[SDEngineer]

Excellent points CA Renter, thanks.

We’ve tentatively established a ceiling of about 300-330K (depending on the exact unit) of what we’re willing to bid. For the area, these are just a little above what appears to be rent neutral, so we think they may be a little above what an investor (who is looking for a good return rate) might bid, but yet allows us to potentially keep the unit as a rental in the future (6+ years out) when we move up to a larger house. If people bid the homes up beyond those prices, we have already decided to sit, as we do realize there are plenty of other opportunities coming down the pike in the future.

Since we don’t have any kids, the size is actually about perfect for us, and they are large enough that if we decide to have a family, they shouldn’t be cramped during the really young years (we’d almost certainly be moving up by the time the kids were in school)

Thanks,

SD Engineer

[SDEngineer]

[quote]
The bottom 50% of wage earner pay only 3% of the federal income taxes. The middle class, lower class doesn’t pay any tax other then SS.

The top 1% of wage earners. I think that is above $200k or so pay 40% of the taxes.

That is the problem with our system now. Not enough people share in the cost of government. Since half the people don’t pay tax why should they care what the government spends? What happens is we have a system ran by the special interests and Government has become its own special interest.

[/quote]

The top 1% also have 33% of the total wealth in this country, and the top 10% around 75% of the total wealth. It looks a lot less unfair once you realize that.

The bottom 50% have something like 5% of the total wealth in the country. It’s hard to save when you’re living paycheck to paycheck.

[SDEngineer]

[quote]
The bottom 50% of wage earner pay only 3% of the federal income taxes. The middle class, lower class doesn’t pay any tax other then SS.

The top 1% of wage earners. I think that is above $200k or so pay 40% of the taxes.

That is the problem with our system now. Not enough people share in the cost of government. Since half the people don’t pay tax why should they care what the government spends? What happens is we have a system ran by the special interests and Government has become its own special interest.

[/quote]

The top 1% also have 33% of the total wealth in this country, and the top 10% around 75% of the total wealth. It looks a lot less unfair once you realize that.

The bottom 50% have something like 5% of the total wealth in the country. It’s hard to save when you’re living paycheck to paycheck.

[SDEngineer]

[quote]
The bottom 50% of wage earner pay only 3% of the federal income taxes. The middle class, lower class doesn’t pay any tax other then SS.

The top 1% of wage earners. I think that is above $200k or so pay 40% of the taxes.

That is the problem with our system now. Not enough people share in the cost of government. Since half the people don’t pay tax why should they care what the government spends? What happens is we have a system ran by the special interests and Government has become its own special interest.

[/quote]

The top 1% also have 33% of the total wealth in this country, and the top 10% around 75% of the total wealth. It looks a lot less unfair once you realize that.

The bottom 50% have something like 5% of the total wealth in the country. It’s hard to save when you’re living paycheck to paycheck.

[SDEngineer]

[quote]
The bottom 50% of wage earner pay only 3% of the federal income taxes. The middle class, lower class doesn’t pay any tax other then SS.

The top 1% of wage earners. I think that is above $200k or so pay 40% of the taxes.

That is the problem with our system now. Not enough people share in the cost of government. Since half the people don’t pay tax why should they care what the government spends? What happens is we have a system ran by the special interests and Government has become its own special interest.

[/quote]

The top 1% also have 33% of the total wealth in this country, and the top 10% around 75% of the total wealth. It looks a lot less unfair once you realize that.

The bottom 50% have something like 5% of the total wealth in the country. It’s hard to save when you’re living paycheck to paycheck.

[SDEngineer]

[quote]
The bottom 50% of wage earner pay only 3% of the federal income taxes. The middle class, lower class doesn’t pay any tax other then SS.

The top 1% of wage earners. I think that is above $200k or so pay 40% of the taxes.

That is the problem with our system now. Not enough people share in the cost of government. Since half the people don’t pay tax why should they care what the government spends? What happens is we have a system ran by the special interests and Government has become its own special interest.

[/quote]

The top 1% also have 33% of the total wealth in this country, and the top 10% around 75% of the total wealth. It looks a lot less unfair once you realize that.

