Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SD Realtor
ParticipantIt wouldn’t surprise me if some of the expenses on your schedule E are proposed for the chopping block. You know how rich all those evil landlords are.
ParticipantVery well said bg.
ParticipantIt is really unfortunate. The most common scheme happens as a flip. That is, the seller accepts a well below market value from some buyer who is simply going to flip the home. More often then not the offers are cash offers to help justify the lower price. Generally the listing agent either has a deal with the buyers to represent them after the rehab is done so that they can list the home and get that commission.
If the servicing organizations did a comprehensive appraisal before authorizing the short sale, then they would not accept the low offer and demand full market value for the home.
ParticipantI agree on congratulations. Sticking to a long range plan is not easy to do. In no way are rental properties a get rich quick scheme. I think of my rentals as a single component to a retirement strategy that also includes other components such as securities and bonds. Living in California, especially Southern California means you live with earthquakes. I agree you are far more likely to be killed in an auto accident yet we all get in our cars and drive to work daily. I don’t believe letting mother nature dictate a retirement strategy is beneficial. Moreover I know of people who went to Louisiana a few weeks after Katrina to purchase real estate. Retirement strategy should be based on risk/reward (or return) on equity investments sans mother nature.
ParticipantCAR I would suggest you follow this link.
In fact there is a very nice breakdown for each and every year of where the money is spent. Lots of money spent on defense. Oh lots of money spent on pensions CAR… imagine that! Lots of money spent on healthcare! Lets just talk about how much money Wall St has made the past 4 years CAR. Seems like the fat cats have done pretty damn well under the Obama administration.
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_fy12
Contrary to your rose colored belief, every president in power has contributed to our federal debt so please come off your high horse. Don’t try to absolve either party with your pathetic remind us who started it remark.
The fact of the matter is that in the past 4 years we have exceeded the accumulated levels for all of the prior administrations. By the end of this administration estimates are for a 20 trillion accumulated debt level.
ParticipantI think this bears repeating….
There’s no one out there on the planet — whether it’s “the rich” or the Chinese — who can afford to carry on bankrolling that rate of return. According to one CBO analysis, U.S.-government spending is sustainable as long as the rest of the world is prepared to sink 19 percent of its GDP into U.S. Treasury debt. We already know the answer to that: In order to avoid the public humiliation of a failed bond auction, the U.S. Treasury sells 70 percent of the debt it issues to the Federal Reserve — which is to say the left hand of the U.S. government is borrowing money from the right hand of the U.S. government. It’s government as a Nigerian e-mail scam, with Ben Bernanke playing the role of the dictator’s widow with $4 trillion under her bed that she’s willing to wire to Timmy Geithner as soon as he sends her his bank-account details.
So while many people are happy because they turn a switch and lights turn on, and they can go down the street to get groceries and/gas there are underlying problems that can make all those little nice things alot harder to come by if they do not get resolved.
ParticipantYeah FLU quit worrying about it. Things are going to be just fine. Just keep moving along.
ParticipantUm none of this because Romney lost. All this because of what the system has become. The article may have been written in support of Romney however most of the Piggs responses have nothing to do with who is president.
ParticipantThat is a good post livinincali. The picture you painted is exactly what I was talking about. I do think we will be lucky if that is how it turns out.
As you noted all of the countries cited in your example are in no way close to the stratospheric entitlement levels we have implemented and are promising future generations.
It is an uncomfortable subject to wrap your mind around so most of us do not, myself included. Much easier to agree with what we are told by our government that everything will be alright.
ParticipantAgreed with CAR and Flyer, it has nothing to do with material objects. The one thing that I do not agree with in the article has to do with the presidential candidates. To me there really is no way to eliminate the change. I don’t think a Romney or Obama candidacy will make a difference. The acceleration of poverty, food stamp enrollment, differential between rich and poor has grown substantially under Obama. Similarly Wall Street has recorded phenomenal profits. Regardless of who is president the numbers are way way to staggering to change what will happen.
