[SK in CV]

Right, and unless I missed something, we have no idea if he’s sitting on a gain or loss. The likelihood of a taxable gain is almost nil.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality]

Why, your transaction cost is actually higher in the stocks unless you’re trading in a 401K or IRA

On a cash deal, the transaction cost runs around 6%. If you’ve live in the home 2 years, it’s tax free.

Sell you stock for a 30% gain and you’ll pay 30% of the 30% (9%) in taxes.[/quote]

That’s nonsense. Transaction costs on RE are always higher than on stocks, except for sometimes when selling a personal residence. If we’re talking about “market timers”, then we’re talking investors who will pay the same cap gain taxes as a stock investor.

The OP MAY have an instance where it makes sense to sell now and buy something else because of the taxes, but that depends on whether he’s sitting on a gain or a loss right now. If he’s sitting on a loss, he’s better off holding on MORE than 3 years and being able to write off the entire loss as ordinary.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Adame99]That’s a really interesting point. So it’s not that banks are holding off on short sales and foreclosures because they want to. You’re saying they’re doing it because they HAVE to.

In other words, the inventory is becoming equity sellers and people who need to sell for personal reasons.

Did I understand you correctly?[/quote]

No, the lenders are not holding off on foreclosures because they have to. They’re holding off because they suck at dealing with distressed assets. They have had numerous regulatory delays over the last 5 years, but when those delays expire, nothing changes. They have had almost no regulatory limitations on short sales. They take as long as they do because lenders suck at dealing with distressed assets. They suck when there are regulatory delays, they suck when there are no regulatory delays. All other explanations are incidental.

[SK in CV]

Right, they were talking about him a week ago. And unless something has changed in the last couple days, he is no longer a person of interest in the Boston bombing. Unless you’re a follower of Glenn Beck.

There were also reports Saturday, primarily out of the UK, that authorities are looking for a cell of at least 12 in and around New England. That kind of fizzled too. News services have been pretty unreliable in reporting the status of the case, as in with the issue of the incompetence of not understanding the difference between an uploaded youtube video and a linked-to video. Or in some cases, despite their using formerly reliable sources. (In the case of the errant NY Post photograph, it may have even been intentional.)

So the fact that nobody else has talked about it (particularly in the last 48 hours) is significant. “Breaking stories” can quickly become broken stories.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]Trying to get back to the main topic, (and my sympathy to all those who are disappointed it was not some crazy tea party member who did it…. don’t worry guys, statistically speaking the odds are high a tea party member will snap and kill people and you will all be vindicated) we now see the reality of the group that really did it.

I am particularly entertained by the stonewalling of information about the other person of interest who was gonna be deported, then he wasn’t, and now we find he has a student visa for school in Ohio but lived in Boston.[/quote]

Who is this other “person of interest”? The only reference to it I can find is from Glenn Beck. Same guy?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Blogstar]So, is it correct to call it an epidemic at this point in time?[/quote]

Yes. I have it too. I just don’t like to whine.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
There is only one reason for a government to want to disarm the masses: fear of revolution. The cause of revolutions throughout history has been the gross imbalance of power and wealth. [/quote]

Who has proposed this? It’s a straw man argument.

The federal government does not need registration to know who has a gun. All they have to do is ask google and get 90% of gun owners.

[SK in CV]

I’ll go with two reason.

The intransigence of almost all republicans in the senate. If Obama wants it, he can’t have it. It doesn’t matter what their own constituents want. (fer chrissakes, background checks have 72% support in friggen Alabama.)

The absolute terror that most republicans and a handful of dem senators have for the NRA. (there is no possible other explanation for Heitkamp’s vote, her lie of an explanation notwithstanding.)

And a bonus third reason. Complete ineffectiveness of dem leadership from both Reid and Obama.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
SK,

I’m talking about the first-hand accounts from people who were actually living there at the time. You can read all the history books you want, but what I’m talking about is what real people actually lived through, and it’s absolutely factual.[/quote]

I’ve heard those first hand accounts. Scores of them, since I was a child, and as recently as a month ago. Irrespective of what either of us heard, the taking of guns wasn’t the beginning of anything. And even before the relaxing of the gun laws in 1938 (except for whoever you heard those first hand stories from, and my relatives), registration had been required to own and acquire guns for almost 2 decades.

And probably more importantly, the proposals that didn’t get passed wouldn’t take any guns away from anyone. There’s a big difference between background checks and confiscation.

[SK in CV]

Allen, I didn’t rebut my own argument. I was responding to “Because, in the early stages and prior to the war, Hitler and others decided that the people needed to be disarmed “for their own safety.” It wasn’t the early stages. It was a year before WWII started. And it didn’t apply in Austria, yet Austria was annexed, even though they had guns. The Czechs had guns, yet in Sudetenland that didn’t matter. As did Hungary and Poland. My point was, and it remains, claiming that Hitler took the guns and then everything else happened is simply inconsistent with history. It didn’t happen that way. And as with most anti-gun control rhetoric, using gun control in Germany as pertinent history to bolster anti-gun policy here is not only counter-factual, it’s disingenuous.

[SK in CV]

Allen, in this particular context, the omitted parts aren’t terribly important. The claim is that Hitler limited guns. He didn’t. He expanded rights in 1933 and then again in 1938 for the vast majority of Germans. By 1938, when the laws went into effect limiting the rights of Jews to own guns, it was the end, not the beginning of the persecution. Their citizenship had already been stripped. Kristallnacht was not the beginning. It was the beginning of the end. By then, guns wouldn’t have made a damn bit of difference. As Dr. Sung Park, my new favorite neurosurgeon would say, no guns dead, guns dead.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
I’ve made this point before, but will make it again: My mother and almost all of her friends lived through WWII in Austria, Germany, Poland, etc. They had to live through horrible atrocities because they were not able to defend themselves (against soldiers from all sides, since they were all guilty of committing crimes against the citizens there). Why? Because, in the early stages and prior to the war, Hitler and others decided that the people needed to be disarmed “for their own safety.” [/quote]

The bolded part? It’s false. The vast majority of Germans (some government employees were exempted) were prohibited from owning guns since the end of WWI. For 5 years before Hitler took power, gun laws were relaxed to REQUIRE permits for both acquiring and owning handguns. By 5 years after Hitler took power those requirements were abolished altogether for most people. Hitler reformed gun ownership laws, EXPANDING gun ownership. This isn’t a belief, its a fact.

Now, who is pushing falsities to support their “beliefs” rather than relying on facts?

[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.

[SK in CV]

[quote=desmond]SK it sounds like you were trying to blame itsdd for a “you people” comment but when ur brought up the Tea Party you had no problem with that?[/quote]

I wasn’t blaming him for it. I wanted to know what he meant by it. It’s not that complicated.

The tea party comparison didn’t go unquestioned.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ltsdd][quote=SK in CV][quote=ltsdd]
That’s fair enough. So, in your opinion, who do you think was behind the 9/11 attack?[/quote]

Not Saddam Hussein.[/quote]

You’re a real genius.[/quote]

Thanks. Mensa thinks so too. Now go back and read what I wrote, and show me where I said anything remotely resembling a disbelief in the official story.

[Author]

Posts