The bottom 50% have something like 5% of the total wealth in the country. It’s hard to save when you’re living paycheck to paycheck.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=jficquette]John McCain: I Will Deliver Justice

Senator Obama is obviously confused about what the United States Supreme Court decided and what he is calling for. After enthusiastically embracing the Supreme Court decision granting habeas in U.S. civilian courts to dangerous terrorist detainees, he is now running away from the consequences of that decision and what it would mean if Osama bin Laden were captured. Senator Obama refuses to clarify whether he believes habeas should be granted to Osama bin Laden, and instead cites the precedent of the Nuremburg war trials. Unfortunately, it is clear Senator Obama does not understand what happened at the Nuremburg trials and what procedures were followed. There was no habeas at Nuremburg and there should be no habeas for Osama bin Laden. Senator Obama cannot have it both ways. In one breath he endorses habeas for terrorists like 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and in the next he denies its logical conclusion of habeas for Osama bin Laden. By citing a historical precedent that does not include habeas, he sends a signal of confusion and indecision to our allies and adversaries and the American people.

Let me be clear, under my administration Osama bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed. Senator Obama’s failure to comprehend the implication of the Supreme Court decision he embraced and the historical precedent of Nuremberg raise serious questions about judgment and experience and whether Senator Obama is ready to assume the awesome responsibilities of commander in chief.

Obama pwned again.[/quote]

Habeus corpus is considered to be a bedrock human right – treating it as a “privelege” to be bestowed only upon our citizens is a travesty.

How do you KNOW they are “dangerous terrorists”? Because Bush in his infinite wisdom claims they are? Has Bush ever been wrong? Considering that about 75% of detainees in Guantanamo have been released without charges ever being filed, it’s pretty clear his “hit” rate at determining that “fact” is marginal at best.

The entire POINT of habeus corpus is to allow SOME oversight by an independent body when people are detained indefinitely. If they really can be determined BY BUSH to be “dangerous terrorists” than there should be no complaint that an independent judge should be able to ask the executive on what grounds and evidence Bush MADE that determination. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing stopping George Bush from detaining anyone, anywhere, anytime (something that he has actually tried WITH U.S. citizens).

That is against everything the U.S. has stood for since it’s inception. It’s a base violation of the rule of law, and the act of a absolute tyrant or dictator – NOT an elected executive who has checks on his authority.

It is, quite frankly, stunning to see McCain – a former POW – arguing somehow that habeus corpus should be denied to anyone – but then, his recent backtracking on what constitutes torture has convinced me that his moral backbone isn’t what it once was.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=jficquette]John McCain: I Will Deliver Justice

Senator Obama is obviously confused about what the United States Supreme Court decided and what he is calling for. After enthusiastically embracing the Supreme Court decision granting habeas in U.S. civilian courts to dangerous terrorist detainees, he is now running away from the consequences of that decision and what it would mean if Osama bin Laden were captured. Senator Obama refuses to clarify whether he believes habeas should be granted to Osama bin Laden, and instead cites the precedent of the Nuremburg war trials. Unfortunately, it is clear Senator Obama does not understand what happened at the Nuremburg trials and what procedures were followed. There was no habeas at Nuremburg and there should be no habeas for Osama bin Laden. Senator Obama cannot have it both ways. In one breath he endorses habeas for terrorists like 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and in the next he denies its logical conclusion of habeas for Osama bin Laden. By citing a historical precedent that does not include habeas, he sends a signal of confusion and indecision to our allies and adversaries and the American people.

Let me be clear, under my administration Osama bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed. Senator Obama’s failure to comprehend the implication of the Supreme Court decision he embraced and the historical precedent of Nuremberg raise serious questions about judgment and experience and whether Senator Obama is ready to assume the awesome responsibilities of commander in chief.

Obama pwned again.[/quote]

Habeus corpus is considered to be a bedrock human right – treating it as a “privelege” to be bestowed only upon our citizens is a travesty.

