Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I would be curious what kind of reaction to the IRS scandal the media would have had if the IRS was found to be targetting grassroots liberal groups as opposed to tea party .[/quote]
Probably a louder response. But for the most part, there aren’t many defending the IRS on this one. I don’t think it’s scandal worthy. By all appearance, it was initiated at pretty low levels, and was a very serious mistake in judgment. (I don’t think the motivation was political, but it was horribly misguided.) I’m still a little unclear on the possible lying to congress, and who exactly knew what and when. If it happened, I’m all for firing anyone from the IRS involved in lying to congress.
Participant[quote=moneymaker]More than 90 Americans have been killed in the state south of San Diego since 2003. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29095730/ns/world_news-americas/t/over-americans-killed-mexico/#.UY4gccorYkQ
Is this proof enough?[/quote]I haven’t watched the video. But that is not proof that it’s gotten worse. If it was 200 the previous decade, then it’s better.
Participant[quote=all]Giant wave kills American tourist in Mexico’s Cabo San Lucas, injures another
A 65-year old woman was killed when a giant wave struck two American tourists strolling on the beach near the famous stone arch in the Mexican resort town of Cabo San Lucas.[/quote]
Damn Mexican waves. You can’t trust them.
May 8, 2013 at 11:27 PM in reply to: OT: Proof that mainstream media has a deep-seated liberal bias #761876Participant[quote=paramount]This is funny: CNN gets caught in a lie…
It seems pretty silly, but what is the lie?
Participant[quote=Want_to_Retire]The renter is a franchise business owner. The inquiring potential renters are all over the map for my slice of the market – self employed, office manager, professionals etc. I would say I’m mid market for Phoenix houses.[/quote]
Mid-market in PV? Seems unlikely. Average listing price in the region is about $320K. Average in Paradise Valley is about $2,400,000. According to Trulia, there haven’t been any SFH sales there for less than $500K this year. PV is an uppermost market in the region.
ParticipantBG, I think you’re making things out to be much worse than they actually are. Average class size at the CSU campuses are mostly around 30 for lower division classes, and much lower than that for upper division classes. Students CAN graduate in less than 6 years, and at most campuses more than 1/2 of the students do graduate in 6 years or less. Kids can get lost and take longer, but motivated students don’t have to. The difficulty in getting classes really doesn’t sound significantly different than when I was at SDSU and had to crash almost every class my first 3 years. It took me 5 years to graduate, but that was with 4 changes to my major. Which I suspect, is exactly why the current crop is often taking longer than 4 years. My daughter recently graduated from UCSD in 4 years. A couple of summer school classes, and she could have done it in 3 1/2. But she picked out her major when she was 7.
I’m not sure how there’s a big advantage to that “smaller four-year colleges in which each student has an academic counselor chained to their ankle (and iphone, etc) and the typical class sizes are under 25 students”. More likely than not, it’s a private school with costs that far exceed the resident cost for either the CSU or UC system.
Participant[quote=Jazzman]I don’t think Redfin would be saying inventory is low if that isn’t the case. I followed inventory levels for awhile in a few soCal areas, and the lack of choice, especially quality homes was very evident. What’s interesting is three of the four “bubbly” cities are in CA, but I don’t agree with Redfin that’s due to an over correction. Las Vegas yes, but that is one of the least bubbly cities. I do agree with them that now it is not a good time to buy, but that things should improve. There’s never been any data to show where inventory levels are lowest, or in what price ranges, but my guess is many lower end homes are either still in foreclosure process, or have been bought by institutional investors. By contrast higher end homes are either still underwater, or sellers anticipate more appreciation and are holding out. Low interest rates are bringing in buyers, and low inventory is leading to frenzied buying behavior, which is where the similarities with the previous bubble are.[/quote]
In case this was in response to my comment….I didn’t suggest that inventories aren’t low. They are, though nationwide they’re higher now than they were a few months ago. The part I think may not be accurate is the claim that listings are very slow. I’m not sure that’s the case. If it was, sales of existing homes couldn’t be at the high level they’re at.
ParticipantYou know kev, we’ve been hearing of this phantom inventory now for most of the last 5 years. Having worked with the back offices of lenders that deal with foreclosed assets in prior cycles, I’m pretty sure there is no secret conspiracy to keep properties off the market. They really are that incompetent.
I don’t think it exists. But beyond that, at least in the handful of zip codes that i’m following, there is no shortage of listings. New listings are coming onto the market as fast, and closings are at occurring at an even faster pace than they have in years. I think that the possibility is that we don’t have an under-supply of sellers, but rather an over-supply of buyers. There should be data available to either confirm or dispute this.
