s in the same ballpark as FHA’s low down programs…
Personally, I’d keep renting, working on your credit rating and saving your pennies to increase your down. I know I sound judgemental but with such a small down and admissions of poor credit rating, I don’t think you’re ready to buy.[/quote]
Ready to buy? Please do not discourage these people. We need all the help we can get. Must keep the credit / real estate ponzi moving towards the peak of the triangle. If the peak is not supported the sides will collapse. If the sides collapse the base will be covered in rubble. If the base is covered in rubble we can’t have growth. Who will clear all the rubble? Our childrens children? The democrats? The republicans? Of course not. Only Ronald Regan could solve this problem and he’s dead. (Chuck Norris could fix it but doesn’t have the time).
Unbridled speculation, greed, no morals, no stigma now for bad decisions. Bankruptcy, foreclosure are taught and accepted as financial planning. Entitlement society, something for nothing with the uncle to back you up if things go wrong. This is our housing market. Accept it and support it.
Yes, these people are ready to buy. And we are collectively ready to sell to them. (besides I may want to buy their house with cash at 20-30% off in a couple of years when vacant)[/quote]
Your post had me grinning from start to finish.
Participant[quote=Bristol Chicken][quote=UCGal]Not to nitpick – but your downpayment is only 4% of your proposed purchase price… that’s in the same ballpark as FHA’s low down programs…
Personally, I’d keep renting, working on your credit rating and saving your pennies to increase your down. I know I sound judgemental but with such a small down and admissions of poor credit rating, I don’t think you’re ready to buy.[/quote]
Ready to buy? Please do not discourage these people. We need all the help we can get. Must keep the credit / real estate ponzi moving towards the peak of the triangle. If the peak is not supported the sides will collapse. If the sides collapse the base will be covered in rubble. If the base is covered in rubble we can’t have growth. Who will clear all the rubble? Our childrens children? The democrats? The republicans? Of course not. Only Ronald Regan could solve this problem and he’s dead. (Chuck Norris could fix it but doesn’t have the time).
Unbridled speculation, greed, no morals, no stigma now for bad decisions. Bankruptcy, foreclosure are taught and accepted as financial planning. Entitlement society, something for nothing with the uncle to back you up if things go wrong. This is our housing market. Accept it and support it.
Yes, these people are ready to buy. And we are collectively ready to sell to them. (besides I may want to buy their house with cash at 20-30% off in a couple of years when vacant)[/quote]
Your post had me grinning from start to finish.
Participant[quote=Bristol Chicken][quote=UCGal]Not to nitpick – but your downpayment is only 4% of your proposed purchase price… that’s in the same ballpark as FHA’s low down programs…
Personally, I’d keep renting, working on your credit rating and saving your pennies to increase your down. I know I sound judgemental but with such a small down and admissions of poor credit rating, I don’t think you’re ready to buy.[/quote]
Ready to buy? Please do not discourage these people. We need all the help we can get. Must keep the credit / real estate ponzi moving towards the peak of the triangle. If the peak is not supported the sides will collapse. If the sides collapse the base will be covered in rubble. If the base is covered in rubble we can’t have growth. Who will clear all the rubble? Our childrens children? The democrats? The republicans? Of course not. Only Ronald Regan could solve this problem and he’s dead. (Chuck Norris could fix it but doesn’t have the time).
Unbridled speculation, greed, no morals, no stigma now for bad decisions. Bankruptcy, foreclosure are taught and accepted as financial planning. Entitlement society, something for nothing with the uncle to back you up if things go wrong. This is our housing market. Accept it and support it.
Yes, these people are ready to buy. And we are collectively ready to sell to them. (besides I may want to buy their house with cash at 20-30% off in a couple of years when vacant)[/quote]
Your post had me grinning from start to finish.
Participant[quote=Bristol Chicken][quote=UCGal]Not to nitpick – but your downpayment is only 4% of your proposed purchase price… that’s in the same ballpark as FHA’s low down programs…
Personally, I’d keep renting, working on your credit rating and saving your pennies to increase your down. I know I sound judgemental but with such a small down and admissions of poor credit rating, I don’t think you’re ready to buy.[/quote]
Ready to buy? Please do not discourage these people. We need all the help we can get. Must keep the credit / real estate ponzi moving towards the peak of the triangle. If the peak is not supported the sides will collapse. If the sides collapse the base will be covered in rubble. If the base is covered in rubble we can’t have growth. Who will clear all the rubble? Our childrens children? The democrats? The republicans? Of course not. Only Ronald Regan could solve this problem and he’s dead. (Chuck Norris could fix it but doesn’t have the time).