How do you KNOW they are “dangerous terrorists”? Because Bush in his infinite wisdom claims they are? Has Bush ever been wrong? Considering that about 75% of detainees in Guantanamo have been released without charges ever being filed, it’s pretty clear his “hit” rate at determining that “fact” is marginal at best.

The entire POINT of habeus corpus is to allow SOME oversight by an independent body when people are detained indefinitely. If they really can be determined BY BUSH to be “dangerous terrorists” than there should be no complaint that an independent judge should be able to ask the executive on what grounds and evidence Bush MADE that determination. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing stopping George Bush from detaining anyone, anywhere, anytime (something that he has actually tried WITH U.S. citizens).

That is against everything the U.S. has stood for since it’s inception. It’s a base violation of the rule of law, and the act of a absolute tyrant or dictator – NOT an elected executive who has checks on his authority.

It is, quite frankly, stunning to see McCain – a former POW – arguing somehow that habeus corpus should be denied to anyone – but then, his recent backtracking on what constitutes torture has convinced me that his moral backbone isn’t what it once was.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=jficquette]John McCain: I Will Deliver Justice

Senator Obama is obviously confused about what the United States Supreme Court decided and what he is calling for. After enthusiastically embracing the Supreme Court decision granting habeas in U.S. civilian courts to dangerous terrorist detainees, he is now running away from the consequences of that decision and what it would mean if Osama bin Laden were captured. Senator Obama refuses to clarify whether he believes habeas should be granted to Osama bin Laden, and instead cites the precedent of the Nuremburg war trials. Unfortunately, it is clear Senator Obama does not understand what happened at the Nuremburg trials and what procedures were followed. There was no habeas at Nuremburg and there should be no habeas for Osama bin Laden. Senator Obama cannot have it both ways. In one breath he endorses habeas for terrorists like 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and in the next he denies its logical conclusion of habeas for Osama bin Laden. By citing a historical precedent that does not include habeas, he sends a signal of confusion and indecision to our allies and adversaries and the American people.

Let me be clear, under my administration Osama bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed. Senator Obama’s failure to comprehend the implication of the Supreme Court decision he embraced and the historical precedent of Nuremberg raise serious questions about judgment and experience and whether Senator Obama is ready to assume the awesome responsibilities of commander in chief.

Obama pwned again.[/quote]

Habeus corpus is considered to be a bedrock human right – treating it as a “privelege” to be bestowed only upon our citizens is a travesty.

How do you KNOW they are “dangerous terrorists”? Because Bush in his infinite wisdom claims they are? Has Bush ever been wrong? Considering that about 75% of detainees in Guantanamo have been released without charges ever being filed, it’s pretty clear his “hit” rate at determining that “fact” is marginal at best.

The entire POINT of habeus corpus is to allow SOME oversight by an independent body when people are detained indefinitely. If they really can be determined BY BUSH to be “dangerous terrorists” than there should be no complaint that an independent judge should be able to ask the executive on what grounds and evidence Bush MADE that determination. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing stopping George Bush from detaining anyone, anywhere, anytime (something that he has actually tried WITH U.S. citizens).

That is against everything the U.S. has stood for since it’s inception. It’s a base violation of the rule of law, and the act of a absolute tyrant or dictator – NOT an elected executive who has checks on his authority.

It is, quite frankly, stunning to see McCain – a former POW – arguing somehow that habeus corpus should be denied to anyone – but then, his recent backtracking on what constitutes torture has convinced me that his moral backbone isn’t what it once was.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=jficquette]John McCain: I Will Deliver Justice

Senator Obama is obviously confused about what the United States Supreme Court decided and what he is calling for. After enthusiastically embracing the Supreme Court decision granting habeas in U.S. civilian courts to dangerous terrorist detainees, he is now running away from the consequences of that decision and what it would mean if Osama bin Laden were captured. Senator Obama refuses to clarify whether he believes habeas should be granted to Osama bin Laden, and instead cites the precedent of the Nuremburg war trials. Unfortunately, it is clear Senator Obama does not understand what happened at the Nuremburg trials and what procedures were followed. There was no habeas at Nuremburg and there should be no habeas for Osama bin Laden. Senator Obama cannot have it both ways. In one breath he endorses habeas for terrorists like 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and in the next he denies its logical conclusion of habeas for Osama bin Laden. By citing a historical precedent that does not include habeas, he sends a signal of confusion and indecision to our allies and adversaries and the American people.

