Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientrenter
ParticipantNavydoc,
What happens if you are “shipped off” somewhere? Does the Navy pick up the tab for moving costs? Losses on a home? I am just curious how this works in the military. Can’t be easy for all.
And yes, most people are in total denial. To be fair, they may be partly right. Dodd, Frank, and Schumer, Bair etc, are pretty determined to throw any amount of money at housing to keep prices high.
ParticipantNavydoc,
What happens if you are “shipped off” somewhere? Does the Navy pick up the tab for moving costs? Losses on a home? I am just curious how this works in the military. Can’t be easy for all.
And yes, most people are in total denial. To be fair, they may be partly right. Dodd, Frank, and Schumer, Bair etc, are pretty determined to throw any amount of money at housing to keep prices high.
ParticipantNavydoc,
What happens if you are “shipped off” somewhere? Does the Navy pick up the tab for moving costs? Losses on a home? I am just curious how this works in the military. Can’t be easy for all.
And yes, most people are in total denial. To be fair, they may be partly right. Dodd, Frank, and Schumer, Bair etc, are pretty determined to throw any amount of money at housing to keep prices high.
ParticipantLa Jolla Renter,
As kewp says, our govt (god bless ’em) prohibits normal people from using credit default swaps. I wanted to use them to make some very substantial bets last summer, but found out I couldn’t. (And I am an Accredited Investor, per the SEC, but that’s not enough.)
I could have done very nicely, but our govt protected me from that fate.
ParticipantLa Jolla Renter,
As kewp says, our govt (god bless ’em) prohibits normal people from using credit default swaps. I wanted to use them to make some very substantial bets last summer, but found out I couldn’t. (And I am an Accredited Investor, per the SEC, but that’s not enough.)
I could have done very nicely, but our govt protected me from that fate.
ParticipantLa Jolla Renter,
As kewp says, our govt (god bless ’em) prohibits normal people from using credit default swaps. I wanted to use them to make some very substantial bets last summer, but found out I couldn’t. (And I am an Accredited Investor, per the SEC, but that’s not enough.)
I could have done very nicely, but our govt protected me from that fate.
ParticipantLa Jolla Renter,
As kewp says, our govt (god bless ’em) prohibits normal people from using credit default swaps. I wanted to use them to make some very substantial bets last summer, but found out I couldn’t. (And I am an Accredited Investor, per the SEC, but that’s not enough.)
I could have done very nicely, but our govt protected me from that fate.
ParticipantLa Jolla Renter,
As kewp says, our govt (god bless ’em) prohibits normal people from using credit default swaps. I wanted to use them to make some very substantial bets last summer, but found out I couldn’t. (And I am an Accredited Investor, per the SEC, but that’s not enough.)
I could have done very nicely, but our govt protected me from that fate.
ParticipantI hate the entire bailout, but if it’s going to happen anyway, I think there is a good case for extending it to life insurance companies, as well as banks.
Why? Life insurance companies are supposed to be a safe place for consumers to invest their premiums for a long time, until they are returned as a death benefit. Unlike banks that are supposed to return money at short notice, and probably should limit their long term lending, insurance companies should invest in long term commitments like mortgages. Presumably, a lot of them did. Now they are stuck with colossal losses that they have no way to make up.
Short of allowing most life insurance companies to slowly fail over the next 1-10 years as this hole in their balance sheets shows up in full, it’s probably better to plug the gap now. It actually makes more sense than it does for banks.
ParticipantI hate the entire bailout, but if it’s going to happen anyway, I think there is a good case for extending it to life insurance companies, as well as banks.
Why? Life insurance companies are supposed to be a safe place for consumers to invest their premiums for a long time, until they are returned as a death benefit. Unlike banks that are supposed to return money at short notice, and probably should limit their long term lending, insurance companies should invest in long term commitments like mortgages. Presumably, a lot of them did. Now they are stuck with colossal losses that they have no way to make up.
Short of allowing most life insurance companies to slowly fail over the next 1-10 years as this hole in their balance sheets shows up in full, it’s probably better to plug the gap now. It actually makes more sense than it does for banks.
ParticipantI hate the entire bailout, but if it’s going to happen anyway, I think there is a good case for extending it to life insurance companies, as well as banks.
Why? Life insurance companies are supposed to be a safe place for consumers to invest their premiums for a long time, until they are returned as a death benefit. Unlike banks that are supposed to return money at short notice, and probably should limit their long term lending, insurance companies should invest in long term commitments like mortgages. Presumably, a lot of them did. Now they are stuck with colossal losses that they have no way to make up.
Short of allowing most life insurance companies to slowly fail over the next 1-10 years as this hole in their balance sheets shows up in full, it’s probably better to plug the gap now. It actually makes more sense than it does for banks.
ParticipantI hate the entire bailout, but if it’s going to happen anyway, I think there is a good case for extending it to life insurance companies, as well as banks.
Why? Life insurance companies are supposed to be a safe place for consumers to invest their premiums for a long time, until they are returned as a death benefit. Unlike banks that are supposed to return money at short notice, and probably should limit their long term lending, insurance companies should invest in long term commitments like mortgages. Presumably, a lot of them did. Now they are stuck with colossal losses that they have no way to make up.
Short of allowing most life insurance companies to slowly fail over the next 1-10 years as this hole in their balance sheets shows up in full, it’s probably better to plug the gap now. It actually makes more sense than it does for banks.
ParticipantI hate the entire bailout, but if it’s going to happen anyway, I think there is a good case for extending it to life insurance companies, as well as banks.
Why? Life insurance companies are supposed to be a safe place for consumers to invest their premiums for a long time, until they are returned as a death benefit. Unlike banks that are supposed to return money at short notice, and probably should limit their long term lending, insurance companies should invest in long term commitments like mortgages. Presumably, a lot of them did. Now they are stuck with colossal losses that they have no way to make up.
Short of allowing most life insurance companies to slowly fail over the next 1-10 years as this hole in their balance sheets shows up in full, it’s probably better to plug the gap now. It actually makes more sense than it does for banks.
Participant[quote=meadandale][quote=patientrenter]
I pay hundreds of thousands in taxes each year. I have never bought a home, because I didn’t think I could afford a decent one and, at the same time, save enough for my future retirement and health expenses.[/quote]Please…
Anyone who pays HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars in taxes EVERY YEAR could afford to buy a house if they wanted to.
[/quote]Not unless you rely on something, meadandale, that is central to the little crisis we’re having right now. People thought they could work and ‘save’ for 10-20 years (after working without saving for another 15-25 years), and then retire with enough to live comfortably until they died, whenever that was.
Saving consisted of borrowing, using a home as collateral, and buying houses and stocks. Usually, the total amount spent on the assets was very little more than the total borrowing, so very little real saving was going on. People were really borrowing to invest at higher returns than the debt. As long as houses and stocks went up by more than the interest rate on their loans, they got “free money” which they considered savings.
I don’t assume any of that nonsense. If I work and save for 20 years, and hope to live after retirement for as long as 40 years, then I must save 2/3 of my net after-tax income. If you restrict your spending (of every type) to 1/3 of your after-tax income, it’s not so easy / responsible to buy a nice home.
-
AuthorPosts
