[jonnycsd]

By the way, I ENTIRELY agree with Nostradamus’ leading response. Spot on.

[jonnycsd]

This thread is absurd. The idea that men should not be attracted by, and pursue, women who have physical attributes they find attractive is one of the dumbest things anyone ever said. It certainly is not sleazy.

What exactly do you mean by “luscious” anyway? If that is code for “large” then just be glad you found a guy who “likes you the way you are”. At least he didn’t buy you a treadmill for your birthday, right?

Marion, to even come up with such a question you must have seriously overdosed on politically correct ideology. Try replacing it with some science:

PS Lykis is more right than wrong on just about every topic he covers.

[jonnycsd]

This thread is absurd. The idea that men should not be attracted by, and pursue, women who have physical attributes they find attractive is one of the dumbest things anyone ever said. It certainly is not sleazy.

What exactly do you mean by “luscious” anyway? If that is code for “large” then just be glad you found a guy who “likes you the way you are”. At least he didn’t buy you a treadmill for your birthday, right?

Marion, to even come up with such a question you must have seriously overdosed on politically correct ideology. Try replacing it with some science:

PS Lykis is more right than wrong on just about every topic he covers.

[jonnycsd]

This thread is absurd. The idea that men should not be attracted by, and pursue, women who have physical attributes they find attractive is one of the dumbest things anyone ever said. It certainly is not sleazy.

What exactly do you mean by “luscious” anyway? If that is code for “large” then just be glad you found a guy who “likes you the way you are”. At least he didn’t buy you a treadmill for your birthday, right?

Marion, to even come up with such a question you must have seriously overdosed on politically correct ideology. Try replacing it with some science:

PS Lykis is more right than wrong on just about every topic he covers.

[jonnycsd]

This thread is absurd. The idea that men should not be attracted by, and pursue, women who have physical attributes they find attractive is one of the dumbest things anyone ever said. It certainly is not sleazy.

What exactly do you mean by “luscious” anyway? If that is code for “large” then just be glad you found a guy who “likes you the way you are”. At least he didn’t buy you a treadmill for your birthday, right?

Marion, to even come up with such a question you must have seriously overdosed on politically correct ideology. Try replacing it with some science:

PS Lykis is more right than wrong on just about every topic he covers.

[jonnycsd]

This thread is absurd. The idea that men should not be attracted by, and pursue, women who have physical attributes they find attractive is one of the dumbest things anyone ever said. It certainly is not sleazy.

What exactly do you mean by “luscious” anyway? If that is code for “large” then just be glad you found a guy who “likes you the way you are”. At least he didn’t buy you a treadmill for your birthday, right?

Marion, to even come up with such a question you must have seriously overdosed on politically correct ideology. Try replacing it with some science:

PS Lykis is more right than wrong on just about every topic he covers.

[jonnycsd]

This bill is small potatoes. The biggest thing mentioned is a $15BB to allow some builders to carry forward historical losses to future tax returns.

[jonnycsd]

This bill is small potatoes. The biggest thing mentioned is a $15BB to allow some builders to carry forward historical losses to future tax returns.

[jonnycsd]

This bill is small potatoes. The biggest thing mentioned is a $15BB to allow some builders to carry forward historical losses to future tax returns.

[jonnycsd]

This bill is small potatoes. The biggest thing mentioned is a $15BB to allow some builders to carry forward historical losses to future tax returns.

[jonnycsd]

This bill is small potatoes. The biggest thing mentioned is a $15BB to allow some builders to carry forward historical losses to future tax returns.

[jonnycsd]

SD Realtor, I think we are talking past eachother here. IMHO I see the forest quite well – what I am looking for are details on some of the larger government interventions. There are no large actions described as part of the Senate bill that is the topic of this post.

I am sorry if you feel you should not have been renting. I believe that prudent people will all come out ahead. Having a catastrophic revaluation leading to depression and simulataneous dollar devaluation would not help anyone, and would really hurt renter/savers who depend on current year income or dollar denominated savings to buy groceries.

Free markets that operate well are regulated in many ways – look at US Equities – there are extensive trading rules, suspensions of trading when price movements are excessive, and substantial financial disclosure and reporting rules. A free market with market based pricing does not mean a free for all with no rules. Thankfully the Federal government is shoring up some of the wild west that characterized the housing/mortgage markets of the last 10 years.

Six months ago I wrote on this site that the correction would not all come in the form of a correction in real values alone (which would be a catastrophe for every American), but would also be facilitated by higher than normal inflation and targeted interventions by the government.

It is not clear to me that targeted interventions by the government are bad for the prudent per se. An orderly revaluation is in everyones best interest and allows renters becoming buyers to be secure in thier own financial situation.

So the challenge is that the government needs to intervene but in a reasonable way that doesn’t put too much burden on savers and tax payers.

