[jstoesz]

[quote=AN][quote=captcha][quote=AN]Snowboarding/skiing is not a cheap sport…[/quote]
Unless you live 30 minutes from a resort :)[/quote]
Please tell me, what’s more expensive, renting a cabin and share w/ a group of friends or the lift tickets, boards, boots, bindings, jacket, pants, etc. Even if you don’t have to rent a place, how much does it cost to buy the gear and getting lift tickets at a nice mountain?[/quote]

When you live near a resort, you buy a 300 dollar pass and ski as much or as little as the conditions prompt you to go… or if are up for it, backcountry is free…except for gear of course. Now if you only go twice a year, the lift tickets and rentals bite no matter what.

[jstoesz]

[quote=AN][quote=captcha][quote=AN]Snowboarding/skiing is not a cheap sport…[/quote]
Unless you live 30 minutes from a resort :)[/quote]
Please tell me, what’s more expensive, renting a cabin and share w/ a group of friends or the lift tickets, boards, boots, bindings, jacket, pants, etc. Even if you don’t have to rent a place, how much does it cost to buy the gear and getting lift tickets at a nice mountain?[/quote]

When you live near a resort, you buy a 300 dollar pass and ski as much or as little as the conditions prompt you to go… or if are up for it, backcountry is free…except for gear of course. Now if you only go twice a year, the lift tickets and rentals bite no matter what.

[jstoesz]

Scaredy, have you read the black swan by taleb? I think you would appreciate his view of philosophers, at least I did.

[jstoesz]

Scaredy, have you read the black swan by taleb? I think you would appreciate his view of philosophers, at least I did.

[jstoesz]

Scaredy, have you read the black swan by taleb? I think you would appreciate his view of philosophers, at least I did.

[jstoesz]

Scaredy, have you read the black swan by taleb? I think you would appreciate his view of philosophers, at least I did.

[jstoesz]

Scaredy, have you read the black swan by taleb? I think you would appreciate his view of philosophers, at least I did.

[jstoesz]

[quote=gandalf][quote=jstoesz]To throw my two cents into the ring…

I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading[/quote]

Same creepy line with creationism. If you teach evolution, you have to teach intelligent design. If you teach the Plato or Aquinas, you have to teach Rand. Required reading.

Right-wing zombies insist you subscribe to their moralizing bullshit, and are worse than Marxists. They aren’t conservative in any sense. Conservatives don’t do ‘required reading’.

As for Atlas Shrugged, it was interesting but not Great Books material. I don’t think anybody should be compelled to read it. The irony is laughable.[/quote]

Gandalf, your capacity for the cliche is so vast it subverts your sincerity.

Yes, by required reading, I meant we should go “clock work orange” on all the 14 year olds in america.

I love your use of the word “creepy.” It boiler plates you from any real intelligent criticism. And “moralizing” to you must be synonymous with expressing ones opinion on a matter, since I am darn near sure you can not debate this topic on facts. Not to mention you slipped in “right wing zombies,” Is that like a liberal rallying cry…or dog whistle or something? And your rounded out your critisism with comparing me to a Marxist…Nice choice on avoiding the knee jerk to Nazism…well played.

So all your response does is attempt to shame someone into shutting up.

I would love to have a debate about why Rand is not valid for people to read or think about, in whole or in part. My main point was that Rand provides a unique world view, as useful and flawed as many other great philosophical thinkers, and on such grounds, she is worth reading.

Here is how you can respond Gandalf…

I, Gandalf, do not think Rand is valid…I, Gandalf, do not think she is valid, (and here is the important part, the more detail the better!) because of X,Y, and Z.

[jstoesz]

[quote=gandalf][quote=jstoesz]To throw my two cents into the ring…

I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading[/quote]

Same creepy line with creationism. If you teach evolution, you have to teach intelligent design. If you teach the Plato or Aquinas, you have to teach Rand. Required reading.

Right-wing zombies insist you subscribe to their moralizing bullshit, and are worse than Marxists. They aren’t conservative in any sense. Conservatives don’t do ‘required reading’.

As for Atlas Shrugged, it was interesting but not Great Books material. I don’t think anybody should be compelled to read it. The irony is laughable.[/quote]

Gandalf, your capacity for the cliche is so vast it subverts your sincerity.

