[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]I wouldn’t use that as a blanket statement. Something like “do not take on more debt if you’re above 50% debt-to-value” would be more appropriate. Prices dropping by more than 50% would be pretty unlikely.[/quote]

Theoretically their house had it’s highest value (according to zillow – and I know that’s suspect) in 2005 at $1.1 million. They sold at almost the low – $550,000. It’s funny money, I know, but still hard to believe. If he hadn’t touched the equity but lost his business and sold, he could have cleared at least $400,000 and then bought a flipper – clearly he had the skills. Just such a shame for those kids.

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]If the dude had put the equity into rental property instead of outdoor water features and BBQs, he wouldn’t be where he is now… A lot of East European folk with his background (with his job, he was obviously handy) did that and are doing pretty well with it.

And funny that him being a “wonderful provider” (13:25) was more important to chubby wifey than him being a good person. Bet she was clamoring for upgrades and toys for the kids more than anyone else when times were good.

Doesn’t seem to be much love from her end, just guilt.[/quote]

You’re accusing her of being uncaring but can see no farther than her weight – interesting. She must have loved him at some point- she was a beautiful flight attendant and he was a high school drop out – if she were marrying for money she could have done better. In any event – here is the house:

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2-Elm-Pl-Rancho-Santa-Margarita-CA-92688/25606849_zpid/

If they hadn’t siphoned equity out they would have had something like $400,000 in equity now, rather than living in a one bedroom apartment.

[njtosd]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Sounds pretty reasonable, njtosd. Each legal issue is separate.
The federal bankruptcy court will rule on the bankruptcy.

The unions might pursue a parallel case in state courts.

We will see if the state of michigan is forced to make the pensioners whole.[/quote]

First, I feel very sorry for the people who will very likely see their pensions drastically reduced. I would think that there might be differing treatment based on age (i.e. 80 year olds who can’t go back to work vs. 45 year olds who are hoping that their pension will still be there when they retire), if you were trying to be realistic about it.

These pension promises always remind me of Wimpy in the Popeye cartoon. The employer (Detroit, GM, whatever) says “I’ll gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger (labor) today.” It sounds good but you have to be suspicious. Especially when the city was clearly doing poorly. Anyone who has believed over the last 20 or so years that unfunded pension obligations (Detroit or elsewhere) will be honored in the future is very trusting. Legislation prohibiting unfunded or underfunded pensions is desperately needed.

I don’t expect pensions to be there when I retire, I don’t expect Soc. Sec. to be there when I retire. Maybe they will – but I have to make sure that I can take care of myself whether those safety nets are there or not.

[njtosd]

[quote=UCGal]We’ve talked to her and gave her two options –
– Higher rent if he stays.
– Have him stay less.

She’s interested in the second option. I’m trying to figure out reasonable guidelines for the “staying less” part.[/quote]

I am not a real estate attorney, and you might want to talk to one, but I would think about two things: (1) Can he prove he has another place where he can legally reside? (Is he hanging out because they’re in love or because it’s convenient.) Harder to argue he’s your tenant if he has a lease somewhere else. (2) Have him sign a document saying that he is not now, and will never claim to be your tenant until/unless he signs a lease with you.

Again, I would talk to a lawyer to see if such an agreement is legal/would hold up, and what the ramifications would be. But you have some leverage now to say that you’ll be more generous if he’s willing to sign.

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]Speak to an official at the city code enforcement office who has an actual engineering degree or an electrical license, not a degree in marketing, government administration, or early French midget chauvinist literature cut out of a Wheaties box.

Interesting question though — are there any solar systems that can generate x watts output, but limit power sent back to the grid to some fraction of x if the power is not being used locally?[/quote]

Yes – Kelly Broughton, the former Development Services Director for SD (responsible for zoning enforcement, etc.), Kelly Broughton, was a landscape architect. I’m not sure who replaced him, if anyone, but anything would be an improvement.

[njtosd]

[quote=harvey][quote=SK in CV]Michigan constitution has an awkwardly worded section:

§ 24 Public pension plans and retirement systems, obligation.
Sec. 24. The accrued financial benefits of each pension plan and retirement system of the state and its political subdivisions shall be a contractual obligation thereof which shall not be diminished or impaired thereby.

This can be read to mean that pensions of political subdivisions {cities} are an obligation of the state. I’d be lying if I said this is clearly what it says. But neither do I think that it’s clear that it says something different.[/quote]

It is poorly worded, and of course the final interpretation is up to the lawyers and judges, but I don’t don’t see it as saying that the state is effectively a co-signer of every city’s pension debt. Seems to me that it is just affirming that government pension obligations cannot be altered after the fact by one party (the government), just like any other contract.

What the judge said in this recent ruling is actually consistent with the clause cited above: Yep, pensions are contracts, and therefore can be restructured in bankruptcy, just like any other contract.

I suspect the courts will be inclined toward a very narrow interpretation of this clause. Any ruling that the state is on the hook for paying the debt of any city could have huge consequences. It would effectively give every small-town council in the state a multibillion-dollar line of credit.[/quote]

Harvey, I’m agreeing with you on this. The question is not whether the state is on the hook. The question is whether the city can shed or reduce its pension obligations. State law says no, Bk law (fed) says yes. Supremacy clause says fed law prevails – which was how the recent decision went.