ParticipantI cannot tell you how people will hurt because I do not know.
However what I do know is what unsustainable is. You are not being flippant, you are being normal.
One thing that we cannot really comprehend is something we have never experienced. None of us can comprehend death because none of us have experienced it. We cannot comprehend poverty, starvation, lack of resources, lack of energy, fuel, food or anything like that.
Your argument about happiness and a roof over your head and all your friends being happy is not anything I am arguing about. However you conveniently failed to even acknowledge the facts that I reprinted from the original post.
The cold hard fact, mathematically, economically, and logically is that our current fiscal situation cannot and will not be maintained. Overall things will change for the worse. It may be in our lifetime and if not it will certainly be in our childrens lifetime. My definition of hurt implies a steady degradation of the quality of life. Statistically speaking your children will not enjoy the wealth you have. They are already saddled with about 50k per person. This is at our current interest rate. Think of what that debt load will be when (not if) rates go up.
The premise of the article is that major upheavals occur on a certain timeline. I am not sure about the timeline part however I agree with the premise that at some point, when a system ceases to function major upheaval occurs. The good news is that on the other side of upheaval, quality of life improves. However going through it all generally means things get bad for the majority of the population.
Like you I am doing well and happy with life as are my friends. I am slowly trying to take some precautions for myself and children but am not as preoccupied as the doomsday preppers on television.
A quick study of history shows it is perfectly natural for civilizations to rise and fall. The populace suffers or hurts during the fall. It is simply logical that the timelines/periodicity of the rise and falls of civilizations will compress as technology advances.
Obviously you feel things are fine and possibly getting better for everyone. I do not. I see a slow erosion, more poverty, a middle class that is shrinking and those in that middle class are also seeing a slow loss of wealth compared to the recent past.
I guess we will see how it all turns out for our kids.
Personally I very much hope you are right and I am wrong.
ParticipantAgreed with you CAR. These few paragraphs provide the most incisive summary:
Federal government spending in 2007 was $2.73 trillion. Federal government spending today is $3.8 trillion, a 39% increase in five years. GDP in 2007 was $14.2 trillion. Today GDP is $15.8 trillion, an 11% increase in five years. Approximately 25% of the GDP increase is due to increased government spending.
Government entitlement transfers totaled $1.7 trillion in 2007. Today they total $2.4 trillion, a 41% increase in five years. Interest income paid to senior citizens and savers totaled $1.25 trillion in 2007. Today interest income totals $985 billion, a 21% decrease in five years. Wall Street bankers needed the money to pay themselves bonuses, so Ben Bernanke obliged.
The annual deficit in 2007 totaled $161 billion. Today, the annual deficit is $1.1 trillion. We add $3 billion per day to the national debt as a gift to unborn generations.
The national debt in 2007 was $9 trillion. Today the national debt is $16.3 trillion, an 81% increase in five years. The national debt will reach $20 trillion during the next presidential term. Normalization of interest rates to 2007 levels would result in annual interest expense of $1 trillion, or 40% of current government revenues.
There is nothing normal about our current economic situation. The unfunded liabilities at the Federal, State and local levels of government accumulate to over $200 trillion. Do the facts detailed above lead you to believe we can return to pre-2007 normal in the near future, or ever? Not only has the economic situation of the country deteriorated enormously, the very culprits who created the disaster are more powerful than they were before the global catastrophe caused by their criminal risk taking. The largest Wall Street banks control 74% of all the deposits in the country, up from 66% in 2007, and double the levels from the mid-1990’s.*******************
It is simply not sustainable. Things will change. People are happy now, but when things do change most of them will hurt. Hard to do anything tangible about it unless you want to prep for doomsday.
ParticipantI have several friends who live in Barcelona, the older area and love it. Have a few clients that have purchased around there and also right off of La Costa Blvd to the south a little bit. No complaints from anyone.
ParticipantCheck with your regional banks as opposed to larger institutional lenders.
-
AuthorPosts