Which is what I am asking for – any links to articles that detail the larger interventions involving financial transfers (like the $300BB one that people talk aobut a lot but seems to be without specifics or detail). I am seeing a forest and LOOKING FOR the trees.

Thanks in advance.

[jonnycsd]

SD Realtor, I think we are talking past eachother here. IMHO I see the forest quite well – what I am looking for are details on some of the larger government interventions. There are no large actions described as part of the Senate bill that is the topic of this post.

I am sorry if you feel you should not have been renting. I believe that prudent people will all come out ahead. Having a catastrophic revaluation leading to depression and simulataneous dollar devaluation would not help anyone, and would really hurt renter/savers who depend on current year income or dollar denominated savings to buy groceries.

Free markets that operate well are regulated in many ways – look at US Equities – there are extensive trading rules, suspensions of trading when price movements are excessive, and substantial financial disclosure and reporting rules. A free market with market based pricing does not mean a free for all with no rules. Thankfully the Federal government is shoring up some of the wild west that characterized the housing/mortgage markets of the last 10 years.

Six months ago I wrote on this site that the correction would not all come in the form of a correction in real values alone (which would be a catastrophe for every American), but would also be facilitated by higher than normal inflation and targeted interventions by the government.

It is not clear to me that targeted interventions by the government are bad for the prudent per se. An orderly revaluation is in everyones best interest and allows renters becoming buyers to be secure in thier own financial situation.

So the challenge is that the government needs to intervene but in a reasonable way that doesn’t put too much burden on savers and tax payers.

Which is what I am asking for – any links to articles that detail the larger interventions involving financial transfers (like the $300BB one that people talk aobut a lot but seems to be without specifics or detail). I am seeing a forest and LOOKING FOR the trees.

Thanks in advance.

[jonnycsd]

SD Realtor, I think we are talking past eachother here. IMHO I see the forest quite well – what I am looking for are details on some of the larger government interventions. There are no large actions described as part of the Senate bill that is the topic of this post.

I am sorry if you feel you should not have been renting. I believe that prudent people will all come out ahead. Having a catastrophic revaluation leading to depression and simulataneous dollar devaluation would not help anyone, and would really hurt renter/savers who depend on current year income or dollar denominated savings to buy groceries.

Free markets that operate well are regulated in many ways – look at US Equities – there are extensive trading rules, suspensions of trading when price movements are excessive, and substantial financial disclosure and reporting rules. A free market with market based pricing does not mean a free for all with no rules. Thankfully the Federal government is shoring up some of the wild west that characterized the housing/mortgage markets of the last 10 years.

Six months ago I wrote on this site that the correction would not all come in the form of a correction in real values alone (which would be a catastrophe for every American), but would also be facilitated by higher than normal inflation and targeted interventions by the government.

It is not clear to me that targeted interventions by the government are bad for the prudent per se. An orderly revaluation is in everyones best interest and allows renters becoming buyers to be secure in thier own financial situation.

So the challenge is that the government needs to intervene but in a reasonable way that doesn’t put too much burden on savers and tax payers.

Which is what I am asking for – any links to articles that detail the larger interventions involving financial transfers (like the $300BB one that people talk aobut a lot but seems to be without specifics or detail). I am seeing a forest and LOOKING FOR the trees.

Thanks in advance.

[jonnycsd]

SD Realtor, I think we are talking past eachother here. IMHO I see the forest quite well – what I am looking for are details on some of the larger government interventions. There are no large actions described as part of the Senate bill that is the topic of this post.

I am sorry if you feel you should not have been renting. I believe that prudent people will all come out ahead. Having a catastrophic revaluation leading to depression and simulataneous dollar devaluation would not help anyone, and would really hurt renter/savers who depend on current year income or dollar denominated savings to buy groceries.

Free markets that operate well are regulated in many ways – look at US Equities – there are extensive trading rules, suspensions of trading when price movements are excessive, and substantial financial disclosure and reporting rules. A free market with market based pricing does not mean a free for all with no rules. Thankfully the Federal government is shoring up some of the wild west that characterized the housing/mortgage markets of the last 10 years.

Six months ago I wrote on this site that the correction would not all come in the form of a correction in real values alone (which would be a catastrophe for every American), but would also be facilitated by higher than normal inflation and targeted interventions by the government.

It is not clear to me that targeted interventions by the government are bad for the prudent per se. An orderly revaluation is in everyones best interest and allows renters becoming buyers to be secure in thier own financial situation.

So the challenge is that the government needs to intervene but in a reasonable way that doesn’t put too much burden on savers and tax payers.

Which is what I am asking for – any links to articles that detail the larger interventions involving financial transfers (like the $300BB one that people talk aobut a lot but seems to be without specifics or detail). I am seeing a forest and LOOKING FOR the trees.

Thanks in advance.

[Author]

Posts