Let me be clear, under my administration Osama bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed. Senator Obama’s failure to comprehend the implication of the Supreme Court decision he embraced and the historical precedent of Nuremberg raise serious questions about judgment and experience and whether Senator Obama is ready to assume the awesome responsibilities of commander in chief.

Obama pwned again.[/quote]

Habeus corpus is considered to be a bedrock human right – treating it as a “privelege” to be bestowed only upon our citizens is a travesty.

How do you KNOW they are “dangerous terrorists”? Because Bush in his infinite wisdom claims they are? Has Bush ever been wrong? Considering that about 75% of detainees in Guantanamo have been released without charges ever being filed, it’s pretty clear his “hit” rate at determining that “fact” is marginal at best.

The entire POINT of habeus corpus is to allow SOME oversight by an independent body when people are detained indefinitely. If they really can be determined BY BUSH to be “dangerous terrorists” than there should be no complaint that an independent judge should be able to ask the executive on what grounds and evidence Bush MADE that determination. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing stopping George Bush from detaining anyone, anywhere, anytime (something that he has actually tried WITH U.S. citizens).

That is against everything the U.S. has stood for since it’s inception. It’s a base violation of the rule of law, and the act of a absolute tyrant or dictator – NOT an elected executive who has checks on his authority.

It is, quite frankly, stunning to see McCain – a former POW – arguing somehow that habeus corpus should be denied to anyone – but then, his recent backtracking on what constitutes torture has convinced me that his moral backbone isn’t what it once was.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=jficquette]John McCain: I Will Deliver Justice

Senator Obama is obviously confused about what the United States Supreme Court decided and what he is calling for. After enthusiastically embracing the Supreme Court decision granting habeas in U.S. civilian courts to dangerous terrorist detainees, he is now running away from the consequences of that decision and what it would mean if Osama bin Laden were captured. Senator Obama refuses to clarify whether he believes habeas should be granted to Osama bin Laden, and instead cites the precedent of the Nuremburg war trials. Unfortunately, it is clear Senator Obama does not understand what happened at the Nuremburg trials and what procedures were followed. There was no habeas at Nuremburg and there should be no habeas for Osama bin Laden. Senator Obama cannot have it both ways. In one breath he endorses habeas for terrorists like 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and in the next he denies its logical conclusion of habeas for Osama bin Laden. By citing a historical precedent that does not include habeas, he sends a signal of confusion and indecision to our allies and adversaries and the American people.

Let me be clear, under my administration Osama bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed. Senator Obama’s failure to comprehend the implication of the Supreme Court decision he embraced and the historical precedent of Nuremberg raise serious questions about judgment and experience and whether Senator Obama is ready to assume the awesome responsibilities of commander in chief.

Obama pwned again.[/quote]

Habeus corpus is considered to be a bedrock human right – treating it as a “privelege” to be bestowed only upon our citizens is a travesty.

How do you KNOW they are “dangerous terrorists”? Because Bush in his infinite wisdom claims they are? Has Bush ever been wrong? Considering that about 75% of detainees in Guantanamo have been released without charges ever being filed, it’s pretty clear his “hit” rate at determining that “fact” is marginal at best.

The entire POINT of habeus corpus is to allow SOME oversight by an independent body when people are detained indefinitely. If they really can be determined BY BUSH to be “dangerous terrorists” than there should be no complaint that an independent judge should be able to ask the executive on what grounds and evidence Bush MADE that determination. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing stopping George Bush from detaining anyone, anywhere, anytime (something that he has actually tried WITH U.S. citizens).

That is against everything the U.S. has stood for since it’s inception. It’s a base violation of the rule of law, and the act of a absolute tyrant or dictator – NOT an elected executive who has checks on his authority.