Yes, by required reading, I meant we should go “clock work orange” on all the 14 year olds in america.

I love your use of the word “creepy.” It boiler plates you from any real intelligent criticism. And “moralizing” to you must be synonymous with expressing ones opinion on a matter, since I am darn near sure you can not debate this topic on facts. Not to mention you slipped in “right wing zombies,” Is that like a liberal rallying cry…or dog whistle or something? And your rounded out your critisism with comparing me to a Marxist…Nice choice on avoiding the knee jerk to Nazism…well played.

So all your response does is attempt to shame someone into shutting up.

I would love to have a debate about why Rand is not valid for people to read or think about, in whole or in part. My main point was that Rand provides a unique world view, as useful and flawed as many other great philosophical thinkers, and on such grounds, she is worth reading.

Here is how you can respond Gandalf…

I, Gandalf, do not think Rand is valid…I, Gandalf, do not think she is valid, (and here is the important part, the more detail the better!) because of X,Y, and Z.

[jstoesz]

[quote=gandalf][quote=jstoesz]To throw my two cents into the ring…

I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading[/quote]

Same creepy line with creationism. If you teach evolution, you have to teach intelligent design. If you teach the Plato or Aquinas, you have to teach Rand. Required reading.

Right-wing zombies insist you subscribe to their moralizing bullshit, and are worse than Marxists. They aren’t conservative in any sense. Conservatives don’t do ‘required reading’.

As for Atlas Shrugged, it was interesting but not Great Books material. I don’t think anybody should be compelled to read it. The irony is laughable.[/quote]

Gandalf, your capacity for the cliche is so vast it subverts your sincerity.

Yes, by required reading, I meant we should go “clock work orange” on all the 14 year olds in america.

I love your use of the word “creepy.” It boiler plates you from any real intelligent criticism. And “moralizing” to you must be synonymous with expressing ones opinion on a matter, since I am darn near sure you can not debate this topic on facts. Not to mention you slipped in “right wing zombies,” Is that like a liberal rallying cry…or dog whistle or something? And your rounded out your critisism with comparing me to a Marxist…Nice choice on avoiding the knee jerk to Nazism…well played.

So all your response does is attempt to shame someone into shutting up.

I would love to have a debate about why Rand is not valid for people to read or think about, in whole or in part. My main point was that Rand provides a unique world view, as useful and flawed as many other great philosophical thinkers, and on such grounds, she is worth reading.

Here is how you can respond Gandalf…

I, Gandalf, do not think Rand is valid…I, Gandalf, do not think she is valid, (and here is the important part, the more detail the better!) because of X,Y, and Z.

[jstoesz]

[quote=gandalf][quote=jstoesz]To throw my two cents into the ring…

I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading[/quote]

Same creepy line with creationism. If you teach evolution, you have to teach intelligent design. If you teach the Plato or Aquinas, you have to teach Rand. Required reading.

Right-wing zombies insist you subscribe to their moralizing bullshit, and are worse than Marxists. They aren’t conservative in any sense. Conservatives don’t do ‘required reading’.

As for Atlas Shrugged, it was interesting but not Great Books material. I don’t think anybody should be compelled to read it. The irony is laughable.[/quote]

Gandalf, your capacity for the cliche is so vast it subverts your sincerity.

Yes, by required reading, I meant we should go “clock work orange” on all the 14 year olds in america.

I love your use of the word “creepy.” It boiler plates you from any real intelligent criticism. And “moralizing” to you must be synonymous with expressing ones opinion on a matter, since I am darn near sure you can not debate this topic on facts. Not to mention you slipped in “right wing zombies,” Is that like a liberal rallying cry…or dog whistle or something? And your rounded out your critisism with comparing me to a Marxist…Nice choice on avoiding the knee jerk to Nazism…well played.

So all your response does is attempt to shame someone into shutting up.

I would love to have a debate about why Rand is not valid for people to read or think about, in whole or in part. My main point was that Rand provides a unique world view, as useful and flawed as many other great philosophical thinkers, and on such grounds, she is worth reading.

Here is how you can respond Gandalf…

I, Gandalf, do not think Rand is valid…I, Gandalf, do not think she is valid, (and here is the important part, the more detail the better!) because of X,Y, and Z.