ParticipantI have no way to access historical data, but I suspect the article is might be misleading on one of the bubble criteria. It says that we are now experiencing record low listings. Anyone with access to historical data, it would be appreciated if you could look this up. I’m thinking listings are also pretty average, maybe even higher than in the last few post-bubble years, but properties are selling at a pace fast enough to keep inventory low.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Oh, I “assumed” he was over 65 because you said he was collecting SS. If he is 62, he either took a partial SS early or will wait until age 66 to take it.
[/quote]
He opted to take his benefits at 62.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
I also agree, SK, but when retirees are just starting out and haven’t yet signed up for MC, they’re not yet sure exactly how much it will cost them to live every month. Many feel is better to have more cash cushion until they figure out the lay of the land, including how much their monthly health premium is going to cost going forward and how many hours they may still need to work.After the dust settles (MC, SS and possibly other pensions kick in) and the retiree knows if they are going to move to or stay in a particular locale, it is easier to make decisions regarding refinancing or mortgage payoff.
IOW, taking out or keeping a small mortgage keeps the retiree’s options open.
Your “friend” is already 65 or older and is a bit more “well-heeled” than the average retiree (asset-wise). In addition, those behind him won’t get to collect their full SS until age 66-67.[/quote]
Concur. Flexibility is a GREAT reason to have a mortgage even if a retiree has the wherewithal to pay it off, recognizing that it does come with a price. In some cases it’s well worth it.
My friend is almost 63, and he is better off than most. He bought right, saved a lot (despite making almost nothing on his investments), doesn’t live beyond his means, and always borrowed appropriately. Now he’s just looking for hobbies.
April 27, 2013 at 7:23 AM in reply to: OT: Proof that mainstream media has a deep-seated liberal bias #761688Participant[quote=dumbrenter]SK, I don’t want to get into a partisan argument. My point is pretty simple:
The Senators have a motivation to get re-elected. If they communicated wrong, they get punished by their states.
The media polls are run by folks whose motivation is unknown at the very least.
If you believe that the senators can get away by voting against something that “overwhelming majorities” support, you essentially are saying we are not living in a democracy.[/quote]Where I think you’re wrong is that the polls aren’t, for the most part, done by the media. They’re done by polling firms, and while some of them do have political leanings, they still want to be right. Those that were wrong during the last polling cycle got excoriated, and will lose business the next time around. They get paid for right answers.
Example….Kelly Ayotte, Senator from New Hampshire, saw her approval rating drop by 15 points (based on a poll done by Public Policy Polling, one of the companies that was near the most accurate during the last election cycle), after her no vote. There will be ramifications.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
I would argue that they are taking out a mortgage in order to preserve cash because they think they can earn more on that money than what they are paying in interest.Contrary to the realtor rhetoric about the “benefits” of MID, it never makes sense to spend a dollar in order to save 30-40 cents (and that’s if you’re earning a pretty significant income) on taxes.[/quote]
I agree entirely. The argument that an interest deduction is “needed” for taxes is stupid. It was stupid back when the top tax rate was 70%. Using the leverage to increase overall return might make sense for some people.
April 26, 2013 at 3:40 PM in reply to: OT: Proof that mainstream media has a deep-seated liberal bias #761677Participant[quote=dumbrenter][quote=SK in CV]Ok, so I just got around to reading the linked article and this part stood out to me:
“I guess the liberal media get annoyed when Senators listen to their constituents and think for themselves, rather than doing the media’s bidding,” Bill Kristol, the editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard, told POLITICO.
The odd thing about this, is that the Senators didn’t listen to their constituents. If they had, the vote would have been a landslide to pass at least some of the background check proposals, which are resoundingly favored across the country.
So the press coverage wasn’t so much partisan as much as it was reflective of listener opinion, including NRA members. Except for the gun lobby NRA members.[/quote]
Does it matter to you that it could be possible that Senators did their homework, actually listened to their constituents and are more accurate than some media sponsored polls?
If the senators listened wrong, they pay for it by losing the election. On the other hand, these media polls are setup by people who want to influence the agenda, the numbers they put out are a means for their agenda, not an end. Why would you want to trust them?[/quote]
Where have I heard that before? The polls are all wrong. Romney is going to win by a landslide.
No, it’s not possible the Senators did their homework, unless by homework, you mean opposing everything that the administration wants or voting the way the NRA tells them to. Some of them (at least 3) stated in public that they supported background checks, but still voted against the background check amendment that was supported by overwhelming majorities in their states. So what exactly is it that these Senators knew and failed to communicate to their constituency?
-
AuthorPosts