Unbridled speculation, greed, no morals, no stigma now for bad decisions. Bankruptcy, foreclosure are taught and accepted as financial planning. Entitlement society, something for nothing with the uncle to back you up if things go wrong. This is our housing market. Accept it and support it.
Yes, these people are ready to buy. And we are collectively ready to sell to them. (besides I may want to buy their house with cash at 20-30% off in a couple of years when vacant)[/quote]
Your post had me grinning from start to finish.
ParticipantI’m sick of the bull and the sacred cow treatment. Here’s the most dangerous (from Bureau of Labour Statistics):
1. Fishers and related fishing workers. Drowning.
2. Logging workers. Being struck by falling object.
3. Aircraft pilots and flight engineers. Crashes.
4. Structural iron and steel workers. Falls.
5. Taxi drivers. Homicide.
6. Construction laborers. Vehicular accidents and falls.
7. Farmers and ranchers. Vehicular accidents.
8. Roofers. Falls.
9. Electrical power-line installers and repairers. Electrocution.
10. Driver/sales workers and truck drivers. Highway collisions.
11. Refuse and recyclable material collectors. Vehicular accidents, falls, being struck by objects, and exposure to harmful substances or environments.
12. Police and sheriff’s patrol officers. Homicide and highway collisions.That’s right, farmers risk their lives bringing you breakfast, lunch, and dinner, more than police and fire fighters.
The bottom line is whether or not you can replace someone with an equally competent person. Yes or no. Public employers need to start investigating the answer to that question. I’m tired of paying too much and giving those that “serve” the public a better deal than the public themselves.
And just another word to the wise: every time your presented with a question to vote for a tax increase to pay for so-called essential services like police and fire you’re being hoodwinked. They couch the question like that so they don’t have to cut spending for other things which you wouldn’t vote for if you were presented the choice.
Police, fire, teachers, and [fill in the blank] are treated with kid gloves as they are considered reliable voting blocks by politicians.
Full disclosure: My brother in law is chief of a fire department (though I will not disclose the municipality).
ParticipantI’m sick of the bull and the sacred cow treatment. Here’s the most dangerous (from Bureau of Labour Statistics):
1. Fishers and related fishing workers. Drowning.
2. Logging workers. Being struck by falling object.
3. Aircraft pilots and flight engineers. Crashes.
4. Structural iron and steel workers. Falls.
5. Taxi drivers. Homicide.
6. Construction laborers. Vehicular accidents and falls.
7. Farmers and ranchers. Vehicular accidents.
8. Roofers. Falls.
9. Electrical power-line installers and repairers. Electrocution.
10. Driver/sales workers and truck drivers. Highway collisions.
11. Refuse and recyclable material collectors. Vehicular accidents, falls, being struck by objects, and exposure to harmful substances or environments.
12. Police and sheriff’s patrol officers. Homicide and highway collisions.That’s right, farmers risk their lives bringing you breakfast, lunch, and dinner, more than police and fire fighters.
The bottom line is whether or not you can replace someone with an equally competent person. Yes or no. Public employers need to start investigating the answer to that question. I’m tired of paying too much and giving those that “serve” the public a better deal than the public themselves.
And just another word to the wise: every time your presented with a question to vote for a tax increase to pay for so-called essential services like police and fire you’re being hoodwinked. They couch the question like that so they don’t have to cut spending for other things which you wouldn’t vote for if you were presented the choice.
Police, fire, teachers, and [fill in the blank] are treated with kid gloves as they are considered reliable voting blocks by politicians.
Full disclosure: My brother in law is chief of a fire department (though I will not disclose the municipality).
ParticipantI’m sick of the bull and the sacred cow treatment. Here’s the most dangerous (from Bureau of Labour Statistics):
1. Fishers and related fishing workers. Drowning.
2. Logging workers. Being struck by falling object.
3. Aircraft pilots and flight engineers. Crashes.
4. Structural iron and steel workers. Falls.
5. Taxi drivers. Homicide.
6. Construction laborers. Vehicular accidents and falls.
7. Farmers and ranchers. Vehicular accidents.
8. Roofers. Falls.
9. Electrical power-line installers and repairers. Electrocution.
10. Driver/sales workers and truck drivers. Highway collisions.
11. Refuse and recyclable material collectors. Vehicular accidents, falls, being struck by objects, and exposure to harmful substances or environments.