[jstoesz]

[quote=gandalf][quote=jstoesz]To throw my two cents into the ring…

I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading[/quote]

Same creepy line with creationism. If you teach evolution, you have to teach intelligent design. If you teach the Plato or Aquinas, you have to teach Rand. Required reading.

Right-wing zombies insist you subscribe to their moralizing bullshit, and are worse than Marxists. They aren’t conservative in any sense. Conservatives don’t do ‘required reading’.

As for Atlas Shrugged, it was interesting but not Great Books material. I don’t think anybody should be compelled to read it. The irony is laughable.[/quote]

Gandalf, your capacity for the cliche is so vast it subverts your sincerity.

Yes, by required reading, I meant we should go “clock work orange” on all the 14 year olds in america.

I love your use of the word “creepy.” It boiler plates you from any real intelligent criticism. And “moralizing” to you must be synonymous with expressing ones opinion on a matter, since I am darn near sure you can not debate this topic on facts. Not to mention you slipped in “right wing zombies,” Is that like a liberal rallying cry…or dog whistle or something? And your rounded out your critisism with comparing me to a Marxist…Nice choice on avoiding the knee jerk to Nazism…well played.

So all your response does is attempt to shame someone into shutting up.

I would love to have a debate about why Rand is not valid for people to read or think about, in whole or in part. My main point was that Rand provides a unique world view, as useful and flawed as many other great philosophical thinkers, and on such grounds, she is worth reading.

Here is how you can respond Gandalf…

I, Gandalf, do not think Rand is valid…I, Gandalf, do not think she is valid, (and here is the important part, the more detail the better!) because of X,Y, and Z.

[jstoesz]

[quote=sdrealtor][quote=CafeMoto][quote=UCguy]Sigh….
It seems to make more sense to wait at least 2 more years maybe 3 tops….until so we can put 20% (and be under 417K).

That is how I am thinking of a middle ground compromise.

How I will come up with that 20%: well, I want to have some cash on hand so I will probably borrow 5% from 401k (30K), preferably from less riskier one (the 403b0, AND make sure I have AT LEAST THAT MUCH left in cash, if not more. So, I need to save ~50K or 25K a year.

We have already reduced the 403b contribution to a minimum (because of no more matching in UCSD), on the other hand I will continue to contribute to my 401k 6% (the company will match 3%) – so I won’t max it out anymore.

The upside of this wait is that in a couple of years it would be hopefully a more normal market, with tighter rules, and lower home prices…I never thought it would take this long though, so who knows how long this still has to unfold….[/quote]

I agree with this decision, it is like jstoesz said; if people that can afford to get in at 550K (but its a huge stretch) stop buying the most house they can afford prices will come down. Not too many households making close to 200k so prices are likely to keep sliding I believe. Wishing you and the piggs who have bought nothing but the best. Your kids and friends will probably enjoy you more as parents not being financially rung.[/quote]

If I’m not mistaken jstoesz now lives somewhere out in the woods in a suburb of Sacramento. If thats what you want out of life so be it. With an income pushing 200K a 550K purchase is far from a stretch, its an no brainer budgetwise unless you are very conservative as many around here are. From personal experience, once your income is above roughly 100K the ratios go out the window. You can afford the things you need and now it is a question of what you want. Above 100K, most folks could comfortably devote close to 50% of their incremental income if that is what they wanted. So the real question is what do you want?[/quote]

Haha! sdr, you are correct…

Now I must brag to defend my lifestyle choices to all the citi-its/tour-ons (sound it out) of SD!

Last weekend, I spent Saturday skiing 2 feet of Utah quality champagne powder (45 mins from my door) and rounded it out with 10 pitches of glorious sierra trad climbing on sunday (30 mins from my door) while working on my sun tan. So if you want to defend you smog filled traffic jam existence in the over priced crap holdem of sd suburbs…well color me skeptical!

And make no mistake, this is a normal weekend for me…I am Yosemite bond next weekend for a short route up the backside of half dome!

[jstoesz]

[quote=sdrealtor][quote=CafeMoto][quote=UCguy]Sigh….
It seems to make more sense to wait at least 2 more years maybe 3 tops….until so we can put 20% (and be under 417K).

That is how I am thinking of a middle ground compromise.

How I will come up with that 20%: well, I want to have some cash on hand so I will probably borrow 5% from 401k (30K), preferably from less riskier one (the 403b0, AND make sure I have AT LEAST THAT MUCH left in cash, if not more. So, I need to save ~50K or 25K a year.