[njtosd]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=harvey]I don’t see anywhere where it says the state has any obligation to pay Detroit’s debts.

If it were just a question of the state cutting the check vs. the city, I don’t think the creditors and pensioners would be as concerned as they appear to be.[/quote]

Michigan constitution has an awkwardly worded section:

§ 24 Public pension plans and retirement systems, obligation.
Sec. 24. The accrued financial benefits of each pension plan and retirement system of the state and its political subdivisions shall be a contractual obligation thereof which shall not be diminished or impaired thereby.

This can be read to mean that pensions of political subdivisions {cities} are an obligation of the state. I’d be lying if I said this is clearly what it says. But neither do I think that it’s clear that it says something different.[/quote]

Supremacy clause of the constitution states that federal law (i.e. bankruptcy law) supersedes the state constitution:

“The Supremacy Clause reads “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding”. This clause can be interpreted as saying that a federal court has the power to supersede a state law or even a state constitutional provision.”

http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/what_is_at_stake_for_pensioners_in_municipal_bankruptcy

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]Who knows? One of the most likely theories for the rise and drop of crime rates in the US involves the introduction and prohibition of leaded gasoline…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/01/03/how-lead-caused-americas-violent-crime-epidemic/

“Three strikes” is the typical American mentality of punishment over prevention and rehabilitation.[/quote]

Wait, because one guy from Mother Jones has some statistics doesn’t mean lead is “one of the most likely theories.” It is an interesting theory – might be true. Association between lead and IQ is easier to prove. In any event, if you don’t care about punishing people, only rehabilitating them, it doesn’t matter why they committed their crimes; whether the cause is lead or a choice to be evil, the crime is the same (and prevention, at least for those who have already had the damage done, is out of the question).

[njtosd]

[quote=livinincali][quote=EconProf]Perhaps a lot of Gate’s and Buffett’s increased generosity later in life is due to a natural inclination to be more reflective and giving as we age. Their consumption appetites are satisfied by a tiny fraction of their wealth, so they look around and discover how much good that wealth could be doing.
Come to think of it, the world might be worse off if they had decided at a younger age to discover philanthropy. All the money Gates and Buffett piled up in their 40’s and 50’s would not have materialized and be doing good things now.[/quote]

The generosity could also be for more selfish reasons like leaving a legacy. We talk about Ford, Carnegie, and Rockafeller today, but will we be talking about Buffet, Gates, and Jobs 20, 30 40 years into the future. Without someway to establish a lasting legacy you can certainly be forgotten. Did Jobs establish a legacy or is he just a going to end up as a cult hero that those geezers in their 70’s are talking about 50 years from.[/quote]

In 2012 (or so) dollars, Rockefeller had a fortune of somewhere between $400 – $650 billion; Gates is supposed to have something closer to $75, less than Sam Walton, Henry Ford, Astor, etc. Now, Gates isn’t done yet, but he’s unlikely to unseat the Carnegies, Rockefellers, etc.

[njtosd]

[quote=6packscaredy]I am working on the buttocks, but will hereby promise not to post any phtoos.[/quote]

Are you going to change your screen name?

[njtosd]

[quote=flu]

Housing in tech valley is ALWAYS in demand….Has been, always will be. Parents were there in the 80ies. I was there in 90ies-early 2000, and frankly there might be downturns when tech explodes, but something always starts up again.

[/quote]

Detroit used to be the equivalent of “high tech” before there was such a thing. It relied on heavy industry, which is different than Silicon Valley, but no one ever believed that it could fail. Adjusted for inflation, my parents house (in what was once a nice suburb) is now worth 70% of what it was in 1987.

[njtosd]

Ok joec, I’ll add you to the list.

[njtosd]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=6packscaredy]Pope Francis is moving me.[/quote]

Francis is moving me too.

Having said that I think most execs are assholes. Isn’t CNBC the channel for assholes? The constant loud voice talking, almost yelling squawk box format…

Then there’s Jon Stewart who’s an asshole to the assholes. A very effective way, I might add.

I think that for men it feels good to be an ass. More women in power would change that (although, right now, a lot of women have to be cunts to compete in the world of assholes).

Sorry it was an assrat way of saying this.[/quote]

FWIW – I believe that those who use the word c**t for women are no better than those who use the “N word” for African Americans. You and spdrun are the only ones on this board that think it’s ok to include it here (as far as I know).

[njtosd]

[quote=6packscaredy]Pope Francis is moving me.[/quote]

He actually practices what he preaches. It shouldn’t be surprising, but it is. He is very refreshing.

[njtosd]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

With regard to women, crimes are generally committed by men against women within the family or the same social group.

If men are married to women or live with them, I don’t see how that fits in the hate category, as I understand it.

[/quote]

1. I now believe you are brian.

2. I have known so many men over the years that dislike/hate women but are nonetheless hetero. They end up getting married, which is a pity.

3. How else would you categorize violence by men who attack women who they don’t know?

[Author]

Posts