It is, quite frankly, stunning to see McCain – a former POW – arguing somehow that habeus corpus should be denied to anyone – but then, his recent backtracking on what constitutes torture has convinced me that his moral backbone isn’t what it once was.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=asianautica]

I agree that it won’t be easy to cut spending but I think with a Democrat controlled congress, that might help vs a Republican controlled congress and Bush as president. It might not be easy but I think it must be done.

I agree that the extreme overtime and double can only be done for a short period of time and when kids come, that can’t happen. But there’s a broad paint stroke of all people making $250k are just leeches of society and don’t deserve the $ they earn. They don’t work for their $, so they shouldn’t be rewarded.

If you think 250k HH income is rich, then you must also consider an individual making $125k to be rich too, right?
[/quote]

I must have missed the post where anyone claimed that someone making 250K+/yr are leeches of society or that they don’t deserve the $$$ that they earn.

Has anyone here (or anywhere) advocated a 100% tax rate on earnings above 125K that I missed?

I think the general consensus on the liberal side is that anyone making that amount certainly does deserve an increased income – but at the same time, since they are clearly reaping the greatest benefits of our economic policies, they should bear a greater marginal share of supporting our economic policies.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=asianautica]

I agree that it won’t be easy to cut spending but I think with a Democrat controlled congress, that might help vs a Republican controlled congress and Bush as president. It might not be easy but I think it must be done.

I agree that the extreme overtime and double can only be done for a short period of time and when kids come, that can’t happen. But there’s a broad paint stroke of all people making $250k are just leeches of society and don’t deserve the $ they earn. They don’t work for their $, so they shouldn’t be rewarded.

If you think 250k HH income is rich, then you must also consider an individual making $125k to be rich too, right?
[/quote]

I must have missed the post where anyone claimed that someone making 250K+/yr are leeches of society or that they don’t deserve the $$$ that they earn.

Has anyone here (or anywhere) advocated a 100% tax rate on earnings above 125K that I missed?

I think the general consensus on the liberal side is that anyone making that amount certainly does deserve an increased income – but at the same time, since they are clearly reaping the greatest benefits of our economic policies, they should bear a greater marginal share of supporting our economic policies.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=asianautica]

I agree that it won’t be easy to cut spending but I think with a Democrat controlled congress, that might help vs a Republican controlled congress and Bush as president. It might not be easy but I think it must be done.

I agree that the extreme overtime and double can only be done for a short period of time and when kids come, that can’t happen. But there’s a broad paint stroke of all people making $250k are just leeches of society and don’t deserve the $ they earn. They don’t work for their $, so they shouldn’t be rewarded.

If you think 250k HH income is rich, then you must also consider an individual making $125k to be rich too, right?
[/quote]

I must have missed the post where anyone claimed that someone making 250K+/yr are leeches of society or that they don’t deserve the $$$ that they earn.

Has anyone here (or anywhere) advocated a 100% tax rate on earnings above 125K that I missed?

I think the general consensus on the liberal side is that anyone making that amount certainly does deserve an increased income – but at the same time, since they are clearly reaping the greatest benefits of our economic policies, they should bear a greater marginal share of supporting our economic policies.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=asianautica]

I agree that it won’t be easy to cut spending but I think with a Democrat controlled congress, that might help vs a Republican controlled congress and Bush as president. It might not be easy but I think it must be done.

I agree that the extreme overtime and double can only be done for a short period of time and when kids come, that can’t happen. But there’s a broad paint stroke of all people making $250k are just leeches of society and don’t deserve the $ they earn. They don’t work for their $, so they shouldn’t be rewarded.

If you think 250k HH income is rich, then you must also consider an individual making $125k to be rich too, right?
[/quote]

I must have missed the post where anyone claimed that someone making 250K+/yr are leeches of society or that they don’t deserve the $$$ that they earn.

Has anyone here (or anywhere) advocated a 100% tax rate on earnings above 125K that I missed?

I think the general consensus on the liberal side is that anyone making that amount certainly does deserve an increased income – but at the same time, since they are clearly reaping the greatest benefits of our economic policies, they should bear a greater marginal share of supporting our economic policies.

[Author]

Posts