Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant[quote=UCGal]Are you calling the bottom nationally? Regionally? San Diego? Specific neighborhoods?
Just curious.[/quote]
Due to the quantum nature of the phenomena I am measuring and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
I can either hit the time precisely or the location, but not both. Other have concentrated on specific areas, so I am focusing my energy on the specific time.June 3, 2009 at 8:48 AM in reply to: San Diego Fire Chief retires at 53 with $123K/yr pension for life… #409552ParticipantThank You Tracy Jarman for your 25 years of service.
Thanks for your service in earlier years on the HazMat response team, putting your life in danger, and working at below average salaries during the 80’s and early 1990s. Congratulations.June 3, 2009 at 8:48 AM in reply to: San Diego Fire Chief retires at 53 with $123K/yr pension for life… #409791ParticipantThank You Tracy Jarman for your 25 years of service.
Thanks for your service in earlier years on the HazMat response team, putting your life in danger, and working at below average salaries during the 80’s and early 1990s. Congratulations.June 3, 2009 at 8:48 AM in reply to: San Diego Fire Chief retires at 53 with $123K/yr pension for life… #410038ParticipantThank You Tracy Jarman for your 25 years of service.
Thanks for your service in earlier years on the HazMat response team, putting your life in danger, and working at below average salaries during the 80’s and early 1990s. Congratulations.June 3, 2009 at 8:48 AM in reply to: San Diego Fire Chief retires at 53 with $123K/yr pension for life… #410098ParticipantThank You Tracy Jarman for your 25 years of service.
Thanks for your service in earlier years on the HazMat response team, putting your life in danger, and working at below average salaries during the 80’s and early 1990s. Congratulations.June 3, 2009 at 8:48 AM in reply to: San Diego Fire Chief retires at 53 with $123K/yr pension for life… #410251ParticipantThank You Tracy Jarman for your 25 years of service.
Thanks for your service in earlier years on the HazMat response team, putting your life in danger, and working at below average salaries during the 80’s and early 1990s. Congratulations.Participant[quote=danthedart]Inherently fair?
What a joke. Take this example:
2 people bought a home in 2005 in the same neighborhood for the same price 600k lets say. It’s worth only 400k now.
Person A makes 300k a year and person B makes only 70k a year. Person B gets a principle reduction and person A does not under Zandi’s plan.
[/quote]
Not that I like Zandi’s “plan” but this is not necessarily true. For example, if Person B were making 200K when they bought and put more than 10% down, they would not qualify.
If you add one additional caveat to his plan such as not allowing a bailout to those who lied about their income, then this “plan” would apply to very few people.
Participant[quote=danthedart]Inherently fair?
What a joke. Take this example:
2 people bought a home in 2005 in the same neighborhood for the same price 600k lets say. It’s worth only 400k now.
Person A makes 300k a year and person B makes only 70k a year. Person B gets a principle reduction and person A does not under Zandi’s plan.
[/quote]
Not that I like Zandi’s “plan” but this is not necessarily true. For example, if Person B were making 200K when they bought and put more than 10% down, they would not qualify.
If you add one additional caveat to his plan such as not allowing a bailout to those who lied about their income, then this “plan” would apply to very few people.
Participant[quote=danthedart]Inherently fair?
What a joke. Take this example:
2 people bought a home in 2005 in the same neighborhood for the same price 600k lets say. It’s worth only 400k now.
Person A makes 300k a year and person B makes only 70k a year. Person B gets a principle reduction and person A does not under Zandi’s plan.
[/quote]
Not that I like Zandi’s “plan” but this is not necessarily true. For example, if Person B were making 200K when they bought and put more than 10% down, they would not qualify.
If you add one additional caveat to his plan such as not allowing a bailout to those who lied about their income, then this “plan” would apply to very few people.
Participant[quote=danthedart]Inherently fair?
What a joke. Take this example:
2 people bought a home in 2005 in the same neighborhood for the same price 600k lets say. It’s worth only 400k now.
Person A makes 300k a year and person B makes only 70k a year. Person B gets a principle reduction and person A does not under Zandi’s plan.
[/quote]
Not that I like Zandi’s “plan” but this is not necessarily true. For example, if Person B were making 200K when they bought and put more than 10% down, they would not qualify.
If you add one additional caveat to his plan such as not allowing a bailout to those who lied about their income, then this “plan” would apply to very few people.
Participant[quote=danthedart]Inherently fair?
What a joke. Take this example:
2 people bought a home in 2005 in the same neighborhood for the same price 600k lets say. It’s worth only 400k now.
Person A makes 300k a year and person B makes only 70k a year. Person B gets a principle reduction and person A does not under Zandi’s plan.
[/quote]
Not that I like Zandi’s “plan” but this is not necessarily true. For example, if Person B were making 200K when they bought and put more than 10% down, they would not qualify.
If you add one additional caveat to his plan such as not allowing a bailout to those who lied about their income, then this “plan” would apply to very few people.
Participant[quote=temeculaguy]
Purporting to be an expert and stating one’s credentials, then giving advice known to the author to be untrue, harmful or misleading is one thing. But us yahoos giving our opinions is a risk I’m willing to take and something that our constitution and laws are designed to protect. Many a man and woman have given their lives to protect this freedom, it’s our responsibility to exercise it.[/quote]I agree*
* Statement not to be construed as legal advice. The author provides no warranty to the authenticity or validity of any statements posted herein. Statements are made for author’s personal amusement and are not to be construed as investment advice. May cause itching, burning, rash, and gas with oily discharge. Seek immediate medical attention if you have an erection lasting longer than 4 hours.
Participant[quote=temeculaguy]
Purporting to be an expert and stating one’s credentials, then giving advice known to the author to be untrue, harmful or misleading is one thing. But us yahoos giving our opinions is a risk I’m willing to take and something that our constitution and laws are designed to protect. Many a man and woman have given their lives to protect this freedom, it’s our responsibility to exercise it.[/quote]I agree*
* Statement not to be construed as legal advice. The author provides no warranty to the authenticity or validity of any statements posted herein. Statements are made for author’s personal amusement and are not to be construed as investment advice. May cause itching, burning, rash, and gas with oily discharge. Seek immediate medical attention if you have an erection lasting longer than 4 hours.
Participant[quote=temeculaguy]
Purporting to be an expert and stating one’s credentials, then giving advice known to the author to be untrue, harmful or misleading is one thing. But us yahoos giving our opinions is a risk I’m willing to take and something that our constitution and laws are designed to protect. Many a man and woman have given their lives to protect this freedom, it’s our responsibility to exercise it.[/quote]I agree*
* Statement not to be construed as legal advice. The author provides no warranty to the authenticity or validity of any statements posted herein. Statements are made for author’s personal amusement and are not to be construed as investment advice. May cause itching, burning, rash, and gas with oily discharge. Seek immediate medical attention if you have an erection lasting longer than 4 hours.
-
AuthorPosts