12. Police and sheriff’s patrol officers. Homicide and highway collisions.That’s right, farmers risk their lives bringing you breakfast, lunch, and dinner, more than police and fire fighters.
The bottom line is whether or not you can replace someone with an equally competent person. Yes or no. Public employers need to start investigating the answer to that question. I’m tired of paying too much and giving those that “serve” the public a better deal than the public themselves.
And just another word to the wise: every time your presented with a question to vote for a tax increase to pay for so-called essential services like police and fire you’re being hoodwinked. They couch the question like that so they don’t have to cut spending for other things which you wouldn’t vote for if you were presented the choice.
Police, fire, teachers, and [fill in the blank] are treated with kid gloves as they are considered reliable voting blocks by politicians.
Full disclosure: My brother in law is chief of a fire department (though I will not disclose the municipality).
ParticipantI’m sick of the bull and the sacred cow treatment. Here’s the most dangerous (from Bureau of Labour Statistics):
1. Fishers and related fishing workers. Drowning.
2. Logging workers. Being struck by falling object.
3. Aircraft pilots and flight engineers. Crashes.
4. Structural iron and steel workers. Falls.
5. Taxi drivers. Homicide.
6. Construction laborers. Vehicular accidents and falls.
7. Farmers and ranchers. Vehicular accidents.
8. Roofers. Falls.
9. Electrical power-line installers and repairers. Electrocution.
10. Driver/sales workers and truck drivers. Highway collisions.
11. Refuse and recyclable material collectors. Vehicular accidents, falls, being struck by objects, and exposure to harmful substances or environments.
12. Police and sheriff’s patrol officers. Homicide and highway collisions.That’s right, farmers risk their lives bringing you breakfast, lunch, and dinner, more than police and fire fighters.
The bottom line is whether or not you can replace someone with an equally competent person. Yes or no. Public employers need to start investigating the answer to that question. I’m tired of paying too much and giving those that “serve” the public a better deal than the public themselves.
And just another word to the wise: every time your presented with a question to vote for a tax increase to pay for so-called essential services like police and fire you’re being hoodwinked. They couch the question like that so they don’t have to cut spending for other things which you wouldn’t vote for if you were presented the choice.
Police, fire, teachers, and [fill in the blank] are treated with kid gloves as they are considered reliable voting blocks by politicians.
Full disclosure: My brother in law is chief of a fire department (though I will not disclose the municipality).
ParticipantI’m sick of the bull and the sacred cow treatment. Here’s the most dangerous (from Bureau of Labour Statistics):
1. Fishers and related fishing workers. Drowning.
2. Logging workers. Being struck by falling object.
3. Aircraft pilots and flight engineers. Crashes.
4. Structural iron and steel workers. Falls.
5. Taxi drivers. Homicide.
6. Construction laborers. Vehicular accidents and falls.
7. Farmers and ranchers. Vehicular accidents.
8. Roofers. Falls.
9. Electrical power-line installers and repairers. Electrocution.
10. Driver/sales workers and truck drivers. Highway collisions.
11. Refuse and recyclable material collectors. Vehicular accidents, falls, being struck by objects, and exposure to harmful substances or environments.
12. Police and sheriff’s patrol officers. Homicide and highway collisions.That’s right, farmers risk their lives bringing you breakfast, lunch, and dinner, more than police and fire fighters.
The bottom line is whether or not you can replace someone with an equally competent person. Yes or no. Public employers need to start investigating the answer to that question. I’m tired of paying too much and giving those that “serve” the public a better deal than the public themselves.
And just another word to the wise: every time your presented with a question to vote for a tax increase to pay for so-called essential services like police and fire you’re being hoodwinked. They couch the question like that so they don’t have to cut spending for other things which you wouldn’t vote for if you were presented the choice.
Police, fire, teachers, and [fill in the blank] are treated with kid gloves as they are considered reliable voting blocks by politicians.
Full disclosure: My brother in law is chief of a fire department (though I will not disclose the municipality).
