Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
moneymakerParticipant
Or perhaps the government could make surprise visits to gun owners “to check their serial numbers” just to be sure they are actually in possession of the guns and were not straw buyers. Next step would be Nazi land.
moneymakerParticipantJust heard on 10 news that a background check is only required by commercial gun dealers, doesn’t sound right to me because I wouldn’t think selling among individuals could be done without going through someone with an FFL.
moneymakerParticipantI think before any action is taken we as a people need to ask ourselves,”would it have prevented the Newtown killings?” if the answer is no then why because of this incident are we willing to take such a stance.
moneymakerParticipantMy wife got returns like that with the BAC stock I recommended to her.
moneymakerParticipant[quote=SK in CV][quote=UCGal]We hear,often that people do not take personal responsibility for their retirement…
I read a while back that the average 50 year old only had $50k saved for retirement.
Now you’re proposing a scheme that would let irresponsible people gut their inadequateretirement savings.Even if your idea were approved you need to account for taxes. Since 401k money is pretax you need to take out extra to pay taxes on it… and depending on what bracket you’re in, it could kick you into a higher tax bracket. It will be taxed at your highest rate.
P.S. To UCGAl we use a graduated tax system now so there is no more bracketing, besides I would rather pay taxes now than the insane taxes we will be paying in 20 years.It just seems like a fiscally irresponsible idea. Just my opinion.[/quote]
I agree, and beyond that, other than the vague credit for investing in solar, it does nothing meaningful to help the economy. Paying off debt is not stimulative, whether its home mortgage debt, credit card debt, or student loan debt. At least mildly to the contrary, it would potentially cause a pretty drastic fall in the stock market. The macro-economic benefits escape me.[/quote]
The macro economic benefit would be that I would be producing electricity. More production is what we need to boost our economy. Anything that is economically smart is a good thing to do. I hope if I put in the solar I would still be benefiting from it when I retire in 20 years, so I could think of it as a retirement investment. By the time I retire I think the government will be in such bad shape that they will be means testing whether one deserves to get social security. With my mortgage paid off and my electricty subsidized by my solar I hope to qualify.
moneymakerParticipantWe just got a letter from recon trust about a release on the deed from a house we bought 3 3/4 years ago. Seems to me they should have sent that like 3 1/2 years ago. Weird, maybe that’s part of the robo signing thing.
moneymakerParticipantMe personally I would love to do the solar thing. Leasing and/or going into debt just don’t make sense to me right now.
moneymakerParticipant[quote=SK in CV][quote=no_such_reality]Just keep it simple.
Make the banks market to market on the delinquent loans.
Force them to foreclose or forgive the loan when it’s 180 days past due.
Problem solved as we liquidate all the pretenders, including several big bank.[/quote]
What does that mean? “Market to market”?[/quote]
I think it should have been “mark to market”, my probelm with that is you are telling them what to do, with my plan people have choices. Ultimately people’s lives are affected by their choices.
moneymakerParticipant[quote=no_such_reality]Just keep it simple.
Make the banks market to market on the delinquent loans.
Force them to foreclose or forgive the loan when it’s 180 days past due.
Problem solved as we liquidate all the pretenders, including several big bank.[/quote]
Believe it or not, even though banks are reporting profits I suspect they are not all that well off. Most all of them are rated BBB on their preferred stock offerings. That should tell you something.
December 14, 2012 at 11:48 AM in reply to: OT: Reason #168 to hate california. stupid emissions rules #756305moneymakerParticipantI don’t believe the first one was though. 16 years ago I don’t think it was required. I could literally see right through the old one.
December 14, 2012 at 11:38 AM in reply to: OT: Reason #168 to hate california. stupid emissions rules #756300moneymakerParticipantIt does.
December 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM in reply to: OT: Reason #168 to hate california. stupid emissions rules #756297moneymakerParticipantI had a similar experience trying to smog my ’88 jeep. Online the catalytic converter (cheapest I could find) was like $279,add to that the installation and you’re around $400. So i called the local parts places, found it at NAPA for like $179, went in and the manager knocked off another $30 bucks. Had my neighbor weld it in and passed the test better than it ever had since I’ve had the car (16 years). So now I can sell the car, but I love it so much that probably won’t happen anytime soon.
December 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM in reply to: “Rich” people should pay more taxes….Just not me….. #756265moneymakerParticipantIf you divide $2 trillion by say 65 million and then take out 20% for overhead you’ll end up with $24 thousand. Not much to support a family on. Remember landlords get a significant portion of this money, so ultimately the rich are affected by spending cuts. I think the Mormon’s have a good concept with having extra food stored up in the pantry. That’s going to be my next investment, just need a good app to track it so that I don’t end up throwing it out.
Actually I think the overhead might be even higher than 20%.moneymakerParticipantI’ve seen them camping out at my local Home Depot for the last couple of months.Can’t lay my hands on the brochure right now. Seem to recall SDGE lowering what they will buy electricity back at earlier this year.
-
AuthorPosts