We have already reduced the 403b contribution to a minimum (because of no more matching in UCSD), on the other hand I will continue to contribute to my 401k 6% (the company will match 3%) – so I won’t max it out anymore.

The upside of this wait is that in a couple of years it would be hopefully a more normal market, with tighter rules, and lower home prices…I never thought it would take this long though, so who knows how long this still has to unfold….[/quote]

I agree with this decision, it is like jstoesz said; if people that can afford to get in at 550K (but its a huge stretch) stop buying the most house they can afford prices will come down. Not too many households making close to 200k so prices are likely to keep sliding I believe. Wishing you and the piggs who have bought nothing but the best. Your kids and friends will probably enjoy you more as parents not being financially rung.[/quote]

If I’m not mistaken jstoesz now lives somewhere out in the woods in a suburb of Sacramento. If thats what you want out of life so be it. With an income pushing 200K a 550K purchase is far from a stretch, its an no brainer budgetwise unless you are very conservative as many around here are. From personal experience, once your income is above roughly 100K the ratios go out the window. You can afford the things you need and now it is a question of what you want. Above 100K, most folks could comfortably devote close to 50% of their incremental income if that is what they wanted. So the real question is what do you want?[/quote]

Haha! sdr, you are correct…

Now I must brag to defend my lifestyle choices to all the citi-its/tour-ons (sound it out) of SD!

Last weekend, I spent Saturday skiing 2 feet of Utah quality champagne powder (45 mins from my door) and rounded it out with 10 pitches of glorious sierra trad climbing on sunday (30 mins from my door) while working on my sun tan. So if you want to defend you smog filled traffic jam existence in the over priced crap holdem of sd suburbs…well color me skeptical!

And make no mistake, this is a normal weekend for me…I am Yosemite bond next weekend for a short route up the backside of half dome!

[jstoesz]

[quote=sdrealtor][quote=CafeMoto][quote=UCguy]Sigh….
It seems to make more sense to wait at least 2 more years maybe 3 tops….until so we can put 20% (and be under 417K).

That is how I am thinking of a middle ground compromise.

How I will come up with that 20%: well, I want to have some cash on hand so I will probably borrow 5% from 401k (30K), preferably from less riskier one (the 403b0, AND make sure I have AT LEAST THAT MUCH left in cash, if not more. So, I need to save ~50K or 25K a year.

We have already reduced the 403b contribution to a minimum (because of no more matching in UCSD), on the other hand I will continue to contribute to my 401k 6% (the company will match 3%) – so I won’t max it out anymore.

The upside of this wait is that in a couple of years it would be hopefully a more normal market, with tighter rules, and lower home prices…I never thought it would take this long though, so who knows how long this still has to unfold….[/quote]

I agree with this decision, it is like jstoesz said; if people that can afford to get in at 550K (but its a huge stretch) stop buying the most house they can afford prices will come down. Not too many households making close to 200k so prices are likely to keep sliding I believe. Wishing you and the piggs who have bought nothing but the best. Your kids and friends will probably enjoy you more as parents not being financially rung.[/quote]

If I’m not mistaken jstoesz now lives somewhere out in the woods in a suburb of Sacramento. If thats what you want out of life so be it. With an income pushing 200K a 550K purchase is far from a stretch, its an no brainer budgetwise unless you are very conservative as many around here are. From personal experience, once your income is above roughly 100K the ratios go out the window. You can afford the things you need and now it is a question of what you want. Above 100K, most folks could comfortably devote close to 50% of their incremental income if that is what they wanted. So the real question is what do you want?[/quote]

Haha! sdr, you are correct…

Now I must brag to defend my lifestyle choices to all the citi-its/tour-ons (sound it out) of SD!

Last weekend, I spent Saturday skiing 2 feet of Utah quality champagne powder (45 mins from my door) and rounded it out with 10 pitches of glorious sierra trad climbing on sunday (30 mins from my door) while working on my sun tan. So if you want to defend you smog filled traffic jam existence in the over priced crap holdem of sd suburbs…well color me skeptical!

And make no mistake, this is a normal weekend for me…I am Yosemite bond next weekend for a short route up the backside of half dome!

[Author]

Posts