Participant[quote=teaboy]What is a fair and equitable rate of pay & benefits for public employees, compared with what people make in the private sector?
tb[/quote]
The fair and equitable rate is the least amount the public can get away with. That means the lowest rate they could pay and still fill the positions.
Frankly, most public service stinks compared to the private sector.
And I have ZERO doubt that we could pay many public service positions much less and still fill them readily — with the same quality employee.
For example, I would offer no pension whatsoever to public employees and I’ve little doubt those positions would all be filled. If not, pay them a little more and it would still be cheaper.
It is astounding that we pay some people 96% of their highest salary/average of last three months for the rest of their lives. Madness.
People need to go back and read Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” you’ll work like your life depends on it when it does. The fact that we have 10% official unemployment, actual much higher, and we’re talking about admitting potentially 100 million unskilled workers (learn about chain migration rules) because there are “jobs Americans just won’t do” screams to anyone who can recognize that the emperor is naked that unemployment benefits and other “social safeguards” are just too cushy.
Jerry Doyle said it well the other night: if you give people 100 weeks of unemployment, most aren’t going to start looking for a job until week 99. If you give them 150 they’ll start looking in week 149.
Cut public pensions out of the picture. Offer rock bottom salaries. Start there, and only increase AS NECESSARY.
But if you’re paying people to sit on their arse and feeding them, don’t expect folks to line up around the corner.
The old adage is give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Well no one is going to bother learning to fish if they’re handing them out for free around the corner.
Obviously the 48% of tax filers who are net takers rather than payers have little disincentive to claim public employees, especially the sacred police, fire, and teacher groups, all deserve the absolute best. The rest of us who will soon be an irreversible minority who work as slaves to fund this largess are likely to be more practical.
Participant[quote=teaboy]What is a fair and equitable rate of pay & benefits for public employees, compared with what people make in the private sector?
tb[/quote]
The fair and equitable rate is the least amount the public can get away with. That means the lowest rate they could pay and still fill the positions.
Frankly, most public service stinks compared to the private sector.
And I have ZERO doubt that we could pay many public service positions much less and still fill them readily — with the same quality employee.
For example, I would offer no pension whatsoever to public employees and I’ve little doubt those positions would all be filled. If not, pay them a little more and it would still be cheaper.
It is astounding that we pay some people 96% of their highest salary/average of last three months for the rest of their lives. Madness.
People need to go back and read Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” you’ll work like your life depends on it when it does. The fact that we have 10% official unemployment, actual much higher, and we’re talking about admitting potentially 100 million unskilled workers (learn about chain migration rules) because there are “jobs Americans just won’t do” screams to anyone who can recognize that the emperor is naked that unemployment benefits and other “social safeguards” are just too cushy.
Jerry Doyle said it well the other night: if you give people 100 weeks of unemployment, most aren’t going to start looking for a job until week 99. If you give them 150 they’ll start looking in week 149.
Cut public pensions out of the picture. Offer rock bottom salaries. Start there, and only increase AS NECESSARY.
But if you’re paying people to sit on their arse and feeding them, don’t expect folks to line up around the corner.
The old adage is give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Well no one is going to bother learning to fish if they’re handing them out for free around the corner.
Obviously the 48% of tax filers who are net takers rather than payers have little disincentive to claim public employees, especially the sacred police, fire, and teacher groups, all deserve the absolute best. The rest of us who will soon be an irreversible minority who work as slaves to fund this largess are likely to be more practical.
Participant[quote=teaboy]What is a fair and equitable rate of pay & benefits for public employees, compared with what people make in the private sector?
tb[/quote]
The fair and equitable rate is the least amount the public can get away with. That means the lowest rate they could pay and still fill the positions.
Frankly, most public service stinks compared to the private sector.
And I have ZERO doubt that we could pay many public service positions much less and still fill them readily — with the same quality employee.
For example, I would offer no pension whatsoever to public employees and I’ve little doubt those positions would all be filled. If not, pay them a little more and it would still be cheaper.
It is astounding that we pay some people 96% of their highest salary/average of last three months for the rest of their lives. Madness.
People need to go back and read Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” you’ll work like your life depends on it when it does. The fact that we have 10% official unemployment, actual much higher, and we’re talking about admitting potentially 100 million unskilled workers (learn about chain migration rules) because there are “jobs Americans just won’t do” screams to anyone who can recognize that the emperor is naked that unemployment benefits and other “social safeguards” are just too cushy.
Jerry Doyle said it well the other night: if you give people 100 weeks of unemployment, most aren’t going to start looking for a job until week 99. If you give them 150 they’ll start looking in week 149.
Cut public pensions out of the picture. Offer rock bottom salaries. Start there, and only increase AS NECESSARY.
But if you’re paying people to sit on their arse and feeding them, don’t expect folks to line up around the corner.
The old adage is give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Well no one is going to bother learning to fish if they’re handing them out for free around the corner.
Obviously the 48% of tax filers who are net takers rather than payers have little disincentive to claim public employees, especially the sacred police, fire, and teacher groups, all deserve the absolute best. The rest of us who will soon be an irreversible minority who work as slaves to fund this largess are likely to be more practical.
Participant[quote=teaboy]What is a fair and equitable rate of pay & benefits for public employees, compared with what people make in the private sector?
tb[/quote]
The fair and equitable rate is the least amount the public can get away with. That means the lowest rate they could pay and still fill the positions.
Frankly, most public service stinks compared to the private sector.
And I have ZERO doubt that we could pay many public service positions much less and still fill them readily — with the same quality employee.
For example, I would offer no pension whatsoever to public employees and I’ve little doubt those positions would all be filled. If not, pay them a little more and it would still be cheaper.
It is astounding that we pay some people 96% of their highest salary/average of last three months for the rest of their lives. Madness.
People need to go back and read Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” you’ll work like your life depends on it when it does. The fact that we have 10% official unemployment, actual much higher, and we’re talking about admitting potentially 100 million unskilled workers (learn about chain migration rules) because there are “jobs Americans just won’t do” screams to anyone who can recognize that the emperor is naked that unemployment benefits and other “social safeguards” are just too cushy.
Jerry Doyle said it well the other night: if you give people 100 weeks of unemployment, most aren’t going to start looking for a job until week 99. If you give them 150 they’ll start looking in week 149.
Cut public pensions out of the picture. Offer rock bottom salaries. Start there, and only increase AS NECESSARY.
But if you’re paying people to sit on their arse and feeding them, don’t expect folks to line up around the corner.
The old adage is give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Well no one is going to bother learning to fish if they’re handing them out for free around the corner.
Obviously the 48% of tax filers who are net takers rather than payers have little disincentive to claim public employees, especially the sacred police, fire, and teacher groups, all deserve the absolute best. The rest of us who will soon be an irreversible minority who work as slaves to fund this largess are likely to be more practical.
Participant[quote=teaboy]What is a fair and equitable rate of pay & benefits for public employees, compared with what people make in the private sector?
tb[/quote]
The fair and equitable rate is the least amount the public can get away with. That means the lowest rate they could pay and still fill the positions.
Frankly, most public service stinks compared to the private sector.
And I have ZERO doubt that we could pay many public service positions much less and still fill them readily — with the same quality employee.
For example, I would offer no pension whatsoever to public employees and I’ve little doubt those positions would all be filled. If not, pay them a little more and it would still be cheaper.
It is astounding that we pay some people 96% of their highest salary/average of last three months for the rest of their lives. Madness.
People need to go back and read Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” you’ll work like your life depends on it when it does. The fact that we have 10% official unemployment, actual much higher, and we’re talking about admitting potentially 100 million unskilled workers (learn about chain migration rules) because there are “jobs Americans just won’t do” screams to anyone who can recognize that the emperor is naked that unemployment benefits and other “social safeguards” are just too cushy.
Jerry Doyle said it well the other night: if you give people 100 weeks of unemployment, most aren’t going to start looking for a job until week 99. If you give them 150 they’ll start looking in week 149.
Cut public pensions out of the picture. Offer rock bottom salaries. Start there, and only increase AS NECESSARY.
But if you’re paying people to sit on their arse and feeding them, don’t expect folks to line up around the corner.
The old adage is give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Well no one is going to bother learning to fish if they’re handing them out for free around the corner.
Obviously the 48% of tax filers who are net takers rather than payers have little disincentive to claim public employees, especially the sacred police, fire, and teacher groups, all deserve the absolute best. The rest of us who will soon be an irreversible minority who work as slaves to fund this largess are likely to be more practical.
-
AuthorPosts
